Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Archives/2010

Explicit campaign contributions section
Folks, I am involved in improving the Jim Inhofe article. I notice that this article has a section on Campaign Contributions. In reviewing other senators' articles, the only one I've seen with a similar section is Joseph Lieberman. The other senators' articles have a link to OpenSecrets.org in the External links section instead of an explicit article section. I'm thinking of editing both the Inhfoe and Lieberman articles (and any other I find) to conform to the typical senators' article.

Your thoughts? Madman (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In other words, you seek to cut the following section from Inhofe's article:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 *     Campaign contributions
 * In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories. In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654). --(from Inhofe's WP article)


 * Why are you seeking to cut this? All senators should have a similar section; the fact that other senators lack such a section is not a good reason, in my view, for deleting this information. It's important for people to know from which sources Senators are funded; and how much. The fact that the information can be assessed through an external link (which most people won't use) doesn't compensate for the loss of this information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of explicit information would be very useful and OpenSecrets.org seems to be a neutral group.
 * Of course, there is a logistics problem with keeping the information current, not to mention adding it to 98 articles instead of adding the link to 2. However, I'm happy to go either way.  Why don't I will add these sections to the first few bios on the List of current United States Senators to see how articles owners react? Madman (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I get a chance I'll add the contributions information to the other 98 articles. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dodd page move
There is currently a proposal to move the article "Christopher Dodd" to "Chris Dodd", which may be of interest to project participants: Talk:Christopher Dodd. -Rrius (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Congressional Image Project
I wanted to let this group know that I am launching the The Great Pennsylvania Congressional Image Scrape of 2010, which is something I think you all would be interested in. Blargh29 (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Illinois's 3rd congressional district
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Anomaly in Dale Bumpers entry
In the list of Senators from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers is listed as

"Arkansas Attorney General (1893–1895)."

Since this is many years before he was born, this is an obvious error. Perhaps it refers to a different Dale Bumpers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.51.180 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bumpers was never Attorney General. I've corrected the error.  Thank you!—GoldRingChip  19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback on a new congress-related Navbox
Hello,

I think it's unfortunate that we have to manually paste the same external links onto all the member-of-Congress pages. What if we move these sources into navboxes that go onto all those pages?

I've attempted this on one article (see Henry_Waxman) and I'd like your feedback. The diffs are here, the navbox is here, and I am trying to promote its use by associating it with Category:Legislative branch of the United States government.

Please share your feedback. Do you think navboxes like this will permit us to consolidate external links that relate to similar articles? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposed template is too general. Users just want to click on the link and go to the site, not have to navigate further.  We have Conglinks to make it uniform.—GoldRingChip  19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster
A discussion is under way at Filibuster (United States Senate) as to the appropriate name of that article. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-executing rule
A new article was created this morning called Self-executing rule by User:James Kidd. I've cleaned it up some to remove obvious POV and recentism. The article was created, apparently, because of all of the health care bill related discussions and, specifically, the view by some that Pelosi wants to "pass the bill without a vote." Health care reform debate in the United States is probably the best place, but perhaps it does need its own article. This "procedure" is apparently quite common, but has never been used to pass controversial legislation before, hence its sudden notability. Have its own article is better than adding it to United States House of Representatives, as suggested by some editors. The issue is likely to generate a great deal of POV, so I wanted to make this group aware so the article can be monitored.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree with your approach so far.—GoldRingChip  16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed merging Self-executing rule into Standing Rules of the United States House of Representatives.—GoldRingChip 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Reform votes - biased edits
We should keep an eye out for POV edits related to the health care vote. I've already found one IP editor who's started adding "X rep voted no on health care reform" or some variation to a few articles. He or she is doing it exclusively to Democrats who voted no on the bill. Even though the vote is notable and probably something that could be added, I believe the intent of the edit violates WP:NPOV unless the vote is added to all member articles regardless of vote position. Thoughts?DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our diligence should suffice.—GoldRingChip 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This bill passed, should be revised to reflect.
This bill passed, 220-211 on March 21, 2010. Article should be edited to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvgomez2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding religion
I believe it would be most helpful and more accurate to define the specific denomination a Member of Congress belongs to.

For example Baptist - SBC; Baptist - ABC; Lutheran - ELCA; Lutheran - LCMS. I picked those four examples because the Southern Baptist Convention has sometimes starkly differing views from the American Baptist Churches. The same applies for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America compared to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

It will also help to compile more accurate religious affiliation statistics for the current Congress. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Negative. The user box is will signify which religion they are apart of but not the specific church they attend. That kind of information should be added inside the wiki and not the info box. I like that you asked the rest of the wiki community about this but I'm unhappy that you went ahead and edited so many wiki pages already. --Triesault (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also disagree. Specific churches are not nearly as definitive as you seem to think.  Sometimes a member might attend one denomination back home and a different one in D.C.  Other times spouses belonging to different denominations may attend the others' church, just to go together.  And consider people like John McCain:  his affiliation as any kind of Baptist is so loose (raised Episcopalian, never baptized as an adult, not an official member of the church he attends) that it makes no sense to pin him down to Southern Baptist Convention.   Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Senator McCain is a self-identified member of the Southern Baptist Convention. Fine, there is one instance in which the loose term "Baptist" may be used. But, other Members of Congress who are officially members of recognized denominations should have this distinction listed in their infoboxes. Technically, there is no "Lutheran" denomination in the United States, but there are many Lutheran-based denominations in the United States (ELCA, LCMS, WELS). Senator Sherrod Brown is a member of the ELCA while Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a member of the WELS. Those two denominations are starkly different from each other, and it is misleading to simply assign them to the same generalized "Lutheran" term. We don't put "Anglican" for members of the Episcopal Church of the USA, do we? Finally, no one would ever claim that the generalized "Catholic" be used for members of the Roman Catholic Church and those belonging to the Eastern Rites. They have distinctly different hierarchies, practices, liturgical structure, and theological belief. The distinction should be made for all denominations in infoboxes. Since Members pages are used for reference (and hopefully both accuracy and specificity), the distinction should be made. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with being more specific about congressmembers religious affiliations, so long as they're sourced. That shouldn't be hard, give as practically every congressmember makes religion a central point of any campaign. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding honorifics
I have attempted to add as many honorific prefixes to infoboxes as I can, but 435 members is a large number of pages to edit. If anyone is interested, please work to add "|honorific-prefix = The Honorable ". I have completed many of the smaller state delegations. California and Texas will obviously take the most time.

