Talk:U.S. Congress

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition The legislature of the United States federal government, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. [d] [e]

NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.

Trivial change: "infamous" is a very non-neutral word. Notorious isn't necessarily negative. Perhaps a simple famous would be better, but definitely not egregious. Daniel Drake 02:18, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree "infamous" was not a good choice, though I struggled more with that word than nearly any other in the article! "Famous" sounded like something I'd use for Britney Spears... Maybe I need to just rephrase the whole thing. Thanks for the spelling and grammar check on the rest of it. Steve Mount 15:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT) [edit: ok, I thought "famous" sounded more reasonable there than I initially thought. Regardless of your "side" in the revolution, I think the word is appropriate.]

change name to U.S. Congress for consistency

any objection to changing the name to U.S. Congress for consistency? Richard Jensen 06:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't know. Don't you think it sounds too informal?--José Leonardo Andrade 09:20, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I think it's less ponderous. Note that Library of Congress uses "U.S. Congress" in its formal siteshttp://thomas.loc.gov/links/] The House calls itself "The United States House" but calls the Senate "U.S. Senate"[1] The Senate uses both long and short forms (U.S. Senate). The Chicago manual of style OK's U.S. as adjective (section 15.34 -- it also allows just US instead of U.S.) AP Manual of style says: ok as adjective. Richard Jensen 09:50, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
You already did it for the Constitution, so I guess go for it here. Scared me for a minute there :) Steve Mount 22:28, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
I would never try to overthrow the Constitution, only rename the article. :) Richard Jensen 23:06, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

So it has been moved. It would have been better to use the "move" button because the history of contributions was lost this way [2]--José Leonardo Andrade 05:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

My mistake, I should have used "Move". :( Richard Jensen 08:49, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Article emphasis

The organization seems (to me, anyway) kind of of odd for an encyclopedia entry on the US Congress. I think it would make more sense to keep the focus primarily on what the current rendition calls the "modern United States Congress" (i.e. the institution as it was established in the Constitution and developed since 1789) and perhaps include a brief section on "origins" or "precursors" that would include some mention of the Continental Congresses. I'd be happy to develop the article in that direction if others agree, but being a relative newbie here I don't want to step on any toes. Shamira Gelbman 17:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just dive right in. Personally, I'd be interested to see where to take it. Chris Day 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

When at Wikipedia, I researched a tough criticism section of the US Congress. It's still there (didn't get deleted although it garnered one of those irksome tags). I know people are loathe to port stuff, but I wrote it, it's solid stuff and if people want it here, let me know. Perhaps I can rewrite it. At Wikipedia: here.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of what aspects? Is it something that interest others here?
What aspects? The corruption, rigged re-elections, partisanship, gridlock, etc. I don't know if people are interested. My bias is to be highly critical of US government from a non-partisan perspective.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, Jim Simmons and I have been working out on filling out what-may-someday-be-a-political-data-base. I certainly will write analytically on certain pieces. There are the attempts to pull together Restructuring of the U.S. political left and Restructuring of the U.S. political right. I'm not sure, however, how generic criticism fits, as opposed to documentation and analysis. The essay aspect is touchy. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't noticed. But politics is an area I'm interested in, and maybe I can assist later. What is your sense of the word essay? --Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I also wrote the "criticism" sections for Wikipedia articles on: President of the United States; Supreme Court of the United States; United States Constitution. Think my stuff is still there after perhaps 8 months.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)