![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why the hell was my edit reverted?! The statement implies that Obama will definitely not be President between 2017 and 2019. How the hell do we know that for sure at this point? The man has gotten away with rigging the 2012 presidential election and has broken the law so many numerous times, that he is capable of anything. He may make an executive order that may prevent any further elections from taking place. In addition to that, the statement is completely unnecessary. What is wrong with you people?? If I don't get a response to this by 19:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC), I will remove the statement. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the statement. Reverting a legitimate edit without sufficient reasoning is insane. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Executive Orders only apply to the operations of Executive Departments,agencies,and bureaus etc.
Executive Orders are also subject to judicial review. If I need to explain more I can. Simmons123456 ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
How about putting new members name in bold to highlight them? This would prove a very valuable and visual piece of information. — user:mnw2000 11:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
We had two new senators elected in 2016. I highlighted them to show how this small change could help convey important information. I understand, that to be consistent, we would need to update all the previous articles. However, I thought we could wait and see what other comments were received. If the author of this articles want to revert this, I understand. — user:mnw2000 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't be listing Paul Ryan & Orrin Hatch, until they're actually re-elected Speaker & President pro temp. Assuming this will occur (due to Republican majorities in both chambers), we should wait when it does on January 3, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 21:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the logic of ordering the Senators by class rather than seniority? The class names are basically never used by anybody, while seniority is the usual means of distinguishing between senators in a state. I realize that all our Congress articles list by class, but I see no good reason to do this, and this would be the obvious place to start if we wanted to switch it up. I'd like to see a good reason to list by class, rather than just "this is how we do it." john k ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
So is Dick Durbin or Patty Murray the Senate Democratic/Minority Whip? Are there two?— GoldRingChip 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the Assistant Minority Leader also the Minority Whip? GoodDay ( talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 9 states that a representative's term starts the day of a special election, rather than the day they are seated, however, there is no citation for this. Also, the House itself has yet to recognize him as a member, and the election results are not yet certified, so referring to him as having taken office may be premature. ScorpiumX ( talk) 02:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
When did Smith become a US Senator? January 2 or 3, 2018? Similiar dispute occurring at Tina Smith & Seniority in the United States Senate articles. GoodDay ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —
GoldRingChip
12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a Journal of Politics study which provides a neat and concise assessment of the 115 Congress. Parts of the assessment from this peer-reviewed study are quoted in the lede. Journal of Politics is widely considered among the top three political science journals, so claims that the journal is biased or somehow non-RS are ludicrous. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Snooganssnoogans I’ve found that your claim lacks sources. The part saying that the Journal of Politics is among the Top three political science journals. Is widely considered (by whom)? The only stat I found is that it is ranked 24th in impact. That is a high rating yes but I’ve done some looking and I’ve not found the evidence that makes your claim to be true. Allow me to be clear I’m not looking to start trouble or anything I just wish to have the evidence that makes your claims about the Journal of Politics true. Wollers14 ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright thank you for responding. Be careful though with this study people will find it to be biased. So here let me propose something that may ease the concerns of those people. If you can find other reviews from previous congresses then I think that there will be no problems with those people. Also it can be from any of the the top three you mentioned earlier I know I'm not an admin I'm just concerned about the page and edit warring occurring between you and other editors. Try doing the earliest congress you can find. If you don't wish to do it I understand the sources do seem legit but my main goal is to resolve this issue and I think that what I mentioned before is the best course of action to keep other users from finding bias in the statement. Thank you for responding and hopefully this issue can be resolved. Wollers14 ( talk) 03:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was your duty. Did you check to see if there were other studies? By any of the top three mentioned above? Wollers14 ( talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Other studies that reflect the findings of the ones in the lede [5] [6]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly an opinion piece not discussed in the article. It has no place in the lead.
