Talk:List of members of the U.S. Congress who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guidance going forward[edit]

Questions about what 'elected officials' should mean in this context. What's a good scope for this? Elected US officials, US-federal legislators, or politicians in general? --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... work in progress-- shold this be merged into parent or developed in place? --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged back into the article. The Opposed doesn't have its own article. Just seems it was taken out to shorten the supporters list. 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.87.186 (talk)
Oh yes-- this was an excellent point that was raised early on. For what it's worth-- the 'supporters' were 'on the record as co-sponsors', so it was easier to find them. The opponent list took longer to assemble. +1 to you! :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix columns?[edit]

The thumbnail seems to conflict with col-break? what am I doing wrong? --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating feedback[edit]

Two good pieces of feedback-- (1) included opponents too. (2) update with cited news reports as people change status. I'm putting in the first references I see, but I/We should go back and replace them with online sources later. HectorMoffet (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Okay-- notable opponents have been added too. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future[edit]

I would like to see listed pro and con legislators ordered alphabetically by state rather than (or as well as) by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.51.252 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures don't add anything substantive[edit]

1. The pictures of people don't add anything of notable interest to this article.

2. The pictures without captions are especially useless because there's no indication of why these people should be considered significant.

DMahalko (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I deleted several. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree strongly. It is both appropriate and convention to have images for such lists of people. I would suggest that the images deleted here be restored. The images of listed people -- in this article that is a list of people -- are relevant to the article and directly related to the article's topic .. the people listed. There is as much information about each image as there is about each entry -- each person is one who has taken a position, as indicated by their presence in this list. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an illustrated list of each subject of the listing. The editorial reason for those few proposed pictures is unclear and potentially misleading or undue, for the reasons stated, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was going to come here to disagree with Alanscottwalker, but bearing in mind the subject matter I agree entirely with his edit. There are good editorial reasons to illustrate the person that introduced each bill, and an image or two of the most vocal opponents for balance (that said, I'd strongly advocate an image of a prominent Republican opponent in the House of Representatives to assist with balance). I think there are strong undue weight risks attached to going beyond that. More than ever in light of the blackout, we must go out of our way to ensure that all images are highly appropriate. —WFC— 02:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience -- and I've edited hundreds of lists I believe -- it is a common practice. Sometimes, there are no images. Sometimes, there are images for every person mentioned on a list. But it is quite common -- where the list is akin to this one -- to have images for some of the people, as were deleted here. I could of course start listing examples, but those who have worked with lists of people will know what I am referring to without me doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe I've edited upwards of a hundred lists, and I agree that it is normal to add as many of the available images as you can reasonably fit. The difference here is that support or opposition to these bills is being portrayed by opposers and supporters respectively of being a particularly bad thing, more so than on just about any political issue short of abortion, healthcare and war. The subject matter itself should therefore be considered controversial. The test I use for controversial lists is whether it's reasonable to assume that if consent was asked to use a person's image in a given context, consent would be given. —WFC— 14:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think pictures are especially essential. The two sponsors seem logical choices for pictures, and any really vocal opponents perhaps-- but pictures don't really add that much, beyond visual balance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is more my thinking, not a special controversy rule. It should just be clear 'why' these pictures, out of potentially hundreds - keeping in mind, that we are covering, here, living politicians, with all the risks pro/con, pov/neutrality, publicity (propaganda)/information clashes that that entails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is moot now, as the columns have been re-aligned to a multiple column format, and there isn't room for multiple images. As to -- when we do have multiple images in such lists -- how we choose such images, that is generally a matter of good editorial discretion, using good judgment (we agf, and discuss any differences on the talkpage -- the same as we do with a list of, say, "notable Polish people" and the like' we have thousands of such lists). Pictures of course -- as always -- are not "essential". When they are used, they are used because they are relevant to the article and directly related to the article's topic ... such as, in a list of people, the people listed. But, as said before, the issue is now moot as to this list.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Smith and Leahy pics are obviously good to keep. Wyden, maybe. Depends on whether he's playing an opposition leadership role (which the caption should say; being "one of the first" to oppose is simply an accident of timing. I'd add one for whoever is leading the opposition in the House, too. Adding random images of legislators would certainly raise WP:UNDUE problems. Four should be enough, unless the opposition leadership isn't very clear and we need 2 for House and 2 for Senate, for 6 total. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmap to even better article[edit]

  • Add refs to Legislator's own statement and to Reliable secondary source for EACH legislator.
  • For changes in position, note date of change and add refs.
  • table-ify to be sortable by name or by state
  • Expand legislative history narrative with notable quotes where appropriate.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infographic, impact of internet blackout[edit]

http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/

from

http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update

Check this out. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Not an ineluctable conclusion, of course, despite what the infographic's title asserts. But certainly probable, I would guess.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title change in the works?[edit]

When the page first began, it was just a List of the Co-Sponsors in the House. Now that it's fleshing out, I think it's becoming more of a "Legislative History of SOPA/PIPA" than a mere 'list'.

But that's just my thinking-- what do you think? --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it does have text, I believe it is still primarily a list. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists; lists are allowed to have explanatory text discussion (especially in their lede, but also within the list), so I think this is fine. If it were to become primarily text, I would think we could look at a change.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Font size change to certain names[edit]

The names of some of the listed people have been reduced to a smaller (than is comfortable for me to read) font. I would suggest that the font of those people be restored, so that their names are listed in the same font as the other names. The focus of this article, after all, is the list of names. No reason to reduce the names themselves in size, making it more difficult to read them. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to restoring the original font size. I made it smaller in response to the AFD concerns that the names were taking up too much space. BOLD exists to be reverted-- please use whatever font size you and others think best. Just a trial experiment. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your flexibility, and reconsidering it. As list pages go, this page doesn't take up an inordinate amount of room, and given that the focus of the page is the names ... Many thanks for your effort to make everyone happy, however. I've reverted the font of those names that were made smaller, to the normal size. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Notability tag.[edit]

I removed the Notability tag. I disagreed that this article should be here, but it is clear from the deletion discussion that it will remain for now. I want to assert two things.

  • Others who oppose this list being here should just leave it alone. The deletion discussion was had and results is what it is. I'm sure its deletion or merger will come up again, but I think we should let time pass before addressing it again. (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
  • This list of people is a complete list of people, not just a list of notable people. In that, the list should be complete and notability of each entry need not be established. (Each entry must be verifiable of course.) (WP:NLIST, WP:LSC)

Let's just carry on with creating an encylopidia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congressperson a real word?[edit]

Of course you instinctively know it is not a real word. What is wrong with "Congress members"? This is a good case of the "tin ear" syndrome. Just my thoughts; I hope nobody takes offense. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of US Congresspersons who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of US Congresspersons who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_members_of_the_U.S._Congress_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA&oldid=1199511548"