Talk:United States Congress/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sandbox article United States Congress/sandbox

I'm going to be working on and off on an upgrade of the Congress article, trying to address peoples concerns and overall making the article better. I encourage others to participate. The idea is to address concerns about the criticism section, add more information, better pictures. Does anybody know good books by academics about Congress, its history, which are online (and therefore easily referenced). When the upgrade is ready, people should look it over and see if its up to snuff and ready for primetime. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am really uncomfortable with spinning the criticism off into a knol article. I'm going to restore it. It does need some cleanup, but wiping the whole thing from the article until it's "perfect" is not appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, if the past is any guide to the future, Andy120290 will revert your restoration of the Criticism section. If he does, perhaps someone needs to take the plunge and post a request at WP:AN/EW.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Further thoughts:

1. The "Apathetic voters" section can go. That's nothing to do with Congress per se.
2. Move the "Political action committees" section to the PAC article (to the degree that info is not already there.)
3. Move "Smaller states vs Larger states" to the top of the list: that's a criticism of the design of Congress, as opposed to the behavior of its members, so that seems like that should be the key criticism.
4. (ETA): The "Low approval ratings" section can go. People not approving of it isn't a criticism; there of lots of things that have low approval ratings, the useful info is why, which is covered in the other sections.

Any objections? 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Apathetic voters: I think the section is useful and does have to do with Congress. Congress represents the will of the people and if fewer people are voting, fewer people are being truly represented. Implicitly, Congress is being criticized by voters' dislike of members' actions.

Politicial action comittees. How about shortening it with a main article link at the beginning of it. It's a useful section, but it's too long.

Low approval ratings. Could this section be combined with the apathy section? Isn't it related? Where is it covered elsewhere in the article (excuse my laziness)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good constructive ideas. I ported them to the sandbox. One thing I've noticed is that the "procedures" section seems short; maybe what's needed is much more information, probably a spin-off article with a "Main: Congressional procedures" heading on the new version. Somewhat agree about shortening political action committees, or spinning off another article. Agree about combining low approval ratings with apathy. Generally do people want these things spun into the fabric of the main article, and having the "criticism" subheading removed? My sense is this is what most of us want.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First, at the risk of sounding like a broken record (I've said this before on Talk pages of the other affected articles), I think we should do what 28bytes started doing (applause), which is addressing each criticism separately as to whether it belongs in the article at all. Second, if there's agreement that the crticism belongs, then we have to decide where in the article it should go and insert it. My suggestion is that rather than try to move every single criticism into a sandbox for examination, maybe you could do this one at a time? It's so much easier to discuss just one piece than to try to discuss all of them together. I also don't see why we have to feel any major pressure because of editors who want to remove everything wholesale. The section has been in place for almost a year. It was added after extensive discussion. If it takes some time to revamp it, better to do it deliberately and carefully than rush into it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion. I think we should do both, that is, determine which criticisms should belong; if so, where they go. But at the same time I'm working on an upgrade which people can look at (and assist with hopefully?) to really try to revamp this article. We won't rush anything into the final version until people look over proposed changes and agree that it's ready. My overall sense is this article is long overdue for a makeover. But I'm not planning to delete any of the existing stuff (ie how it is now minus the criticism section) but to add new stuff, more references, maybe pictures. And about the criticisms, let me know which ones are keepers and which ones are droppers. If the new proposed version of US Congress gets too long, then maybe we can spinoff articles. There's a huge amount of stuff on procedures which I'm coming across, but since this is a summary article, the task is to focus in on the main important stuff and keep this thing from getting too long. Right now references are about 60; my sense is they should number about 300.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with there being a criticism section: for an institution like Congress, it seems appropriate to first discuss how it's designed, then go into some problems with its design and execution. Re the low approval ratings, I'm afraid I still think this is unnecessary, since the paragraph basically says that sometimes the approval ratings are high (after 9/11/01) and sometimes they're low. That's just not a "criticism" of Congress. It needs to go elsewhere in the article or dropped entirely, I think. 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I reworked the approval ratings section into an introductory sentence. Hopefully that will be a good compromise. 28bytes (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the "Smaller states versus larger states" section to the top. I'll hold off on any more changes for the time being. I'd really like to take out the "apathetic voters" section, but I'll wait to see how consensus develops on that. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure I agree with your view on approval ratings, so I inserted the old approval subsection into the apathy subsection but left your introductory sentence in as well. Maybe others can chime in whether they prefer yours, mine, or something in between. I also separated everything into subsections (so much easier to work with although arguably it makes the section more prominent) and removed the weasel tag (there's already a tag about NPOV at the head of the section and the weasel tag seems to come out of nowhere in the middle, yet referring to the "article"). I too will leave it alone for a bit to see if others wish to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was aiming to streamline it. Having it in there twice seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong direction, of course, depends on your point of view. :-) However, I agree it shouldn't be in both places. I just felt it was easier to leave both in until a consensus is reached (if we're lucky) on the issue. Then, it can be edited to reflect the consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wondering what the consensus is on whether to (1) keep criticism section as a separate section at the bottom or (2) move criticisms to areas within the other parts of the article? I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but lean towards merging it into the article, since it's kind of like a lightning rod attracting comments about it being too unfair, not neutral, etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected might happen, Andy reverted again, this time with no edit summary at all. For the first time, I've undone the reversion, mainly because I felt, like other editors, I should show some solidarity. I've also reported him to WP:AN/EW. Never done that before, and the instructions on what to do are SO complicated. Hopefully, I got it right or at least close enough for the admins not to be annoyed with me. I've done all I can do on the reversion issue now. I don't intend to undo any of his reversions in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bbb23, I thoroughly agree. Thanks for taking the step you took. I hope the admins will see what's going on (namely, one user repeatedly deleting a whole section without offering reasons) and take action. While I agree Andy's actions are unjustified, and I believe there should be discussion about major changes here in the talk page, my personal sense is that the United States Congress article can be improved substantially -- that is, something much better than the version with the criticism section, and the version with the criticism section deleted. I am working on a version in the sandbox which hopefully will be ready in a day or so which perhaps everybody will like better? And I'm trying hard to make it factual, well-referenced, neutral, thorough, and worthy of Wikipedia and hopefully pushing the article once again in the direction of Featured Status. And there will be time for others to look it over in the sandox here, comment, suggest changes and such beforehand. I'm kind of thinking that the spirit of the criticism section is a bit harsh so I hope Andy too will take a look at a new proposed version and make comments, and hopefully will support our combined effort.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the case for deleting the criticism section here

