Talk:Tennessee House of Representatives

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 22 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnicoll123, ZachStinnett, Korrynlom. Peer reviewers: Kinsholland, Bfwaldrep, Knc459, Mei Kaneko, NathanG0454.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Government majority

If there are 52 Democrats and 46 Republics, how is it that the government majority is 8, not 6? I'd be bold and change it immediately, but I'm not that familiar with this kind of thing, so perhaps the terminology is otherwise than I understand it. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it has been wrong ever since the list of the membership of the current General Assembly was added circa January 2007. (Previously the number given for the Majority was 9, and that was consistent with the numbers given for Ds and Rs.) I deleted the "Majority" row in the table. Users can do the arithmetic. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Salary & Benefits

Does anyone know where the salary information for Tennessee Representatives & Senators can be found? The state budget records only administrative costs including administrative assistants, clerks & data entry personnel so as not to define the Reps & Senators salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfingdaddy (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Majority/minority?

An unsourced statement in the article suggests that in return for making Republican Willians speaker, Williams voted to make a Democrat majority leader, but the infobox doesn't support that. Does anyone know what happened? Qqqqqq (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to figure out what's going on a bit later. The note about the "Senate" majority leader I changed to house, as it would make no sense for it to be the Senate leader being voted on in the house. Currently, the article is a mess, but I will clean it up when I get an opportunity. Ngchen (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Williams is a REPUBLICAN. So There are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. So the GOP is in the MAJORITY. The Democratic Leader just nominated Williams, a Republican, as Speaker. Terrancee —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Well, committee chairs are Dems. Please provide evidence that the Republican leadership is officially the "majority" leadership (and likewise for Dems). The official website does not list majority and minority party leadership, but rather Republican and Democratic leadership. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the TN General Assembly Site, MOST House Chairs are REPUBLICAN. All HOuse committeees have equal amounts of Democrats and Republicans on them. If you know anything about TN politics, you would know who is in the Majority and Minority. www.capitol.tn.gov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrancee (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Insulting me is a good way to figure out what the reality of the situation is. It's obvious that I find the situation more nuanced that you do; an earlier version of this page suggested that in exchange for electing Williams speaker, he voted with the Democrats on an organizing resolution that put them as the majority party, but that claim wasn't supported by a link, so it was removed. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A Democrat was elected House speaker pro-tem. Read the article about Williams for more information. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting mess. So if Williams was expelled from the Republican caucus, what does that mean for party control? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kent Williams still considers himself to be a republican. And to user Q, Where are you from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.27.2 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But if he's been expelled from the caucus, the that would put the GOP caucus at 49 members, the Dem caucus at 49 members, and 1—Williams—in neither caucus. (You can see where I'm from on the userbox subpage of my user page.) Qqqqqq (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's still not at all clear what's going on in the House this session. Although the Republicans aren't caucusing with him, Williams is still a Republican in terms of his views (although he's not as far to the right as Jason Mumpower and Beth Harwell), so Republican interests are likely to prevail if there are party-line votes. Also, although the committee memberships are equally divided by party, the specific composition of committees has changed. One effect is that some conservative bills that have been buried in committees in past legislative sessions will be getting to the floor (and probably passing) this year. Williams is still a Republican, but the state party was expected to announce its decision today on whether they are kicking him out of the party. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Party Status of Kent Williams

Even though Speaker Williams was stripped of 'bona fide' Republican Status, He says that he is still a Republican. So until he says that he will become independent, lets leave the party affiliations alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.204.41 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tennessee news media are reporting that the House is now divided 49-49, plus one independent. --Orlady (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the proper term be 'Independent Republican? That seems more fitting. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.204.41 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds to me like original research. Wikipedia does not make up terminology. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But 'Independent Republican' is not a made up term or original research. Here is the article: Independent Republican —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.27.2 (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's original research to claim that a certain politician is of a certain political affiliation without providing an external source backing up the claim. Qqqqqq (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It may be a real term, but AFAIK there is no evidence that Kent Williams has ever used it to describe himself. Similarly, the former Republican who served in the previous General Assembly as an Independent (Micheal R. Williams) did not use that name. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A good example—Micheal Williams having been officially an "Independent NASCAR Fan" as his (party) affiliation. I think Orlady's suggestion of "unaffiliated" is the most accurate; even "Independent" is original research until Kent Williams or the Secretary of the House issues a statement giving Williams' new party affiliation. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On the House of Representative website, Williams is listed as a Republican even though he is not a member of the Republican Caucus. Until that is officially changed, we may want to leave this alone. Tennessee News media says that there is one independent, but Williams has not came out and said that he is an Independent. And I don't see him listed as independent on the website, unless there is an official release from the general assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrancee (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The site hasn't been updated, but "Independent Republican" is still original research. Also, why do you continue to remove the expanded chart? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tennessean quotes Odom as saying, "'The leader of the state Republican Party not only lost the speaker's position, but they also lost a majority in the House of Representatives. [...] They can't refer to Mumpower as the majority leader anymore.'" Is this just political posturing, or can we take him at his word? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times states that the GOP is no longer in the majority and that Williams is no longer a Republican: "he is technically not a member of either party now, and thus neither party controls the chamber" and "some Republicans have questioned the wisdom of ejecting Mr. Williams, and the party’s majority with it." Surely the Times is sufficiently reputable a source. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Tennessean article describes Williams as an "independent". His own declaration of "Carter County Republican" from the other Tennessean article is a declaration of party or just a rhetorical phrase? Nonetheless I kind of sense that the House website isn't going to be updated for awhile, at least. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, all is resolved. Williams' official page lists his affiliation as "Carter County Republican". There we go. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, here's a quotation from yesterday's edition of the Tennessee Journal (a state political newsletter):

