Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Congressional stagnation in the United States/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Congressional stagnation in the United States

Congressional stagnation in the United States edit

This article was started several weeks ago and has already had some useful contributions from wikignome Worldtraveller. I would like some help to impprove the quality of this article, and ultimately bring it to FA status. Any help (especially in writing style, i'm not an experienced wiki-writer) would be appreciated. Thethinredline 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, interesting article and obviously you've done a lot of work. One question I have: is the term "Congressional stagnation" one you made up or is it a reference to someone's work or theory - I do see your mention of the "vanishing marginals" theory by Mayhew. I think a more neutral title or description may be in order, something like "Reelection rate of US Representatives" would be NPOV and not Wikipedia:No original research. "Stagnation" is a negatively-loaded term. Some people might think that the low turnover is a good thing, for example, and our job is to describe a theory or objective fact as an encyclopedia article, not to take a position on the pros and cons of the subject. Kaisershatner 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Kaisershatner. The name is too PoV. The term is also ambiguous, because it has also been applied to stagnation in legislation due to incumbency advantages. If you chose a more neutral name such as "Congressional incumbency", you could deal with the same topic but from a more neutral perspective. (Not that I disagree with the point of the write-up.) The text is also loaded with PoV statements in places. Finally the page could use a category or two. Thanks. — RJH 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the contributions, however the term "Congressional stagnation" is the accepted political term in the United States, and all political commentators in America use the term "stagnation". It is the only term I've certainly ever read to describe it (and I've done extensive research on it). Thethinredline 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So could you provide some information on who originated the expression? Perhaps even a quote? Thanks. — RJH 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur w/RJH on that. Also, my google search for "Congressional stagnation" found 27 results, of which several were to Wikipedia and related sites. So who coined this term, when, and who uses it? Kaisershatner 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately i couldn't give information on who coined the phrase, considering i don't know that speicific information however works I have used for my research have. One of them is "Life After Reform" by Michael Malbin and others (which is one of the works i have cited on the page) includes an essay called The Stagnation of Congressional Election, and includes phrases like "Congressional elections are stagnant." and " Also works by James Campbell, who I have also used in research, uses the same term. I think that a title such as "Congressional incumbency" would not be entirely appropriate for the content? I am perfectly willing to alter it however. How's about "Incumbent electoral eadvantage in the United States congress"? Thethinredline 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also... if you don't mind my asking, could RJH specifically highlight which passages are particularly offending in terms of unjustified POV. As i have attempted to offer serious theory analysis in the article and to the best of my ability comment on the plausibility of certain theories, while still being dictated by facts and other published authors in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research policies. By my reconing the existance of a certain degree of critical analysis can be considered NPOV if facts are respected, which is potentially why i do not recognize the offending passages. Thanks. Thethinredline 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few sentences to which I took issue. Please don't take these negatively.
  • "In the 2000 Elections there was never any question of who would emerge victorious." --> "never" implies 100% certainty, whereas the total was thereafter shown to be less than 100%. So this looks PoV.
  • "Congressional elections are stagnant" --> This commentary asserts an absolute. I'd prefer "are relatively stagnant", or "appear stagnant".
  • "Other potential theories to explain this growing stagnation" --> Growing stagnation? The article already stated that it is close to 100% already. Why is it growing? Was this meant to be relative to a particular date in the past? The wording implies a PoV emphasis, at least to me.
  • "It might be expected that a large number of citizens would come to regard the process as unresponsive and crooked, grow cynical, and stay home on election day." --> This appears to be a PoV generalization. Is there referenced, authoritative commentary to lend it some credence?
Also there is some text that could be clarified:
  • "The will be a further investigation..." --> There will...
  • "...elections has been on the decline of several decades..." --> have been? for several?
  • "...second half of of the 20th century..." --> only one "of"
  • "...money doesn not buy elections..." --> doesn't buy
  • "Having been tailored to focus on issue advocacy and big businesses, BCRA forfeited its chance to focus more on congressional stagnation." --> turning BCRA into an entity.
I hope this was a little help. Thanks — RJH 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last suggestion: would it be possible to show a graph displaying the rate of re-eelction of congressional incuments over time? A chart displaying trends like that can be very informative. (Possibly even with Reps on one line and Senators on another.) Thanks. — RJH 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to upload graphs or charts to wikipedia (or any content for that matter)... But i'd be willing to do it (the graph that is) a try to upload if someone could direct me to a page that explained how i could do it. And RJH, i wont take any contructive criticism personally.... i'm the one asking for help here, and you're obliging superbly. Thethinredline 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, you're entirely too kind. You can just click on the "Upload file" link under the toolbox to the left. There are various links available on how to proceed. Most of the work is in just figuring out what licensing tag to use. You might also take a look at the commons site. — RJH 19:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, i like to think i realize that everyone here is contributing because of their love of information and knowledge, and that we're all alike in that respect. I also like to think that you people are helping me because of that reason, and that is something to be grateful for. Unfortunately i don't think i'll be able to do some significant editing in the next few days, i have a wife who is getting steadily deeper into her thrid trimester with our son, so i'm stealing minutes and moments to work up all this advice your giving me, and it'll take me a few weeks. But still Thethinredline 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, there's no deadline here. (Other than the archival date. :-) — RJH 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fascinated as to why there is absolutely no discussion of the issue of Term Limits, though this is the central political reaction to Congressional Stagnation, and the vigorous movements in the 1990's the pass resolutions, especially at the state and local level. There has been much analysis of what occured at the local level as well. Also, where are the arguments against incumbency? Please address these issues :) thanks Much! Judgesurreal777 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion; term limits for Congressmen was a plank of the Contract with America but was defeated (I think in the Senate but I may mis-remember). That would be a worthy addition. Kaisershatner 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting I would include some discussion on the potential effects of imposing term limits? I had actually not considered writing about potential solutions to the issue of incumbency advantage. However i do not inderstand what you mean by "where are the arguments against incumbency". Nevertheless I can include something on term limits. Thethinredline 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

naming issue edit

(pasted from Talk:Congressional stagnation in the United States): Per my comments at WP:PR I think the title of this article is not neutral and may still count as original research (pending your reply at PR, and presuming you can cite an example of "Congressional stagnation" being used to describe this phenomenon of incumbents being re-elected). I think it should be moved, to something like "Re-election rate of U.S. Representatives." Kaisershatner 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but i think a more suitable title would be "Incumbent electoral eadvantage in the United States Congress"? Still to POV? As i think that title is more appropriate Thethinredline 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty neutral title, but does it really summarize the subject of this article? Before we move it, maybe discussion is in order (see WP:RM and Wikipedia:Naming_conflict). I think the process may help us figure this out. Anyone with more experience have a suggestion as to how to resolve the naming issue? Kaisershatner 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I think I figured this out:Talk:Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States#Requested_move Kaisershatner 16:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that the proposed title "Incumbent electoral eadvantage in the United States Congress" is a better summary than the proposed "Re-election rate of U.S. Representatives" as the focus of the article is one the actual electoral advantage, the reasons behind the rate, not the rate specifically. Thethinredline 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=191892641"