This back and forth isn't productive. In my view, our job as Wikipedians is to describe Congress -- how it works, what it is, the history, its powers, its critics, its pluses and minuses, how it interacts with other branches of government -- the whole shebang. Please remember that it is a (1) powerful institution which has (2) extremely low approval ratings by the American public (25% or less). To have a Wikipedia article that doesn't even give readers a clue about why the poll numbers are so low would be, in my view, misleading. If you feel there are huge positives about the Congress in the mainstream press, please add them and show references. If you feel that some of the criticisms are too tough, please note which ones, and give references proving your case; if you give references to show differing viewpoints or countervailing views, I'll support your constructive additions. And I don't believe this is an "anti-government" diatribe but rather a pro-government section because it says, in effect, that the US is tough enough to criticize itself. Shunting negatives under the table won't help anybody. And I bet congresspersons, themselves, would agree with the criticisms here. They're well documented. But criticism of the congress is exactly what is needed. The only persons I can imagine who might have a vested interest in not having this section are congresspersons, aides, or lobbyists who like the current arrangement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of battling is unproductive. And people need to make their cases. In the meantime, I'm putting an "external link" to the deleted criticism section (in knol format) at the bottom so IF readers want to see the questionable section, they can find it there. This is a temporary compromise. Please don't remove it. When I get time I'll try to seriously upgrade this article and if people wish to help let me know, but I think the key is more references and more research, and specific criticism (as well as praise & positive comments) worked into the article, and perhaps not having a separate criticism section will be more appealing to everybody all around? But please give me a week or so -- I have other stuff to do (repointing bricks etc). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the section, but does anyone have reasons why this section should be in or out of the article? I'll wait for replies.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism material warranted, but structure is bad

Opinion on this dispute was solicited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress‎. I think inclusion of the material on Congressional population structure, pay, partisanship, role vis a vis the executive, reelection rates, etc. is all warranted. But the way it is done here is bad. First, standalone "Criticisms" sections are not a good idea. It's much better to integrate such material into a cohesive whole. So for example, describe the party structure of Congress in general, and then mention how partisan gridlock can occur. Second, most of this material shows a large amount of WP:RECENTISM. Third, the sources aren't always the best. There's a huge amount of literature in American political science on all of these subjects, and it covers large periods of Congress's history, not just the last few years. Those would be better sources than a bunch of newspaper and magazine articles from the 2000s. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Am working to fix this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my request for input. There are definitely others who agree with you that incorporating the criticism into the body of the article is superior to a standalone section. Procedurally, though, it would be helpful to keep the standalone section until incorporation can be completed, particularly because the section has been in place with prior discussion for almost a year (although it's again been removed by Andy). I'm not sure how much work is entailed in identifying better sources, but my (usual) suggestion is to take things step by step. So, perhaps incorporation starts first with the sources we already have and then people can update the sources. Or perhaps we update the sources and then incorporate. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. It would also be helpful to identify if there are any specific criticisms that should be scuttled completely (and why). I know Tom is working on a new version in his sandbox if anyone wants to take a look at it, but I think it's still relatively unfinished as he's just noted some of the comments here and what needs to be done. I can't stress enough that, in my view, people should be specific about what they don't like and why, or how something can be improved and why - the devil is in the details.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that incremental steps are often necessary. The most important one here would be to incorporate criticism into the mainline text of the article. For example, during 2007 and 2008 a special effort was undertaken to rid all twenty or so 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of separate "Controversies" or "Criticisms" sections or subarticles — see here for details — and while all of those articles didn't become FA or GA (although some did), all of them were better for that change. The same principles that apply to articles about people can also apply to articles about institutions. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thansk for input. Agree. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. It's excellent that Tomwsulcer is looking at the article critically, because these massive old articles really need it. It just needs to be integrated better. For one, this article should have a section called "Politics" (although this will clash with "History" to some extent). It's not totally clear how it should be done, but here are my initial thoughts:

• "Congressional pay" and "Lavish trips at taxpayer expense" – these could be merged into "Privileges". The section already includes the rise of Congressional salary, and the historical debate should be included there.

Good idea. Noted. Will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Partisan gridlock" – This could fall under "History" as it's become a dominant problem in the last few decades. It could also fall under the "Politics" section I proposed.

Good idea. Agree. Will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Smaller states versus larger states" – This doesn't have to be framed as a criticism; it's fairly factual. Put it under "Politics" and describe the "steady redistribution of resources from large states to small states" (and from blue states to red states, which isn't mentioned?).

Agreed. Will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Congressional power to declare war", "Legislative and budgetary powers", "Growing federal power" – These should fall under "Powers". That section should be about Congress's authority in practice, not just what the Constitution says.

Agreed. Will do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Congressional elections", "Campaign costs", "Constant re-election efforts", "Political action committees", "Advantages of incumbency" – "History", or "Politics". These should all be described objectively, with criticism mixed in if appropriate.

Will mix in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Apathetic voters" – Leave this out.

If it's 2 to remove, 1 to keep, (and I'm kind of on the fence), then maybe we should remove (or else have it trimmed substantially). Let's see how it goes with a new draft and see what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it's a start. I also agree that we should start with what we have and work incrementally, rather than trying to plan a perfect article from scratch. –Designate (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific suggestions. As for apathetic voters, your vote makes two in favor of removing it (28bytes being the other), with me in a minority favoring retention. Also, the former low approval section was merged into the apathetic voters section AND 28bytes added a sentence to the beginning that he felt should replace the low approval ratings part. It's all kind of complicated. However, perhaps you could explain why you don't like the apathetic voters section (including the newly merged material). Although two (you and 28bytes) to one (me) doesn't necessarily establish consensus, it's closer than we've gotten before, and I'm willing to let go of the issue once I understand better your reasons. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence about the "apathetic voters" stuff. I'm kind of thinking it belongs (but trimmed substantially) in a section dealing with congresspersons interrelating with their constituents? I'm learning new stuff from academix which kind of explains stuff better to me. Maybe in the new draft we'll keep trimmed stuff in, and see whether or how it fits, and make a decision then?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any problem with it, but I'm not a regular contributor on this article, although I do watch it. My take is that as long as it reliably cited and without bias(good luck), then its appropriate. My experience is that criticism sections to be biased regardless of whats in it, but when its balanced with the rest of the article it seems to fit well.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the apathetic voters section, but it's not the bias or sourcing I have issues with, it's the relevance. There may some relevance to democracy itself, but it just has no bearing on this particular institution. It's no more relevant here than it would be to an article on city councils, or county sheriff elections. Voter apathy is simply not specific enough to congress to warrant inclusion here. Just my 2¢. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely on board with Designate and Wasted Time R's suggestions here; they seem like a great way to move forward. (And Bbb23, thanks for taking the initiative on restoring the article.) 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed upgrade at United States Congress/sandbox

