Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate

Cloture

I have serious questions about some of the article content relating to cloture. According to the CRS report Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate:

filibusters and cloture . . . are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, conversely, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster.

While the article makes a token acknowledgment that the relationship between filibuster and cloture is not so direct, it still tries to suggest that the relationship is a strong one, while not actually making a statement to that effect. Others (Talking Points Memo, McClatchy, Daily Kos) have done the same, again, without actually stating what the relationship is. The article even makes the claim that "In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters", but if you look up the citations, it provides numbers for cloture votes, not filibusters.

The problem is that it is difficult to quantify filibusters because there are no clear rules that can be used to determine whether a filibuster is occurring. It is not as if a Senator starts a filibuster by making a "filibuster motion". According the the CRS report:

For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.

I have no doubt that there is a positive correlation between filibusters and cloture. However, the article should not be intimating that there is a direct relationship, even if others do so. If there is a reliable source that has made a specific claim about how they are related, then let us quote that source. If not, we should not be conflating the two and presenting cloture figures as if they are a reliable proxy for filibusters.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph you refer to is:

The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.^[14] In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters.^[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008,^[16] though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.^[3]

I agree that we should have a reliable source if we are going to claim a direct relationship between filibusters and cloture. Now, the sentence "cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters" itself is somewhat misleading, since a motion for cloture is related indeed to potential filibusters (the motion is filed not to overcome filibusters in progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated. CRS report at 22. Perhaps what we need is to do some wordsmithing and shuffling:

The perceived threat of a filibuster has tremendously increased since the 1960s, as suggested by the increase in cloture motions filed.^{<ref>Daily Kos</ref>} A motion for cloture is filed not only to overcome filibusters in progress, but also to preempt ones that are only anticipated.^{<ref name=crs/>} In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven votes on cloture.^[14] By the first decade of the 21st century, the number of votes on cloture per Senate term had risen to no fewer than 49 filibusters.^[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes, reaching 112 at the end of 2008.^[3]

—ShinyG 03:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some major wordsmithing and shuffling. One change I have been thinking about would be to separate the details of rule changes from occurrences of filibusters. I think the rule changes get lost in all the clutter, and that would make the article more accessible.

I also think it would make sense to merge the filibuster and cloture articles, since it does not make a lot of sense to discuss one without the other and the combined material would fit well into a single article (one general article, one USA). I am planning to read a book on filibusters and was thinking about doing that after I have a little more knowlege on the subject.

I believe it is true that cloture motions are probably generally related to anticipated filibusters, but do we have a source that specifically says that? I imagine that some politicians might file cloture motions in order to make it look like their opponents are planning filibusters. Who knows, there may be other ways they could be used.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the second section, Procedural filibuster, adds little to the article (the text could easily be part of the lead section, as I did with the transclusion into Filibuster#United States. Perhaps a better use of a section would be something like Chronology of Senate Rules on Filibusters or something to that effect. If a merge happens, then that section could have an even saner title, like Chronology of Cloture Rules. Which brings us to the fact that ...

... probably a merge of the filibuster and cloture articles wouldn't be amiss. It should be discussed Take a look at Talk:Jim Bunning#Should "filibuster" be in the article? for a fascinating display of the parties potentially interested in such a discussion.

What book are you going to read? Maybe I can take a look too.

Regarding your question on anticipated filibusters, the answer is Yes. The CRS report states on page 22—and hints to it in other places as well—the following:

However much effect filibusters have on the operations of the Senate, perhaps a more pervasive effect is attributable to filibusters that have not taken place—at least not yet. In many instances, cloture motions may be filed not to overcome filibusters in progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated. (Emphasis added.)

Earlier, on page 16:

Cloture is sometimes sought not for the purpose of overcoming a filibuster by debate, but primarily to trigger the requirement for germaneness of amendments. [...] In this way, its opponents can dispose of the [non-germane] amendment adversely without ever having to vote on it, or even on a motion to table it—but only, of course, if they can mobilize three-fifths of the Senate to vote for cloture. This possibility, which is more than hypothetical, illustrates that not every cloture vote takes place to overcome a filibuster that is already in progress. (Emphasis added).

Put in other words, cloture can be sought to stop a speaking filibuster, or to stop a procedural filibuster where non-germane amendments are filed. In either case, its purpose is to avert (a potential) or stop (an ongoing) filibuster. The link is thus established.

—ShinyG 07:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Procedural filibuster" is weak. I believe the article needs some major reorganization, but I do not yet have a good enough handle on the subject to be sure what is needed. This is something that I am thinking about for the longer term, probably a few months. I am not sure which book I will read, but I was thinking about Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate‎, by Gregory John Wawro & Eric Schickler, ISBN 978-0691125091. Unfortunately, my local library does not have it, but I think they can get it on inter-library loan. I could spend $25 to buy the paperback new from Amazon (or $35 used!).

On the question of whether cloture motions are related to anticipated filibusters, I think the quote you gave regarding germaneness indicates that it is not always the case. Often, amendments are added to a bill that are not at all related to the main content of the bill. For example, a hate crimes provision was added to a defense appropriations bill last year. Under cloture, such amendments would be prohibited because they are not germane.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Page name

I boldly moved this page from "Filibuster in the United States" because using that title meant that the only meaning of the word "filibuster" in the United States is the use of unlimited debate in the United States Senate to delay or kill legislation or nominations. That is not the case. The word means here, as elsewhere, "the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly". The Senate is not the only place where filibusters occur in the United States, and the particular form discussed is not the only method used in the Senate. On my talk page, User:ShinyGee suggested that somehow the title "Filibuster (United States Senate)" suggests that there should be a corresponding "Filibuster (United States House of Representatives)". I find that wholly unconvincing, but even if it were true, that implication is far weaker than the implication from his preferred title that this form of the filibuster is the only used in the United States. I am willing to work on a third option, but "Filibuster in the United States" is unacceptable. -Rrius (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The following messages were copied from User talk:Rrius. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick point, given that you recently moved Filibuster in the United States to Filibuster (United States Senate).

