Talk:United States Congress

Untitled

2004-2005 - /Archive 1 2005-June 2009 - /Archive 2

This article reads like an advertisement for Congress and clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE

A person reading this article would get little sense of how most Americans distrust the Congress. There is SCANT criticism of Congress in it. There is little mention of Congressional scandals dealing with bribery, payoffs, corruption. There is misleading information such as "Congresspersons are elected every two year terms" which suggests competitive elections every two years; the reality is that most congresspersons are in office for life (re-election rates for members seeking re-election are about 90% -- this is well documented by excellent sources in newspapers as well as a Congressional study itself) since incumbents enjoy advantages such as (1) access to cash from lobbyists (2) gerrymandered districts (3) so-called franking privileges (a significant advantage for incumbents since they get free promotional mailings to constituents which challengers lack). Most challengers are outspent 6 to 1 by incumbents are don't really have a fighting chance. The average age of congresspersons and senators is well over 60, according to some sources; why? They're in office for life (unless caught by a scandal, make an unpopular stand on a subject the public wakes up about (rarely happens), or they run afoul of a powerful lobby.) There is little mention of academic criticism of Congress or its members (numerous political books deal with this subject; in fact, it would be difficult to find an intelligent academic treatment by a respected political scientist these days praising the Congress). There is no indication that Congress has become WEAK compared to the presidency, and that the executive branch has assumed many of its duties by using an extensive network of government agencies to essentially legislate, in essence, usurping Congress' task. I do not think I saw any mention of how Congress has failed to identify or act against outrageous acts by Democrat presidents such as Clinton ("signing statements" are a clear violation of the Constitution according to the American Bar Association, although I think it was Reagan who began doing this); there was no mention that Congress failed to call Bush II on the whole Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame matter (which academics suggest should have at least called for discussion about impeachment of the president.) Some sources suggest Congresspersons routinely throw out constituent mail; is this in this article? My sense is this article is essentially parroting back what people think Congress should be, according to the 1789 reading of the Constitution; but the reality of Congress is not here in this article. Is there any mention of how or why Congress has sunk so low in public opinion polls? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article. It is only a description of the institution itself. Any sort of criticism or scandals would have to be put on the respective congressperson's article (go ahead if you want to) or if there is an appropriate article for a said scandal. All members of the House of Representatives serve two year terms. Period. No matter what you like to think, a member of the House must be re-elected every two years. Your complaints about the politics of such elections are inappropriate for this article. And if you are still not satisfied, then go complain somewhere else because Wikipedia is obviously not the site you are looking for. Andy120290 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to present balanced views. This article, in my view, is highly tilted towards the notion that Congress is a respectable wing of government with few, if any problems. This article is what a high school history teacher might write -- a teacher who hadn't been reading any political books over the last decade, or who hadn't read newspapers like the NY Times or Washington Post which features political writers highly critical of the Congress. There is VIRTUALLY NO CRITICISM of the Congress. A reader who only read this article would probably think that nothing was wrong. This article omits scandals; it omits the low opinion ratings which the public has; it glosses over issues such as "franking privileges" and "gerrymandering" as if they're somehow irrelevant. And the focus on the "two year term" is misleading -- yes, there are "elections" every two years, but the reality is (and this is backed by numerous sources which I can and will present) that once a congressperson is in office, there's a 90% of being re-elected if this person seeks re-election. This is NOT how the founding fathers would have wanted it; elections were supposed to be competitive. They're not. The only way a congressperson loses a seat is if (1) they decide not to run (2) they die (3) scandal and forced out (4) refuse to take money from lobbyists (most don't) and lack funds for attack ads or (5) faced by an unusually aggressive and shrewd challenger. This discussion of reelection is vitally important to the institution; since congresspersons will be reelected no matter what voters do (in 90% of cases) congresspersons are unaccountable to the public. They're NOT really representatives. This article wholly omits discussion of how elections have been jiggered in favor of incumbents. It's essentially an advertisement for the status quo Congress. It needs balance, criticism, a NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, this needs to be addressed. I do worry it'll degenerate into partisan bickering, but to ignore what Congress has historically done & is still doing to keep members in office, such as gerrymandering or taking PAC $, or what powers & priveleges it has but rarely discusses, such franking or the platinum-plated health care (funded & run by USG, which I notice GOP doesn't mind for themselves, but not for Joe Public) is to present a very unbalanced & incomplete picture. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree I hope it doesn't degenerate into partisan bickering. Excellent point, btw. I'm not talking Republicans vs Democrats. But I think there's plenty of criticism to go around for both parties. And I'm not talking about removing stuff from this article (what is there seems solid) but balancing it with more contemporary criticism from academics, newspapers, facts from respectable sources (NY Times, Washington Post) as well as prominent academics & political scientists. You're right about the health care plans -- Congress gets gold plated health plans, we get diddly squat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that raises a NPOV concern for me are the comments made in this section of the talk page. Yes, I've read the studies which indicate that 90% of Congressmen are re-elected. If you'd like to source that information and identify an appropriate place in the article for that fact, feel free. But the idea that you could establish sources which verify "the only way a congressman leaves office is if they (1) retire, (2) die," etc., is hogwash. You certainly are entitled to an opinion that there are only five ways a Congressman may leave office but the fact remains that two-year terms are the length of time for a Member of Congress. You may have an opinion about what the founding fathers would have wanted, but you are going to be UNABLE to have a source which identifies that the founding fathers ARE upset with Congress as it exists today. Those opinions have no place in the article.JasonCNJ