If interested, check it out. The criticisms were merged, trimmed or otherwise put into the article along the lines of comments above so it's no longer a standalone section as people have expressed concerns about. I tried my best to heed suggestions above from Bbb23, Wasted Time R, Jojhutton, 28bytes, Designate, Andy120290, and others. It's close to 200 references now. The article could use a good copyedit, trimming redundant stuff, perhaps some reorganization and formating and fresh eyes. I'm going to do other things for a while. Plus the article could use more great pictures to break up the text and make it look more beautiful. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lazy Bbb23 wants to know if hard-working Tom (or anyone else) knows a way we can compare his version with the current version so we can see the changes, other than using my tired eyes.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. It's obvious a lot of work went into this, but it would be great if there were some way of understanding what changes were made and where (the diff tool doesn't seem to be of much help here.) 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, I thought that there would be a bit more discussion (AKA: Time), to review this before this was changed. It seems that the changes have already taken place, via a cut-and-paste method I presume. There were a lot of edits and changes made, could we have a bit more time to see what they were before making a consensus decision please?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was changed, I just put the sandbox in and reverted it to look at the diff. —Designate (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea about how to compare the drafts. I tried not to delete anything from the previous draft; in comparing drafts, it sometimes looks like stuff was deleted, but it was usually just moved somewhere. I realize the proposed draft is way too long; I think it needs fresh eyes, somebody to whittle it down, or perhaps siphon off a chunk as a separate article, or to make choices. I can't work on it much over the next week or so since I have bricks and pipes to contend with, but I urge others (if interested) to take over.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what would be most helpful is if we could take each criticism point one-by-one: which criticism was it, which paragraph/section did it get merged into, and what did that paragraph/section look like before the merge? Or is the sandbox version a wholesale rewrite? 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox version is an expansion mostly. Criticisms were mostly kept, moved in to different places, and the criticism section itself was abandoned; some criticism which were moved were trimmed (eg stuff about apathetic voters I think I trimmed -- I worked quickly sorry). Kept almost all the old stuff (but again some of it may have moved or appeared to have moved.) I may have changed a section heading or two. My suggestion is take the proposed sandbox version and whittle it down to take the stuff which you feel is most interesting. Don't be afraid to cut out the junk or stuff which you think is irrelevant or boring or off-target. I'm kind of thinking now that there's too much stuff on congressional procedure -- do you find this stuff kind of boring like I do? If so maybe a separate article needs to be spun off possibly (or is there one already?) but I'm hoping others will take the lead here. I'm busy with other stuff for at least a week or so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, good to know it wasn't a wholesale rewrite; that should make it easier for everyone to review what's changed. I'll take a stab at moving over some of it sometime this week. Thanks again for the time you've spent working on this. 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apathetic voters

Per Wasted Time R's suggestion, Tomwsulcer's ambivalence, and my strong feeling that this is not the right article for this paragraph to be in, I'm removing the "Apathetic voters" section from the Criticisms. Bbb223, I know you disagree on this point, but I hope you won't revert. I'm happy to discuss it further, and even to put in a "See also" link to a different article (Voter fatigue? Democracy? maybe even a new "Voter Apathy" article?) as a measure of compromise. 28bytes (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now Voter apathy redirects to Voter fatigue; if anyone wants me to drop the now-removed text into Voter apathy, turning it into a stand-alone article, let me know, I'll be happy to do that. 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The material's worth saving. Voter fatigue and voter apathy appear to be different things. —Designate (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, thank you for your sensitivity on this issue. I won't revert. :-) I agree with Designate that voter apathy and voter fatigue are quite different. A redirect to voter fatigue from voter apathy seems wrong to me. So, 28bytes, why don't you turn the removed voter apathy material into a standalone article as you offered? It would be a fairly small article, but perhaps it will spur others to expand it as it really involves our entire system, not just Congress.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'll start that article shortly. 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I actually think voter apathy works well as a standalone article. I've updated voter fatigue to link to it, and also added a link in the "Voting" sidebar template. Given that it's now linked to in all the "voting" articles via that sidebar, it's probably unnecessary now to include a link to it in the United States Congress article too, but I'm open to discussion on that point. 28bytes (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed version in United States Congress/sandbox

As per discussion (above) there was consensus that criticisms should be moved within the article and there shouldn't be a standalone criticism section. There is a draft in the sandbox which meets these objections. Further it's decided to remove material about apathetic voters so this stuff should stay out of the new draft. So the sandbox version should be swapped in. If nobody else is interested in working on the new draft, I'll try to tighten the sandbox version up, remove the apathetic voters stuff, and swap it in at the end of today. If sections are too long, I'll consider spinoff articles; the basic idea is to keep this article accurate, interesting, and serve as an overview of the subject of the Congress. If people would like to get involved, now's the time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that concerns me with the sandbox version is the question-and-answer style of a few paragraphs in the "Challenges of reelection" section. But since you're planning to remove the apathetic voter content from the sandbox, perhaps that's a moot point. For transparency's sake, I would really encourage you to swap in the sandbox version one section at a time, to allow the other editors to more easily understand the changes from the existing version. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Considerations noted. Generally what I'm trying to do is see the big picture. The sandbox article at present is too large -- it loads very slowly. So moving too much stuff in to the current article might swamp it. Further, I'm not totally happy with the structure of the current article in terms of sections and subsections -- I don't think the "parliamentary vs congress" section at the bottom should be its own section, but the material is good, I'm thinking the "comparisons with Parliamentary systems" should be moved to the "Congress in the US govt" section, and that this section should include issues such as Congressional powers, checks and balances, and how Congress functions in relation to the presidency and judiciary. I think subsections like "Bills and resolutions" and "Quorum and votes" and "Joint sessions" and such should fall under a larger section called "Procedures of Congress". I think there should be a section entitled "Congress and citizens" which includes such topics as the challenges of reelection, political considerations, constituent services, and representation. And, a continuing challenge is to keep control over the voluminous stuff, so I think we should use the strategy that many other articles like this use, with US Congress being an overview article, and for the large sections, there should be a link pointing to related articles like "Main article: Powers of the U.S. Congress". And these subarticles will contain much of the meat (and interested readers can pursue the information there if they like). So when there's a line (below) saying "Main article: Structure of the US Congress" there will be perhaps a paragraph or two or three in the US Congress page covering the highlights; but the main text will go in the subarticle. I think we will agree that this would be a good arrangement to solve space considerations. Here is a temporary proposed outline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress revamp (proposed outline)

US Congress

(overview)

History

Main article --> History of the United States Congress

(brief history)

Congress in the US govt

Powers of Congress

Main article --> Powers of the United States Congress

Checks and balances

Main article --> U.S. Congress in relation to the president and Supreme Court

Congress vs Parliament

Structure of Congress

Main article --> Structure of the U.S. Congress

Committees

Main article --> United States congressional committee

Privileges (ok I'll put privileges in this section --tws)