If you look at the discussion in Talk:Filibuster#Proposal to split off United States section into its own article you'll see that I had originally proposed the same title that you have chosen. JPMcGrath (talk) had pointed out that "naming it Filibuster (United States Senate) would suggest that there might be a Filibuster (United States House) article, which is certainly not needed." I agreed. Furthermore, the page itself on Filibuster indicates that the article is about the parliamentary procedure and to see Filibuster (disambiguation) for other uses.

Naming the page Filibuster in the United States makes more sense, as pointed out by Iota (talk) when the page was first moved: "The meaning of 'filibuster' in the U.S. is the same as elsewhere. Moving to be consistent with other articles such as Impeachment in the United States."

I think your move should be reverted. —ShinyG 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. There is no necessary implication that there is a corresponding House version. Rather, there is a necessary implication that the only meaning in the United States is that relating to the Senate's right to unlimited debate as modified by cloture. I agree entirely with the first sentence that you quote, but that sentence supports not at all the proposition of having the article at "in the United States". -Rrius (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the name change was for the worse and should be reverted. Certainly, the title should not include "Senate", since the article also deals with the House of Representatives. While it is a minor part of the article, there is no need for a separate article on the House, so the scope of this article includes both houses of Congress. In the future, it might include the use of filibuster in state legislatures, so I think the title should say "United States". The form of the article name "Filibuster in the United States" is consistent with other article names, so I think that was a reasonable choice.

I also agree that the distinction between legislative filibuster and military filibuster is reasonably handled with the disambiguation page and hat-notes. I don't think there is a great deal of confusion there.

I am open to other variants of the name that meet the criteria I have detailed above.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that the title "Filibuster in the United States" conveys that the only meaning of the word "filibuster" in the United States is the use of unlimited debate in the United States Senate to delay or kill legislation or nominations.

The title Filibuster in the United States felt right to me after Iota renamed Filibuster (United States). I admit that I didn't know why it felt right, I just knew that it did. I have been doing a little bit of reading, and now I understand why it felt right:

1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) indicates that geographically-relevant pages should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)", and it also indicates that "in", "from", or another preposition may be substituted for "of" as appropriate.
2. WP:PRECISION indicates that If the topic of an article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification (in our case, the primary topic is Filibuster, and that page indeed has the title without modification). Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is most commonly done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma).

I agree with these conventions.

Since the primary topic filibuster has the same meaning in the United States as elsewhere, we are not dealing with a disambiguation (and therefore we should steer away from a parenthetical). The geographically-distinct form that filibusters take in the United States, as opposed to in France or the Westminster-style democracies, is indeed the topic at hand.

Seems to me that the clause "in the United States" would be the appropriate thing to use after "Filibuster", and not a parenthetical. The title Filibuster in the United States seems to satisfy the constraints.

—ShinyG 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not talking about military usage. The word has parliamentary meaning in the United States beyond the sense referring to unlimited debate and cloture. Writing an article all about that sort of filibuster and then calling it "Filibuster in the United States" clearly asserts that what this article is talking about is the only thing that constitutes a legislative filibuster in the United States.

Second, saying "since the primary topic filibuster has the same meaning in the United States as elsewhere, we are not dealing with a disambiguation" misses the point. Many people believe that in the United States, the topic of this article is the only thing that can be called a filibuster. I came across someone with just that misapprehension in a discussion at another article in just the last week.

Third, the article does not discuss the use of filibusters in the House. It mentions that early in the republic, filibusters were possible in the House. This is the only sum total of the article's treatment of House filibusters:

“ In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes. ”

That is hardly enough to claim that this article is about anything other than the Senate filibuster. At best, it gives some contour to the discussion of the unlimited-debate filibuster; at worst, it is out of place. In any event, it is absurd to claim it "deals" with House filibusters since it does not even attempt to modern delay tactics. Frankly, the comparison to House practice is no more (actually less) than I would expect in an article about the the unlimited-debate filibuster.

Fourth, as it stands, this article is quite long. Adding enough on House procedures to justify a generic "in the United States" would make it still longer, let alone adding a discussion of practices in state and local government.

Fifth, the article does not even fully deal with Senate filibusters. For example, demanding the full reading of an amendment is a filibuster tactic. For that matter, it is a tactic available in many American legislatures, be they governmental or not.

Sixth, I don't accept that this is a geographically relevant article. It is not about filibuster in the United States or even in the United States Congress. The example of Impeachment in the United States was mentioned above. That article deals with the procedures in both houses of Congress and in the states. That is very different from what this article does. Aside from that one paragraph, the entire article is about one form of filibuster present in one legislative body in the United States. Hardly "geographically relevant".

Seventh, your point about WP:Precision isn't coming through. When people in the US talk about filibusters, they usually mean what this article is about. As a result, an article called "Filibuster" is appropriate. Because it is not the main page on the topic, a disambiguator is necessary. Since what it refers to the Senate's main form of filibuster, "(United States Senate)" is the most appropriate.

