Talk:Federal Reserve Transparency Act

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

Criticism[edit]

Does this bill have any critics other than legislative friction? If so, what are their arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.27 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Labeling[edit]

Propose changing the pejorative "Democrat cosponsor" on the maps for this article to the correct "Democratic cosponsor". See: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsiegal (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources[edit]

Just making a permanent record of some additional sources that have less than top-tier reliability, for anyone interested: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] JJB 15:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose a move[edit]

From "Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009" to "Federal Reserve Transparency Act", for conformity with the style used by other bills. If no comment in a week, I will ask an admin for the housekeeping necessary. JJB 12:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, that way when Paul proposes this bill every year until he leaves office, we won't need a new page. However, won't that make the information out of date next time? Burzmali (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running tally and percent[edit]

I propose two standards for the running tally and % of votes needed elements of the article.

  • The tally is kept matched to Thomas. The 92 co-sponsor revert series that ran over the weekend could have been avoided by sticking to a single, neutral, reliable source for the information.
  • The number of cosponsors a bill has does not convert directly to votes. If (and that's a big if) the bill ever makes it out of committee, it could be so changed that Paul himself might not vote in favor of it. Therefore, I believe it is disingenuous to suggest a correlation and keep a tally at this point. However, should Paul start up a petition to force the bill to the floor for a vote, a tally and % might be more relevant. Burzmali (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first problems with this are:
  • If an advocate states a different number than LOC, that difference is notable and all POVs should be represented. Dismissing the advocate position as biased ignores the fact that an advocate's early claim of additional count relates to the advocate's credibility; and the last two times this happened, as the article shows, the advocate was right. My compromise of saying "at least" the LOC number is one appropriate solution that preserves the multiple POVs, unlike the above proposal. Further, we are really only talking about one day's, or one weekend's, lag, and this is hardly a topic for Burzmali to edit-war about (I don't consider my compromise part of the reversion cycle).
  • A bill sponsored by over one-quarter of Congress, i.e., half a majority of Congress, is appropriately compared mathematically with the total majority of Congress. Math is not OR, but 218 sponsorships on any bill do equal an effective easy ride to passage.
The additional problem is that Burzmali is the only editor favoring these proposals with any strength, as the history shows, and Burzmali's involvement with this issue suggests the word "disingenuous" may be a form of projection. Having become a virtual WP:SPA in the past month or two, Burzmali has recently nominated and lost two deletion debates on this article and Rand Paul, and a deletion review on this article (unanimously), and that's without mentioning his history of many other Paul-family-related deletion attempts. If Burzmali were actually favoring a link of the sponsorship count to Thomas, he would have been updating that sponsorship count when it increases as well (rather than leaving the job to IPs), instead of only cutting back potential overstatements. His other edit history is similarly one-sided. He has also accused me of starting a drama by my pointing out appropriate evidence, such as the above, that his proposals suffer from significant WP:POV; and so I deliberately shrink back from listing everything that could be said, to avoid wasting my time unduly, and of course to avoid being cast as the aggressor. As I've said, the only good faith I have left for him is that he means well in spite of his stated intentions. JJB 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Attacking me doesn't make the encyclopedia better John. We both know that certain editors, including IPs, are waiting with bells on to update the page when Thomas updates. WP:NPOV requires that all POVs in an article be supported by a Reliable source. What reliable source was published the 92 co-sponsor figure, which is/was inaccurate? I only check the LOC once a day, unless someone else changes the tally. I am contesting the percentage because it strongly suggests that the bill is 50% of the way to being passed, which isn't the case, and no WP:RS supports that position. On the other hand, if Paul starts a petition, each signature is a direct step into forcing a vote, so I think that would be justified. Burzmali (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia for context[edit]

For an example of the twists, H.Res. 106/H.Res. 252 got over 218 cosponsorships, then had fewer because of withdrawals, eventually reached 237, was sent from committee for a vote, was never voted on, died and was reintroduced, and now has 116 cosponsorships: see United States resolution on Armenian genocide. JJB 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

JJB, your point is well taken, and I like your re-phrasing of the vote percentage, etc. Having the sponsors is not a foregone conclusion but is, at least, a preliminary indication of a bill with an increasing likelihood of passage. Then again, I expect the powers-that-be will be out in force (committee level and elsewhere) if it ever really looks like a genuine audit of the Fed is in the offing. --RayBirks (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I sent this bill to AFD last month. Even if it does get 218+ cosponsors, it won't go to a vote unless the committee it is rotting in releases it (which happens < 1% of the time for Paul's bills) or Paul circulates a petition (which would only need 218 signatures) to bring it back to the House floor. Any bill that get a high number of cosponsors but dies in committee due to a lack of a petition is more of a political maneuver than a serious attempt to pass a law. Burzmali (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many cosponsors?[edit]

"H.R. 1207 now has 289 cosponsors,[15] including all House Republicans, as well as over 100 Democrats, suggesting broad bipartisan support.[16][17] The total of 290 sponsors is 67% of the House membership. "

Is it 289 or 290? --MOA12345 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of this posting, it is 290, and the page has been revised accordingly.--JayJasper (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of cosponsors is now 301. Eat that, Bernanke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.104.35 (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the bill[edit]

A new interview with Barney Frank was published, which discusses, among other things, this bill. In it Frank says that Paul did not just introduce the legislation this 111th Congress, but he was pushing for it since 1983, when Frank was a second-term Congressman. Under Seniority rules, Frank would have headed the subcommittee for passing this legislation while the Republicans were in power, but the Republicans wanted to protect the Federal Reserve, and so (and Paul has attested to this) made many maneuvers—merging committees, bringing in higher ranking members from other committees to prevent this from being acted on. I think it would be useful to have this information in a history section, and also to detail Frank's relationship to the bill, which has been generally positive, but given an almost sinister tone in the article. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revamp of article[edit]

With the recent passing of the amendment to the FSIA, similar information was added in a few places in the article. I made some small changes yesterday, but didn't notice that we've got the same material included 3-4 times. There's also some stuff that frankly just doesn't belong in the article, such as listing when various people co-sponsored, etc.

