Talk:United States Senate/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Argument over Senator Sanders' Party Affiliation Resolution.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instead of engaging in a Revert War over this, lets talk about it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The new DNC rules prohibit non-Democrats from running for president. This would mean that Bernie Sanders would have to be a Democrat.... Infinity2323236 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Traffic

Theere was a large spike in views of this article on 8 February 2020. It went up to a remarkable 17 million on that day and it has been consistently high ever since – about 4 million daily views on average. This makes it the most popular Wikipedia article but this seems anomalous because hot news like the pandemic or Kenny Rogers death didn't go so high. Curious ... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if some bots are at work here. I see no reason why this article should get so many views. Hzh (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Having recently discovered the Pageviews tool while curious about Coronavirus statistics, I found the "most views" link and, as presumed, top 20 were all pandemic-related except for this glaring anomaly at #1. Searching for some explanation, I end up here. Rairden (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Under Current Composition, in addition to listing the number of senators of each party, this page should replicate the table found at the end of the House of Representatives article whereby the number of state delegation majorities is also listed. Obviously, with the Senate, there is considerably higher probability of split delegations so there should be three categories. Ideally, this information would also be listed in the caption box at the top right hand side of the page. This may only be of interest in rare instances, but given that it would determine the likely outcome of a vote in the Senate for the Vice President, it should be clearly and plainly available as a foundational aspect of how the Senate would function in one of its most momentous and important constitutionally manadated functions.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This information is already available at List of current United States senators, which is linked from the same place as the table would be placed. Since the number of legations that are majority Democratic or Republican is identical to the number of delegations without a split delegation, this request only repackages information already available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The information is not available where you describe. There is map with states colored blue, red, or purple. Why should someone first of all have to dig to find that other page, then count states on a map to come up with the information? Your misreading of this second article and its contents, in addition to your apparent misreading of the justification for the intitial request (namely that people generally will be ignorant of the import of this information unless presented with it, how then would they know to search for it in another place?) suggests a major reading comprehension problem on your part. Is the example demonstrated by the article on the house not a good enough reason to match what is present there in this article? Good grief. I'm not interested in your community of internet weanies. I saw something I thought was glaringly amiss, and took time from my day to (I thought) learn your procedures to bring it to the attention of those supposedly committed to improving this site. The answer given by you? A misstatement that the information is already present somewhere else and that the universe would implode if it was sensibly also included here, coupled with a demand to spend more of my time dealing with your ilk? No thanks. Leave the article in the excecrable state that is is in, so that generalized American ignorance of their own laws and institutions can continue to shock an appall all those capable of reasoned thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.174.216 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. I based my request on what I had read in various recent articles around this process (histrionics about Trump losing the election and remaining President). Wrong with regard to the Senate choosing the VP. I went back and read the actual 12th amendment, and while the House divides itself into state delegations with regard to voting for President, the Senate does not. As I read the 12th, it says the Senate votes. It does not contain the same language about partitioning into state delegations. Thus, each Senator would get a vote, and whomever controls the Senate will choose their preferred candidate. No language with regard to tie breaking here. Presumably, even though it would be the recently elected Senators who would do the voting, the current VP would still vote to break a tie, namely Pence. Thus the party currently outside the Whitehouse would need to have a caucus containing 51 votes if they hoped to choose. There is a small section at the end of the article that mentions the Senate's role in choosing the VP, but no language describing in detail how. If someone with access wishes to improve the article, they could mention that each Senator gets a vote, and that this differs from the House procedure. Whomever might make this effort should check as well that I am correct in my information that it is the newly elected members who vote, and not the previous Senate and include this information as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.174.216 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

World's greatest deliberative body

I was just going to add a reference that says a little more about the term "the world's greatest deliberative body." Kathy Kiely in the Washington Post notes that it is attributed to James Buchanan, is often parroted by senators, was cited recently by Chief Justice Roberts, made it onto the official US Senate website, and that "members of the British Parliament might take exception to this self-serving characterization." It is based in part on the supposed ability of senators to talk as long as they want, but new filibuster rules have thwarted that. Also touched upon in the article is that it was designed by the founding fathers to be more deliberative than the populist House, whose members have to run for reelection every two years and thus were supposed to be closer to the whims of the people. (The president at the time was also not directed elected, and obviously fewer were allowed to vote back then, as well.) Today in the Senate says Kathy Kiely, the author of the article, it is rare to see most of the members even show up all at once for a proper debate. The page is partially locked but someone else is free to add any of this if they wish.--100.4.149.184 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

}Arinze Chukwumerije} WEVtrbynunbf3rtgyuj (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Unclear what change is requested. Terasail^[Talk] 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What if the Senate is split evenly between two parties?