Finally, I said I'm willing to seek a third way and since no one else is willing to suggest anything, how about this. The article is just about the unlimited-debate/cloture filibuster used in the Senate. That leads to two obvious choices: "Debate in the United States Senate" and "Cloture in the United States Senate". -Rrius (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall address your eight points in turn:

1. The article was not "written" to address a specific type of filibuster. The article was split from the main article Filibuster and includes the entirety of what said article held on its geographically-relevant United States section regarding filibusters.
2. The topic of this article is filibusters in the United States (whatever the final title happens to be). Whether or not methods other than debate can be called a filibuster is something that should be addressed in the article. if you have the necessary information to incorporate those methods, incorporate them. That would make the article better. In addition, renaming the article to Filibuster (United States Senate) does nothing to address those missing methods, which renders the argument of missing methods moot.
3. I agree. Does the House presently have filibusters? If they do, incorporate the information!
4. As mentioned above, in response to your second point, there is no misapprehension: if there is information that is missing, add it. (Perhaps there is a misapprehension on your part, and you want to make the scope of the article narrower than it needs to be; only you can tell.) Your title for the article in no way changes its contents, leaving all the missing information you mention still missing.
5. Since, by your own admission, the tactic is available in many American legislatures and not only the Senate, you have yourself justified calling it "in the United States". That should be the scope. Include the information in the article. If it grows very long, then a subsequent split (like the split that happened from Filibuster will be warranted, with the necessary summary sections placed in this article and the whole meat of the various matters in the corresponding sub-articles.
6. The article is geographically-relevant. Its roots are in the Filibuster#United States section, from which it was split. All of the sections in Filibuster deal with geographic regions, and hence this article, a spawn of section dealing with a geographic region, is from inception geographically-relevant.
7. This statement is perhaps the root of your misapprehension: When people in the US talk about filibusters, they usually mean what this article is about. As a result, an article called "Filibuster" is appropriate. You are implying that the main article Filibuster should be US-centric. It is not relevant for the main concept of filibuster what people in the US mean, since this is the English wikipedia, not the United States wikipedia; it matters what English speakers mean. On the other hand, it very much matters to Filibuster in the United States what people mean in the United States by filibuster. You have again yourself made the point that this article is geographically-relevant to the United States. (I don't think that you are in any way implying that there are two distinct meanings of the word, just distinct practices that are geographically relevant to the United States in contrast to other places.)
8. Please see the section above, Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate#Cloture. User:JPMcGrath has indeed suggested merging the cloture article with this one.

Bottom line: you feel strongly that there is missing information in this article. I suggest you add it. That would be far more beneficial to the readers of Wikipedia than a mere change in title.

—ShinyG 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To address your points:

1) It is only your head that the scope of this article is more than just the unlimited debate filibuster in the Senate. An article's scope is set by what it says, not by what we hope it may one day include. The fact that it was spun off from the "United States" section at Filibuster is irrelelvant. All that means is that the "United States" section has a flawed name or is unduly narrow in its scope. You say that the article is "not 'written' to address a specific type of filibuster." It is clear that the writers of the article had in mind only this one limited form of filibuster, and no more. It is quite clear that no thought was ever given to the fact that other forms exist. For all I know, the writers were unaware. That does not make them correct. Nor does any such misapprehension bind our title choice anymore than the name of the section at Filibuster does. The simple fact is that if you read this article without a title, it is clearly about one thing: the unlimited-debate filibuster in the Senate. No more, no less. Until the article actually does include other forms of filibuster in the United States, it should not imply that it does. As for other filibusters in the Senate, it would take me very little time to write a section on that, with sources. Thus, I can quickly make the article actually live up to the title "Filibuster (United States Senate)"; can you do the same for "Filibuster in the United States".

2) No it isn't. Point me to where it talks about other filibusters in the US. Don't bother with the paragraph on early practice in the House; I discussed that already. The idea that this article is about all forms of filibusters aspirational. To be more specific, it is the aspiration of both of you. The fact of the matter is, the article does not discuss any other form of filibuster in the United States. None. It is not my job to fill in the article to meet your aspirations. Until the article as written actually is about filibusters in the US generally, and not just this one type, it should not claim the broad topic of filibusters in the United States. Rather, it should only claim to treat topics it actually covers.

3) The minority in the House has very limited opportunities to delay action by the House. There is no discussion of that in this article. If this were truly a discussion of filibusters in the United States, one would expect a discussion of the House and how it came to be the way it is. The absence of any such thing is further proof that this article is about the unlimited-debate filibuster and nothing more.

4) The crux of the matter is that you are hung up on the notion that because this article was spun off from the "United States" section of Filibuster, then it must be called "Filibuster in the United States" and that if there are other forms of filibuster in the United States, then I have to go out and find the sources and add them here. That is nonsense. Even if there is sufficient information for an article called "Filibuster in the United States", there is no reason why this article would be the place to put it. It would make far more sense to summarize this article as a section at any such article. You say that perhaps I am confused and want this article to be about something less than it is. I reject that. I want the article title to actually reflect what the article actually says. If you read the article, you will find that it is solely about the unlimited-debate filibuster. As such, its name should reflect this. My reasons for wanting a different name have nothing to do with what I want the article to be, but with what it actually is.

5) Again, you are caught up on aspiration. The fact that there is such a thing in the states as a filibuster is the reason this article shouldn't be called "Filibuster in the United States". That information is not here. Period. The suggestion that I should have to go and find research on state filibusters because you believe this article should be called "Filibuster in the United States" is illogical. The information isn't here, so the article should pretend to be about a topic that would include it. If some day information is added, it would only then make sense to call this article "Filibuster in the United States".

