Talk:113th United States Congress

Section or article on Speaker election

There has obviously been a lot of media speculation on whether Boehner would be opposed by Republicans for speaker. While no one was formally nominated, as the vote unfolds a handful of Republicans have voted for others to be speaker. Should a results table be added and a summary to a section on this subject? - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I created, and other members contributed to, an article on this and it was merged into this page by User:GoldRingChip. Two days later, the content was removed by User:Rrius. It strikes me as rather strange that the election of the presiding officer of a body, particularly one that received as much media attention as this one, would merit no mention in this article. Rather than simply restore the data and risk an edit war, I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss the merits of its inclusion and where and how it might be included. I will post a note on the above users talk pages, as well as those who contributed to the short-lived election article to facilitate discussion. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a separate article might have been a bit much based on the fact there is no other such article (and previous elections in the 19th century have been much more divisive), but I would support reverting to the status quo before Rrius removed the content. It should have some mention at least. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• The separate article was unnecessary, so I condensed it to a short 3-sentence summary. I think even that was a little long, but that was the best I could do. I think it should be included, but not prominent.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The opening assumption is just flat out wrong. The election of a speaker is not something we normally point out. What was added is too much by far. I think there should be nothing since the expected result occurred. Short of that, we need no more than one sentence. We certainly don't need a list of all the votes and a bunch of speculation about why it might have been closer than it should have been. -Rrius (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And to answer the question that may be forming in your head now, the place where this information belongs is Boehner's article, not an article about this Congress. There were all sorts of machinations and close votes surrounding the Affordable Care Act in the 110th Congress, but go check out just how much space we dedicated to all that. Incidentally, I didn't get to see what the separate article said, but I'm not clear on why it was deleted. Articles for speaker elections in other countries exist, so I don't know why we couldn't have one for 2013. -Rrius (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to what the speaker election article looked like. In terms of the Affordable Care Act, I assume/hope that there is information on the votes to bring it into law in its article, which is where it belongs. The election to the leadership of the 113th Congress belongs in the article about the 113th Congress, or in another article linked from it in my opinion. The fact that the election totals for previous speaker elections aren't included in the articles of those congresses is, in my view, a failing on their part rather than a justification for its omission here. I agree that the election result probably should be in the Boehner article as well (and I will add it now). However, it still warrants being mentioned or linked in someway to this article. Without it, readers are left wanting for information. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it deserves a mention and maybe a brief vote count (say, 220 for Boehner, 192 for Pelosi, and 20 for others) in the Congress article, but perhaps not as long as it was before Rrius removed it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a shorter version of it. If someone wants to shorten it some more, please do. Ratemonth (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Helpful Links

I'm still rather new to editing and don't know how to enter External Links, but here are 2 that I think readers would find helpful: List of House Resolutions for the 113th Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/L?c113:./list/c113hr.lst:1 List of House Roll Call Votes: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp

Could someone who knows how add these? Many thanks. History Lunatic (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

 Done - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous senator

Should the previous Senator be listed below the current Senator at the same indentation as the other current Senator?

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013
  • John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013

instead of the current form of

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

user:mnw2000 22:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order, so your second example:

• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

would be correct. —GoldRingChip 01:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Senators listed by seniority

We usually list Senators by Seniority, but note (by number) their class. That sometimes leads to reversed-looking lists where the lower class has the lower seniority.

Such as in Alabama:

• 3. Richard Shelby (R)
• 2. Jeff Sessions (R)

But what do we do when there's a mid-Congress change in which the Senior Senator resigns/dies and is replaced?

Such as in Massachusetts:

…which used to be :

• 2. John Kerry (D)
• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)

… but is now:

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

It makes Kerry look junior to Warren. Should we remove the listing-by-seniority altogether? I'm inclined to leave it this way, but would like others' opinions.—GoldRingChip 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I once again renew the suggestion that these lists be split out. We could use tables rather than the pure text-based lists we have now. They could also take a page from List of senators in the 41st Parliament of Canada, specifically the last two columns, which note whether the person was there at the beginning and at the end of the Parliament. This is an extremely data-heavy article, and keeping all this information in it when presenting it is so difficult just doesn't make sense. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest:

2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013

1. Elizabeth Warren (D)

2. William (or Mo) Cowan, from February 1, 2013.

Note, however, that the Senate was not in session yesterday and Cowan apparently has not taken the oath. So he's not actually a Senator yet even if his appointment was dated yesterday. Technically, the seat is vacant until he takes the oath. 71.75.58.69 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An oath does not a Senator make. He became a Senator on February 1, 2013, when the vacancy happened (i.e. Kerry's resignation)—GoldRingChip 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect. 71.75.58.69 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Major event?

Mo Cowan is the eighth Black senator in history, but more significantly, his appointment marks first time in history two Black senators have served at the same time. So is this a "major event"? I think given the unique history of Blacks in America (which we celebrate this month), it is. But I want to get opinions before editing. -Rrius (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's notable if you can find a press outlet discussing it. --occono (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of notability. It was certainly noted in the media, but the question is whether it is important enough to be listed as a major event. There are a lot of notable events that are not included in the list for one reason or another. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seems at least as notable as Rand Paul's filibuster, which was not historically outstanding for length (only about half the length of Strom Thurmond's) or really anything else. He wasn't even blocking the nomination so much as trying to get attention for a separate issue. What is that doing in the "major events" listing? 24.127.187.46 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus somewhere of what counts as a "major event" and what doesn't? Maybe there needs to be an additional section - one that would cover notable events or major debates? Congress has a ton of debates on different things, but mentioning that the IRS scandal, the immigration bill fight, and Rand's filibuster happened during this Congress would be useful info. I think those are things that people will remember in the future. If someone looks up this Congress, it's great that they will be able to find out all this technical and factual information about who was in the Congress and what legislation it passed, but it would be nice if they could also learn what the big issues of the day were. (I'm trying to think encyclopedia style - in five or ten years, what do you need to know about this Congress?). Thoughts? HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus anywhere. It seems to be a case-by-case sort of thing. Since there doesn't seem to be much opposition, I'll add it in the near future (I don't feel like finding a source and finding the right wording just now) and see what happens. -Rrius (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

VAWA and Major Legislation

All the Congress pages have a major legislation section and the recently passed Violence Against Women Act is one of them isn't it? Shouldn't we start a section for major legislation and include at least that act when it is signed by Obama? Fshoutofdawater (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Done. —GoldRingChip 13:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. legislative data project

Greetings! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians co-organized by User:PeteForsyth and User:JimHarperDC at the Cato Institute on a Legislative Data Workshop project to find out how we can use legislative data to enhance Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA), and we'd love to get input from any editors interested in the project. Please join us there, and we can help you find a task if you'd like to help! WWB (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When a member's term begins

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#When a member's term begins. —GoldRingChip 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

CK?

I believe that it is good to remove the two "citation needed" templates from the "Changes to membership" section under WP:CK. It is obvious that there will be special elections and two new and sourced articles have already been made.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ed Markey

Does anyone happen to know why it's taking so long for Ed Markey to resign from the House and take his oath as a Senator? 71.75.58.74 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't been officially elected to the Senate yet as the results have not been certified. They are to be certified today according to AP. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor updates required

The Senate party standings and the color for New Jersey under the Changes in membership section need to be changed to reflect current developments. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

LGBT members: Mike Michaud

It should now say 8 instead of 7. Rep. Mike Michaud (D - ME 2) just recently came out. 50.136.74.20 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)