Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should this DCCC 2020 poll for California's 25th congressional district be added?

There's a Tulchin Research DCCC internal poll for CA-25 showing Smith at 30%, Knight at 26%, Garcia at 13%, Papadopoulos at 6%, Uygur at 5%, "Someone else" at 7%, and "Undecided" at 13%. The poll was conducted from December 12-19, 2019. Should this poll be added or not? Kart2401real (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lists of living former members

Please notify as many editors as possible to comment here, by adding {{subst:please see|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Lists of living former members}} to their talk pages.

I seek consensus on keeping, removing, or modifying the lists of former House members or senators who are still living. For example, in the article New York's 1st congressional district, the following section appears: 

== Living former members ==
{{As of|2019|12}}, there are four living former members from the district. The most recent to die was [[William Carney (politician)|William Carney]] (who served 1979–1987) on May 23, 2017.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Representative
! Term of office
! Date of birth (and age)

|-
| [[George J. Hochbrueckner]]
| 1987–1995
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1938|9|20}}

|-
| [[Michael Forbes]]
| 1995–2001
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1952|7|16}}

|-
| [[Felix Grucci]]
| 2001–2003
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1951|11|25}}

|-
| [[Tim Bishop]]
| 2003–2015
| {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1950|6|1}}

|}

These lists are on every congressional district article, every article listing senators, and I think every congressional delegation article. These lists need to be updated every month for the "as of" date. My biggest concern, however, is their notability: is this information necessary, relevant, worthy, notable, and/or trivial? Does an article on a district really need to mention that George J. Hochbrueckner isn't dead?

Please discuss and/or vote keep, remove, or modify, below. —GoldRingChip 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

These types of lists are good to have when it concerns an executive office. But, they're a headache per sure volume, when it's legislative members. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely say remove. I was probably responsible for a good portion of them being added, at least for governors, but they are a maintenance hassle and, so far as I can tell, offer absolutely no value. And in the last few years as I remove them from governors lists and people add them back, and I ask for a reason, ANY reason, beyond inertia and "other articles have it," not a single person has managed to respond. I say remove them, entirely. (And I disagree on them being useful for an executive office, too. Why? I see that some people have some trivia thing for how many U.S. presidents are alive at any given time, but unless a shared trivia boner can be demonstrated for governors of Delaware or what not, I see no reason to indulge it) --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree that there's not much purpose, it's not hard for those who want to know if someone is alive to click on the names of recent officeholders. Some of these lists include birth/death dates within the table under the name, those can be nice. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move the data to the main list. This isn't quite trivia, but nor is it important enough to justify a standalone list. So I support removing the standalone lists, but only when the data is already displayed elsewhere on the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: it took me a moment to figure out which main list you're referring to - is it the list of all former members (New York's 1st congressional district § List of members representing the district in this example), and are you suggesting adding birth and death dates there? Airbornemihir (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Airbornemihir, that's it. The main list of members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Given that I belong to the more information the better club I think leave it as is. For those who are looking for living former members it is much easier to source the information as it is currently laid out rather than track through the recent reps, many of whom live for many many years and some of whom do not. The regular monthly updates are a bit of a pain admittedly but hardly a huge imposition. The more information about the Districts the better in my view. Benawu2 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    But why do you need to know who's a living former member? What about all the other useless bits of trivia we could add, like job, birthplace, spouse, etc.? (And I'm not saying that to equate them in some race to the bottom - I'm saying, if you truly find knowing who is a living former member more useful than those other bits of trivia, why? Have you ever had the occasion to need to know which reps of a particular district are still alive? Why? Knowing this will help inform future decisions. --Golbez (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Actually yes I have occasionally wondered and checked. More out of curiosity than anything else. Can't think of anything else I would want to add either. Benawu2 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Move per BrownHairedGirl. Every so often, especially in states with one or two House seats, there will be no living former members; and that leads to some fairly awkward phrasing in these articles as we try to explain without sounding ominous that everyone who used to do this job is dead. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Look at this for instance - extra spooky because Rep. Begich is only presumed dead. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Spooky indeed and the page captures it well. Benawu2 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    But do all three articles: List of United States Representatives from Alaska, United States congressional delegations from Alaska, and Alaska's at-large congressional district need to capture it? Even if these these still-living lists were relevant, then maybe just include them in "List of United States Representatives from Alaska"? —GoldRingChip 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    @GoldRingChip: In cases where there is repetition, I'd definitely support moving it all into one place, and maintaining it as part of a table rather than as a list by itself. Further, I'd rather we keep this information in a table on the individual district pages (Alabama's 10th congressional district § Notes, Alaska's at-large congressional district) than on the pages covering an entire state, where searching can become difficult if the state has something like 53 districts. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    There are some states with many districts, where a long-serving member was often redistricted so the info gets duplicated in multiple places. It's easier just to find her/him on the state-wide article. —GoldRingChip 21:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

