Talk:114th United States Congress

Putting the cart before the horse Biden and his position in the infobox

There is no doubt that Joe Biden is the current VP and that he is scheduled to fill this position during the next congess, but until that congress sits, officially no one has filled this position and therefore there shouldn't be any name in this spot in the infobox. As of right now, it's an empty office because there is no such thing as a 114th congress JOJ ^Hutton 18:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Should we also delete the 67 Senators who are listed?—GoldRingChip 20:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I was only initially concerned with the info box since it's a prominent feature of any article, but now that you bring it up, how can an article such as this say that people are serving in a Congress that doesn't exist yet. My argument is that the 114th Congress has not sat yet, so therefore nobody has filled these positions. They are "presumed" to fill these positions when the Congress sits, but these positions do not exist until that time. JOJ ^Hutton 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Your argument violates the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:N policies.--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • You mean that you want to see a reliable source that the 114th Congress hasn't yet sat? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you saying that the 114th Congress has sat and that I'm making it up? How the hell would that violate the neutrality policy?JOJ ^Hutton 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Please be civil.—GoldRingChip 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
          • That was as civil as it gets. So can anyone explain why this article has people filling positions in a congress that does not yet exist?--JOJ ^Hutton 13:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
            • • Because the 114th Congress WILL begin on January 3, 2015. At that time, Joe Biden will still be President of the Senate, and all those Senators will still be in office. The U.S. Senate is a continuous body that does not expire. Only an unforeseen event, such as a resignation or death, would preclude them all from service. —GoldRingChip 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

- The congress always exist but not the 114th congress. He has a point. btw JOJ Hutton 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC) - Comment of the year!!! lloooolllllll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.142.80 (talk)

Speaker & President pro tempore.

Before adding names to the infobox. Let's wait until the House & Senate decide on these positions, in January 2015. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Table of totals

Can somebody please add a summary table showing how many D/R/I in the senate and house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.64.208 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

new chamber map with blue & red dots?

is there a chamber map with the blue & red dots made up & posted yet for the new house & senate? i need that!!! can I help?? thx skakEL 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of "reelected" vs "re-elected"

Which spelling should be used: "reelected" or "re-elected"? Has this been settled on Wikipedia yet?—GoldRingChip 18:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia doesn't have a preference, as long as it's consistent through the article. I've taken some flack for this in FA reviews. People like the non-hyphenated, for some reason. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, the word "reelected" is definitely not hyphenated. No wonder a lot of people prefer that version! Want to know more? Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to know why you have to be sarcastic and obsessive about it. I really don't care either way, but the AP guide calls for the hyphen, and the Collins Dictionary includes it, as do Dictionary.com, American Heritage dictionary, and Oxford dictionary. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've used "re-elected" extensively throughout hundreds of election articles I've edited. That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means there would be a lot of corrections needed if it were settled the other way. I like the hyphen because it makes the word easier to read.—GoldRingChip 13:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've always favored "re-elected" because style guides (notably the AP) use that spelling. -- Calidum 13:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a "Major" event?

What should be included in "Major Events"? Recently, someone added:

• January 21, 2015: John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without consulting President Obama, to address Congress in March regarding sanctions against Iran.

I deleted it, thinking it wasn't "major" enough. But the original editor asserts that it is. And instead of the two of us getting into a revert war over an undefined stnadard of what is "major," I decided to bring the discussion here for consensus. —GoldRingChip 01:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, because of the underlying circumstances, I would consider this a "major" event, even though it's not "legislative", per se. But this one's a very unusual case, and I'm not sure most foreign leader addresses to Congress would qualify as "major" in most instances... --IJBall (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I did not originally add this event, but I re-added it because of the circumstances. House Speaker John Boehner invited PM Netanyahu, the leader of a major U.S. ally, with absolutely no knowledge, approval, or consent from President Barack Obama. I think that this does qualify as a "legislative" event because it was the House speaker who invited Netanyahu, who in a few months will speak in front of Congress, and because this event has to do with the debate over instituting sanctions on Iran, which is currently going on in Congress. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say to include it, mainly because I think these Congress articles have too few events listed. The membership, leadership, and bills passed aren't that interesting, but it's the events that provide context. The 113th article has a bunch from 2013, but none from 2014 (I just removed a few though that had nothing to do with Congress). Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

House composition map

Can someone upload a map showing the political party composition of the U.S. House of Representatives by individual districts for the 114th Congress? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Official Congressional photos

The articles of freshmen Congressmen Brad Ashford, Alex Mooney, and Will Hurd still lack their official Congressional photos. Can someone please upload them? I am posting this here so, hopefully, more people will see my message then if I post this on each individual Congressman's article. Thanks--1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Add section: Percentage of men v. women

Basic demo breakdown would be useful on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.153.142 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• see Current members of the United States House of Representatives and List of current United States Senators.—GoldRingChip 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Political party affiliation switches of Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders became a Democrat to run for the presidency, and he is now an independent again. So why was this and this removed, rather than being kept and updated to reflect him being an independent again? We should note his switching from a Democrat to and independent and back again in this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Good question. It is because all the official sources continued to list him as an independent: [1] and [2], which both list "I-VT"; [3], [4], and [5] which referred to him as such. Because this is an article about Congress, it is how he is recognized in Congress that matters, and there he was never recognized as a Democrat. meamemg (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Demographic breakdown

It would be convenient if someone could tally the # of men and women in each branch. Extra credit for including party affiliation. Lime in the Coconut 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links for bills

@Beetstra: Why was this edit reverted, please? I wasn't the previous editor who had added the links, but I think he/she was correct in placing them. —GoldRingChip 12:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

GoldRingChip, sockpuppetry, see whose edits I eradicated. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! Good catch. But… oddly enough, those links do look legit. So what do we do? Can we keep them even if they were added illegitimately? And, that makes me wonder why a sockpuppet editor would have added legit links that don't help or hurt anyone? —GoldRingChip 17:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)