Additionally, I recommend that all honorific suffixes be removed from infoboxes. There should be no reason for physicians or clergy to receive suffixes when attorneys and those with non-medical doctoral degrees do not. Therefore, if anyone notices an honorific suffix in an infobox for a Member of Congress, please remove it. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The following delegations require honorifics or verification, thereof: California, Florida, New York, Texas, and non-voting members. (recommended gateway: 111th House of Representatives) 24.3.220.206 (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate
Should we really be adding "the honorable" to the infobox of every member of congress? I apologize for removing it from a few of them, as I thought it was just vandalism. ~ BLM Platinum ( talk )  04:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, members of congress are entitled to use the title "The Honorable" for life and all other countries use titles such as "The Honorable" or "The Right Honorable" in their politicians infoboxes (see Kevin Rudd, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi and Pierre Trudeau for Australia, the UK, Italy and Canada respectively). --&#91;&#91;User: Duffy2032&#124;Duffy2032&#93;&#93; (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While it may be factually accurate that every governor, congressman, and senator are entitled to the title, I'm not sure it's in common usage, as WP:HONOR seems to specifically discourage its widespread inclusion. For example, while many letters addressed to Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia include the title out of respect, it isn't a title he or his office actually use themselves.  Not to infringe on your right to be bold, but did you have a chance to discuss this on a style talk page, or perhaps at one of the relevant WikiProject talk pages, such as WikiProject United States governors or WikiProject U.S. Congress?  jæs (talk)  05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit that I probably should have gotten some clearance from the respective WikiProjects, however, in regard to the "relevance to individual office(s)" argument, I would once again like to go back to foreign governments. I doubt that in the UK Anthony Eden is commonly called "The Right Honourable The Earl of Avon KG MC PC", yet we still include the full title instead of something simple like "Anthony Eden" or "Prime Minister Anthony Eden" in his infobox.--&#91;&#91;User: Duffy2032&#124;Duffy2032&#93;&#93; (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, all official communications by the West Virginia Legislature refer to the Governor as "His Excellency", too. "Pursuant to the Proclamation of His Excellency, the Governor, issued the eighteenth day of January, 2005, and hereinafter set forth, convening the Legislature in Extraordinary Session on the twenty-fourth day of January, 2005, the House of Delegates assembled in its Chamber in the Capitol Building in the City of Charleston, and at 11:00 A.M., was called to order by the Speaker, the Honorable Robert S. Kiss." Therefore, I contend the Governor of West Virginia should be extended the title in his/her infobox. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it's simply not something that is widely used (by the Governor himself, nor by the state government), except in extremely formal circumstances. It's simply not in common use, and most people would look at it as a peculiarity, not as a common part of the person's name or title.  Peculiarities are not appropriate for infoboxes.  jæs (talk)  22:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if "common usage" is to become the standard, then the Barack Obama infobox should have "Mr. President" as the honorific prefix, Hillary Clinton should have "Madam Secretary", Nancy Pelosi should have "Madam Speaker", and Harry Reid should have "Mr. Leader". This notion that only "common usage" terms should be applied is absolute nonsense. The formalities should be assigned instead of those "common" titles. But, if you insist that only "common usage" be applied, then I demand the changes I listed above be made. If you're going to set a standard, then stick to it and be consistent. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep this civil. You seek consensus and you are unlikely to get it by calling our arguments "nonsense" and "demand"ing changes.  Furthermore, if you registered (to forgo the anonymous IP address), we'd all be on equal footing.—GoldRingChip  20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then be consistent. If one debater gets to use the word "foolhardy", then I should be allowed to use "nonsense". And who cares if I'm a registered user or not? My IP has a talk page as well. Somehow registered users are more "equal"? Get over it! 24.3.220.206 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also including a couple of United States Department of State documents in regard to entitlement to the title: http://web.archive.org/web/20080414012452/http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/05fah01/05fah010420.pdf (Bush era document, relevant details on page 10) http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/what/c18027.htm (Chief of Protocol FAQ)


