Talk:United States Senate/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Looks like this article, and the US House of Representatives Article, is definitely ready for a "change". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.202.197 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

... leads to a blank page. 86.178.9.171 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It appears just fine. ~

talk

) 17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of how to remove a senator, aside from the body impeaching them. Doesn't this make them almost invincible? How do we the people remove a senator that we know to be grossly incompetent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.191.175 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The fourteenth amendment does mention the removal of senators if they engage in rebellion or give aid. However, the only logical way is to vote. --Monterey Bay (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the map depicting party identity of Senators by state, Illinois needs be turned from blue to purple to reflect Senators Durbin (D) and Kirk (R). 137.165.210.121 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Seniority" section should be updated to reflect the changes made after the 2010 election cycle, per the rankings within the extended article on seniority. For instance, Sen. Harkin is now 11th most senior while Sen. Bennett is 81st most senior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.80.41 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement:

"The Senate is often described by Americans as the "world's greatest deliberative body."

is considered to be Not a Neutral Point of View. The presence of the weasel words "... often described by Americans ..." serves only to justify the inclusion of a controversial opinion, not a proveable fact. The citations quoted are only citations of the opinion and not of the fact (and in any case would seem to be some of the Americans in point. Wikipedia is an encyclpedia and as such has a policy of not including material that is not written from a Neutral Point of View (See

The vote is therefore, do youn agree that the sentence "The Senate is often described by Americans as the "world's greatest deliberative body." be included in the article. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Sentence fails the NPOV requirement. Practically all non Americans disagree with the claim anyway. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove Sentence For the record this is a straw poll and not a vote as Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have argued on this topic before and still believe the sentence is to POV and the addition to the sentence is weasel worded. The sentence should be in a separate section in the article if included in the article at all. I say remove the sentence form the article and have argued my point on this before so will not dredge them back up again.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the sentence has been reworded, but in my view, it still fails the NPOV test. 86.176.156.193 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just a nickname for the Senate. Disneyland might not be the happiest place on Earth in everyone's mind, but it can still be called that. 72.211.211.3 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What's missing from the article is the important information that this phrase is usually used ironically and derisively in the American media. Modify or remove. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As currently worded, it is fact and reliably sourced; that the statements are opinion can be noted, but find a source, then include it. 75.203.65.141 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed that the phrase is still in the lede. Has anyone checked the sources cited? They all quite clearly are deriding the notion that the Senate is the "world's greatest deliberative body," something that is not at all apparent in the lede. It's time for someone to get the history of the phrase, then note that today the phrase is, at the very least, often used to mock the Senate. If anyone says the phrase without irony these days, I'd be surprised. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Lisa Murkowski is no longer a Republican, the article should probably show that, including a different color for Alaska in the maps. There are now 3 independents, 2 who caucus with the Democrats, and 1 who caucuses with the Republicans. 192.135.179.248 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough question. Murkowski did not receive the official Republican nomination in the Alaska Senate race, but has she ever officially left the party? I don't see where being a write-in candidate makes her not a member of the Party. This is distinctly different than Bernie Saunders, for example, who is a declared independent. Has Murkowski ever declared herself to be an independent, or formally left the Republican party? --Jayron32 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This similar to Joe Liberman who failed to gain the democratic nomination in Connecticut, but he is not listed as a democrat as he founded his own party Connecticut for Liberman. I have not heard of any sources stating Murkowski has left the republican party or joined another party. It would have been the same as Arlen Specter winning as a write-in in Pennsylvania. Specter lost the democratic primary but never left the party so if he had won by write in he would have still been a democrat although not the democrat which won the primary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

She is still a Republican, until she or the Republican party say otherwise, and you can source it; that she won as a write-in candidate does not change that, though in some other states it would. 75.204.2.197 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of citations to USGovInfo.com. That site redirects to usgovinfo.about.com, so the citation itself is a little misleading and using the about.com subdomain would be more informative as to the source of the citation. In any case, about.com largely took that information from www.senate.gov, so perhaps that should be the citation used instead, as the U.S. Senate website is more authoritative than about.com.

See, e.g., http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml and http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satinlatin (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be one. The Senate is one of the most disproportional (since Wyoming with 563.626 people and California with 37 million people have an equal say in it) legislative assemblies in the world and because of that one could argue, also one of the most undemocratic. Richard N. Rosenfeld makes a good case about it here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035

Although a majority of americans would not agree with him (they might however if they would read his article), he still lists some valid points which could be included in a criticism section. If no one objects I will tackle this issue.

No criticism section exists, making it challenging to figure out where to post updates to this page which aren't either neutral or promotional. Congress has had an all time low approval rating twice now in the past 10 months, it needs to be mentioned in this article. There is probably a better place than the lead

WP:Lede, but the article doesn't give way to a new section for approval ratings, that I can see. Hopefully someone more acquainted with this article can figure out a solution. petrarchan47tc

01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(1) the same could be said for every legislative body in the world, that the local media thinks it's great, (2) one of the citations is for The Economist, which is, the last time I checked, not American. (3) one of the four citations is for the British Journal of Political Science. (4) why is it important at all what "some members of the American media" think? Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The way the title is framed sucks, quite frankly. It should be something closer to "is sometimes derisively called the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" Hot Stop

TC

04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And here are some sources for that [1] [2] [3]

Yeah, we had this discussion a while ago. Far from being the "world's greatest deliberative body" the Senate has been more frequently described, at least in the last 100 years, as an ossified institution more interested in clinging to arcane traditions and rituals and blocking legislation then addressing the great issues of the days. One need only read Robert Caro's The Master of the Senate to have this point underlined.