So here's the plan?

@Airbornemihir, Benawu2, Golbez, BrownHairedGirl, Reywas92, GoodDay, MallonAllah12, and Redditaddict69:

Is this a good compromise consensus plan?

  1. Consolidate them all on List of United States Representatives from Foo and List of United States senators from Foo.
  2. Remove them from Congressional delegations from Foo
  3. Remove them from Foo's nth congressional district

We can even insert a {{for}}, {{see also}}, or {{further}} note on the district articles directing a reader to the state-wide article for more info about currently living former members. (I'm not wild about this, but it's a compromise.) Is that ok? —GoldRingChip 21:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is reasonable. The district articles should already link to those lists so pointing out this information is there is excessive. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Go with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I see no reason to oppose this compromise. I didn't think this needed to be changed but the change seems beneficial now that it's been brought up. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still think there's no point to them, but if they're going to be thrown somewhere I guess the general "list of" people is the best place. --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the need to change them at all (sorry Golbez) but if it has to change then the suggested method is a good one. Benawu2 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep, I think that makes sense. I'm convinced by GoldRingChip reasoning that the decennial redistricting causes a lot of information to be duplicated across various pages. I'm neutral at best on the {{for}}/{{see also}}/{{further}} notes suggested by GoldRingChip, although I understand they would probably be valuable to people accustomed to finding that information at a certain place and seeing it's no longer there. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Also, while I agree with GoldRingChip that it's settled, I just wanted to mention one more advantage of the proposed scheme - it brings the House and Senate pages into alignment. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's settled, then. Please make the changes as/when you are using district articles. Thank for for your input. —GoldRingChip 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Benawu2 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment: MallonAllah12, what's your deal exactly? Your sole contributions for the last six months have been to update the "As of {2020|02|01}" tags on the US Senator lists to the current month. Like, even if we're keeping these living former senators in the by-state lists, we'd be able to keep them up to date too, right? Is this tag actually necessary to the point that someone should take 20 minutes a month to update it? I mean, you can do it a lot faster with AWB but still... Reywas92Talk 20:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Use Primary Source Statement from Senate Judiciary Committee?

Comments are appreciated on whether a Senator’s opening statement from a Judiciary Committee hearing of Alice S. Fisher are appropriate to include in a nominee’s bio. Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary_Source JZ at LW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Renomination loss vs. reelection loss

If Rep. Collins were to defeat Sen. Loeffler with 50% of the vote in November 2020, would we say she "loses reelection" or that she "loses renomination"? I imagine whatever the answer is, it would also apply to Eric Swalwell vs Pete Stark or Howard Berman vs Brad Sherman - both elections where an incumbent lost to a same-party candidate in the general election rather than in a primary. Airbornemihir (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In that scenario "loses reelection". Loses renomination is only in a primary not a general.