 * Alright, you seem to know what you're doing, so I won't bother you about it. Should we be adding it to former congressmen as well? ~ BLM Platinum ( talk )  15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, State Dept. protocol states "once an honorable always an honorable" (see second link)--&#91;&#91;User: Duffy2032&#124;Duffy2032&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Count me as against adding these. Americans rarely use this term in connection with members of Congress. "Senator John McCain" has 595,000 google hits. "The Honorable Senator John McCain" has 3,000. That's a 200:1 ratio, and a good indication it shouldn't be at the top of the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the addition merely because it clutters the infobox. I agree that these members are entitled to "The Honorable" per protocol, but that's mainly in formal protocol settings or in correspondence. Wikipedia is neither. WP:COMMONNAME probably should apply here. Having worked for a Senator, though, I can tell you the average constituent never uses "The Honorable" at all. In fact, some of the titles used to address my former boss are far to vulgar to be repeated. Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because other articles do it that way, isn't sufficient to justify changes elsewhere. If the claim can't be used to prevent an article from being deleted, the claim is irrelevant when it comes to edits such as these. It simply does not matter that some editors have chosen to include the honorifcs on British infoboxes. Having said that, I'll let other editors fight the battle. It's not hurting anything, other than my own personal opposition to infobox clutter. This debate is more appropriate at WP:USC.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 04:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, bearing in mind that this is an international encyclopedia, the addition is helpful and takes so little extra space as to not matter. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the additional clutter if it is meaningful. But it's not; nobody uses these terms in America.  Britain is a different place with different traditions.    Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I disagree with your insistence that "nobody uses these terms in America". -Rrius (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the use of honorifics in (or out of) infoboxes for three reasons:
 * Honorifics aren't used much in the US. They are a courtesy, but little more.  The State Department isn't the final arbiter; they handle formal protocol for foreign issues.
 * Infobox clutter makes infoboxes useless. If you put too much there then it's not helpful.  Isn't an infobox supposed to be a summary?   You don't put their high school diploma there, for example, or their pet's name.
 * What if the person gets a different job? Then which honorific do you use?
 * —GoldRingChip 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, GoldRingChip, who is the "final arbiter"? After all, the practice of addressing all letters to Members of Congress as "The Honorable" dates well back into the early 20th Century. Emily post specifically mentions it in her books. Whenever written communication occurs, the standard form of address is "The Honorable John Smith" for Members of Congress as well as judges and mayors. This also includes non-voting Members. Furthermore, when the Clerk of the House, for example, officially reports on particular Members of Congress, they are referred to as "the Honorable" in the Record. This reference from the Congressional Record mentions the resignation of Rahm Emanuel from the House. "The Clerk is in receipt of a letter of resignation from the Honorable Rahm Emanuel from the State of Illinois." Whenever the Senate or House communicate to each other about a specific member, the term "the honorable" is included with the member's name. Also consider Wikipedia's own entry --- The Honourable. Furthermore, if you search the phrase "the honorable" on the United States Senate website, you will see over 26,000 occurances of the title used in official reporting which is even extended to Members of the Cabinet and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As such, the simple, non-cluttering, appropriate inclusion of "The Honorable" in aforementioned infoboxes should be made standard. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These uses of "The Honorable" are all in formal and 'stiff' written contexts. In the normal course of Congressional business, including the spoken proceedings on the floor, they aren't used.  Instead, it's "the gentleman from Virginia", "the gentlewoman from Ohio", etc.  It's fine to have The Honourable explain the formal contexts where it's used, but to then stick "The Honorable" at the top of 535 congressional members' articles seems to me to be way too repetitious and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the biographical subjects.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Each article stands on its own, so I don't buy the repetitious argument at all. What's more, listing the correct prefix is at least as useful as listing a person's religion. -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of the persuasion that if you're competent enough to be elected a member of the United States Congress, then you deserve to have "The Honorable" as a title. After all, Wasted Time R, I really doubt you'll ever serve in such a capacity. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm devastated by your powers of argument. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To address GoldRingChip's points,
 * Who cares if the State Department is the final arbiter? Consult etiquette guides and the like and they will likewise say that United States Senators and Representatives have the style "the honorable" and retain it for life.
 * I find unconvincing the proposition that adding one line of small-font text above the name, all surrounded by significant blank space, clutters the infobox.
 * As stated above in my response #1 and above, they retain the style for life, so a change in occupation is irrelevant.
 * -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But if they then run a boat do they become "Captain Honorable Nancy Pelosi"?—GoldRingChip 03:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Captain" is a title, which is something different, so no. If "Captain" precedes the name, the style isn't used, just as you wouldn't write "The Honorable Mrs. Nancy Pelosi". -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see my original thoughts were copied to here, above. Just to further clarify, I agree with most of the above that honorific titles should not be used in infoboxes or in the lede of articles on United States governors, senators, or members of Congress. It's not in common usage, there isn't consensus for its inclusion, and it ought not have been done in batch and in clear contradiction to our specific style guidelines on the matter. The batch edits that have not been individually reverted should be reverted en masse. (I should be clear that I am not expressing an opinion here on countries where these titles are more in common usage.) jæs (talk)  22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the style guide says nothing of the sort. It is referring to use inline, that is, in the body text. The infobox is not inline text. Second, it is not at all clear whether there is consensus. This discussion is not necessarily inclusive of all the regular editors at all of the relevant articles. What's more, it isn't finished. Third, if you believe that consensus is necessary before editing, then you need to brush up on Wikipedia's basic principles. Fourth, it is ridiculous to claim that "The Honorable" is not in common usage; formal letters (including business letters) written to the senators and representatives do include it, as do programs for meetings such as local bar associations and service organizations where such a person is to speak. The fact that individual constituents writing to Dcmacnut's former employer did not use it does not mean it is not in common usage. Finally, the prejudice against making "batch" edits is bizarre. Why on earth would it be okay to make a particular, otherwise valid, edit at one article, but not at 20 or 200? That just doesn't make sense. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can tell you feel strongly about the matter, but it's careless to imply I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's "principles" to try to defend your position.  Did you read the discussion I had with the editor who initiated the batch edits?  My goal isn't to infringe on his right to be bold, but it's frankly ridiculous to argue that initiating hundreds of edits without any consensus is beyond reproach, especially in an area which our style guidelines says is controversial.  I've written letters to senators and congressmen, and yes, I've frequently included "The Honorable" in the address line.  That doesn't mean it's in common usage, which more appropriately objectively considers the media, academic journals, and other reliable sources, not style guidelines for formal letters.  While it's far more common, for example, in Canada to refer to the Prime Minister and other political figures as "The Right Honorable" and so forth, it's almost unheard of for that to be the case in the United States.  It's not in common usage, and it shouldn't be included in every infobox, and WP:HONOR isn't exclusive to in-line content.  A note at United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and so forth covers the matter sufficiently. jæs (talk)  22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He had an absolute right to go forth and be bold, and you are trying to suggest that he shouldn't have. I disagree with that vehemently. That is especially the case where, as here, the change was relatively minor. As for "common usage", I think you have a absurdly narrow understanding of that term. Being included in style manuals and letters is enough to establish common usage. I will also note that I was not talking about "style guides for writing letters", but about style guides. In any event, it is not "far more common" in the way you suggest for Canadians to use "the Right Honorable". Just as here, you will rarely find newspapers and academic journals "and other reliable sources" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It is most certainly in common usage because "common usage" does not just mean "the most common way of referring to something", and there is nothing wrong with including the honorific, it doesn't hurt anything, and it provides information, so it should remain. -Rrius (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's foolhardy to suggest that making hundreds of batch edits — without consensus and on content that our style guidelines clearly define as "controversial" — is somehow a "right." It's not, and it was not sensible, and the editor acknowledged as such on his talk page when he said he should have engaged in discussion prior to his edits.  Perhaps he didn't see WP:HONOR or WP:HONORIFIC prior to that point, that's fine.  At this point, though, there's still no consensus for the edits, and the prior consensus appears to be against the inclusion of honorific titles except in limited circumstances.  The infobox of every governor, senator, and congressman is not limited, and, as I said above, it does hurt: it's not in common usage, most folks would look at it as peculiar.  Wikipedia isn't a place for trivia; we can mention the titles in the articles for the positions themselves, but including the peculiar titles in the infobox of hundreds of biographies is not necessary and is trivial.  jæs (talk)  23:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well put. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so much. First off, the guidelines do not define the edits as "controversial"; you are just making that up. Second, editors do have the right to be bold in editing, regardless of the controversial nature of the edits. It is absurd for you to suggest otherwise. Finally, your continuing failure to grasp that a thing can be common usage even it isn't used all the time by everyone is frustrating. The application of the honorific is mentioned in The Chicago Manual of Style, perhaps the most well-known style manual in the US. When people accustomed to writing letters write to their senators and congressmen, they use "the Honorable". The infobox has a parameter that calls for the appropriate style for the officeholder, and we indisputably correct information to answer with. I'm afraid I just don't understand where you're coming from. -Rrius (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only reason I'm even here to begin with is that I was at a Congressperson's article and it confused the hell out of me for a few seconds. Public servants in the United States just aren't referred to that way. They get the title of "Representative", "Congressman", "Senator", "Governor" et. al. as appropriate, but I've never heard of one being referred to as "The Honorable" outside of a diplomat's pen. This isn't like in Commonwealth countries where the government actually has a document stating what positions get Hon., which get Rt. Hon., etc. Thus, it's completely daft to have that nonsense in the infobox. —The Rt. Hon. BorgHunter 23:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, guys, I think all the articles are at least consistent now. If we end up with a consensus to change this later, we can enlist a bot to make the changes, but how about we leave them all alone right now before this turns into a really lame edit war? —BorgHunter (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with BorgHunter. But even for Commonwealth countries, the MOS says that honorifics should not be used.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an idiot. The original editor who created this mess used multiple accounts to do it, and I did all my edits based off a contribs list. So, in short, there's a general lack of consistency: Some Reps are honorable, some aren't. Can some passing botherder enlist a bot to clean this all up? —BorgHunter (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's break this up into the two separate issues. First is the method of adding this en masse to lots of articles, something that there wasn't consensus for, and an IP editor got a 3RR block for. I think that IP editor was acting in good faith, but was simply over zealous. It's fairly well accepted at this point that we need consensus before massively adding the title to articles.