6) Again, the fact that the article was spun off from Filibuster is irrelevant. What matters is what the content of the article actually discusses. Its actual scope is far narrower than you give it credit for. It is about one type of filibuster in legislature. That simply does not justify the title "Filibuster in the United States".

7) Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. How you could read that to mean that Filibuster should be US-centric is beyond me. Articles should be use the most common name of the subject as its title. Here, the most common name is "filibuster". When, however, there is already an article called "Filibuster", and it is the article that should have the unmodified title. As a result, this article needs a disambiguator. The one that makes sense is "(United States Senate)" since that will tell the reader what this article is about.

8) That isn't terribly responsive. It halfway responds to one suggestion and not at all to the other.

Bottom line: The title of an article should reflect the content of the article. If the content expands to a wider scope, the article name can change, but the name should reflect what it is, not what you want it to be. It is not my job or that of any other editor to fill spend many days furiously researching to fill in the gap between what you want the article to be and what it is. It is about one thing: a specific form of filibuster in the United States Senate, not all filibusters in the US. As such, its title should reflect that. -Rrius (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rrius:

I agree with your point that the article (currently) deals primarily with extended debate in the United States Senate, although it is untrue that the old article title "clearly asserts that what this article is talking about is the only thing that constitutes a legislative filibuster". But if that were the case, then your article title would clearly assert that it is the only thing that constitutes a filibuster in the United States Senate. I don't see how your name change improves things.

Nonetheless, I agree that the article needs improvement in this regard. The CRS report, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate says that the filibuster includes more than just extended debate:

Today, the term is most often used to refer to Senators holding the floor in extended debate. More generally, however, “filibustering” includes any tactics aimed at blocking a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote.

Much of the article does not reflect the CRS definition, although the section titled "Procedural filibuster", as thin as it is, suggests that a filibuster does not expecially involve extended debate. This needs to change, and I plan to work toward that, but as I said in another thread, it will take some time.

True, there is a paucity of information on the House of Representatives, but that is because we have no more information to add, at least at this time. I hope to find more, and I will add it if I find some. It also has nothing about filibusters in other United States legislatures, which may change in the future.

In choosing a title we are defining the scope of the article. Even if the article does not cover the House extensively, or state legislatures at all, I think such information would belong in this article. It seems unlikely that those areas would merit a separate article, at least for quite some time. Choosing a title that excludes those areas would exclude that information from being added to this article.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to take issue with your first point. You don't appear to agree because this article only deals with that form of filibustering. I'm not sure why you are trying to tell me what "filibuster" means when I have said over and over that the type discussed here is not the only type. The point about the procedural filibuster is beyond the point. It is really just a subcategory of the traditional filibuster. The only meaningful difference is that both sides acknowledge that someone would attempt to talk out the bill instead of making her do so. Filling in details on that accomplishes very little to expand the scope of the article.

If you have no information to add, then this article should not pretend that it includes that information. You are wrong to say that the title defines the scope. It is the content that defines the scope. If the content expands, then the article title can change. For the time being, this article only talks about this one type of filibuster in the United States Senate. If we get consensus to keep the title "Filibuster (United States Senate)", I will add what is necessary to live up to that title. If, later, information is found about filibusters in the House, in the states, or even civic organizations using something like Robert's Rules of Order", then the article can be expanded and the title changed to reflect the change.

As it stands, the lead quite literally excludes all other forms of filibuster as having meaning in the United States. It says, "In the United States, filibuster (also known as speaking or talking out a bill) is a parliamentary procedure and form of obstruction practiced in the Federal Senate." Although incorrect, that is a very good "thesis statement" (to use a high school term). It says exactly what the document is about. It is clear to me, although apparently not to anyone else, that the person who wrote this text believed that the unlimited-debate filibuster is the only sort of filibuster in the United States. That the word has no other meaning here. I've asked people to look at the article. I'm going to expand the challenge I set ShinyGee. I want anyone to show me where in this article or at Filibuster#United States there is any acknowledgement anything more than the unlimited-debate filibuster is meant by the term "filibuster" in the United States. I'm frankly flummoxed that neither of you sees this. The article calls itself "Filibuster in the United States", then discusses only one type of filibuster. That would, on its own, clearly create the impression that this is the only meaning in the United States. To make matters worse, the lead goes on to state explicitly what the title implies. Despite that, you two continue to argue that the article is somehow actually about filibusters in the United States despite acknowledging that, in the United States, "filibuster" means more than what this article discusses. Can you understand why I feel I've fallen through the looking glass? -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how this discussion ends up, someone familiar with Wendy Davis should remove or edit the section. The current title, Filibuster in the United States Senate, seems to indicate that discussion of practices in state legislative bodies in Texas is out of scope. If "Filibuster in the United States" is used the paragraph should at least be updated to make it clear that she is a STATE senator, not a US senator, and possibly still removed if the events discussed are not significant in a discussion of state senate filibusters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.56.7 (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Article roadmap

The discussion above, in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate#Page name, presents two views on what this article should be about:

1. This editor believes that the article should be about Filibusters in the United States, without necessarily limiting the scope exclusively to the United States Senate. Enough information should be added to create a strong, comprehensive article, that describes the various kinds of filibusters that happen in the United States, where they happen, etc. This will undoubtedly make the article grow long, to the point where it may have to be split into subpages that deal with the various aspects, with summarized versions of said pages becoming the sections of this article.
2. User:Rrius believes that this article should in fact be one of those sub-articles, specifically the one that deals with the practice in the United States Senate. Rrius has also pointed out that even within the scope of the United States Senate this article is missing information on the procedures by which a filibuster can be attained (in addition to filibusters-by-debate on debatable items, the introduction of non-germane amendments or requiring the reading-in-full of the text of amendments, to mention two, are also filibuster tactics).