Benawu2 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree. Nomination is a process, not just any election between candidates of the same party. Also, we tend to use a hyphen for "re-election." —GoldRingChip 12:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Benawu2 and GoldRingChip: thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we came to the right conclusion based on the slightly messy question I asked, but we might have to take into account the technicality that Sen. Loeffler has never won a nomination or an election, and is therefore not running for renomination or for re-election. What's more, she isn't running for a "first full term", either. <sigh> It's a good thing for us at this WikiProject that the 50% scenario is unlikely. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If it's a first-time event, then there's no "re-." In her case should Loeffler lose the primary or the general, then we would write, "Interim appointee lost election [nomination]." —GoldRingChip 19:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Excessively long "summaries"

I have consolidated parties and "parties" in a few Results summary sections like in 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, listing all ballot labels with <0.1% under Others. The point of the summary is to group together multiple candidates of parties who contested multiple seats for a nationwide picture. It is not to list individual unaffiliated candidates whose states allow silly ballot labels beyond a simple "Independent", from Ed The Barber Party to VoteKISS Party and Bob's for Jobs Party. When it is not an actual party with multiple candidates around the country to summarize together, to list them in the table is WP:UNDUE weight for those who got last place even in their own districts: I think >=0.1% nationally is a reasonable cut-off to avoid two dozen single-candidate non-parties. I'll note that 2012_United_States_Senate_elections#Results_summary and others only have five parties + independent + others. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RFA: CLOSED 2020 Florida's 21st congressional district election

WP:RFA: a request for an article to be made regarding Florida's 21st Congressional District election in 2020, a U.S. house representative election that involves many candidates from both parties and has attracted U.S. national attention */

  • edit this one : 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 21 Benawu2 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's no need (yet, probably) for a separate article. I agree with Benawu2. Just edit 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 21 and if the result is sufficient for a WP:FORK (without extra fluff just to bulk it up), then a separate article should be created. There's usually no need for specific articles on (non-special) House of Representatives elections. —GoldRingChip 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two editors above. There is no need for a special article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I apologize. I found and corrected 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 21 shortly after making this request. Still, the article does not provide the most important contextual information for voters using wikipedia for this purpose: candidate information. I have created a draft for a declared grassroots candidate, [Guido Weiss], running against well-know Anti-Muslim activist [Laura Loomer] and incumbent establishment Democrat [Lois Frankel]. However, I have a declared Conflict of Interest with this candidate, and I hoped to garner some unbiased editor attention to review this article. Any suggestions on best next steps for this project? Broncobehn (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (EST) (talk) Broncobehn
    • Please note two things- 1 WP:NPOL a candidate for political office is not automatically notable 2- WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia isn't here to help voters find information about candidates....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • 1- I did a little looking. Weiss would fail WP:NPOL 2- Frankel happens to be my congressperson. The wife and I moved last year. She was our congressperson in the past also. 3- I met Frankel in 2005 and spent around four hours doing the same thing she was doing. Following Soo Yun Kang at the ADT Championship. That said I am not that enamored of her but Republicans have not run that good of candidates against her. Frankel is a formidable candidate in a D+3 district. Barring a scandal, she won't be defeated easily and IMHO both Loomer and Weiss are lacking. 4- What exactly is your conflict of interest. Maybe you should first read WP:COI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure exactly what my COI would be defined as, but I picked the closest declaration and believe it is described on my profile page. I know Weiss personally. I do understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, and I am currently in the process of updating the Weiss article to include more independently verifiable information (guided by Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. Both Weiss and I have lived in the district area for over 20+ years, so I'd prefer not to weigh our anecdotal opinions on whether information should be available about a small-donor, grassroots democrat candidate (the type of candidates making waves recently because of greater potential as representatives). The MP: Weiss has a solid list of verifiable notable information outside of his candidacy for a Wikipedia covered election compared to candidates that already have articles, like Rachel Rossi. I'm obviously biased and have a declared COI, but if Rossi has an article, I believe Weiss is warranted more coverage than a disambiguation page (but, I would settle for achieving this prospect). I am simply seeking assistance on best method for moving this editing project forward. Broncobehn (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC) (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2020 (EST) (talk) Broncobehn
  • FINAL EDIT, CLOSING POST: I've reached some editors to seek guidance and revision from, and I'll continue any matter relating to this topic through direct contact. Thank you to all who provided me guidance here or directly; marking closed to keep this post from cluttering talk page. If preferred, I can remove the post, and anyone else is free to remove the post. I have the necessary data saved! Thanks again!Broncobehn (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Joe Biden, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

