Talk:History of the United States Congress

Unattributed Speculative Claim about 2000 US Election
The current version of the article states, "Republican George W Bush would go on to gain the presidency due to the Supreme Court of the United States preventing a full recount in the Florida electoral count." This is speculation, and since the recount was never completed, we'll never know if Bush would have won regardless. Additionally, of the 3 sources cited, only the last from "www.nigerdeltacongress.com" contains the word "court" and none contain the word "recount". I would strike this whole sentence, and edit the next sentence to start with "As a result of Bush's victory in the contested 2000 election ...." with a link to the article on the 2000 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errosica (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. The issue had zero to do with Congress and so I deleted it along with other minor details not closely related to the main topic. Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitiled
The article had incorrectly stated that Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist. It has been corrected. ESentinel (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of this article
I'm working on a revamp of United States Congress in the sandbox United States Congress/sandbox. The revamp is too long at present and needs to be trimmed; much material can be moved into this article here. There is well-referenced information about Congress' history in the sandbox version which is well-suited for this article. The idea is to keep the Congress article as an overview. If you have suggestions make a comment here or on my user talk page, thanx. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Upgrade September 19 2010
Added about 40K more material. It grew out of a project to upgrade the main article United States Congress. The upgrade for the Congress (main) article is currently in progress in the United States Congress/sandbox. Over concerns that there were too many criticisms along with questions about structure, several editors and I are trying to upgrade it. At present, the sandbox (proposed US Cong article) revamp is too large; as a result, material from it is being moved to articles such as this one which have more room. The new information is well-referenced and adds some new topics relating to the US Congress history which weren't covered before, such as the changing role of the media, lobbying, partisanship, etc. Academics suggested there were four main eras in congressional history so I used their classification scheme to try to make more order to the overall subsection headings -- to make it easier for readers to find, and for better organization. Questions, please leave comments here or on the talk page of the Congress article here at Talk:United States Congress. Also, this article could use more pictures; when I get time, perhaps next weekend, I'll try hunting for good ones, and I suggest others do similarly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect date for photograph
There is reason to doubt that the photograph of Senator James Strom Thurmond is from 1957. The main article on Senator Thurmond cites that identical photograph as being from 1977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.41.93 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching this. I think better information is needed about the date with a reference preferably; until then, let's leave out any date.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fillibuster
So it's got too many ls. Please fix it but let's keep discussion of our spelling mistakes on the talk page? Assume it's right that 60 wasn't a filibuster-proof majority so let's just leave it out for now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)