So the time has come to discuss the goal of this article, and what we envision as its ultimate structure.

I would love to read your comments. —ShinyG 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of the article should be the United States, not just the United States Senate. Material on other legislative bodies (House, state legislatures) will be sparse, at least at first, but I hope that will change. If the title does not allow information on other legislative bodies, it will never be added.

I also think that the article should include cloture. The topics are so closely related that I do not think it makes much sense to talk about one without the other. The content of the United States section of the Cloture article would be moved here, the United Kingdom section moved to the Filibuster article, and Cloture would redirect to Filibuster.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I believe. I don't have an opinion on what this article should be. What I care about is what it is called. I am, that is, concerned with reality. This article is about what it is about. That is judged by the content, not the title. The content says this is about one form of filibuster that is used in one legislative body in the United States. Therefore, the title should reflect that. It is really as simple as that. If you guys want to expand it later, have at it and change the title. For the moment, this is not about anything more than that one thing, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this article will expand to include the topics necessary to justify the name "Filibuster in the United States" (House and state practices) anytime soon. As a result, until such time as this article actually expands to cover those matters, this article should not be called "Filibuster in the United States". -Rrius (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you must have meant to reply to ShinyGee; I said nothing about what you believe.

I still have concerns with what you say about the title. The article already contains information about the U. S. Senate, as well as some information about the U. S. House of Representatives, but you say it is about "one legislative body". So I have a few questions: Given that the title says the article is about the Senate, do you think that existing information about other bodies should be removed? Should new information about other bodies not be added? What do you think is the threshold, in terms of amount of information, that would make it about more than one legislative body?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Rrius has made a strong and compelling argument—both in this section and in the Page name section above—for option #2. I would love to work with Rrius toward making this article live up to the Filibuster (United States Senate) title.

The greater Filibuster in the United States project can be set aside until such time when an article exists that does it justice. It seems to me like Rrius, JPMcGrath and ShinyGee would all be willing to work toward incubating that separate article, though perhaps not right away. —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC). —ShinyG 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to work on the "Other dilatory tactics" section, but I'm not sure that will be tonight. As for the grander project, finding sources for how oppressive House rules are might not be that hard, and of course there is the discussion of quorum denial practices that led to U.S. v. Ballin. Something discussing the motion for the previous question motion might be helpful, as might a mention of special rules resolutions. Just formulating search terms for the sorts of wonkish articles that might be helpful could be difficult, but perhaps something like "queen of the hill amendment" might do the trick. Queen of the Hill has nothing to do with filibusters, but they might help us find sources about oppressive rules in the House. "Queen of the Hill" means that, where a series of amendments amend the same bit of text, the one that gets the most votes wins. Under a King of the Hill rule, the last amendment to get a majority wins. I don't know if this ever comes up anymore, but Republicans used to beg for Queen of the Hill rules and complain when they didn't. Beyond internet sources, I'm pretty much useless because I currently live in the middle of nowhere. For state filibusters, I have no idea where to look. Google News archives? Eventually, we should be able to get there. I hope. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too. On a related topic, I've been wanting to get Article Incubator/United States v. Ballin out of the incubator so that U.S. v. Ballin can get its correct name and grow into an article. I have started gathering info on this.

I'll give state filibusters information gathering a good pondering. —ShinyG 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be set aside; Rrius said his objections were about the title, not about the content, and I think it makes sense to add content about other legislative bodies. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

House of Representatives

Since I got no response to my concerns, I am cleaning this mess up by moving the House of Representatives material to the Filibuster article. Now the title of this article describes what is in the article. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about leaving you hanging. Thanks for doing the clean-up! I've started my clean-up of the Ballin article I had mentioned. I'll get back to this article after that. —ShinyG 07:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No requirement to hold the floor and speak?

I don't see where ref #23 (Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate) supports the statement that "In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.". Either this should be deleted, or there should be some sort of explanation as to how this rule change came about. (If this merely refers to the reluctance of the Majority Leader to spend the Senate's time on a filibuster battle, then the article should say that instead.) Bjartmarr (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate focus on eliminating the filibuster?

I don't understand why the second paragraph of the intro part of the article is included as part of the intro. While it makes sense to discuss (in the article as a whole) the fact that there is a movement or has been a desire to change the rules to eliminate filibusters, and the second paragraph of the intro would fit in in that part of the article, in the intro it seems out of context, and its inclusion there seems somewhat political. The article hasn't (at that point) discussed the historical origins of the rule, or any of its history really. And the second paragraph isn't presented in the context of the social movement to modify the rule. (An unknowing reader would not be aware that there is a great deal of controversy over the filibuster, and a political movement hoping to abolish it, before being introduced here to the idea of abolishing it.)

In what other case does a Wikipedia article introduce the basic info about a thing, and then (in the same main intro) explain how that thing could be abolished? Even the U.S. Dept. of Education, which actually had a movement afoot to abolish it, doesn't have instructions on how to abolish it in its main introduction. Nor should it. I think the same is the case with most other things. Explaining how it could be ended is not part of introducing it.

I move that that paragraph (below) be taken out of the intro--and out of the selected text that gets used in the main filibuster article--and instead be included lower in the article body, in the context of "efforts to end or abolish the filibuster"--probably in the "Current U.S. practice" section.