In response to JasonCNJ's excellent comments -- about the "only way a congressman leaves office" -- clearly we have a difference of opinion here. I suggest we get facts to bolster our cases. I have included facts in the article about reelection rates (congresspersons seeking reelection; there are a few who voluntarily choose to leave office) around 90%; it's varied from 85% to 95% according to other studies. I found five sources indicating this. If you find sources showing turnover (congresspersons seeking reelection) is 50%, please show me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree we won't be able to raise dead Founders to reference them. But there are reliable sources who have made statements like "The Founding Fathers would have disapproved of gerrymandering" and such. I'll hunt for them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering is controlled by states; some states have it (California), some states do not (Iowa), some states use an independent commission to draw districts, some do not. But an in-depth discussion about gerrymandering would be inappropriate for an article on Congress; use the gerrymandering page for that.JasonCNJ

About gerrymandering. Perhaps you're right gerrymandering is controlled by state governments. But it benefits congressional reelections. It's a HUGE benefit in some districts. It makes incumbents virtually unassailable in what some call "safe seats". Omitting gerrymandering from a discussion of the US Congress seems unbalanced, in my view, since it clearly advantages incumbents. I bet nobody reads the gerrymandering page, by the way; it's how congress would prefer it. And I'm not talking about an in-depth discussion of gerrymandering; rather, I'd like to include it in this article; I didn't see it. It should be here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you have strong opinions on Congress. But let's not allow our political feelings about government and Congress to infect this article which is well-researched, well-sourced, and presents a balanced view of Congress. I'm certainly open to NPOV additions -- but your writings on the talk page indicate a great risk that your contributions to the article will not be honest, balanced, and neutral. For what it's worth, Members of Congress do not have health care provided by the Government; they are part of the Federal Employees Healthcare Trust which provides all federal employees with the choice of one of 18 plans. Congress provides the "employer" portion of the healthcare, just as the Feds pick up the "employer" portion of healthcare for federal employees. I support publically available national healthcare but let us have respect for facts.JasonCNJ