There are two parts of the of the Journal of Politics saying the exact same thing. One of them needs to be removed. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Here it seems we are at an impasse how about we contact an admin about this because it just doesn't look right to me. How about we contact the Admin that moniters this page and we can make our cases to them without the need of an edit war here. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Several key pieces of legislation as missing from this article. The article includes the 2017 NDAA, but fails to include the 2018 NDAA. Furthermore, the farm bill (I do not know the name) should be included under proposed legislation, as it can reasonably be expected to become law soon. Other key proposed legislation includes the JOBS Act 3.0 and the prison reform bill passed by the House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note on the text for the map on the 2016 results in the section House of Representatives. The text suggests that the pale colours are holds and the "brighter" colours are gains. The "brighter" colours are not actually brighter. They are deeper or darker. The "paler" colours are actually brighter. -- 82.2.5.153 ( talk) 02:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Trying to be accurate, so shouldn't the current House vacancies in the 115th congress be listed as A special election will be held November 6, 2018, rather than Seat will remain vacant for the remainder of the term and Not filled this Congress?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 00:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So I suspect that's incorrect, too. — GoldRingChip 00:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)The law states that if a vacancy occurs in an even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, there will not be a special election. Instead, the candidate who wins the general election will be appointed to serve out the last few months of Bridenstine’s term.
Under the Constitution, governors must call special elections to fill House vacancies.
Asked about the constitutionality of an appointment to a House seat, Oklahoma State Elections Board spokesman Bryan Deal wrote in an email that he was not aware of any legal challenges to the law.
Hello I would like an Admin to take a look at Snooganoogan's Journal of Politics lead and in the Major Legislation section and determine whether or not it is valid. Because it just does not look right to me as a writer myself. I would argue that the one on the lead be removed and the one in the Major Legislation section remain. If an Admin can take a look and give us a verdict on this issue we can move on from here. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was an opinion allow me to reiterate that I did not do this because I found it to be biased. I did it because it was repeated and it needed to change. Wollers14 ( talk) 19:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
GoldRingChip edit warring by Snooganssnoogans is appalling and is something you can do something about considering this is within AP2 snctions area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 18:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have reduced the political discussion. It could be useful perhaps in a different article? — GoldRingChip 19:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why the hell was my edit reverted?! The statement implies that Obama will definitely not be President between 2017 and 2019. How the hell do we know that for sure at this point? The man has gotten away with rigging the 2012 presidential election and has broken the law so many numerous times, that he is capable of anything. He may make an executive order that may prevent any further elections from taking place. In addition to that, the statement is completely unnecessary. What is wrong with you people?? If I don't get a response to this by 19:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC), I will remove the statement. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the statement. Reverting a legitimate edit without sufficient reasoning is insane. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Executive Orders only apply to the operations of Executive Departments,agencies,and bureaus etc.
Executive Orders are also subject to judicial review. If I need to explain more I can. Simmons123456 ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
How about putting new members name in bold to highlight them? This would prove a very valuable and visual piece of information. — user:mnw2000 11:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
We had two new senators elected in 2016. I highlighted them to show how this small change could help convey important information. I understand, that to be consistent, we would need to update all the previous articles. However, I thought we could wait and see what other comments were received. If the author of this articles want to revert this, I understand. — user:mnw2000 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't be listing Paul Ryan & Orrin Hatch, until they're actually re-elected Speaker & President pro temp. Assuming this will occur (due to Republican majorities in both chambers), we should wait when it does on January 3, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 21:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me the logic of ordering the Senators by class rather than seniority? The class names are basically never used by anybody, while seniority is the usual means of distinguishing between senators in a state. I realize that all our Congress articles list by class, but I see no good reason to do this, and this would be the obvious place to start if we wanted to switch it up. I'd like to see a good reason to list by class, rather than just "this is how we do it." john k ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
So is Dick Durbin or Patty Murray the Senate Democratic/Minority Whip? Are there two?— GoldRingChip 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the Assistant Minority Leader also the Minority Whip? GoodDay ( talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 9 states that a representative's term starts the day of a special election, rather than the day they are seated, however, there is no citation for this. Also, the House itself has yet to recognize him as a member, and the election results are not yet certified, so referring to him as having taken office may be premature. ScorpiumX ( talk) 02:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