Not only can’t Williams run for reelection as a Republican, the GOP State Executive Committee has adopted a resolution urging the media to “cease” referring to him as one. What a dilemma. Should we continue to write “R-Butler” after his name against the wishes of the party chieftains? Should we label him “I-Butler” when he hasn’t declared himself an independent? The General Assembly web site officially lists him as “Carter County Republican-Elizabethton.” ....For now we’ll use “?-Butler.” --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership table

I had misread Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), skipping over this exception to the overlinking guidelines: "Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." I'll work on wikilinking the rest of the county names in the table soon, even though I'm not sure I agree with this particular point of style. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What style do you suggest? If there is a compact and better way, im willing to try it. I actually added the counties to the table a few weeks ago. But if theres a better way, feel free. Terrancee (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I readded the links for every time a county appeared in the table, but I think in general an abundance of wikilinks makes large blocks of text kind of hard to read, but that's just me. The current way seems fine to me. What do you think? Also, what do you think about linking to the reps' official sites, or perhaps maps of the districts, for each member? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Those external links you are suggesting don't sound like they would be consistent with WP:EL, Qqqqqq. Anyway, if there are going to be maps, I think a single map of the whole state (or even maps of regions) would be far more useful than district maps like this one. The state used to have online maps at a statewide or regional scale, but I can't find them now...

As for wikilinks, the value of wikilinking every entry becomes clear when the table is sortable. I figured this one would be more useful in sortable form, so I took the liberty of making it sortable. Note that I also changed some of the entries on the county list, based on http://www.capitol.tn.gov/districtmaps/ and http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/maps/house.pdf and http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/maps/counties.pdf --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, probably so on the links, and the sortable table looks good. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It does, I like the new table. Good Job. Terrancee (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaker of the House Section

It seems to me that the Speaker section denotes sectionalism and events and not really what the speaker does. What do you guys think?Terrancee (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that more information in the duties of the speaker would be helpful. For that matter, the article generally trends toward recentism, so more content on the operations—historical and legal—of the House would, I think, be appropriate. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Check this link out: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/speaker.html. It has a lot of information about what the speaker does more in depth than whats on this articles. I say we use some of the info on here. Terrancee (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of that information would be great to have here. I'll take a stab at it at some point, unless you're so inclined to get to it first. Qqqqqq (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Tell me what you think of the new speaker section. I added the deleted info to the Kent Williams article. Terrancee (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely good additions. I wonder, though, whether the information now relegated to Kent Williams (politician) shouldn't be included under the section on the current (106th) Legislature. Some states that have more colorful political histories, or which are simply more populous, now have specific articles on past meetings of their legislatures. Off the top of my head, California has several of these; Georgia, Texas, and Utah a few each. Perhaps we could try something similar for Tennessee. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, In the intro maybe? Or another section? Its up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrancee (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kent Williams Update

According to the Tennessean newspaper, The TN House GOP Caucus has voted to reinstate Kent Williams as a member of the caucus. Here is the link: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090312/NEWS0201/903120326/1009/NEWS02. This is something we will need to watch in the coming weeks I Imagine. Terrancee (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. I guess we should again go with what Williams' official House website gives as his affiliation. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was thinking. This is a roller coaster of events. Terrancee (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Williams actually caucus with the Dems? Qqqqqq (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought not. I'm going to revert the recent edits that asserted that he did. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating the Page

I am in the process of undating this page, if any one would like to assist, feel free! :) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Committee Structure/ Other Enhancements?

I will begin adding the committee structure to the site. Are there any other items that should be added t make this article better? Terrancee —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Edits

A few jackasses have been doing a series of standard butthurt political nonsense vandal edits. I've reverted the page to the earliest non-vandalized version, from April 1.

Their IPs are: [107.77.241.12], [141.225.243.16], and [141.225.243.16].

Johnny Wishbone (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought that the information was very relevant and the page is full of details. I was not confused by the direction or layout of the page, and I feel like people will come away from the page more informed than they were before they visited it. The charts were helpful in keeping the information organized in my brain, and I felt like the page was informative and organized. Overall, a great job was done to portray the information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinsholland (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that this article is well-organized. Some charts are easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mei Kaneko (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this article has helped me learn more about a complex system. Thank you all for helping keep this article up to date and clear. Has anyone ever found a listing of salaries? Jesshcollins (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)