 * The second issue is the debate we should be having here. That is, whether the formal title is appropriate or not.


 * I'm of the opinion that it's not common usage, and that the style guide ought to strongly influence the debate here, and the longstanding consensus is that honorific titles are largely distracting and unnecessary, unless they're in common usage. While they may be in some technical examples, they certainly are not used that way by not only the general public, but in any formal, nontechnical setting. For example, in business correspondence between representatives.


 * For the technical background we have an article about these titles, Honorific. The department of State, apparently, does not consider these terms official.


 * Finally, this is a minor issue affecting lots of articles. I don't see the overriding motivation pushing this change in established procedure. Shadowjams (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The style guideline ought to be made easier to read, but if you read it closely, it makes a clear distinction between honorific titles (see WP:MOSBIO) and (what our style guidelines usually refers to as) honorific "prefixes" or styles (see WP:MOSBIO): "Styles and honorifics [prefixes] which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable [...], should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper."  The section you were refering to, which states that titles may be included in infoboxes, relates specifically to honorific titles, such as Sir, Dame, Lord, and Lady.  Fascinatingly (and confusingly, to most of us), two different sections on the same page prescribe two very different paths for two very similar issues.  In any event, consensus has held that prefixes are inappropriate for American politicians (see WT:USC).  The "right" to the style can be mentioned at United States Senator and so forth, but, again, including "The Honorable" or "His (or Her) Excellency" at the top of the infobox of every Senator, Congressman, and Governor is without consensus and completely outside our style guidelines.  jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  17:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An infobox is not "inline". Where do you get that idea? In fact, the section you link to specifically says, "An example of 'discussion in the article proper' would be listing the official, spoken, and posthumous styles for a pope within an infobox." Listing the style above the name in the infobox would therefore be perfectly appropriate under the guidelines. What's more, your continuing doubt about the right of representatives and senators to the honorific is completely without basis. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear here that there is no consensus for the inclusion of honorific prefixes in the infobox or lede of the biographies of American politicians. Looking over the archives at WP:MOSBIO, that was the intent, there, as well.  The style guidelines clearly outline that the prefixes should only be used when necessary, and consensus here seems to be that they are not necessary and are not helpful.  In any event, perhaps you're misreading my opinion, because I've never stated that these politicians are without the right to use an honorific prefix.  However, only in extremely limited circumstances (formal correspondance) are the prefixes used, and the extent to which the extent to which these politicians use the prefixes themselves is extremely minimal.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  21:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did misread that. In any event, the crux of the disagreement is this belief that the usage is "extremely minimal". That is just not true. People on your side have argued that it would only be appropriate if they were called "the honorable" in the news (Although one instance of that also referred to use in "reliable sources", one of which I have provided). That is a remarkably limited way of looking at usage. You all seem to be assuming that in Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries whose political figures do include honorifics, people go around calling each other "the honorable" and "the right honorable" as a matter of course. The fact is, those terms are used in precisely the same contexts as here. This seems to be based more on visceral objection to change than any meaningful objection to the honorific. There is no good reason why the infobox should not convey the appropriate honorific for senators and representatives. I agree with the guideline that it should not be used inline (just as a senator's article should call the subject "Smith", not "Senator Smith" or "the Senator", which is what the guideline is talking about). Unfortunately, you lot seem to be confusing that guideline with an outright prohibition on honorifics. Again, as the guideline explicitly says, putting an honorific in the infobox is perfectly sound. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we may need some more outside voices on this issue. Any thoughts about an RfC? Shadowjams (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. If someone could give me a reason based on the actual guidelines, I, at least, would relent. But so far all I've heard are reasons based on an incorrect reading of the guidelines and a weirdly restrictive understanding of "common usage". -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My 'guideline' is common usage and common sense. America is not a country that runs by honorifics and styles.  Putting "The Honorable" as the very topmost piece of text for a representative or senator sticks out like a sore thumb as something that is just plain out of place and wrong.  And several of the other editors here clearly have had the same reaction.  As will many more, if there's an RfC; it's obvious why you don't want one, because you'll lose it by a 3-to-1 margin or worse.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reposting my above statement regarding "common usage". ::::::: Well, if "common usage" is to become the standard, then the Barack Obama infobox should have "Mr. President" as the honorific prefix, Hillary Clinton should have "Madam Secretary", Nancy Pelosi should have "Madam Speaker", and Harry Reid should have "Mr. Leader". This notion that only "common usage" terms should be applied is absolute nonsense. The formalities should be assigned instead of those "common" titles. But, if you insist that only "common usage" be applied, then I demand the changes I listed above be made. If you're going to set a standard, then stick to it and be consistent. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) as the editor who brought this up here, I should probably weigh in. A healthy debate is always good, and guidelines can and should evolve. We all agree that the honorific is accurate and verifiable. The question is where do you draw the line? And I think a line should be drawn, but I'm unsure of where that should be after reading the arguments for and against. I favor a cleaner info box, it's true, but the edits aren't "hurting" anything. But taken to the logical conclusion, shouldn't all ambassador articles then see their info boxes expanded to include "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" which is the appropriate honorific per protocol? I think we'd all agree that such a term is excessive in an info box, nor is it unique in that all ambassadors to the US (or a significant majority) are styled in that fashion. One could argue that Congress is no different. If 535 people (plus every former and future congressman) share the same honorific, then we need to ask ourselves if the inclusion adds to or improves the article, or whether its deletion detracts from or reduces the article's quality. Is the readers experience enhanced or diminished? In my opinion the answer on both counts is "no."DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 04:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no. "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" is the full title, not an honorific in sense we are using that word to describe "the Honorable". The equivalent for ambassadors is "his/her Excellency". I also want to address this point about duplication. The fact that something is repeated in 535 infoboxes is irrelevant to whether it is useful. While you and I and many of the contributors to this WikiProject regularly look at multiple articles about members of Congress, most people don't. Each article stands on its own. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if it is appropriate to have the "The honorable" listed in the infobox on every current or former member of Congress, that would be best accomplished by building it into the infobox template rather than changing hundreds or thousands of articles en masse. That's what templates are for, and I would suggest that when the outcome of this debate is sorted out, that the change (if any) be made that way. Janus303 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Diane Wood
At Diane Wood, part of this project, a discussion is occurring as to the of necessity of including 13 references in the lead for the proposition that a person has been mentioned as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court. -Rrius (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of potential interest
A move request has been made at Talk:State Attorney General that may be of interest to participants here. -Rrius (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorific titles - An RFC
As the above debate indicates, there is some disagreement about whether or not infobox templates, either through the template or manually in each article, should indicate members of congress with the honorific title "The Honorable." Arguments in favor indicate that the title is used by the State Department as well as it being consistent with other honorifics. They also suggest that while use of honorifics in text may be prohibited, but use in infoboxes is not.