JasonCNJ (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed JasonCNJ used terms like "feelings" and "strong opinions" to describe my arguments. You're suggesting I'm emotional? Sorry, my arguments are based on facts. You fear my contributions will not be "honest, balanced, and neutral" because of my emotions? Hey, what happened to WP:AGF? People who you disagree with your POV are emotional, with "strong feelings", dishonest? Come on. Stick to facts, reason, sources, references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the original point. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. It does not read like an advertisement. If you believe there is POV, then correct that specific problem. I removed the hatnote which was incorrect.—Markles 11:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how a comment like "this is an encyclopedia" advances this discussion. We all know it's an encyclopedia. And to trivialize my criticisms above suggesting that "it's just a discussion board" is unproductive; if you have specific problems with my criticisms above, please share them, or respond to my arguments with arguments of your own. I'm suggesting this article is biased towards a history-teacher-ish understanding of what Congress is supposed to be (according to the original Constitution) but bears little resemblance to what Congress is today. There are FEW sources relatively for an article of this importance=- less than 40. Public approval ratings for Congress hover in the 20% range (I'll research this to get a more accurate number); this article ignores this. I think this article brings a distorted picture of the Congress as a functioning, working, deliberative body elected by the people. I do not think this is the case. The vast majority of political commentators, political scientists, newspaper reporters writing about American politics will disagree with this blemish-free assessment of the Congress. Bringing in viewpoints through well-referenced sources from respectable publications like the NY Times and WSJournal and Washington Post and Newsweek will help improve this article, in my view. Let's follow Wikipedia's rules. They work. Stick to facts. And this article can become something we're all proud of.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added information about reelection results. I believe emphasizing "two-year terms" without any discussion of reelection tendencies is misleading, since it suggests there's substantial turnover every two years. This is an important issue. It gets to the heart of the matter, since once in office, in my view, representatives are largely unaccountable to voters, since they're going to get reelected regardless of what happens. In essence, even the term "representative" is misleading since congresspersons do not need the electorate (after getting in office).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be the 2yr term is in law, but as a practical matter, incumbency rates run around 90% (I've heard as high as 98% quoted). Why there's such a disconnect between intent & fact deserves inclusion, & not only to paint Congresscritters as unethical crooks, but to explain things have changed since 1789, & to describe how & why they've changed. As to opion on Talk, that's where it belongs. Opinion on what does/doesn't belong, & how it should be phrased, are apt here, if only to avoid a revert war. (FYI, my own "strong opinions" will keep me from making more than cosmetic edits, 'cause I don't trust myself to be completely objective at a first pass.)

To name a couple of things I'd want to see: the changed fundraising environment (PACs), the reason so much $ is needed (mainly TV time), & the influence of lobbyists on laws ($ buys access Joe Public doesn't get, can't dream of; if Lexcorp gives $1mil & I give $1000, whose call do you suppose Cong. Petrelli is going to take? Esp if he wants to get re-elected {& what pol doesn't...?}), not to mention on the actual writing of laws. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I don't think you should invalidate yourself from contributing because you have strong opinions; but I think what will help everybody (including myself) is sticking to WP's rules and using facts. I think there are plenty of facts backing up what you're saying, what I'm saying, plus facts which bolster the status quo too. But how can we all avoid stupid edit wars? This is an excellent question. I was wondering if we did this -- had some kind of extra "Sandbox" page next to the Congress page where we could contribute new lines & information with references, and say where we thought it belonged. And have links on this "Congress:Talk" page to the "Congress:Sandbox" page, so other editors could have a chance to look over what's going to happen, and see if its worthy, where it should go or not go, that sort of stuff. I think this might be a sensible way to approach things. And then if editors like the new stuff, then we can put it in the Congress