This is the paragraph I am referring to:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster filibustering a bill to remove filibusters.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance08 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually even bother reading the article? A significant part of the modern discussion of the filibuster, and therefore this article, is about abolishing the filibuster. The lead, or "intro" as you call it, is meant to be a brief summary of the article. The lead would fail in achieving its purpose if it did not mention abolishment. -Rrius (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The transclusion monster

Is there really a major benefit in this transclusion monster? It's not really that much text to keep updated in the main article -- it seems to cause more confusion and trouble than it's worth. I'll undo it soonish unless there's major objection. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is. It's not clear why the text at the main article needs to change in step with this one. -Rrius (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Change

Johnson not Mansfield was leader in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by75.128.3.98 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved this comment down and added a title since it was hovering above the TOC. It looks like this was fixed on July 22, 2011. Randy Schutt (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are the threatened filibusters claimed in the article?

I don't believe that the minority has threatened to filibuster a bill in years. Effectively the limited amount of time the Senate has to consider bills, and the increasing complexity of the federal government, means that filibusters are now relegated to a bygone era. 71.241.204.25 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Recent U.S. Senate history section indicates that there have been over 100 cloture votes in each of the last three sessions. (2007-2009, 2009-2011, 2011-2013). So, your information appears to be wildly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.124.180 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

The paragraph about Senator Mitch McConnell's self-filibuster (the second-to-last paragraph under “Recent U.S. Senate history”) is unclear. Please provide a step-by-step explanation of how Senator MacConnell intended to accomplish something by introducing a bill to raise the threshold to pass a bill into law to 60%, and then filibustering his own bill? Bwrs (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The morning of December 6, 2012, Sen. Mitch McConnell proposed the following, "Mr. President, I indicated to the majority leader that I was going to propound the following consent. I am prepared to ask for consent to allow the Senate to vote on the President's debt limit proposal. ... Therefore, I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to vote on an amendment, which is the President's debt limit extension proposal that I just described ..." ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:S06DE2-0008:/ )

Later that day, Senate Leader Harry Reid brought Sen. McConnell's proposal to the Senate floor for a vote, "Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S . 3664 , which is a bill regarding debt limit increases, the text of which is at the desk..." Sen. McConnell then attempted to have the threshold for the vote set at the Senate filibuster level (3/5ths) to pass the bill, "Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we are talking about is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the President. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes. So I would ask my friend, the majority leader, if he would modify his consent request to set the threshold for this vote at 60?" Sen. Reid declined to do so. So Sen. McConnell then proceeded to object to debate on the bill. ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:S06DE2-0025:/ )

Jasendorf (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Added text to January 2013 filibuster reform

Hi, I've added some more details to the "January 2013 filibuster reform" section to provide more information about the changes that have been introduced and also those that were originally proposed. I'm letting editors here know I've made this addition because I work for the The Heritage Foundation and this addition mentions the foundation's sister organization, Heritage Action for America. I've aimed to write this neutrally, but others may want to look at what I've added and make changes as needed. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these changes line up perfectly with what I'm seeing in the CRS report (which I added a reference to here. If someone more familiar with the process would take a look, I would appreciate it. II | (t - c) 17:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment about "nuclear option"

Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Update Graph?

I see that there is now data available for the 112th Senate session (2011-2012): http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

I don't have the software (or knowledge) to create an SVG file so I hope someone else can do this. Randy Schutt (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you create a data table .... The graph can be made in Excel - or similar - and changed to an svg file — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dated materials

The data on this page only seems to go up to 2008. About 5 years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion pieces by columnists and advocacy pieces by advocacy organizations

Per WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV, we do not need opinion pieces by columnists and advocacy pieces by advocacy organizations, given that hundreds of straight news sources have been reporting about the recent "nuclear option" in the US Senate. Even if we were to balance both sides and provide inline attribution, the plentiful reliable sources make that unnecessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to have assertions from Republicans (which are clearly political assertions, not fact, even though they are cited by the major media), then we should also have Democratic responses to those assertions: "But Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier when President George W. Bush had made three nominations to this court." Here is a reference for this: Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times,29 October 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/us/politics/between-democrats-and-a-push-for-filibuster-change-one-nominee.html Quote: "But Democrats note that caseloads have not changed much since Republicans voted, without complaint, to approve President George W. Bush’s nominees." Randy Schutt (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a much better source, thanks. It might be worthwhile to deemphasize the partisan assertions, and go with something even more neutral:

That the D.C. Circuit does not need more judges, though, is hardly clear. Both sides sling around cherry-picked statistics, with Republicans emphasizing raw case numbers and Democrats stressing the court's comparatively large number of complex agency cases. As explained, though, by a representative of the federal court's governing body, there is currently no reliable statistical method to compare the workloads of the courts of appeals.