Arguments against include the lack of common usage, contentious debates about this sort of issue in the past, unnecessary cluttering of the infobox, and the unofficial status of the title (state department usage as unofficial).

Because the debate here has not found much common ground, and the MOS:HONORIFIC guideline is at issue, a wider segment of the community's invited to weigh in. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, should we mention this RfC specifically at WP:USGOVS and WP:WPMOS? <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned wherever pertinent. Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honorific prefixes should not be used in infoboxes or in the lede of articles for United States congressmen, senators, governors, or other politicians. The allowance to the titles ought to be mentioned briefly in United States Senator, United States House of Representatives, specifically at United States Congress, Governor (United States), and other articles related to the positions and privileges themselves.  Listing it in hundreds (or thousands, if including former public servants) of biographies is not necessary, does not add additional helpful information (it's effectively trivia), it's not in common usage, and it's distracting for readers.  The general logic against widespread use of honorifics at Manual of Style (biographies) (and also at Manual of Style (biographies)) also helps provide greater background on why these prefixes were largely avoided until they were recently batch added without consensus.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If common usage is to be the standard, then Barack Obama's infobox should read "Mr. President", Nancy Pelosi's infobox should read "Madam Speaker", and so on. Though "The Honorable" is a formal title, it has been part of standard etiquette in addressing Members of Congress since before the days of Emily Post. It is not cluttered, and it should be extended to all infoboxes (via the template) for Members of Congress. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honorific prefixes should not be used in the infoboxes of American politicians. America is not a country that runs on honorifics and styles, and their use as the first thing a reader sees on the upper right of an article is quite off base.  "Senator John McCain" has 595,000 google hits. "The Honorable Senator John McCain" has 3,000. That's a 200:1 ratio, and a good indication it shouldn't be at the top of the infobox.  Mention of the honorifics can be made in United States Senator and the other articles that describe the positions themselves.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I vehemently concur. This is clutter, adding something which is alien to American political usage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for other editors, huh? 24.3.220.206 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Always a risk, but RFCs take some time to filter into broader consciousness. This kind of lagged response is pretty typical. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Honorable" should be allowed in infoboxes. My family is involved in politics (sorry if this sounds like a ramble), and we go to annual dinners put on by (now former) Congressman Charles H. Taylor. Throughout all 16+ years of this dinner, and throughout all the years my family has known him, he has always been "The Honorable Charles H. Taylor". I think "The Honorable" should be used if that is how the congressman/senator is addressed, much like Ms., Mrs., or Miss. Donatrip (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In personal experience, I've never heard that term used in response to congressmen, although [obviously] it applies without question to any judge. In the U.S., that's largely the common usage. I don't think that written invitations are as instructive as the verbal address. And as others have raised above, the verbal address isn't a "title" that needs to go in an info box--for example, this is why we don't put "Mr. President" above the presidential infoboxes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from; like I said, a select few of these congressmen/senators are known as "Honorable" to their constituents. Just change those few people--I'm not saying that you have to go through every one. For example, in your case, the congressmen that have served in your district haven't been known as "The Honorable..." so it wouldn't be necessary to add that to their info box. --Donatrip (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a custom of that particular ex-officeholder; shouldn't change normal American uses, which is to avoid these tags except in the most formal circumstances; we don't put "Esq." in articles about American lawyers! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are people still talking about this? The new voices ignorantly believe that "the honorable" is equivalent to "Mr. President" and "Madam Speaker", when in fact Obama and Pelosi also take the honorific "the honorable"; addressing someone as "Mr. President" is equivalent to addressing someone as "Congressman" or "Senator". Some also ignorantly believe that "the honorable" is somehow foreign and un-American, even though every single member in living memory (and beyond) of both houses has been addressed as "the Honorable So-and-so". Ignorant or not, the clear weight of opinion is on the side of excluding the honorific. Can we just drop this and close the RfC? -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Years ago I saw a congressman give an election night speech just like yours, although I can't remember who it was. He called his opponent a fool, he pretty much called the voters idiots, and then he conceded the election and went home.  There's worse ways of going out ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at the officeholder template
A proposal has been made to add height as an optional field under personal data at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Your comments are welcome on said proposal Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of banner template
See Template talk:Project Congress. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:USHouseMinLead
I have read that Joseph Weldon Bailey was Minority leader during a part of the 1890's. Does anyone have an objection to me adding him as the first minority leader? or can someone provide a source for richardson as the first? I know it's unclear when the position even began but is their a certain source being used for this template?.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ^ Caro, Robert A. (1990). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The path to power. Vintage Books. p. 47. ISBN 9780679729457. Retrieved 17 June 2010.
 * If you've got a reliable source, then add it to Minority leader of the United States House of Representatives, and to this template.—GoldRingChip 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of congressional district categories
An editor has proposed deleting all "Congressional districts of X" categories that currently have just one entry. This is mainly the territorial districts, but also includes Category:Congressional districts of Delaware. I'm posting this given this projects potential interest in the matter. Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 24.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)