article, or not, depending on what's decided. What do others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it reads like an advertisement for Congress at all. It doesn't make assertions that the members of Congress do their jobs well or that they're moral or that they're better than either of the two branches of government. The article is a like a textbook overview of the institution. Compare it with other articles on national legislatures (e.g. Parliament of Australia or Diet of Japan) and one finds that the United States Congress is analogous to those others. There's no particular fawning tone. There are specific articles on specific topics that may come up. I suppose an article titled something like Public perception of the United States Congress or Criticisms of the United States Congress could be created (if no such article exists). But those articles would have to adhere to NPOV. Wikipedia articles should not be a venue for pushing agendas (e.g. throw incumbent X out or limit power of Congress relative to another branch). --JamesAM (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My complaint with this article isn't that it's fawning over Congress, or saying things like "Congress is moral" or such. But what I'm saying is that a high school student, reading this article and nothing else, would get a false idea of what Congress is. Serious stuff is omitted or glossed over. Editors have been working on this page, but haven't referenced it nearly as much as it should have been -- there is precious little input from mainstream newspapers and magazines which needs to be included. I let the "advertisement" tag be removed since I agree it doesn't read like an ad, but I still think the article, as it reads, has a strong POV in the sense that important issues and criticisms are omitted. There's hardly any discussion about gerrymandering, corruption, power slippage vs the presidency (see my other comments in the talk pages). It would be like an article talking about "sharks" without mentioning shark-related deaths. The current article, in my view, reflects the structure of Congress as it was described by the Constitution of 1787, and it does a good job so far; but it doesn't describe the reality of Congress today.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you may not see this article as highly POV in favor of Congress because of this reality -- that America is a place where precious little thinking happens, where a rather mindless "we the people" mentality prevails in which majority opinion is always thinking its right -- and Americans of all stripes get sucked into a belief system because there are few, if any opportunities, for status quo ideas to be attacked. Most people no longer read books any more -- political sections of bookstores are hard to find these days. But I think American government has changed substantially, and the facts will support me on this. I've been reading extensively -- and my sense is mainstream papers like NY Times, WSJournal, Washington Post, Newsweek -- as well as important and prominent academics such as Larry Sabato and Sanford Levinson and Benjamin Ginsberg and others -- would look at this article and roll their eyeballs. Political commentators such as David Sirota or academics like Dana D. Nelson would suggest there's something seriously wrong with America, and it has to do with power shifting, corruption, serious and dangerous changes, and most Americans are not aware of these developments, and should be, and I think the facts will bear this out. I'll try working up a sandbox page perhaps beginning Monday, as a way for all of us to get a look at some of the stuff that's out there, and then we can dicker about what data goes in where, and I think it will be a learning experience for all of us. If we strive to make this article a "Featured Article", I think this process will bring out all sides of the issue. And I strive for WP:NPOV and will do my best to be fair to all points of view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this article was exactly what I needed. I appreciated that it laid out who and what Congress is in a way I could understand without all of the excessive and sometimes lurid details I see on this discussion page. I'd hoped to find some insightful discussion here on the function of Congress and how that has changed over time. I'm disappointed to find only some bickering over how to somehow slant the foundation article. As if this were some kind of political blog site. I'm disappointed. Really I was looking exactly for something a history teacher might write about our government. When statements are made that there isn't enough criticism of the subject, followed by long political speeches of opinion (supported by random facts of dubious relevance), it seems like someone trying to advance an agenda. I'm sorry I came to this page, and even sorrier that I took you all seriously for a minute.Crash73 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

