Talk:113th United States Congress

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 113th United States Congress article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

United States: Government High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The "At its outset, this Congress had 43 African American members (all but one in the House of Representatives)," part seems to be incorrect, and does not reflect what it says at the footnoted cite for that statement. i.e. There were 44 at the beginning of the 113th, and all were in the House.

Gov. Haley appointed Rep. Scott to finish Sen. DeMint's term, technically after the 113th's outset. Further, if 2 at the same time was notable, the present situation of 3 black Senators serving concurrently should be, too. No? Darr247 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. Done. —GoldRingChip 13:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit it yourself, if you have a verifiable and reliable source. See Wikipedia:Be bold.—GoldRingChip 14:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.2 House of Representatives

When the republicans have the majority it reads: (6-1 Republican) Yet when the democrats have the majority it reads: (5-4 Democratic). Excuse me if I'm wrong here but shouldn't it read (5-4 Democrat)?? Brian Earl Haines (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]