Officers

Library of Congress

General Accounting Office

Lobbyists

Procedures of Congress

Main article --> Procedures of the U.S. Congress

Sessions

Joint sessions

Main article --> Joint session of the United States Congress

Bills and resolutions -- How bills become laws

Quorum votes

Congress and citizens

Main article --> U.S. Congress and citizens

Challenges of reelection

Smaller states and bigger states

Congresspersons and constituents

Representation

Controversies

References

External links

Categories--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a rough guide for your consideration. What do you think? It's easy to make changes now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So what I'm proposing is to (1) create spinoff subarticles such as "Structure of the United States Congress" from the sandbox material (2) when subarticles already exist such as "Joint sessions of the U.S. Congress" I'll add material to them from the sandbox (3) rewrite the sandbox article using the above (proposed) outline so that it's tighter and not so long and does a good job of being an overview. At this point, people can compare the current US Congress article with the sandbox (trimmed, with subarticles etc). And then we can decide whether to swap in the whole sandbox article, or move it over chunk by chunk, as decided. Wondering what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understand properly, your problem is you want to change the structure of the article as well as integrate the new material. Therefore, moving pieces over one at a time to the existing structure causes problems for you. Is that right? Sounds to me like you're being too ambitious, given that the thrust of what was supposed to happen was to attempt to integrate the criticism into the article. I don't know if you can pull back easily at this point. If you can, I'd prefer you do that and then add criticism to article one piece at a time. If that's too hard, another alternative would be to change the structure only to accommodate each piece so that as you add each criticism you change a little structure at the same time. If that approach isn't feasible because of interdependent issues, then I think you have to pull back to the original agenda. Of course, you always have the option of abandoning your work because we're imposing too many restrictions on what you do. My personal problem is I don't want to have to analyze too much at the same time, partly because it's too much work, but also partly because if the changes are too ambitious, it's going to make it harder for editors to reach consensus - the comments will be all over the place. Perhaps others have a more creative idea how to handle this than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think you understand correctly, overall, but I think it's not being that ambitious (what I'm trying to do). At this point, I'm focusing on creating the spinoff articles using sandbox material. And then, afterwards, what I'd like to do, is propose a trimmed-down version in the sandbox which can be compared directly with the current version. Hopefully both articles will be about the same length and will have much the same material. That way, there will be two competing versions. And then you can decide with the others if we want to change the outline structure or keep it as it is, swap in only chunks of stuff at a time piecemeal gradually, or do a wholesale swap. We'll have options then. But overall don't worry that there will be too much stuff added or too much of a radical change; rather, it's mostly the same material, but tightened, better referenced, better organized (hopefully). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your outline. It's OK to reorganize the article while integrating the material (I don't see any way around it). Having the article be an overview of several sub-articles is the best way to handle it. —Designate (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(cont'd) We can roughly reorganize the current article right now while the sandbox is improved. That'll help with the problem of too many changes at once. —Designate (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, yes please feel free to reorganize the outline above. I'm working on the spinoff articles. And then I'm going to try to subject the sandbox article to a huge weight-reduction program which would make Jenny Craig envious. And when the sandbox is trimmed (maybe by late tonight or tomorrow? ie Monday Sep 20th 2010 I'll alert people and we can decide what to do then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the outline, and moved the sections around in the article to match it (without changing any of the text). The sandbox can be merged in section-by-section so the differences will be easier to follow. —Designate (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

For the subarticle, how about "Role of Congress in the United States government"? —Designate (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)\

Excellent idea. I wished I had thought of that earlier. Can we still switch the article title around somehow?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not commenting in a timely way. Regarding the actual change to the article's structure, I have two comments. First, I don't see why Privileges belongs under Structure. I don't see how it relates to the structure of congress the way the other subtopics do. Second, I don't like the combination of Congress and Citizens and Constituent services. You have an empty topic followed by only one subtopic. Why not just have a topic named Constituent services (as it was before)? Finally, to Designate as an aside, it would be good to put "see Talk page" in your edit summaries so people understand you are making changes pursuant to these discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

About "privileges". Let me know where it's best to put it. It's already in the "Structure" article but we can move it as you wish. About "Congress and citizens" with the subtopic "Constituent services" versus "Constituent services" as the main topic. I can go either way on this. My sense was that constituent services is a way in which Congress interacts with citizens -- that is, the main section should be about Congress and how it interacts with citizens in terms of congresspersons being elected by voters, representing the district, providing services (constituent services -- I see this as one aspect of Congress & Citizens). But there are other ways to arrange it. In either case there will be a section or subsection entitled "Constituent services". And Designate thanx for catching the goof on the two-session stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would put Privileges and Constituent services back as standalone sections. Unless someone disagrees.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of last section

(break for easier editing)

I think privileges goes with "power of Congress" logically, (since the "privileges" of congresspersons are like powers they have to do things) but if others feel strongly about making it a separate section in the sandbox article, I'll do it that way. About constituent services -- I still think it belongs under the topic of "Congress and citizens" but again I'm not that wedded to either arrangement. What's important is agreeing about the outline of the sandbox article to make it easier editing. So please adjust the outline (below) before I start working on the sandbox; again, major changes to the outline are making it difficult, so before you make major changes, please choose ones you feel are most important. The spinoff articles are pretty much written but could be (1) copyedited (2) pictures added (3) re-establishing external links and categories. I'm updating the "history of the congress" article. Plus I'll work on updating the other related subsidiary articles. Then I'll start trimming the sandbox. But it will help to get the outline updated first before this happens. Please, if interested, consider updating the outline here:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress revamp (proposed outline)

US Congress

(overview)

History

Main article --> History of the United States Congress (expanded: 50K->90K)

(brief history)

Congress in the US govt

Powers of Congress

Main article --> Powers of the United States Congress

Checks and balances

Main article --> U.S. Congress in relation to the president and Supreme Court

Congress vs Parliament

Structure of Congress

Main article --> Structure of the U.S. Congress

Committees

Main article --> United States congressional committee (added 3K material not much else needed)

Privileges (ok I'll put privileges in this section --tws) (please decide where this goes soon)

Officers

Library of Congress

General Accounting Office

Lobbyists

Procedures of Congress

Main article --> Procedures of the U.S. Congress

Sessions

Joint sessions

Main article --> Joint session of the United States Congress

Bills and resolutions -- How bills become laws

Quorum votes

Congress and citizens

Main article --> U.S. Congress and citizens

Challenges of reelection

Smaller states and bigger states

Congresspersons and constituents

Representation

Controversies

References

External links

Categories----Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update -- I'm still working on the Congress revamp offline but it's slow going. I find editing takes longer than writing from scratch. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. Congress will still be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the decision about "privileges" -- where does this section go? I'm kind of thinking it doesn't belong under "structure" but maybe under "powers of congress" or under "congress and citizens"? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I already commented on this on September 19: "I would put Privileges and Constituent services back as standalone sections. Unless someone disagrees." It has little to do with the structure of Congress - it's more like perks congresspersons enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I somewhat disagree, but I think they should be sections but come under another heading, that's all. But I agree it doesn't have much to do with the "structure" of Congress. For me, "privileges" belongs (as a separate section) under the "powers of congress" section; the "constituent services" belongs (as a separate section) under the larger section "congress and citizens". But for me it's not a big deal and I'll go along with what you prefer. How about deciding when it's all together and perhaps the "structure" of the article will make better sense then?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Privileges doesn't belong under Powers because it's not a power of the body, it's perhaps a power of the person. I've already made my point about a single subheading under an otherwise empty heading. I have a slight preference for changing the heading organization now but don't feel strongly about it. I'm more concerned I'll forget. I also don't completely understand your reasoning in not changing it now. We already changed the heading structure - why would this change be any different - makes more sense to see it organizationally as you change the text.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point about "privileges". At this point the subarticles (I think) are in fairly good shape so the focus on the main article should be getting the overview right. I want the pictures to be beautiful. The outline structure -- that's not that hard to switch around. I'm trimming and trying to make the whole thing better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a different question. Would it interfere with your work for me to change the article structure now?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Parliamentary Systems

