Talk:United States Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) thing(s).
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Public Policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.
Former featured article United States Senate is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale (comments).


If you have worked in the United States Senate,
you can add this userbox on your userpage:
{{user Senate}}, to display this on your userpage:
Senate Seal.svg This user has worked in the United States Senate.

Contents

[edit] Senority

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)

[edit] Call for vote on Non NPOV Claim in article

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 NPOV).

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)

[edit] Lisa Murkowski

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)

[edit] Criticism section

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.

[edit] Careful with the citations

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 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export