Indeed, we don't have to limit ourselves by just looking at the references noted by Hot Stop. Try the ones cited for the phrase in the lede. It should be obvious to all (except to those who have trouble with the concept of "sarcasm") that 3 of the 4 references (the British Journal link doesn't show us the actual quote) are mocking the phrase, suggesting the precise opposite of what most would take as the meaning of the phrase "world's greatest deliberative body".

Time to remove the phrase or, as Hot Stop more sensibly suggests, note the Senate is more frequently called "world's greatest deliberative body" derisively. Canada Jack (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The source linked in footnote #5 does not actually argue--let alone prove--that the Senate is more prestigious than the House of Representatives. I think the statement that the Senate is "more prestigious" than the House should be removed unless a better source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.218.209 (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about editing to try, though I want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayokitty (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Until January 3, the senators in office before the election remain in office. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since January 3 is less than two hours away, I went ahead and updated the info box with 113th Congress information. (It was partially updated anyway.)

HowardMorland (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The new term begins at noon ET on January 3. -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

True enough, but the article is about the Senate in general. The infobox illustrates the Senate of one particular Congress. The infobox is clearly labeled as to which Congress it is illustrating. Ten thousand people looked at the article yesterday, and I am guessing that most of them were more interested in the 113th Congress than in the 112th. (A lot of people have probably been confused by the line in the infobox that says the most recent election was in November, 2012.) Anyway, this will all be moot in a few hours. HowardMorland (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article's statement about the current state of affairs should reflect reality, not what editors guess readers might care about. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Senate Logo is incorrect. It does not have a Santa hat... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.205.12 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was in school if some one in the class did something wrong the hole class had a punishment,,,,,,,,,well I m 65 years old, I am an aldult,,,,,,I served my country as a marine grunt,,,,,to the rank of sgt,,,,,I lead men in combat,,,,,now in your thinking you have the right to infringe on my rights, an my constitution on the 2nd amend. Because of a few nuts, millions of law bidding americans are surpossed to give up thrie rights,,because of your liberal thinking,,,,,,,,,,,these nuts don't go shoot up police stations because they have guns,,,,,,,they go to schools because they are gun free zones,,,,,,,,,easy thinking even for a group like you,,,,,,,,,,,,my father was a marine, landed. At Saipan an got stuck with a gap baynotte,,,,,his BROTHE was a marine flew out of pearl with marine air wing as tail gunner,,,n Jim jone was an officer in fox company n I was a sgt in echo company,,,,an I have purple heart,,,,,,this is my country an it does not belong to only you,,,,,,,,an you are not my king, dictator, owner,,,,,,,,,leave me alone,,,,,,you are not my god,,,,,,an my rights were not given to me by any of you,,,,,,,I have earned my rights ,,,,,how many of you have earned yours,,,,,,,,leave my 2 nd amend. Alone. ,,,,,,,it was not put there so I could duck hunt ,,,,it was for my protection from you, my government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.25 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Change in senate procedure [4](Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).

Should it be noted that both sources cited seem to use this term sarcastically? --220.239.109.57 (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked each of the sources; the Time magazine articles is 20-years-old, and the other two use the term with no little sarcasm. The Economist article in fact openly mocks this idea, noting that each party never talk to one other.

There is little to no evidence supporting the assertion that the US Senate is the "World's greatest deliberative body". Such a term is partisan and lacking neutrality. How is possible to call a political institution 'great' without any reasoning? Maybe the Australian Senate is greater? Or the British House of Lords? Or the French Sénat? I am removing this arcane, biased, and inaccurate phrase. Crazy Eddy (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was still ther. I just removed it(Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).

The first sentence in the History section says: "The framers of the created a ..." Framers of what?192.249.47.204 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Angus King from Maine is (I), but he caucuses with the Democrats, therefore the color should be blue/green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd4069 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse my changes made today, apparently they are to be made during inauguration at the beginning of 2015. At least I've learnt from this :) Redflorist (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Curious, why are the two current independents listed under Majority? Todd (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the two independents caucus with the Democrats. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Doh! Thank you for taking the time to respond. Todd (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to United States Senate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mansand80000 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

meamemg (talk

) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

This edit request to United States Senate has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

theres something incorect new session did not start on January 3, 2013 it started on January 3, 2015 Mansand80000 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the previous session. The new session will begin tomorrow (6 Jan 2015).

talk

) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going by memory, but it seems Congress uses session to mean legislative period as well. At any rate, the day should be the third.

Listen to this page (29 minutes)

Audio help · More spoken articles

)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to United States Senate/Archive 3.

• The United States Senate Official Website
  • Sortable contact data
  • Senate Chamber Map
  • Standing Rules of the Senate
  • Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774 to Present
• List of Senators who died in office, via PoliticalGraveyard.com
• Chart of all U.S. Senate seat-holders, by state, 1978–present, via Texas Tech University
• A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787–1825, via Tufts University
• Bill Hammons' American Politics Guide – Members of Congress by Committee and State with Partisan Voting Index