The section on comparison with parliamentary systems refers to independence from the party. This independence is theoretically the case in both systems, and any difference practice is specific to the country - it is very difficult to back this up with specifics. Both British parliament (for example) and Congress developed before the party system had set in - and certainly long before they crystallised into their current forms. The fact that in some parliamentary systems such party conventions exist may not really be relevant, so that paragraph may need reworking. I'd appreciate a more expert opinion to respond to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.143 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I wondered about this myself. Will look into.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A larger problem is that in the entire subsection there are only two cites. The rest is just original research.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revamp put in the sandbox United States Congress/sandbox

I reworked it, tightening, more references, more pictures. It's not perfect but I think it's better than before. Basically it's a lot of the same material, with material added, but it may be in different order. I tried as best I could to accommodate suggestions made here in this talk page; for example, I limited the "Comp with Parliamentary" stuff. The beginning section got a bit long so I added an "overview" subsection between the first two paragraphs and the History section. The references are doubled approximately, up to about 200 almost. The "external links" and "categories" are temporarily disabled in the sandbox. I added subsecitons which I thought would be helpful such as "Government accountability office" and "Congressional budget office" -- basically mini paragraphs with links to the "main articles" on WP which give more detail. It's about 160K so it's less than 200K but more than 100K. To accommodate wishes, I embedded the criticisms within sections and removed the "criticisms" section heading entirely. Generally I think this is an improvement over the current version, that is, I tried to write it for a high school student seeking a fairly thorough overview of the Congress, but not that detailed. I moved the "enumerated powers" listed in the Constitution to the subarticle "Powers of the US Congress" (I thought it was too specific for the overview.) Ditto, lists of committees -- these are on subarticles. If people want to swap it in, that's one possibility. Another is to move chunks in one at a time. Whatever happens we should get consensus first so I urge people to take time -- perhaps a few days or a week -- so we're all happy with whatever happens. This is a big article with HEAVY traffic (4k readers per DAY) so we should be careful I think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I know people are busy but I spent a lot of time (3 days+) revamping the US Congress article in the sandbox plus longer working on the subarticles and I think it's a suitable and improved version solving many of the problems noted on this talk page (criticisms moved in to sections, more references, etc.) We can either move in sections of the new version chunk by chunk, but it may be easier to swap in the whole thing. If nobody has any objections, I'll swap in the new version this Saturday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bunching and Images

The addition of MANY new images to the article has caused what's known as bunching, meaning that the edit links for the individual sections and subsections don't appear where they should, but get "bunched" in other odd places. With the help of another editor, SOME of the problem has been fixed, but the article still goes haywire starting with the Enumerated powers section (and then rights itself later on). I like pictures as much as the next editor - okay, maybe not as much as Tom does - but images need to be moved and/or deleted to eliminate the bunching. See discusssion here for more info.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry to add so many pictures. Please delete or move or fix as you and others see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No apologies necessary - I think pictures are great. In any event, with some hit-and-miss, I've shortened captions, moved some pics to the left, and deleted some. I tried to do as little as possible, particularly deleting. The bunching problem has been eliminated, but I haven't looked to see how well the pictures are aligned with the appropriate article text. Maybe I'll do that later. It's a lot of work because, short of using a sandbox, the preview doesn't show the edit links, so I can't really see the effect of what I've done without saving the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks, yes it's tough. I appreciate your improvements. I struggle with pictures and arrangements constantly since I don't think I have that kind of graphical sensibility. I try to put great-looking pictures whenever I can, particularly in my knols -- I scoured Wikimedia Commons for great looking people and put them in Dating and mating in the twenty tens; and I think beauty helps traffic, although this dating knol (30 readers per week?) doesn't compete as well as my "Mentally healthy mind" (80+ readers/week) (positive psychology) knol. But it would be great if celebrities testified before Congress and we could put them in here. Searching thru Wikimedia Commons is a slog.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom: please try to keep things encyclopedic. while it is occasionally useful to add an image merely for beautification (to give an article some color and life), it should be done sparingly. For the most part (ideally), images should be informative. Add an image when the image shows the reader something it would be difficult to express clearly in mere words, or when a visual will help the reader focus on the topic under discussion. Images of celebrities would tend to distract from an article about congress (or worse, give the impression that celebrities have more political influence than they actually have). --Ludwigs2 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, yes, lets think encyclopedia-ish. (removed comment) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Tom, I think you should be careful of comments like your last. These are public pages. I suggest you edit out your comment. That, of course, doesn't remove it, entirely, but it helps. If you remove your comment, you have my permission to remove this response.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Ludwigs, (removed comment) )-- I appreciate your improvements and I think we're all making this stuff better, I hope. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Those were my comments, not Ludwigs2's. And, honestly, I'm not concerned about your personal reputation, I'm concerned about Wikipedia and your role on Wikipedia as an editor. Arguably, some of your comments are offensive, even if you did not intend them to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say offensive as much as mindless and hormonal. Everyone likes attractive people (well, likes people they find attractive - it's fairly tautological), but outside of used car sales, personal ads, beauty pageants, and TV broadcast news attractiveness doesn't count for a whole heck of a lot in the world. Best to keep wikipedia articles on-topic and not try to pad them with fluff. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed my earlier comments that possibly are causing problems here. Please remember that what we do here is often hard, boring, detail-oriented work. Congressional procedures. Referencing. Sifting through textbooks. Checking facts. Layout of articles. Selecting pictures. Deleting pictures. Fixing bunching and stuff. And we don't get paid for our troubles. You people work hard like I do. You know we struggle to do our best. What I'm suggesting is that there should be a lighter side too -- when appropriate, to have fun, make a joke where it isn't too visible. I'll try to do my kidding elsewhere, like on my user page perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

These statements are either unnecessary or intentionally misleading.

"The Reagan years were marked by pro-business policies but with huge spending deficits. Clinton helped reduce the deficit but faced strong Republican opposition."