This article mentions that a DC Circuit vacancy was transferred to the 9th circuit in 2007, so apparently Republicans like Bush did have this type of concern.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding stated in article

The administration/majority party has choice: either present a candidate for a cloture vote or withdraw before the vote. The Obama administration chose to take the vote which takes time. The Bush administration did not. Whence the large amount of Obama nominess (79) that faced cloture votes. Bush presented 38. It's not like Bush got more through. Obama's current success rate for judicial nominations was 30 out of 42 to date. Bush in his whole term got 35 of 52. Also the issue with the DC court is it's expansion, not filling vacancies. "Vacancies" were created to pack it. I believe that the vacancies were created before Obama and the cloture rule meant Bush didn't bother with appointments. The deal brokered in 2005 let non-packing appointees to pass if they were well-qualified. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How many vacancies were there on the DC circuit when Bush left office?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "vacancy?" A judge moves from one of the 12 seats to a "senior status" and still hears cases. that seat is then vacant. When a judge did that during Bush, they closed one of the seats to make it 11. One of the real vacancies created was when John Roberts moved to the Supreme Court, Bush was not able to fill it. It was the only vacancy. Since Obama took office, 2 judges were moved to "senior status." Even though they still are on the court, they aren't the "11". So Obama has appointed 3 nominees for the "vacant" seats (1 to replace Jhn Roberts and 2 to replace "senior judges". When they are confirmed, the 11 panel court will have 17 judges. When Bush left office, they had 14. Of the 11, Obama will have the most appointments at 4. Bush and Clinton would each have 3, and Bush 1 would have 1. After this filibuster rule changes, I suspect all 3 Clinton judges will move to Senior Judges to allow Obama to have 3 more nominees. That would be 7 of 11 circuit judges with another 10 or so listed as "Senior judges". This was what was referred to as "packing the court" as appointments are for life. --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject. How many of the GOP Senators were recently saying (before detonation of the nuclear option) that they would refuse to vote for cloture on every further Obama nominee for the DC Circuit to fill the current three vacancies?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not sure they are even through committee. The current 3 were only nominated in June 2013, so 5 months and it wouldn't surprise me if a large number opposed those specific candidates (these are the latest 3 as they tend to withdraw after being used for fodder and I have no idea how many were appointed before these three). There's lots of politics that used to not play out. For example, I believe Alito and Roberts made the appellate court level without much fanfare. Same with Kagan and Ginsburg. But in the mid-2000 when Bush had the Senate, the fight over appellate nominees started (the fight over Scotus nominees started with Robert Bork in the 1980's). A cloture vote is usually a stunt and not necessary so when there is a lot of work to do, they skip it. Reid and McConnell know when they have the votes so most times, it;s a dog a pony show. Most federal judges are confirmed by unanimous consent without debate. Why Bush couldn't replace Roberts and why vacancies are created for "senior judges" seems to be the heart of the problem. The 12th seat of the DC court went to the 9th circuit as part of the compromise (so Bush wouldn't have two vacant DC seats and a 9th circuit appointee would have much less influence). If the new rule creates 7 Obama appointees out of the 11 seats, that would be unprecedented. It's rather interesting that balance was maintained when the rule was in place. Bush and Clinton had identical number of appointees after serving the same amount of time. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article says: "Republicans said they wanted to refuse Mr. Obama any more appointments to the appeals court...." Is this undisputed fact?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading. They want to reduce the size of that court as there are plenty of senior justices and there is little case load. They reduced the court by one when Democrats didn't want Bush to fill two seats and they left the Roberts seat open for 3 years of Bush's term (this was the part of the 2005 gang of 14 deal). Now, two more judges moved to senior status and still hear cases while the regular seats are split 4 liberal, 4 conservative and Republicans want to move the vacancies to courts with higher workload and keep the balance. There will undoubtedly be more movement to "senior status." That means Obama might be appointing up to 7 seats over the next few years. It's not correct to say they would object to any appointments, rather, the three vacancies should be moved to a different courts so there are no vacancies to fill and the number left at 8. 3 seats of an 11 member body is more influential than 3 seats of a 29 member body which is where the Bush vacant seat went. If any of the remaining 8 seats were vacated, there's no indication that filling the 8th seat would be objected to. 3 of the current justices that would move to senior status would be liberal so Obama may get 3 more appointments even if the court stays at 8. The underlying politics is if Obama uses this rule to pack the court with 7 of the 11 current seats, that would unprecedented especially after the rule was used to stop Bush from appointing just 2 seats. I believe that Obama already has supreme court justices that went through so it's incorrect to blanketly assert any appeals court nominees would be opposed, only nominees that exceed the current 8 seats in the DC court. The previous precedent set was Democrats opposing Bush filling 2 vacancies. --DHeyward (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is something that was proposed for SCOTUS which has become the de-facto method for appeals courts: Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The senior judges are the sticking issue as they never leave so they can create their vacancy when it aligns with their ideology. Imagine a Supreme Court where Thomas and Scalia went "senior" during Bushes term and he "replaced them" withe two more conservative appointments. Those 5-4 decisions suddenly become 7-4 (or 5-6). Now SC justices retire per precedent but appeals court justices do not. --DHeyward (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz Filibuster

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-cruz-continues-night-long-attack-on-obamacare/2013/09/25/5ea2f6ae-25ae-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-filibuster-government-shutdown-97263.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ted-cruz-filibuster-talks-21-hours-votes-house-bill-article-1.1467344

Senator Cruz's Filibuster lasted over 21 hours, making it the fourth longest in history. Shouldn't it be included in the longest list? 64.75.76.2 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, like your links mention, it wasn't technically a filibuster. Talking for a long time is not by itself a filibuster. 76.175.76.102 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Long Speeches are not necessarily Filibusters

In recent years it seems to be more common for politicians to use the senate floor to make long speeches which invariably get labelled filibusters when they are in fact just long speeches. A filibuster is only a filibuster when it delays legislation.

Please be wary of "filibusters" from politicians that are running for president. Sanders, Paul, and Cruz have all given impressively long speeches, but unless they delay legislation they haven't filibustered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.76.102 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Paul's recent Speech. From the Guardian: "By finishing before midnight, the Kentucky senator didn’t end up disrupting the Senate’s schedule after all. The result means that senators, Hill staffers and reporters may actually get a three day weekend."

