This page 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
As including former members at their former ranks is somewhat ill-defined - as that means the table reflects the ranks of members at various points in time - and makes the ranking confusing to parse - because they push current members down visually to below what their real current ranking is - I propose eliminating former members from these tables (then maybe writing short notes about them below), or moving them to the bottom, or to a separate section. I think the table should reflect committee rosters at the beginning of the Congress, as is the case for former Congresses and as is done for each representative's committee assignments; committee rosters as they stand currently, as this would give readers up-to-date information without clutter; or both, in 2 separate tables. Each of these would make it easier to keep these up to date, too. For example, the subcommittees Kevin Kiley was reappointed to still have not been updated, and it would be much easier to do this if these tables were cleaner. Accurate information is better than detailed inaccurate information. I did some searching to find where the consensus for this notice originated and didn't find any discussion, so I don't know whom to tag here. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
this one has had a number of departures; see the "until [date]" notes. it would be better to store these in a separate location from the "live" table of current members. Blippy1998 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'm concerned each of your proposals has signifcant downsides: right now, at the end of the 119th, we can simply "archive" the current table to the bottom. I think (let me know if you disagree) that listing as we do now makes sense for the past-Congress tables. Of your suggestions, moving the former members to the bottom of each column seems the least objectionable. But I'm not really understanding the problem now. How does the presense of former members make adding Kiley's subcommittee assignments harder? Note also the table is labeled as "119th" members not "current" members". meamemg (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
None of it is perfect, unfortunately. (Ideally, one could have a scrollbar or something and scroll through a quasi-animated chronological set of tables, or some such thing, but that's not practical.) "Archiving" the table does seem convenient, but even in past Congresses, it is not always immediately clear what the ranks of the members were, although the tables do try to encode that information by listing them in rank-order. All that would be, on balance, "fine", though - with its plusses and minusses - but for the fact that the House Clerk maintains an updated xml file of committee assignments and current members, making it easy to maintain an authoritative, up-to-date list of current members on all committees and subcommittees automatically with minimal latency. However, the policy in this edit notice prevents that from happening by requiring former members - which are not listed in the Clerk's source - to remain on the list. Given that, I think the balance falls in favor of omitting or moving former members manually to reduce latency of updates from months to hours on infrequently-edited pages. Blippy1998 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Or, at the risk of making the page a bit longer by adding one extra table, one could rename the "Past rosters" sections to "Historical rosters", include the current, manually-edited current (now 119th) Congress's roster in a subsection there (i.e. just move it to already be in the "archive" under "119th Congress"), and change the "Members, [current] Congress" section to just "Current members", and have that one be automatically updated, which would seem like the closest we might get to the best of both worlds. Blippy1998 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 30 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest. I participated in drafting this bill and co-authored the academic article behind it. I will not write or edit the article. I am asking whether editors here think the topic clears WP:GNG.
S. 4825, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in June 2026, has no article. Coverage:
Some of the above are paywalled, which I understand is not a bar under WP:PAYWALL.
Origins and background
The New York Times DealBook, Peter Coy, June 13, 2026 — reports the bill followed a law review article and describes the authors' prior conference presentations
The Information, June 20, 2026 — profile of one of the authors
The New York Times, Bernie Sanders op-ed, June 1, 2026 — states the proposal originated in existing scholarship and links to the underlying work
The DealBook and Information pieces cover the bill's origins in the academic literature, which would be the relevant sourcing for a background section.