First of all, we all know that Congress is an entirely separate branch of government from the President, so doesn't referring to an era of Congress by the name of the then current president kind of give a misleading, or at least unnecessary connection? "the Reagan years" - that term being used to describe what congress was doing during Reagan's administration makes it sound like whatever they did was somehow actually his doing. Yes, the president works WITH congress, but Reagan was NOT a member of congress during this time, he was President. As this article itself admits, there was a Democrat controlled congress during Reagan's presidency. Since congress has more direct authority over the budget and therefore the deficit than the president, why does that statement even mention Reagan at all? This article is about congress, not the president. Sure, the article could refer to a time period by mentioning who was president at that time, it gives people an idea of when we are talking about. This wording is misleading though. It makes it sound like it was directly because of Reagan that there were huge spending deficits/pr-business policies. This is ridiculous since this same article admits that Congress has more control over these issues, and that Democrats were in control of congess during the 'Reagan years.' Wikipedia editors are meanwhile complaining about how congress is made to look good in this article which is clearly a sign of bias. Well, this is clearly an example of bias too. Let's look at the next sentence.

"Clinton helped reduce the deficit but faced strong Republican opposition."

check out this article: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

or just go straight to the same source he is using: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

You can see from the government's records that yes, the deficit DID start going down during Clinton's terms in office. IF you actually look though, you see that the first year it went down was 1996. Coincidentally this is one year after who took control of congress? It's in this wikipedia article. That's right girls and boys, the Republicans. For the first time in over 20 years the Republicans gain control of congress, and within the first year the deficit starts going down. True facts. This wikipedia statement about Clinton 'helping' to reduce the deficit, but facing opposition from (R) controlled congress... has a source which takes you to a picture slide show with photos of Newt Gingrich, with very little info and nothing at all relating to Clinton somehow fixing the deficit as president, or Republicans fighting him from Congress. Heaven forbid that this wikipedia entry go into any more detail to support that statement.

It's just funny if you look at those two statements in a row, as they are written. "The Reagan years were marked by pro-business policies but with huge spending deficits. Clinton helped reduce the deficit but faced strong Republican opposition."

In the first sentence, we have blame being subtly shifted to the Republican president for what was actually done by an all democrat congress. In the second we have the credit for what was apparently done (unless someone wants to actually go into detail here and explain exactly WHAT clinton did, and HOW the republican congress fought him on it) by Republicans in congress, given to the current Democrat president. Seriously, this is a disgusting example of obvious political bias here at wikipedia. If in the same article it is said that Congress has more power over finances, budgets, etc, then why is there even a single statement referring to THEIR actions as somehow related to the current presidents, but with no supporting information to show WHAT exactly the presidents did? How can statements like this just be made with no supporting information, when they seem to go against the roles of congress as defined by the article? So I am supposed to believe that with 'strong republican opposition' which amounts to republicans controlling congress, somehow Clinton still fought and forced the entirety of congress to do things HIS way, which resulted in the deficit starting to lower, coincidentally only AFTER republicans took over? Why didn't the democrat controlled congress let Clinton have his way? Why didn't that deficit go down BEFORE the republicans took over? wikipedia = biased re-writing of history. That's why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupweasel (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the two sentences being challenged or the sources. The first sentence ("The Reagan years were marked by pro-business policies but with huge spending deficits.") was written after the 1982 election. Reagan had only been in office for less than 2 years. I don't think the source fairly supports the sweeping generalizations in the sentence. The second source is a a dead link, and the third source is about shipments of arms to Iran, it's 12 pages long, there's no way to make it one page (unless I cut and paste it into another document), and I'm not going to read it all - it certainly doesn't seem to be on topic. Plus, although not necessarily inappropriate, that means the only two sources cited are from the same magazine.

The second sentence ("Clinton helped reduce the deficit but faced strong Republican opposition.") is "supported" by a photo essay of Gingrich. What's that about? I haven't checked the succeeding sentences and sources in the paragraph.

I'm not going to respond to the inflammatory accusations of bias except to say that this paragraph needs some work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you both. I'm non-partisan and wasn't trying to be biased. I meant "Reagan years" but I wasn't trying to say "Reagan did this..." but it does have that implication perhaps. How about remove the names of both Reagan and Clinton? The 1980s were characterized by huge deficits in govt spending and Congress controls the purse. The 1998-2002 period had some surpluses, surprisingly, but after 9/11, govt went back to deficit spending. How about leaving names of presidents out?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just leaving the presidents' names out won't solve the sourcing issue. If you're willing to rewrite it so it's relevant and sourced, that's fine, but it's going to need more than just the removal of the names (at least in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the second one wouldn't make sense without Clinton's name. That one just needs to be removed altogether. The fights between Clinton and Republicans over the budget were not because he wanted to reduce deficits and they didn't. It's simply wrong and should be excised. -Rrius (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For at least the present, I suggest changing the paragraph to read as follows:

In the late 20th century, the media became more important in Congress's work. Analyst Michael Schudson suggested that greater publicity undermined the power of political parties and caused "more roads to open up in Congress for individual representatives to influence decisions." Norman Ornstein suggested that media prominence led to a greater emphasis on the negative and sensational side of Congress, and referred to this as the tabloidization of media coverage. Others saw pressure to squeeze a political position into a thirty-second soundbite.

That elminates the first two sentences completely, eliminates the last two sentences completely, and rewords the opening about the media, which is really a separate topic from the deficit anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Bbb23's version. Cutting is fine here if it eliminates the hard-to-fathom issue of the budget which is controlled partially by Congress, partially by the presidency.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also cited the first sentence with the second sentence cite - all comes from the same author.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job Bbb23, thank you for taking care of this. I was reading over the article not long ago, and I was thinking that it was missing something important -- that is, how the two branches relate to each other -- Senate VS House or Senate & House. Like, do lots of bills get stymied by the other branch? Or how do they influence each other? Wondering how the relationship changed when senators went from being chosen by state governments, to being directly elected (20th amendment) around 1920. Constitutional scholars like Levinson and Labunski argue that the senate has a bias towards small/rural states and can redirect money away from populous urban states like NJ, California, NY, Texas because of the each-state-has-2-senators rule; so the senate has a small/rural state bias, according to them, but the House doesn't. In my reading & research, I didn't come across this subject about House VS Senate or House AND Senate but I bet there are academic treatments of it somewhere. I bet poli sci grad students or profs would know about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphic needs to be renewed

The democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in the elections of November 2010 but here in the picture they still have one. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The new Congress hasn't yet started. See 112th United States Congress.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It has now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.75.182 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to update the Stucture section. If anybody does? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed --Isthmus (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to parliamentary system