Here's my suggested reorganization:

  • Lede
  • Purpose
  • House
    • Progress
    • Amendment to HR 3996
  • Senate
    • Progress
    • Amendment 1367
  • Related Legislation
  • Reception
  • Advocacy

Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and went ahead with the reorg. I think it's a bit easier to read the article and better covers what happened on the 19th. I'm going through the article now, looking for language tweaks to help the overall flow and cut down on some of the overlinking that's present.
Won't be today, but I'm also planning on reviewing some of the references. WND isn't always the best reference for facts, and just from glancing at some of the other links, I know there are alternates to more "mainstream" publications. I'd love to find some more material covering the background of the Paul-Grayson amendment, why it was done vs the stand-alone bill, etc. I've got my own opinion on that, but quite obviously, I'm neither notable nor published in that field! Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great job with the reorg. I think the article looks better and is much more reader-friendly. Thanks for taking the initiative with this, keep up the good work! I'll be happy to assist when I can.--JayJasper (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg line removed[edit]

I've removed a line added by Scientus. The line added a comment suggesting that someone opposing the bill is influenced by their personal holdings. The fact they have the holding is sourced to Opensecrets.org, but there's some SYN and POV in the placement of the statement that is not supported by the source. It's a pretty blatant attempt to "explain away" a criticism. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube links removed[edit]

I've removed three Youtube links added by Scientus. They were added as a new section "Sources". At a minimum, they should have either been added as references, and included in the reference section, or added as external links as they aren't referenced anywhere. I considered moving them to EL, but they don't add anything to the article that isn't already provided. There's also the usual concerns about Youtube. Please discuss this here before re-adding the links. Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources[edit]

POV flag added. There is no discussion of opposition to the bill, who opposes it or the reasons for that opposition. Uberhill 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

I noticed a similar problem, but there do not seem to be any vocal oppositions to the bills, just legislative friction. Anyone with counterexamples please list them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.27 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

status of the 2012 bill[edit]

without objection, i would like to add some material on why the senate never voted on the 2012 bill. [13] and [14] Darkstar1st (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source isn't a WP:RSand the second source isn't much better. With the line "unconstitutional central bank", there's just a slight agenda being pushed there. No objections in general but no way with those sources. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i did not intend to source the passage, although would welcome anyone who does wish to add a source. the bill did not come up for a vote despite having 200+ bipartisan co-sponsors. i will let the readers draw their own conclusions as to why. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Republican sponsored bill not coming up for a vote in the Cemocratic controlled senate, when most of the support for the bill is in the House? I'm shocked, shocked! to hear that! Next you'll say that bills supported by Democratic senators won't come up for votes in the Republican controlled house. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add original research to Wikipedia. Dyrnych (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why are you accusing me of OR? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that an unsourced passage describing "why the senate never voted on the 2012 bill" is extremely likely to be OR. Dyrnych (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013[edit]

without objection i will add some material about this version of the bill. [15] and the senate version [16] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got primary sources there. It's fine to acknowledge basic information about the bills, but tread carefully. Dyrnych (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as in above, i have no plans of sourcing my edits, some simply need none. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but WP policy is as follows: "[t]he prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." The existence of the bills and basic facts about them (sponsors, authorship, etc.) may not need to be sourced (although you've already sourced that claim, so there's no reason not to include it), but any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the content of the bills should absolutely be sourced to an independent secondary source. Dyrnych (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At most, probably a line saying a similar bill was introduced in 2013 and the current status. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Raven and Dyrnych i would happily yield the actual editor to either or both of you. i sense you have some reservations and do not wish to force this material on the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no objections about adding the material, just be careful what you say about it. If anyone has a problem with your edit we can always revert and discuss further, per WP:BRD. Dyrnych (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree - need the secondary sources before anything. Congress.gov is a good ref for the # of sponsors, status, but not much beyond that. Ravensfire (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

This is a very one sided article. The criticism section ignores any of the arguments against the bill, and does not even provide input from Fed leaders who have explained at least some of their reasons for opposition.

I get that the pro side is more vocal, as they use it as a campaign issue, but there are arguments against and some effort should be made to explain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.168.62 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me if this is a Bill or not? I can't tell from this confusing article.[edit]

As it appears as I write this, I have read the pre-TOC section 3 times and I STILL can't tell if it passed or failed. I THINK I gather that 3 previous versions have failed. Using ESP I divine that despite the Bill's name (saying 2015) that it is still up for voting consideration in late 2016. I started to read and read and read the rest of the article body before asking why am I having to do this? The first section should at least tell if it passed or not. (Putting in dates rather than "113th Congress" would be a huge start.) Thanks.24.27.72.99 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Reserve Transparency Act. 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) 05:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act&oldid=1198594045"