Installed
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;"> The result of this discussion below is:
 * a consensus that "from" be used to denote the beginning of a member's service and "until" be used to denote the end of a member's service.

Please also note that these terms should only be applied when the member took/left office at a time other than the beginning/end of the current Congress.—GoldRingChip 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that has bothered me for quite a while about the United States Congress articles is the use of the word "installed" in the member listings. Members of Congress are elected, appointed, and sworn in, but I have never heard the word "installed" used in any official context for a member of Congress. Installation is an honor that we reserve for software, light bulbs, and mufflers, not members of Congress.

It is not clear to me what "installed" refers to in these articles, so the ambiguity is troubling. I get the impression that it usually (but not always) refers to the date a member takes the oath of office. In its official documents, Congress refers to this as being "sworn", so I think we should use that term as well.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are so many similarities to light bulbs here. But seriously, I can't think of a better term.  It's intentionally ambiguous because it means many things depending on the situation.  If we can find a better term, with broad WP-style consensus, then we should change to that.
 * "Swearing in" is a formality that does not necessarily mean one's beginning of tenure ("BOT"), but has some chronological proximity to it.
 * "Elected"/"Appointed" often come before the BOT, not at the same time.
 * What else?
 * —GoldRingChip 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. Certainly there are many different situations that occur with regard to someone becoming a member of Congress, but what is the advantage in obscuring them?  Why not just say "elected", "appointed", "sworn", or some other word, rather than "installed"?  What is the benefit of being "intentionally ambiguous"?  I also do not understand your point about tenure.  How does that relate to this issue?  Would you please elaborate?  — JPMcGrath (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. The purpose of the dates is to indicate when their tenure began.  It's not always clear how that beginning happened.  Sometimes it's immediately upon appointment, or several days after appointment, or weeks or months after election. It's OK to say "elected" but that doesn't indicate when their tenure began.  That's why in the "Members" section, we list the day they were installed, and then down below in the "Changes of membership" we indicate if the person was elected, appointed, etc.—GoldRingChip  12:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand the term of service issue, in the normal case, when the member is chosen before the start of the Congress and serves to the end, the term of service is the term of the Congress and no additional text would be placed next to the member's name. If the member is appointed or elected after the start of the Congress, the term began on that date.  If the member died, resigned, or was expelled, the term ended on that date.  If the date is unknown, we obviously cannot provide it.  So when a date is provided, why not use one of the above terms, rather than "installed"?  — JPMcGrath (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've correctly narrowed the question here, but some members don't take office until several days after they are appointed/elected. See, for example,  Scott Brown, who was elected January 19, 2010 but wasn't installed until February 4, 2010; or Kay Bailey Hutchison who was elected June 5, 1993 but wasn't installed until June 14, 1993.—GoldRingChip  17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that some descriptions, such as "election certified on" would get too verbose for the member list. And I definitely like the "Changes in membership" tables.  Getting all the crap out of the member list makes things a lot neater.
 * However, I still think that the word "installed" is not the best choice. You said that it is "intentionally ambiguous", but what is really needed is a term that is unambiguous, but not very specific either.  The word "installed" is ambiguous and suggests that it means something specific, although it is unclear what it means.  I found it confusing, thinking it was possibly referring to the swearing in.
 * I think a better term would be "from". There would be no doubt that it meant that the person was a member from the given date, and it would not suggest that it meant more than that.  If there is a need for a generic term for the end of service, I think "until" would make sense.  As with "from", it suggests nothing more than the end of service.
 * — JPMcGrath (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Why didn't I think of that?  "From" (but in lower case) is a great solution.  We should use "from" to indicate a start date and "until" to indicate an end.  Let me first get a couple more voices in here to chime in to make a consensus.  But I think this is a good plan.  Wait a few days while I ask some other members of this Wikiproject for their opinions.—GoldRingChip  19:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I was monitoring this discussion before GoldRingChip posted the note on my talk page. I had been thinking along these lines as well, but more along the lines of "term started/term ended", as we do with the infoboxes. But for this article, "from/until" would be sufficient and I would support the change. I agree with JP, that installed just sounds weird.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "term" should be avoided because it applies to the full 2- or 6-year length of time that at member could serve.—GoldRingChip 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I have never really liked "installed", but it may still be the best choice if we wish to maintain consistency. Aside from the curious case of Mr. Burris, we can apply the rules of 2 USC 36 for senators back to 1935, and perhaps 1923, to get a precise date for when terms start (i.e., when they are senators from). For the House, we can do the same thing for 1914 forward with 2 USC 37. The problem is that we have less clear ground for senators taking office earlier than that. For that reason, "installed", which gives us the leeway to use any applicable date without directly claiming the term started that day. If we use one word for earlier Congresses, we should us it for all. In any event, I'm hellbent on "installed", so I'll just leave this here. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to interpret how/whether to apply a statute (e.g., ) because it would violate WP:OR.—GoldRingChip 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Willis Green
It may be that the article on Willis Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Green) suffers from confusion between Willis Green and his son of the same name. I believe that Willis Green the Congressman is the son of Willis Green the Kentucky pioneer. Following is the information I have on Willis Green, the elder:

Willis Green, who was born and grew up in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, explored beyond the Blue Ridge in what was called the Kentucky territory. After the Revolutionary War, with his two brothers, Henry and William, he located land warrants in Kentucky, the oldest half-brother, John, having inherited most of his father's estate in Virginia under the law of primogeniture. Willis was elected a delegate from Kentucky to the Virginia Legislature in 1783, and he was a member of the conventions that framed the first and second Constitutions of Kentucky. He was Register of the Land Office and Clerk of the Lincoln County Court from 1783 to 1816.

Willis was the son of Duff Green and Ann Willis (who was the daughter of Col. Henry Willis, the founder of Fredericksburg, Virginia). Willis Green married Sarah Reed. Willis and Sarah, of Scotch-Irish descent, were born and reared in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and were married near Danville, Kentucky, in 1783. This is said to have been the first Christian marriage in Kentucky.

Willis had come to Kentucky in a surveying party, and had located for himself a tract of several thousand acres that struck his fancy a mile or two from the Danville settlement. Here he built, between 1797 and 1800, the fine large brick house for years called Waveland. The Willis Greens had an even dozen children, born and raised at Waveland.

Willis Green represented Kentucky County in the Virginia Legislature, and later served also in Kentucky's own Legislature. He held office, too, as clerk of the court of Lincoln County, which then included Danville and what is now Boyle County. History books note that he held other various important trusts and was one of the early valuable men of the Kentucky country. Pops (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings
Opinions are requested at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which affects this project to the extent that it deals with Congressional naming legislation, and buildings relating to this project (for example, if "U.S." is adopted for federal buildings, United States Capitol would be moved to U.S. Capitol. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see more opinions expressed at this discussion, which has relatively few editorial voices involved in determining an issue with broad reach. I believe that RFC's are traditionally kept open for a month, so opinions may be still posted for a few weeks. Cheers bd2412  T 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling
You are invited to join the discussion at. —GoldRingChip 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Roman numerals for Senate classes
Should we use roman numerals for Senate classes? It seems archaic (or is it pretentious?) to use them for class 1, class 2, class 3 (class I, class II, class III). See, e.g., List of United States Senators from Massachusetts‎ —GoldRingChip 19:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing no dissent after a month, I'll make the change.—GoldRingChip 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Image
The picture of Bob Filner is gone i just wanted to tell you so you can download a new one. Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)
AFD discussion, is at Articles for deletion/Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article page = Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

United States Congress Issue
The United States Congress article, along with the United States Supreme Court and President of the United States articles, have been undergoing a fair amount of controversy lately about a Critcism section added to all three articles in 2009 after some extended discussion. More recently, an editor removed the sections from all three articles. The sections were restored to the court and president articles, and they remain restored and under discussion (again). The congress article though has seen a more aggressive battle. Another editor (not the one who initially removed the section) has been repeatedly removing the section despite other editor's attempts to retain it and discuss it. I personally reported the editor to WP:AN3 today.

I'm asking for two things here. First, it would be great if some project editors would comment on the ongoing disussion on the Talk page of the congress article. We have a few editors contributing, but not a great many. Although I take an interest in the discussion, my main interest is in the court article. Second, if appropriate, comments on the admin noticeboard would be helpful, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Congress articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Congress articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

5% polling rule
There is discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 regarding the convention that only candidates who poll above 5% are included in the infobox before the election. Despite links to the discussion where the convention took shape, some editors question its existence because it is not stated on a Wikiproject page. Please weigh in. -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revamp of United States Congress article here at Revamp of US Congress
I'm asking for people to have a good look at a proposed revamp of United States Congress in the sandbox here at User:Tomwsulcer/United States Congress. I was spurred to fix it after one editor kept repeatedly removing a criticism section; the initial focus was trying to incorporate the criticisms within the body of the article, but then I got involved in expanding, revamping the article. It's grown to about 160K, has nice pictures. References are double. The big difference is that many more academic-type viewpoints have been added -- academics who study & teach about the Congress. So I hope it's a huge improvement but I would like others to weigh in on the proposed changes, since the article is important and heavily trafficked. There are also new spinoff subsidiary articles created to handle some of the overflow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge three noticeboards
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging: into
 * U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board
 * U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board
 * U.S. Wikipedians' notice board.

Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Roy Blunt's Political Ads in Upcoming Senate Race
I noticed that Rep. Blunt mentioned his ideas about creating jobs and to go to his web site for details - Roy Blunt.Com. - I did that and no where can I find any reference to a program iniated or proposed by him that would create jobs. Also I watched a polital ad that mentioned Robin Carnahan's support of President Obama's position on an energy plan and would cost Missouri 32,000 jobs. How did Rep. Blunt's staff arrive at this figure as I have not read anything about this in any newspaper or articles in magazines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.6.135 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You will not find this answer on Wikipedia. Please see What Wikipedia is not.  Otherwise, good luck with your research. —GoldRingChip  00:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope and Goal of this WikiProject
All WikiProject project pages should have sections detailing the project's scope and goals. This project seems to lack these staple items. __meco (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Can you write one, please?—GoldRingChip  17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a mere visitor I think that is something project members should conceive. __meco (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gang of Seven unassessed article is featured on BBC News today 3 Nov 2010
This article is in poor shape and needs to be reviewed by knowledgeable editors. Veriss (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Democrat party incorrectly identified as democratic throughout
Change democratic to democrat for correct party identification. 71.105.162.213 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Please see Democrat Party (phrase), a political epithet used in the United States instead of the Democratic Party.   —GoldRingChip  13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huge problems with infoboxes on House of Representatives election articles & Senate election articles
They create the impression that one is 'elected' Speaker, in the same manner as one is elected President. One is only elected Speaker at the beginning of the new Congress & by the full membership of the House. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They create the impression that one is 'elected' majority leader, in the same manner as one is elected President. One isn't elected majority leader, but rather elected Senate leader of his party & then known as majority leader, merely cuz his party will be the majority party in the Senate of the next Congress. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this is incorrect, but it is not a "huge" problem. Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, and McConnell are the people most representative of their parties in their houses.  So it is right to put them there.  The fact of them being elected later doesn't really taint these articles.  However, I can see a good argument to be made which would remove the people as figureheads altogether and just talk about the parties.  (After all, look at the 1994 House election in which the Republican leader, Bob Michael wasn't even running for re-election.) Is that OK?—GoldRingChip  17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't look right. Though Gingrich was the out-going Republican whip (minority whip), he still wasn't elected Speaker via the mid-term election. He was only 'later' elected Speaker in January 1995, defeating the Democratic nominee. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that supports my suggestion that we should take the figureheads out altogether.—GoldRingChip 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They gotta be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the same with the Senate elections, concerning the majority leader. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Slightly different. A majority leader in either party in either house leads her/his party regardless of elections and Congress start dates.  Only the Speaker is nominated (suggested?) by their caucus and subsequently elected by the whole house.  Leaders are selected by their caucuses whenever they please.—GoldRingChip  19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Grant you, the Senate is trickier, as only 1/3 of it is up for election every 2 yrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone link me to what you're talking about? I'd like to determine for myself if the impression they give is present and, if so, if the impression is a "huge" or otherwise unreasonable problem. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Latest examples: United States House of Representatives election, 2010 & United States Senate election, 2006. Nobody was elected Speaker or Senate majorit leader on mid-term election night. These covers all House & Senate elections. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you change the "Elected Speaker" to "Presumptive Speaker", I think that would work. Makes clear that they weren't made speaker by the November election, but that everybody (including the voters) knew that would be the effect of the election.  "Presumptive" is normally used in presidential elections to indicate the party nominee after clinching the win in primaries but before actually getting the nomination at the convention; this is reasonably analogous.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no objections, I'll do that tommorrow. Now, whatabout the Senate elections articles? GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "elected" and "presumptive" are a bit too oblique, while "Speaker," "Majority leader" and "Minority leader" are sometimes accurate and other times inaccurate. Thus, perhaps we could come up with a better term, such as "leader of the party"?—GoldRingChip  13:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was gonna go through all the House & Senate elections articles, to remove the inaccurate mentioning of speakers & leaders from the infoboxes, but it's too much comotion. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reid & McConnell were leaders before the 2010 election, remained so after the election, and will continue as so when the new Congress begins. Their job is not re-elected, it's continuous.  —GoldRingChip  13:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. Both Reid and McConnell were re-elected to their leadership posts on November 16 (see this Politico story for example).  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But there was no nation wide election for Republic Senate leader & Democratic Senate leader on November 2 (like there is in presidential elections). Reid & McConnell didn't face each other head-to-head in any contest. Those articles are about the elections of Senators 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
At the bottom of the infobox, instead of Speaker before election & Elected Speaker, howabout Outgoing Speaker & Incoming Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items
I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#Utah Territory's At-large congressional district
You are invited to join the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5. —GoldRingChip 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Error in Adam John Glossbrenner Bio
Adam John Glossbrenner was A clerk IN the US House of Representatives 1843-47, not Clerk OF the House. Benjamin Brown French was Clerk Of the House. Check http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000242 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Clerks for corroboration.

The two men were friends, but French was Clerk and Glossbrenner was a subordinate.

-Freelance Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.147.114 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You can make the change here. Be Bold!—GoldRingChip  22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A note on subcommittees for the 112th Congress
A point of information and word of caution for editors of congressional committee articles as we approach the start of the 112th Congress. Please make sure you move articles if the committee is renamed rather than starting over from scratch with a new article. This will ensure edit histories remain intact. Subcommittees often experience renamings and jurisdiction shifts every two years, particularly if there is a change in party control (like in the House), or a change in committee leadership. Already, some incoming Republican chairmen have annouced changes they intend to make to subcommittee structured. However, a simple name change does not justify the creation of a brand new article.

An example of this will be the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee. It is being split into two subcommittees, going back to its previous incarnation in 2007. Therefore, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee should be moved to its new name, Energy and Power, while the former Environment and Hazardous Materials subcommittee is being restored and renamed Environment and Economy.

I have also started a sandbox to make start work on updating committee memberships if anyone would like to contribute.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

List of persons who have served in all three branches of the United States federal government
I have gotten this article started. Please let me know if I've missed anyone, and particularly if I've missed any "near misses", such as people who served in the executive and judiciary branches who ran unsuccessfully for Congress. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems daunting, but go for it.—GoldRingChip 21:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

District histories
Hi. I have not formerly been part of this or any other WikiProject, but this seems a good place to report my idea. I have long been bothered by the fact that all the congressional district pages give a long list of the representatives from that district without mentioning how the district's boundaries have changed, often drastically. As a pilot project, I have edited AZ-1 and AZ-2 to give this information. Extending this to all such pages would, of course, be a huge project, which I don't necessarily have time for. For now, I am interested in any feedback as to the importance of this project, and whether the information might be better represented. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It's been done in a few articles already (see, for example, Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district) but it's a tremendous undertaking to try to do it for all districts.  I suggest, while you're working on the Arizona district pages,that you remove the Representatives birth years, as it's irrelevant to the article .—GoldRingChip  21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I started something similar but got sidetracked when it proved a huge undertaking. Check out Alabama's 8th congressional district for another formating option.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good ideas. I've updated my two-page pilot project, but may not do more for now.  I encourage anyone interested to do the same for other pages.  The Historical Atlas of United States Congressional Districts, 1789-1983 has the counties nicely tabulated.  It would be nice to say something about quadrants of the state, or major metro areas, to help orient the reader, but that may be even farther in the future.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:12
This redirect is up for deletion. I hope I'm posting on the right project page. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22. Simply south (talk) and their tree 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, you're not. This project is Congress-based, and doesn't get into Presidential elections.  Try contacting WikiProject United States presidential elections. —GoldRingChip  21:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses#Senate elections
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses. —GoldRingChip 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) (Using )

109th United States Congress
nominated 109th United States Congress for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.