I tried to fix the horrible comparison between the U.S. presidential model and the parliamentary system. I was reverted, so I've removed the section, which was no more sourced than was my version. The original version shows little understanding of how the parliamentary system works, creating the impression that in a parliamentary system, the legislature runs the day-to-day business of the executive. It does not. Rather, ministers are chosen from the legislature, who are then accountable to it. The text also made a false comparison between the U.S. president and presidents in parliamentary systems. It pointed to the latter as a merely a figurehead, without even mentioning that other executive officials, ministers, act in the president's (or monarch's) stead. -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, given that this is an article about a legislative body, there are only two points of interest: congressional elections do not determine the make up of the executive, and the executive doesn't run the business of the legislature. I know the editor who reverted me thinks somehow the latter point is OR or some such, but the concept that the executive must be able to "get its business" is a cornerstone of the system and is so uncontroversial that it is the sort of thing we normally don't require refs for. In any event, those two main points are already made clear by the article, so it really isn't necessary in an article about the Congress to have a discussion of how the composition of the executive differs from other countries. -Rrius (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal before I noticed you'd put this here. I would have responded first if I'd known. You also posted to my Talk page, but I'd rather leave it here. My view is that you have unsourced material, you challenge it, and then remove it if it remains unsourced. However, changing the material, keeping the old sources, and adding new material that is unsourced is not the way to go. Before your changes, the paragraph read:

The U.S. system of government is sometimes called a presidential system even though the three branches have roughly equal powers because the president has a stronger role than in most other democracies in the world. In the U.S. approach, congressional power is limited to making legislation. In contrast, in a parliamentary system the president is mostly a figurehead and parliament typically controls both legislative and executive functions. Ministers are chosen from elected representatives including the prime minister and cabinet and have considerable power to manage things. In contrast, Congress conducts business while not managing the day-to-day functioning of government. While in structure the Speaker of the House resembles a prime minister, in substance and practice he or she only moderates the functioning of Congress, while the wholly separate executive branch runs the government. In a parliamentary system, legislation is drafted by the acting government and sent to parliament for debate and ratification.

It had two sources at the end of the paragraph, both to books that I can't verify. Therefore, I don't know how much of the material in the paragraph is supported by the books.

After your changes, the paragraphs (plural) read:

The U.S. system of government is sometimes called a presidential system, meaning executive power is exercised by the president and is separate from the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the president or monarch also holds executive power, but it is exercised by ministers {the "government") drawn from the legislature. This makes the president or monarch a figurehead. Because ministers must have the confidence of the legislature, they are usually able to get their legislation passed and control whether other legislators' bills pass. In fact, in a parliamentary system, most legislation is drafted by the government and sent to parliament for debate and ratification.

Because of the nature of the system, party discipline is strong, meaning the government can generally count on its members to support its legislative program. By contrast, the president's party does not necessarily have a working majority in either house, and even with a majority in both cannot be assured that legislature supported by the executive will be considered, let alone passed. This means the president must compromise more than a prime minister would to get desired legislation passed.

The same two sources at the end of the first paragraph, no sources for the second.

Frankly, with your changes, I got lost as to the focus of the section, which seemed to be more on the parliamentary system than the U.S. system, even though this is a U.S. article. In addition, assertions like "party discipline is strong" and the rest of that sentence strikes me as OR. Other parts of the second paragraph also strike me as OR, i.e., whether the president can know whether his agenda will be considered "or even passed" plus the part about compromise.

The first thing to do here is to see whether the book citations support the entire first paragraph as originally written. If they do, the paragraph is wholly sourced and, except for copy editing, should be left alone. Then, if you want to add material, you should source it.

Removing sourced material, as you did, apparently out of pique, is uncalled for, no matter what the consensus is about what should happen going forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pique doesn't enter into it. My reason for removing the section was the same as for changing it: the old version is not accurate. Again, as I also said, it is also not really necessary. The significant difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential one is how the executive works, not how the legislature works. In both systems, the legislature is responsible for drafting and passing legislation and for holding the executive to account. In legislatures with constituencies, instead of list PR systems, legislators are also responsible for constituency work (i.e., helping their constituents). There are only two main ways that those are affected by the choice of a parliamentary or presidential system: in the latter, the executive has no formal role in the progress of legislation and the executive is held to account through committees. Some legislatures must be asked for approval before certain executive officials are appointed. In a parliamentary system, the executive does have a formal role in bringing legislation through parliament, and may also have a question procedure where ministers must answer parliamentarians questions. Instead of doing even a remotely passable job of explaining either of these, the original language gets bogged down in creating the impression that there is no real executive in a parliamentary system and that parliament runs the day-to-day business of the executive. That is not true, and for this article to say otherwise because you think more than the last sentence might be covered by the references is stupid. We have no duty to retain what some poorly informed editor wrote just because they managed to back up one fact. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war with you. Others can chime in if they wish. If not, your removal will stand. Regardless of what you personally know about the differences between the two systems (yet another indication of OR), you went about this wrong and continue to go about it wrong. But it's not worth the energy for me to fight with you if no one else is interested.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I found information that was unsourced and inaccurate. My first solution was to be bold and fix the second problem. You reverted my changes, which I was willing to accept. I was not willing to let the inaccuracies stand, though, so I removed the section. You are very selective in leveling the OR accusation, since you seem unwilling to recognize that the section as originally written was OR. You would have a better idea about the parliamentary system if you read the article linked to in both versions of the text, but instead you chose to defend poorly informed text without any actual basis and perhaps without any knowledge of what you were defending. You also, in your edit summaries, ascribed false motives to me, which you repeated here. You also accused me of using a "colloquial tone" in my version, but when challenged were either unable or unwilling to point to a single phrase meeting that description. All in all, I'd say you are the one who who went about this the wrong way, defending what you couldn't actually defend and taking an unduly provocative posture with no grounding in the facts. -Rrius (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no articles linked to, just books, which I don't have access to. That's why I don't know how much of the original material is OR. Your material was totally unsourced, so I label it OR. As for the "pique" and "retaliatory", I thought those were reasonable descriptions based on the history. However, I accept your assertions that they're not true. Finally, as for colloquial, I don't really see the need to justify that at this point, but I'll give you one example: "they are usually able to get their legislation passed". "Get their legislation passed" is more conversational than encyclopedic. In any event, the colloquial and other problems with your phrasing aren't really particularly important because they could be fixed.