At several points in the Article there are references to the leader of the majority party (etc.). What happens if there is no majority party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc (talk • contribs) 07:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Vice President would be tie breaker and there fore the majority party would be the Vice Presidents party unless the Vice President is a independent in that case there would be no majority or minority party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

the majority leader is decided by the majority party and in the case of a 50/50 split the majority party is decided by the vice president. This means that the new senate majority belongs to a democrat as it is known that both independents will vote for a democratic majority leader. 38.75.232.14 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Worlds greatest deliberative body

The Senate's own Chaplain described the US Senate as "a quagmire of dysfunction" after the 2021 insurgency. To ignore that and continue describing it as the world's greatest deliberative body is blind to the work of other democracies around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.78.11.73 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Change information in side bar to reflect the current state of the US senate, from there being 51 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Democratically aligned Independents, and one vacancy resulting in a Republican mojrity to 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 democratically aligned independents, resulting in a Democratic majority as a result of the Vice President being democratic and acting as the tie-braking factor. EduCow (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Once the election results are certified and the new senators sworn in, the membership numbers will be updated. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I change the Senator count, yet?

Like the title says. Do we have to wait for Warnock and Ossoff to be sworn in before I can change the party balance in the infobox? In the body, I can obviously explain the results and how they aren't senators yet, but what's the protocol for the infobox? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

They have not been sworn in yet, they are not yet senators, officially. Current events obviously may affect their swearing in, but it expected to occur within a few days. OfficerManatee (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Swearing in is a formality. For all practical purposes they are senators. Changing the box with an explanation about the swearing in date is better than pretending nothing has happened. — LissanX (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not true. They are NOT senators until the Georgia legislature has certified the election results. They have until January 22 to do so. Dr. Blazer (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

On this page, it says Jon Ossoff was given the senior senator position because his name comes first in the alphabet, which is not true. It was determined to be Ossoff because he was elected for a full term and Raphael Warnock was not.

Here is a source: https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/lph-congress.htm#:~:text=Of%20the%20two%20Senators%20from,as%20the%20%22junior%22%20Senator Owenrhysthomas (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Right meta colors

I was checking the meta colors and they are wrong on the chart! Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Independent_Democratic/meta/color The independent colors are off by a bit Bbraxtonlee (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Graph/Diagram of Senate

I asked a question at Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:117th_United_States_Senate.svg about whether it would be useful to create a diagram on the lines of the diagram for the Scottish Parliament, where thr vice president would get a dot too?

Egroeg5 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the vice president being a dot would be an excellent idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I second this thought as the VP would have a vote in the event of a tie and would act as the tie-breaker. The graphic representation of this would be accurate and appropriate. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that a spot for the VP is an excellent idea. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Given this consensus, I shall be bold and change the diagram. Egroeg5 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I note with some amusement that this proposal had already been brought up without opposition in 2017, at [[3]], but out of technological concerns no change was made. Egroeg5 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

Under the heading "Membership", in "Qualification", the article says that all Senators must be "a citizen of the ted States" rather than "United States", which would be correct 2003:E7:1712:B00:EC37:ABFD:37FD:C89B (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, all set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Senate runoff" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Senate runoff. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Senate runoff until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021

Madison is misquoted under the History section. Change "the people" to "they". Maybe include the rest of the paragraph for fuller context. Mistertoki (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Senator designate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Senator designate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Senator designate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Senate-designate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Senate-designate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Senate-designate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Senate designate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Senate designate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Senate designate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Senator-designate" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Senator-designate and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Senator-designate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

In the third paragraph of the intro portion, there is a missing comma (",") here: "federal judges (including Federal Supreme Court justices) flag officers", between "justices)" and "flag officers".

Similarly, the oxford comma is missing in this same sentence in this same paragraph here: "other federal executive officials and federal uniformed officers.", between "executive officials" and "federal uniformed".

Please add these two commas, thank you! Snpalavan (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Add after 51 Majority line in intro box “60 for Fillibuster-proof majority” and hyperlink to filibuster 207.153.22.11 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: - As the filibuster is a matter of Senate rules, rather than an inherent feature of the Senate from the Constitution, combined with the fact that the filibuster only applies to certain types of Senate business, I don't think this belongs in the infobox. PianoDan (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Upper Chamber?

The U.S. Does not have an upper and lower chamber. This is something you learn in any high school government class. The House of Representatives and the Senate are equal. I do not deny that there is more prestige in the Senate - none the less, the Senate is not the upper chamber, and the House is not the lower. Can we change this or cite that formally? Anyone who knows anything knows that's wrong.

I disagree. They are equal technically speaking but the Senate can be regarded as the "Upper Chamber" and the House as the "Lower Chamber." The Senate is certainly "Upper" in the sense that there are less members, each member represents a state in its entirety versus a portion of a state, the minimum age to become a Senator is 30 versus 25 for the House, the Senate has advice and consent powers that the House does not have, etc.--Tpkatsa (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Any evidence Senate has 100 members instead of 101?