General problem areas needing attention to restore WP:NPOV

• Congress versus the Presidency. The Framers wanted Congress to be the dominant branch; today it is weak compared to the presidency. There are numerous books such as "The Broken Branch" showing this. Why is this the case? This issue should be addressed. There are excellent sources about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Congressional pay and perks, like the nation's best health care plan for members. How wealthy are congresspersons, senators. Is this addressed? Very little discussion of this here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Incumbency. 90% reelection rates. Unaccountability to voters. Extreme average age (Senators = 62 years AVERAGE AGE). These issues are glossed over in this article, but it gets to the heart of what's happened. (see discussion in previous section).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Lack of references (less than 40). An article of this size should have several hundred references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Public approval ratings of the Congress hover around 20% (? not sure number). Why? Address this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Analysis of Congress from reputable academics like Benjamin Ginsberg (professor)and numerous others is lacking. Why are professors like sanford Levinson and Larry Sabato calling for a Second Constitutional Convention. Missing. These viewpoints should be included for balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Little mention of scandals, corruption, indictments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Instances of Congress failing to act in matters such as possible impeachments of Bush (regarding the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby affair) or Clinton (Monica Lewinsky business). Or, failing to adequately discuss things like "Should we go to war in Iraq?" Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war (according to Constitution). Why is it that the only war it's declared (according to my recollection) was World War II? These issues need to be addressed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• How come almost all Americans don't know the name of their congressperson? If they're our representatives, what's going on? Address.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are a few of the more important problems areas in my view. Please do not remove the WP:NPOV tag, but rather, let's fix this article to make it worthy of inclusion into the excellent encyclopedia (my POV) called Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are all issues that do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Congress the Institution. It is about Congress as a whole. Not the current congress. Not current scandals. No current congressmen. It's about the entire body since it's creation in 1789. There are plenty of other articles where these issues can be discussed. Congressional oversight, History of United States Senate, History of the United States House of Representatives. Perks and other benefits of members are at the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. As far as public approval ratings, which Congress? The 111th Congress has low approval ratings, but some past congresses had very high approval ratings? What would you include? You'd need to include a discussion of congresses with high approval ratings as well as low approval ratings to avoid POV issues.DCmacnut<> 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about your sense of what this article should be about. You're saying "United States Congress" should be about the institution as a whole -- I agree. But to cover the whole congress means to discuss not only it's structure of Congress as it was supposed to be, according to the original Constitution of 1787, but what it has evolved to become today, complete with its powers (or lack thereof), blemishes, organization, scandals, perks, public reaction, etc etc. I don't see these things covered in this article which, in my view, reflects a conception of what Congress is supposed to be. It's like the article was written in the 1950s. You're saying it shouldn't be about specific congresspersons or specific scandals or specific congresses -- I agree. But this institution has a history of scandals -- big ones -- which are largely omitted here. Why? It's misleading to write about "United States Congress" and not have this stuff here. These things belong in this article. And the general pattern is that ALL recent Congresses have had low approval ratings -- why? This article reads like something that the Congress itself, or lobbyists, might write. What about the powerful influence of lobbying on all recent Congresses? This stuff is omitted here, and needs to be here for WP:BALANCE. And the tag about neutrality needs to stay on this article until these issues I've raised are either dismissed by consensus, or dealt with through facts and references (which I'll try to do but I'm working on other stuff right now). And we should consider adding another tag about needing more references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this article violates WP:NPOV. I've restored the original paragraph on terms you deleted with your revert of my edit, but I am keeping your 90% reeelection reference for now. These issues you are raising have been discussed many times before, and concensus has been that while they are encycopedic, they are inappropriate for this article. There are many other articles, many stubs, where these discussions can be fleshed out in more detail, such as articles on specific scandals. The article on Congressional oversight already covers quite a bit of what you want to discuss. Why not expand that article further well referenced sources of whether or not Congress is living up to that oversight responsibility? Why clutter this article up with information that can just as easily be written about elsewhere?DCmacnut<> 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dcmacnut, I think you're trying to be reasonable and I respect that you kept in the incumbency stuff. And I'll reconsider about the WP:NPOV tag but I'm wondering what other editors think. I haven't had time to explore the different articles you're talking about -- I will -- and see whether the kinds of issues I'm raising more properly belong there. I'll think about this but I have other stuff to do in the near future. I see myself as non-partisan (doesn't everybody?). But I've read extensively on political topics over the last few years (books, newspapers) and my sense is that the consensus of political reporters, columnists, academics who take a serious look at American politics -- my sense is acknowledged experts would not respect this current WP article as being fair or neutral. Even president Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope lays out serious criticisms of the US Senate (of which he was a member). And I get little sense that there's any serious criticism here. There are only about 40 references. My experience has been that the process of searching for references, verifying, researching -- these things flesh out the truth, the pluses and minuses. I think this article is good as a start and I bet most of the information is essentially accurate; and I'm not criticizing the excellent work that has been done so far; my complaint is that it's unbalanced and avoids stuff that I think is important, and that I think most reasonable people would think is important too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One technical note. Dcmacnut, I'm very impressed how you combined the references in the reference section. So reference numbers don't clutter up the text. Cool technology! I copied the code and will use it in other stuff I'm doing. I didn't know that stuff was possible. Even though we'll probably keep dickering about this article, let me say, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked over other Congress-related articles to get a sense of what DCmacnut was talking about. And I kind of see the point that generally editors see articles like "United States Congress" and "United States Senate" and "United States H or R" as summary overviews, with other articles talking about specifics. So I can understand a concern that articles dealing with general topics may become overloaded with overly specific information -- I get this. But, at the same time, the three big articles in this group -- this one, as well as United States Senate and United States House of Representatives -- in my view -- reflect a "status quo" view which is out of step with what most Americans think, and which is substantially at odd with what most newspaper reporters, academics and political commentators think. If Congress has approval ratings around 20% as I've noted before, that means 80% of Americans disapprove of Congress -- issues about why this is so need to be addressed here, along with numerous other issues I've raised (above in this talk section). At the very least there should be sections on "criticism". These articles could be improved by adding references (only about 40 for each; for articles of this importance, references should be in the hundreds). These articles are great so far -- I like the great blue and red graphics btw -- great job!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to create a "sandbox" page for this article, and perhaps next week, add stuff to it, with links from this talk page. That's a way editors can look at it and discuss where it belongs and what we want to do with it. I think it would be cool to get the Congress-related articles back to "featured article" status if possible (my POV). Further, let's consider removing the POV tag after perhaps a few days; I had hoped to use it to generate discussion, and I don't think it needs to be there indefinitely, but as a way to get more people to pay attention to this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox page is an excellent idea. And make it FA! This is an important subject & deserves "front page" status. (BTW, I'm Canadian, so no POV.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