Anyway, I've said my piece. You can respond again or not, but I won't respond anymore unless other editors join.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

First, Presidential system and Parliamentary system were both linked in both versions, as I said.[1][2] Second, "get their legislation passed" isn't isn't colloquial. Apparently, you don't like the word "get", but it is not colloquial. -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and deciding to call something retaliation and pique based on thinking it's reasonable (especially when a valid reason was given both in the edit summary and on the talk page) shows a failure to assume good faith, which is part of why I think you went about this in the wrong way. -Rrius (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have removed most of the revised 1st 'graph as OT, myself. As it stands above, it's too indirectly connected to the "party discipline" part. As for discipline being OR, that's so well understood, it shouldn't need explicit sourcing. It's why a PM with a majority in a Westminster system gets his way so much & why PotUS so often doesn't... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you also agree that the original version also doesn't belong as it was off topic, inaccurate, or both? -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't see a need to compare. It's worded in a way that I find vague, for some reason, like somebody's trying to make a point & I'm not getting it. I'm not normally dense...& if I'm not getting it, I have to think other people aren't, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

Moved from User talk:Markles § United States Congress

My sense is the article about United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is important. I added a section to United States Congress but it was deleted on the basis of WP:RECENTISM by another contributor but I think there should be some mention of this committee in the Congress article, maybe 1 or 2 lines at least.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree, but let's discuss it for consensus. I think the controversiality of the committee's existence and jurisdiction is overblown, and there's no reason to mention it in THIS article. It's an interesting subject, but not worth a discussion in an article about the United States Congress as a whole.—Markles 15:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that the topic of Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is important to include -- at least a sentence or two -- for the following reasons:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The Joint Select Committee is unprecedented -- nothing quite like this has happened before in US history--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
2. it's been approved by the president and Congress so it's not just a hypothetical arrangement--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
3. it directly pertains to Congress
4. the committee's formation indicates the seriousness of US fiscal problems--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
5. it has the potential to have a huge impact on Congress's most important subject (power of the purse)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
6. highly important for US fiscal policy and for people to learn about--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
7. underlines the extent and severity of partisanship such that even Congress can't find ways to cope with gridlock--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
8. it is controversial and may raise constitutional issues--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider that the Joint Deficit page has gotten over several thousand readers per day a few days ago -- I think it's only fair to include some mention of this committee in the overall Congress article, and keeping it to one or two lines seems reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it belongs until and unless actual experience shows that it has had a really big effect on the nature of Congress, and right now all there is is speculation. This is a 'big picture' article. It doesn't even mention the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act, which did have a big effect for some period of time. It doesn't even mention the filibuster, which has helped render the Senate nearly dysfunctional. I also don't think the new committee is that big a departure from past practices – think of the military base closing process, for instance. I also haven't seen any claims that the committee is unconstitutional from notable constitutional law scholars. Looked at from the perspective of 10 or 20 or 50 years into the future, this committee may be a largely-forgotten kludge that was assembled solely to end a deadlock and avoid a default. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The non-partisan and cynical side of me suggests you may be right -- that this subject may prove to be not that important and that nothing will happen eventually or will be continue to drown in partisan mess. Still, I don't think we should insert our own WP:POV into it and not mention it. I still ask that you address my eight points above. You write "all there is is speculation" -- well, it's more than speculation at this point, it's law. President and Congress decided on this path. Further, there are several sources suggesting that the committee is powerful. I agree about removing dubious discussion about constitutionality. If the committee achieves any kind of program, the impact is potentially huge on US fiscal policy for the next ten years -- and this is an important issue in my view and clearly worthy of inclusion. I agree the US Congress article article should be an overview but that this subject of the Joint Select Committee should be at least mentioned with one or two lines here. And failure to mention other aspects (Gramm-Rudman, Filibuster) -- well these should be mentioned here (perhaps my fault -- I revamped this article perhaps a year ago and understand well its role as an "overview" article) and maybe go into more depth in the History of US Congress or Structure of the US Congress subarticles. Still, I think it's not wise to pre-judge the overall result of the committee, (I agree with you that probably nothing will happen as a result of the partisan wrangling) and decide that it's unimportant; let readers decide. At the very least there should be a line or two about these efforts and a link in the "See also" section. And while I understand and support WP:RECENTISM, it is possible to go the other way and avoid all discussion of current happenings, and not having any mention of the committee here makes Wikipedia look like it's asleep at the wheel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP has a burgeoning article on the committee itself, so no one will accuse it of being behind on this count. I don't work on this main Congress article, so I won't persist in arguing the point and won't revert any more of your changes. I'll just note that this article doesn't even mention joint committees or select or special committees in general. I'd cover those basics before I began discussing one instance of these kinds of committees that just got created. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How many members of congress are from each party?

Such an obvious and simple question, yet the answer is not to be found in this article!!!

Apparently there are currently 193 Democrats and 242 Republicans in the House of Reps, and 51 Dems, 2 Independents, and 47 Repubs in the Senate, but you'd never know it from reading this article.

May I suggest including this info in the article, as well as in the infobox that currently shows a couple of pretty semicircular arrangements of blue and red dots, but no actual numbers? (Sorry, I don't feel like counting hundreds and hundreds of dots to find out the answer.) Captain Quirk (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• This article is about the Congress in general. For specific information about the current Congress, it says, first thing at the top of the article: "For the current Congress, see 112th United States Congress. Hope that helps.—Markles 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In the news

• 58 members of Congress among wealthy 1%: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1
• Bill filed to prohibit congressional insider trading: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/politics/congress-insider-trading/index.html Ottawahitech (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Attack ad

For all the commentary about what effect the attack ads have, how about something about why they keep being used? Like, they work? They bring out the fanatics (the base) & keep away the undecideds, which makes it easier to win... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The first same-sex marriage in the U.S Congress

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: U.S. Congressman, Democrat, Barney Frank (72) married to longtime partner, businessman Jim Ready (42) and thus became the first member of Congress who made ​​same-sex marriage, Boston Daily Globe. Among the guests were Sen. John Kerry, former candidate for the White House and President of the Democrats in the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. 78.2.103.67 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is in the Barney Frank article, where it belongs, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Congressional style section

Doesn't anyone find this section odd? Before yesterday, it had an introductory sentence and three points. The intro sentence refers to Richard Fenno and has no source in support of the sentence. Two of the first three points have no source. The third point has a source of a book that is apparently about Fenno; perhaps it supports the first two points and the introductory sentence, dunno. More important, though, I don't really see any value to the section. As for the last recently added point, I reverted it yesterday, and it was re-added a bit ago. I'm not going to battle over it, although it has an WP:OR agenda-like character to it, particularly because the rest of the section is kind of messy (in my view). I doubt, though, that the fourth point is supported by Fenno (or by anything else).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why specify which party is in the Majority and which party is in the Minority?

Under the Structure on the right hand side of the page, the Senate Democrats and Independents are listed as the "Majority" and Republicans are listed as the "Minority". No such listing exists for the House of Representatives.

Either simply list the numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents or specify majority/minority parties along with the numbers, but do it for both houses.

Michael A. Goodfellow (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion polling in opening section

Considering the length and breadth of an article on a 200+ year old legislative body, it seems inappropriate to place opinion polling from the past three years in the heading. To me, this seems biased towards the present. Crohall (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It has nothing to do with the article and it sounds incredibly biased.70.178.153.27 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that public perceptions be summarized in the introduction because they have been pegged at record lows for almost a year. EllenCT (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Onion on possible causes and/or effects. EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

5% approval,[3] down from 9% a few days ago. EllenCT (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cato tries to educate Congress on how to hack Wikistan

http://www.c-span.org/video/?321030-1/discussion-wikipedia-government-transparency

Notable? Or just a list of things to be wary of? Hcobb (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe both! JimHarperDC (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)