Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Speaker of the United States House of Representatives/archive1
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives[edit]
Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 18:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support- great article, though I don't think the picture is suitable for the article, being that he is only one of the many Speakers. Is there some seal of the speaker that we can place on the article? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support--not sure I agree with Flcelloguy, I think the picture is OK. Another great piece of work from Emsworth. Meelar (talk) 19:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- What I mean is that a logo or seal of some kind would be a more appropriate picture. For example, see the bottom logo at this website: http://speaker.house.gov/features/multimedia.asp. If you hover your mouse over it, it says "Graphic: Seal of the Speaker of the House...". I feel that that would be a better image. I haven't uploaded it yet because I'm not sure that that would fit under GFDL conditions, or if someone can find a "bigger" and higher resolution version. Any thoughts? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- A quick Google search for "Seal, Speaker of the House" returns several seals, but none in higher resolution. However, there's a color one there. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Object, nearly a strong object. History of the last hundred years or so is spotty at best. Too much discussion of standard/generic powers of presiding officer of legislative body. Lack of clarity regarding current v. historical roles (e.g., if house rules limit speaker to 4 terms, why did so many speakers serve longer). Not a bad article, but not substantive enough. Monicasdude 14:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Information on the twentieth century added. -- Emsworth 15:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Better, but still not substantive enough, I'd say. Relies too much on the inadequate entries on individual speakers and gives virtually no sense of the substantive politics of the century. Monicasdude 02:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- One would tend to disagree. The article about the Speaker seeks to address the powers and the influence of the Speaker himself. General information about "substantive politics," partisanship, and party leadership is not, IMO, a topic for this article, but rather a topic for an article on American politics. -- Emsworth 14:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree sharply. In sections, this article approaches the mythical description of Othello as a play about a black man who murders his white wife because she lost a handkerchief. Which is to, that by leaving out contextual material it conveys an essentially false historical impression. I would also note specific problems with regard to the late 20th Century -- absence of discussion of McCormack's problems with regard to corruption and the Vietnam War, for example; the complete absence of any text about Tom Foley and the unprecedented electoral targeting of a sitting speaker; the eclipse of Speaker Hastert in favor of majority leader DeLay. Too much of this article seems cobbled together from the entries on individual speakers, presenting institutional history as a string of thin biographical excerpts. It's like presenting a history of the US presidency and discussing the decline of presidential power post-Nixon without ever referring to Watergate and related abuses, or the expansion under GWBush without mentioning the 9/11 attacks and military aftermath. The more I reconsider my initial objections, the closer I come to a strong oppose position. Monicasdude 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- The point about Hastert is pure speculation. Surely, he has not taken a very public role (as the article notes); however, the assertion that he has been eclipsed in power by DeLay is not accurate. Secondly, McCormack's personal problems are not so closely related as you suggest: Watergate is different, as it clearly caused harm to the institution of the Presidency, being more publicly notable. -- Emsworth 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree sharply. In sections, this article approaches the mythical description of Othello as a play about a black man who murders his white wife because she lost a handkerchief. Which is to, that by leaving out contextual material it conveys an essentially false historical impression. I would also note specific problems with regard to the late 20th Century -- absence of discussion of McCormack's problems with regard to corruption and the Vietnam War, for example; the complete absence of any text about Tom Foley and the unprecedented electoral targeting of a sitting speaker; the eclipse of Speaker Hastert in favor of majority leader DeLay. Too much of this article seems cobbled together from the entries on individual speakers, presenting institutional history as a string of thin biographical excerpts. It's like presenting a history of the US presidency and discussing the decline of presidential power post-Nixon without ever referring to Watergate and related abuses, or the expansion under GWBush without mentioning the 9/11 attacks and military aftermath. The more I reconsider my initial objections, the closer I come to a strong oppose position. Monicasdude 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- One would tend to disagree. The article about the Speaker seeks to address the powers and the influence of the Speaker himself. General information about "substantive politics," partisanship, and party leadership is not, IMO, a topic for this article, but rather a topic for an article on American politics. -- Emsworth 14:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Better, but still not substantive enough, I'd say. Relies too much on the inadequate entries on individual speakers and gives virtually no sense of the substantive politics of the century. Monicasdude 02:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Information on the twentieth century added. -- Emsworth 15:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support. (I am tempted to call this peerless work on Emsworth's part, but perhaps that's too lame a joke.) I agree with Emsworth's response to Monicasdude--the history article, it seems to me, does a fine job of dealing with the historical development of the office of Speaker and its changing roles and powers. Good work. Jwrosenzweig 07:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support
Conditional support- an interesting read but I the text on the speaker's election is unclear:
- Who is the Clark of the House? (article needed)
- I didn't understand his election bit. It is mentioned that the speaker is elected every odd numbered year. I want it clarified a bit: is the speaker chosen at the time of the swearing in of the new president? Does the speaker have a 2 year term, or the House has a two year term?
- Voted by an absolute majority or simple majority? What is the exact % if absolute? 75 (or 60)? The absolute majority article does not have an exact number.
- I believe he can cast a deciding vote if there is a deadlock (not explicitly mentioned)
=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- To respond in order:
- The Clerk of the House is an official entirely distinct from the Speaker: he is not a member, but a mere officer.
- Both have a two-year term, as the article explains.
- "Absolute majority" simply means just a majority, rather than a plurality. In U.S. English, 75% or 66% is called a "supermajority," instead of an "absolute majority."
- This is explained in the procedure section.
-- Emsworth 16:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support- good article Astrotrain 20:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks good and I think it's sufficiently comprehensive. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)