US Congress Sandbox page is Talk:United States Congress/sandbox

I created the sandbox page Talk:United States Congress/sandbox. Next week I'll start putting stuff here for perusal by other editors. Is it worthy for inclusion? If so where? If not why? If interested, please leave brief comments about each factoid. I'll try to start putting stuff there next week, and I urge others to do similarly. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I added new stuff for consideration. Some of the stuff about the pay is already in the article, but we could use the references to back it up. Go to Talk:United States Congress/sandbox and please comment and consider putting the sandbox on your "Watchlist".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added stuff about the necessity of advertising (negative advertising) in congressional races in the sandbox.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information to Talk:United States Congress/sandbox about disconnect between voters & Congress; voter apathy; high cost of re-elections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Added info on Sandbox page about advantages of incumbency, PAC money, criticism by academics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of new material of Talk:United States Congress/sandbox

I've added new material for consideration in a sandbox page. I believe this information is important, relevant, well-researched, well-referenced. It would expand the references to over 100 (and help advance this article to GA status, perhaps FA). I don't think it should replace the current information, only be included for WP:BALANCE. One suggested it's POVish (since it's critical of Congress); another argued that the Congress is only a summary article (a highly POSITIVE one in my view) and should be kept short, and belongs elsewhere; still, in my view, I think a summary article should be WP:NPOV and have WP:BALANCE so I think it's important to include material which is both supportive of Congress as well as critical even in a summary article. So, I'm thinking there are two options:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a new section to this Congress article (which is perhaps easiest from an editing standpoint) which is essentially "Criticism of the Congress" (or perhaps a better wording) probably at the bottom, and include most of the sandbox material (perhaps shortened, edited for clarity and flow) in this section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: there's a criticism-section in the sandbox which can be included -- check it out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Insert material directly into the current text at different places -- such as in the "war powers" area, to add information that the executive has become the primary decider of wars; to insert text into the "two year term" issue about the huge advantages of incumbency which essentially makes the "two term" information misleading since lawmakers are essentially there for life (90% reelection rates). This would take more editing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas which is better?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Added criticism section

New section has plenty of solid references and uses DCMacnut's super cool reference clumping tool -- so multiple reference numbers don't bump into each other in the text (check out how it works). Removed neutrality tag. This section brings the article into WP:BALANCE hopefully with a WP:NPOV tone. The sandbox page was available for perhaps two weeks and attracted only one comment so perhaps there isn't much interest in this topic? My sense is that most Americans are unused to criticism, and the length and specificity of this added section might initially strike readers as odd and POV. It may seem this way because, if you think about it, there is hardly any place where majority opinion is regularly criticized. Tocqueville wrote about this in "Democracy in America", that the majority controls the legislature, media, business, markets -- majority controls thought (it's like the naked king asking people to evaluate his fashion sense), that is, the majority can very easily decide to ignore or dismiss what it doesn't want to hear, such as opinions like "Congress has issues". If the criticism section strikes you as odd, I suggest you delve into the references of the added section, and read these articles -- you'll find that these are mainstream sources, NY Times, WSJournal, USAToday, with prominent voices -- George Will, Barack Obama, Henry Waxman, former secretaries of state -- they are all critics of Congress. Please listen to what they're saying, because they're exposing serious problems -- these are important overview criticisms which properly belong in any summary article on "Congress". Most Americans are unaware of these problems since few, if any, people today seem to even read newspapers. If you still feel the added section is POV, please try to bolster the opposite view (that Congress functions well) with facts, references, from solid sources; my hunch is you may have trouble finding good sources to say stuff like "Congress is doing a great job" other than perhaps congresspersons or lobbyists themselves. But why not look? I did. My feeling is much of the remainder of the article remains poorly referenced, and content about the structure of Congress, powers, processes and such could be expanded, perhaps with additions from the Federalist Papers (although much of this writing is hard to wade through). More analysis from Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote Democracy in America would be a strong plus in my view. And my aim is to get this article closer to featured article status once again--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Update. Added section about lawmaker trips abroad, with wives, visiting the Rhine, touring fancy chapels, $40 teas, unused hotel suites, spas, $300/night hotels, free trips courtesy the US Air Force. Who pays for this stuff? I do. Any wonder I have no more $ left to donate to Wikipedia? Added picture. I'm not making this stuff up; it's the Wall Street Journal saying this stuff. Added inline reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of Congress Logo is NOT OFFICIAL

