Talk:Congressional Research Service

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Congressional Research Service article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: District of Columbia / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

CRS Report

I'm not fond of the redirect from CRS Report to Congressional_Research_Service, since I frequently insert the CRS Report wikilink to inform outsiders what a CRS Report is, leaving them quite befuddled.

I'm going to add a note to my to-do list to solve this problem, but if someone can tackle it in the meantime that would be great. Until then, I'm changing the redirect to point to Congressional_Research_Service#CRS_Products. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly not so RS after all...

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/01/quote-of-the-day-2.html In 2003, Dan invented a new standard of ‘neutrality’ that prohibits any analyst, no matter the weight of evidence, from stating that one position is stronger than another. The result is a remarkable watering down of CRS reports, a trend that has been noticed not only by congressional staff but by readers outside of Congress. Neither CBO nor GAO follows the standard of ‘neutrality[.]’

Ouch! Hcobb (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a common refrain from long-time staff.

See long video of experts on CRS. http://transparencycaucus.org/events/2011/05/09/may-2011-act-event/

Luminousenchiladas (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nonpartisanship - what exactly does that mean?

Nonpartisanship is a deceptive misnomer that attempts to paint a patina of objectivity onto material that is anything but objective. To many, nonpartisanship implies "unaffiliated with any political party, e.g. no Democrat or Republican bias". However, that definition is inadequate at best, deceptive at worst. What nonpartisanship should imply is "unaffiliated with any specific political philosophy, e.g. no bias in the Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, libertarian, Socialist, Communist, etc. direction". From my perusal of the work done by the CRS, that is just not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.178.22 (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you appear to be wishing to wield a definition of "nonpartisan" that is not in the English language dictionaries, which focus on relationship to party, not philosophy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS defunct; Need expert update

On July 5, 2016, THOMAS was replaced by (or merged into) congress.gov. This article lists 14 places that still refer to THOMAS, as well as LIS and crs.gov. According to the article, these three websites have different contents and different access procedures.

Now that THOMAS is no more, this article needs a major update by someone familiar with the subject. For example, what was the purpose of switching over to congress.gov? With the reorganization, will all CRS Reports be available to the public? This update should be made in concert with changes to congress.gov. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to old revisions

I stumbled upon this article when it appeared like this [2], with lots of links to old revisions in the "Confidentiality of CRS Reports" section. I can't find the specific part of the MOS that says you're not supposed to do this, but I'm pretty certain links to diffs aren't supposed to be in mainspace, so I've removed them; I also removed a few parts that didn't really make sense without the diffs, and which were uncited. Thought I'd mention it here in case anyone ever wants to bring back anything useful from those old revisions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]