When did Smith become a US Senator? January 2 or 3, 2018? Similiar dispute occurring at Tina Smith & Seniority in the United States Senate articles. GoodDay ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —
GoldRingChip
12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a Journal of Politics study which provides a neat and concise assessment of the 115 Congress. Parts of the assessment from this peer-reviewed study are quoted in the lede. Journal of Politics is widely considered among the top three political science journals, so claims that the journal is biased or somehow non-RS are ludicrous. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Snooganssnoogans I’ve found that your claim lacks sources. The part saying that the Journal of Politics is among the Top three political science journals. Is widely considered (by whom)? The only stat I found is that it is ranked 24th in impact. That is a high rating yes but I’ve done some looking and I’ve not found the evidence that makes your claim to be true. Allow me to be clear I’m not looking to start trouble or anything I just wish to have the evidence that makes your claims about the Journal of Politics true. Wollers14 ( talk) 05:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright thank you for responding. Be careful though with this study people will find it to be biased. So here let me propose something that may ease the concerns of those people. If you can find other reviews from previous congresses then I think that there will be no problems with those people. Also it can be from any of the the top three you mentioned earlier I know I'm not an admin I'm just concerned about the page and edit warring occurring between you and other editors. Try doing the earliest congress you can find. If you don't wish to do it I understand the sources do seem legit but my main goal is to resolve this issue and I think that what I mentioned before is the best course of action to keep other users from finding bias in the statement. Thank you for responding and hopefully this issue can be resolved. Wollers14 ( talk) 03:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was your duty. Did you check to see if there were other studies? By any of the top three mentioned above? Wollers14 ( talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Other studies that reflect the findings of the ones in the lede [5] [6]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly an opinion piece not discussed in the article. It has no place in the lead.
There are two parts of the of the Journal of Politics saying the exact same thing. One of them needs to be removed. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Here it seems we are at an impasse how about we contact an admin about this because it just doesn't look right to me. How about we contact the Admin that moniters this page and we can make our cases to them without the need of an edit war here. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Several key pieces of legislation as missing from this article. The article includes the 2017 NDAA, but fails to include the 2018 NDAA. Furthermore, the farm bill (I do not know the name) should be included under proposed legislation, as it can reasonably be expected to become law soon. Other key proposed legislation includes the JOBS Act 3.0 and the prison reform bill passed by the House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note on the text for the map on the 2016 results in the section House of Representatives. The text suggests that the pale colours are holds and the "brighter" colours are gains. The "brighter" colours are not actually brighter. They are deeper or darker. The "paler" colours are actually brighter. -- 82.2.5.153 ( talk) 02:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Trying to be accurate, so shouldn't the current House vacancies in the 115th congress be listed as A special election will be held November 6, 2018, rather than Seat will remain vacant for the remainder of the term and Not filled this Congress?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 00:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So I suspect that's incorrect, too. — GoldRingChip 00:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)The law states that if a vacancy occurs in an even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, there will not be a special election. Instead, the candidate who wins the general election will be appointed to serve out the last few months of Bridenstine’s term.
Under the Constitution, governors must call special elections to fill House vacancies.
Asked about the constitutionality of an appointment to a House seat, Oklahoma State Elections Board spokesman Bryan Deal wrote in an email that he was not aware of any legal challenges to the law.
Hello I would like an Admin to take a look at Snooganoogan's Journal of Politics lead and in the Major Legislation section and determine whether or not it is valid. Because it just does not look right to me as a writer myself. I would argue that the one on the lead be removed and the one in the Major Legislation section remain. If an Admin can take a look and give us a verdict on this issue we can move on from here. Wollers14 ( talk) 04:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was an opinion allow me to reiterate that I did not do this because I found it to be biased. I did it because it was repeated and it needed to change. Wollers14 ( talk) 19:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
GoldRingChip edit warring by Snooganssnoogans is appalling and is something you can do something about considering this is within AP2 snctions area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 18:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have reduced the political discussion. It could be useful perhaps in a different article? — GoldRingChip 19:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)