Just to let you know that the image you currently have with regard to the US Congress is NOT an official seal. Congress, in itself has no official seal, but the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own seal. The implication is that viewers may be under the mistaken impression that the image is an official seal, and if the image remains, there should be some way to notify the viewer of this fact. Perhaps putting the title "Unofficial Seal of the United States Congress" or "Unofficial Seal of the US Congress" will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.91 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

would be great if someone could clarify the SESSIONS section

Would be helpful to make that section a bit more clear. Is there a different between congress being in session and on break? meaning can congress be on a break, but in sessions. I was simply trying to find if congress CAN work right up till the end of the year, but everything I have looked at is very confusing and talks about the hstory of the twentyith amentment. I am simply interested in knowing when congress is working, and when they aren't. Cheers RichGriese (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the criticism section

I noticed that an entire well-referenced section was removed WITH LITTLE OR NO DISCUSSION here on this talk page. The article shrunk significantly, perhaps by a quarter of the size. The number of references dropped precipitously. Since "editors" here are unidentified, it is highly likely that the perpetrators here were associated with the US Congress perhaps as aides or paid lobbyists which, if true, would violate Wikipedia's policy about being neutral contributors. In my view, the substantial deletion returns this "article" into a PR piece for the US Congress because it gives readers no indication of the INTENSE DISSATISFACTION with the Congress from the American public (approval ratings hovering around 25% or lower in recent years). So it gives readers a false sense that all is well. I believe cutting an entire section like this deserves much more consensus and agreement before being done, not merely pointing to another page (where the issue wasn't resolved). As the article is again, it looks like an advertisement for the US Congress which violates WP's no-advertising policy. As a compromise, I'm willing to keep the criticism section off PROVIDED there is a link at the bottom to a Google knol where the criticism section can reside. In that way, if users feel the criticisms constitute opinion, then it will satisfy their need to have the criticism section removed; but at the same time, for people interested in learning more about the Congress, they can find it in a Google knol by clicking on it. If this is unacceptable, I'll have to insist that the criticism section be returned and I'll insist that labels such as "advertisement" and "not-neutral" be attached to the top of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am adding a link to the knol here which has the criticism section with references. I urge readers to restore the criticism section to re-balance the article; if not, then leave the link; otherwise, this article is a glaringly pro-Congress article which violates Wikipedia's policies against neutrality and advertising.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether the Criticism section should ultimately stay or not, removing it without discussion is unacceptable. Moreover, Andy120290's edit summary ("Talk gets me nowhere") of his most recent reversion is contrary to WP principles. In the two other major articles where this section exists (that I'm aware of), the section has remained pending discussion. I don't see why the Congress article should be any different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BBb23. Like, we need to hash this out. I'm interested in learning more from the people who have problems with the criticism section. Like, is there anything I can do to address their concerns? Wondering. My sense is Andy sees the article this way: that it's essentially neutrally descriptive about the Congress; and then there's this CRITICISM SECTION. What he's saying is there's no praise section -- is that what he's trying to say? So I'm kind of seeing how he sees things. From my viewpoint, the so-called "description" section isn't neutral, but maybe I'm too critical? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read over the Congress article, trying to see it with fresh eyes. I learned some things I didn't know. It's a pretty good article as it is. But what struck me is that there are only about 50 references. The criticism section has, in itself, over 60+ references. My general sense is that for these encyclopedia type articles, striving to have lots of references helps us stay mainstream, stay neutral, write good solid stuff. So I'm thinking that the task here isn't so much to focus on whether to keep the criticism section or not, but rather to improve this article with more research, more references. In that way, positives will emerge as well as negatives, and maybe we can get this article back to "Featured Article" status once again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 11 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)

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)

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

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)