Hear me out, please -- the U.S. has 100 senators, that's rather obvious and well-sourced. But is there any evidence that the Senate actually has 100 members?

Since the Vice President is part of the Senate I wonder if the number in the seating diagram should be actually 101. 222.154.237.170 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Senate has 100 members, two for each state in the United States. The Vice President is not member, even though the Vice President may be called upon to break a tie vote or sit for ceremonial purposes.--Tpkatsa (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A republic, not a democracy

"Though this was an intentional part of the Connecticut Compromise, critics have described the fact that representation in the Senate is not proportional to the population as "anti-democratic" and "minority rule".

The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The Senate is not and was never intended to be a democratic body (like the House). Even with the direct election of senators, the Senate does not represent the people per se; senators represent sovereign states, and there is a difference between the two types of representation. --Tpkatsa (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

First, this idea of "it's not a democracy because it's a republic" is frankly patent nonsense. Is Switzerland not a democracy because it's a republic? Is Finland not a democracy because it's a republic? When you say "country X is a democracy" it means that it has adequate democratic processes. It doesn't mean literally every decision is put up to some popular vote, or that it's some "raw essence" of democracy floating without any other institutions. It means that there may be institutions such as the executive government ministries, military, judiciary (which are explicitly designed to uphold existing law rather than "democratically vote on" creating them), but they are ultimately accountable to the people through the democratic processes.

There's nothing wrong with calling a republic a democracy, just like there's nothing wrong with calling a constitutional monarchy a democracy, if the system is sufficiently governed democratically. This idea of "X is not a democracy, it's a republic" needlessly distracts the whole conversation towards a different topic. Although we can talk about the genuine problems and challenges that a democratic system may face, saying "it's not A, let's talk about Z instead" is not helpful to the discussion.

Second, this whole talk section opened here is irrelevant to the purpose of editing the United States Senate article. Where are your sources to include on proposing this argument and inserting it into the encyclopedia? And what purpose does this proposed edit serve? If you're trying to respond to the criticism, that the unequal representation in the Senate is undemocratic, by stating that this inequality was the way it was intended to be because it's a "republic" (which is, as mentioned, meaningless to bring up), then, why does it have to be that way? Putting aside the merits/flaws of the current Senate structure, why can't the Senate (and the US as a whole) be a democracy, and be structured the way these critics bring up? Your response does nothing to answer the critics because they'll simply reply "well it should be a democracy".

And indeed, this is part of the drive why the Constitution of the United States has been amended over time in the past two centuries, along with the laws of its states: to make the country a better democracy. The Seventeenth Amendment, for instance, changed the senators' election procedure to represent the people of the respective states from the earlier procedure of indirect election by state legislatures - some of which various people at the time thought were corrupt, deadlocked, racially disenfranchised, or unequally apportioned similar to the US Senate (this was before "one person, one vote" on state legislatures). And some legislatures simply didn't want to be defined as electors of senators in the first place (many gave their electing powers to their people via referendums by the time the amendment was ratified). So yes, US senators do represent the "people", just grouped differently from the "people" of the legislative districts for the House of Representatives. (You can argue about whether the reason for this amendment is sound, but I'm just explaining the rationale for its ratification.)

A democratic state isn't necessarily perfect. Plenty of countries, subregions and other bodies (such as the European Union) aren't necessarily perfectly apportioned, and yet they have other elements that are rooted in firm democratic pillars that have proper accountability to their electorate. We don't look at one element that isn't how certain people desire it to be and conclude "there we go, this whole thing is not a democracy because here, a term to describe the entity that has no bearing to this talk". These critics are arguing that the US Senate, with all its powers and prestige, being unequally apportioned is a flaw to the democracy of the United States. You can debate whether or not the Senate structure (or its powers) should change. But replying with "well it is, in fact, not a democracy by design" is not enough to satisfy anyone, and doesn't contribute to the encyclopedic article anyway. 2603:8000:B600:4000:6846:862F:A567:2393 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Remove the 1extra senator from the diagram there are only 100 not 101 143.170.73.183 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You mean the dot beneath the number? That represents the vice president Cannolis (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinema

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/09/politics/kyrsten-sinema-leaves-democratic-party/index.html

this seems like a big deal, no? Littlepagers (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, yes, but less so if she sticks with the Democratic Caucus to keep her committee assignments (or for whatever reason). It's interesting that the CNN article appears to be misleadingly inaccurate, claiming a 51-49 majority for the Democrats with the two independents Sanders and King in the Democratic Caucus. If there are 47 Democrats as the Wikipedia article on the Senate indicates, however, that would be a 49-50 minority not including Sinema, whose status seems unclear. Bret Sterling (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the current situation (47 dems, 3 independents, 50 rep; what this article talks about) vs what the new Senate will have (48 dems, 3 independnets, 49 rep; CNN article). meamemg (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I missed that, yes. But 48 Democrats vs. 49 Republicans still doesn't look like an actual majority. Bret Sterling (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, also I believe that she should be referred to as an independent on the wikibox that doesn't caucus with either. Unless there is some document we can point to of caucuses she essentially refers to herself as an independent in this video: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1601211096420990976 Etsaloto (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

She hasn't announced that she'll be caucusing with the Democrats. But, she has said she hopes to keep her positions on sub-committees. GoodDay (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Elections by state

Unless I'm missing something, Louisiana and Mississippi should be switched in the voting systems section of the infobox. Mississippi only has runoffs for primaries, so senators are elected by plurality in the general. Louisiana uses a form of the two-round system (candidates can't get <50% in the general). I didn't want to change it unilaterally in case I was wrong about something here as it seems like a weird mistake. User136596 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

edit request on 31 December 2022 for the independent party color cell fix

The party composition of the Senate during the 117th Congress:

Affiliation		Members
	Republican	50
	Democratic	47
	Independents	3
Total		100

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Done. Drdpw (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Party structure chart update needed

The grey dot in the infobox's party structure chart should be turned red now that the Nebraska vacancy has been filled. Oooooooseven (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

Strom Thurmond was later a Republican senator from South Carolina. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: he was Democrat at the time of his record setting fillibuster, which is his only mention in this article, unless I missed something RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Salaries

There could me more salary info on the Senate as a body. This include the Senate Parliamentarian, clerk, seargeant at arms, etc.. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Military Promotions

Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly ruining military readiness. He has no business being in the Senate and is oblivious to the harm he is causing all because of a man’s persecution of women. What will Tommy say to the threat from China is rising? I care more about taking women’s rights away? 71.70.226.126 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What changes would you suggest to the article? This isn't the place to discuss opinions. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I count 25 entire paragraphs that are without any type of source or attribution. I'm kind of surprised. That seems like a lot for a topic like this one. MonMothma (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting Record

I think there should be a new page displaying the voting record of each present senator and past senators, with each bill they voted on, explained in a way that is easily understandable BigUnit69 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be a mammoth undertaking. MonMothma (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

while that is true, there should be a government website which has the entire voting history of current senators

sure, the only problem is the amount of past and current senators altogether BigUnit69 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

DELETE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE:

Also, people living in the District of Columbia and in U.S. territories are represented in the Senate by non-voting delegates.[80][81]

The above sentence is factually incorrect. Any Congressional representation of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories only exists in the U.S. House; there is no territorial or DC representation in the Senate (and not all territories are even represented by "delegates" in the House, i.e. Puerto Rico). TheGlowingEmber (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I made the correction: please let me know if you find any other issues, @TheGlowingEmber Superb Owl (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications of what constitutes a Citation.

I requested citations for an article that contained not several or many citations, but not a SINGLE Citation. It did contain LINKS, which linked to definitions, other Wikipedia articles but not what one would consider "reference" material such as a link to a newspaper, encyclopedia, etc. I was told by a, very regular contributor to Wikipedia, editor of Wikipedic entries, all around bane to sophomoric Wikipedia contributors that the article was fine and didn't require anything more than this type of citation: two chambers rather than this type of citation: chamber being the lower house https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house#cite_note-1 So, links to other Wikipedia articles and definitions are acceptable citations? Or not? Thank you... 2600:1700:8A90:ECF0:916F:20EC:FBF:8C (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking about something occurring on a different article's page. Discussions about what is appropriate should be left on the talk page of the relevant article. If it cannot be resolved there, you should post at the relevant noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards#Content_dispute_resolution meamemg (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

I want to edit the note [a] as it is misleading to false. Note states "independent Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia do not caucus with the Democrats, but are "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes".[4]"

When going to the following reference [4] The article only speaks of Kyrsten Sinema and her alignment and how she is quoted to say "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes" in the following article "https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/23/sinema-trashes-dems-gop-00088461" But note [a] states that "independent Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia do not caucus with the Democrats, but are "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes".[4]" The "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes" is Kyrsten Quote only and we should not mislead the readers that those are Joe Machins words as well, It is blatant misrepresentation.

The note should state that recently Joe Machins left the Democratic party and registered independent. OR we should just remove "but are "formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes".[4]" because those are only Kyrstens words quoted not Joe Machins. OR we should be clear that that is Kyrsten's quote only. There are many ways to skin this cat so to speak.

Thank you Cleartheswamp (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Question: It's always more helpful when you provide more specific proposals, could you tell me which solution do you prefer the most? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka 03:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)