AFD of List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania

Folks here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania. This is the only list of its kind and I don't think is the best format to model since members of congress are represented by larger districts, not by city. Reywas92Talk 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while since that AfD and I'm thinking maybe there should be a redirect at that page to the larger page United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania to keep from breaking (admittedly, not very many) links. Airbornemihir (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31 § List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31 § List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania. I'm placing this template here since I suggested this redirect here first, before creating it. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Congressional Quarterly" and "GovTrack.us" Metrics/Benchmarks in Articles About U.S. Members of Congress

I would like to engage with other editors about the development of a policy or guidelines concerning inclusion of "Congressional Quarterly" and/or "GovTrack.us" metrics/benchmarks in articles about U.S. members of Congress. I think that such metrics are as worthy of inclusion in such articles as the height of a mountain in an article about a mountain or the most recent census statistic for the population of a U.S. city in an article about a U.S. city. One such metric is "Voting Participation" (Congressional Quarterly); the equivalent metric is "Missed Votes" at GovTrack.us. These metrics are calculated for every member of Congress every year. These metrics measure, by an objective standard, the number of roll call votes missed by each member of Congress. The time series for "Voting Participation" (CQ) goes back to the 1940s. But other editors are not permitting me to post the "Missed Votes" (GovTrack.us) metric for U.S. Senator Kamala Harris in her article. She missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. Reliable sources have commented on her high number of missed votes in 2019. But other editors will not permit me to include a simple statement in the "2019" section that article that states something like, "Senator Harris missed 62 percent of roll call votes in 2019, according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Other editors say that such a statement is "prejudicial" and "unflattering trivia." Is it trivia to state how high a mountain is in feet or meters in an article about that mountain? Is it "prejudicial" in an article about Detroit, Michigan to cite 1950 and 2010 U.S. Census of Population data and state, "Detroit lost substantial population between 1950 and 2010, a decline from 1.9 million to 700,000, according to U.S. Census data." My biggest problem with the Kamala Harris example is that other editors will not permit a simple, unadorned citation to the GovTrack.us metric. Some editors are demanding that I first find "reliable sources" that comment on the metric. Other editors are demanding that I provide an explanation as the significance of the "missed votes" metric (e.g., why Senator Harris missed so many votes in 2019). Some editors are forbidding use of the "missed votes" metric because a "reliable source" says that Harris's absence "didn't make a difference in the outcome of the votes." Senate Rule VI.2 says that senators cannot be absent from the official duties without leave. When I suggested that other editors help to determine if Senator Harris had official "leave" for any of the 62 percent of votes that she missed in 2019 (e.g. in the Senate Journal or in the "Congressional Record"), other editors lambasted me for suggesting "original research." (I might be wrong, but I don't think it's "original research" to locate sources to substantiate proposed article text.) In the end, editors are citing "undue weight" and "WP:ONUS" and "consensus" to block any mention of the "Missed Vote" benchmark.Jab73 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR

I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone take a loot at Ending Qualified Immunity Act

Hi all

I've just started Ending Qualified Immunity Act and would appreciate others to improve the article.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I've made some minor edits to it. Needs a lot more information to make it notable. —GoldRingChip (it/they) 15:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Medicare for all caucus article missing members?

I noticed that Rashida Tlaib isn't listed as a member of the mfac in the medicare for all caucus article but I know she supports medicare for all... what's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.250.193 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Archives/2020&oldid=1145955638"