CNN: "But his speech Wednesday wasn't technically a filibuster because intricate Senate rules required him to stop talking by early Thursday afternoon for an unrelated vote."

The Hill: "The Kentucky Republican's unofficial filibuster {...]"76.175.76.102 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sen. Rand Paul’s latest filibuster is a filibuster Guck14 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the majority leader of the senate had anything scheduled (and therefor anything delayed) during Paul's speech. The next scheduled item was planned for 1p the following day (13 hours after Paul stopped talking). According to the senate website, a filibuster must at least delay something. Perhaps it'll eventually come out that it did. But until then, you can't call this a filibuster any more than you can call Cruz's speech a few years back one, and the consensus in the media and on this wiki page is that his 21 hour speech also did not count as a filibuster. I've been poking around and the articles that tackle the question of whether or not this was a filibuster overwhelmingly concur that it was not.

Unfortunately for either side of this dispute, I can't find any sort of official list of filibusters on a US government website. You'd think the Senate's History page would contain something like that.76.175.76.102 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2015

For everyone's knowledge here, I'm surprised that the list of "10 longest filibusters" holds at least 2: Ted Cruz's, and the recent 'talk-a-thon' by the Senator from Oregon on the Gorsuch nomination. These are widely called 'talk-a-thons'. I'll post a link about the recent one entitled 'Filibuster or not, Sen. Jeff Merkley's all-night talk-a-thon against Gorsuch nomination joins the record books'. That's the discussion here: does it join the record books? How can it be one of the longest filibusters if it isn't a filibuster? Filibusters are ALL about technicality.

(UTC)

References

The filibuster is a technique to delay or block - The blocking part unclear

There needs to be an explanation of just how a successful filibuster actual blocks a vote, rather than just delaying it (at most a few days evidently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.191.126 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. This is the reason I came to read this article, and I have no idea how it works. I also don't understand why the list of longest filibusters includes only those by individuals. There have been 50+ day filibusters by multiple senators which is a significant piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.118.62.150 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wish someone would add something on the effect of the filibuster

How does the filibuster shape the character of the Senate? Has the existence of the filibuster been good for the country, or bad? Looking back, what filibusters accomplished something good? Bad?

The filibuster is gradually being curtailed. How will our country be different when it's gone completely? deisenbe (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: exactly what a "virtual filibuster" is, how it is used, and at least one or two examples of its actual past usage. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"changing the Senate rules, but only on the first day of the session"

The final sentence of the Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster is tagged {{fv}}, and I think this is because of the assertion reading, "but only on the first day of the session", following the comma there. I'm no expert here but, out of curiosity, I looked for clarification. and on page 266 here (click that page number there), it appears to me that this is likely related to a decision made in 1969 by VP Humphrey which is described there. It says there, though, that the decision was reversed. My guess is that practice related to this has changed since 1969, and that this tagged sentence needs to be either clarified or truncated at the comma. As I say, I'm no expert here; could someone who knows a lot more about this than I please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

A few weeks ago, I added language to the article saying, "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, proposed to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]". A little later, someone (I haven't checked the edit history) added the language "[...] McConnell officially announced that he would hand over control of the 50-50 Senate to Democrats." I was trying to stick to the neutral point of view on a topic of partisan disagreement, and I guess so was the other editor. However, at this point the whole paragraph, taken as a whole, seems to have swung in the opposite direction and taken on a non-neutral pro-McConnell point of view. Accordingly, I'm planning to change these snippets to "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]" and "[...] McConnell abandoned his threat of a filibuster." Please let me know what you think. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

use in the chinese exclusion act

perhaps this should be included in the article?

http://www.chineseamericanheroes.org/history/The%20Road%20to%20the%20Chinese%20Exclusion%20Act%201868%20to%201882.pdf

Senators from the American West were alarmed by this proposal which would give the Chinese in America the right to vote. Senator William Stewart, a Republican from Nevada, threatened to filibuster the entire proposal if such an amendment was included. Senate procedures at the time allowed no override of filibusters by a 2/3 vote until 1917 so any Senator could effectively stall proceedings for as long as they wanted to speak. Senator George Williams, an Oregon Republican, and ironically one of the Republican leaders in passing the 15th Amendment that prohibited the United States from denying the vote based upon "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" then proposed to add this amendment to the bill, "But this act shall not be construed to authorize the naturalization of people born in the Chinese empire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well this was a waste of time

This article needs to be rewritten in its entirety. What a hotchpotch of opinions and cherrypicked nonsense.

Don't use Wikipedia articles as a baseball bat in US politics. When in doubt - don't write whatever "perspective" you "feel" is needed. Use sources, use vetted definitions - or/and get out.

Poetically, the filibuster article is a pièce du filibuster.

Arcsoda (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite of lead first paragraph does not clearly explain what a filibuster is

@Ringwiss The rewrite of the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is not an accessible overview of what a filibuster is. A person who is visiting the article and simply wants to know what a filibuster is cannot easily understand what it is with the current text. The explanation also requires reading the two paragraphs instead of one like they could with the previous revision.

A filibuster is the simply fact that 60 votes are required to pass a bill instead of 50. It should not take until the end of the second paragraph to explain this as well introduce other facts like "Rule XXII" which are unimportant to the understanding of the concept.

Could the first paragraph be switched to the previous version? Lectrician1 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Based on just the first paragraphs I think the revision at [1] is better than the version at [2]. Your statement that "A filibuster is the simply fact that 60 votes are required to pass a bill instead of 50." isn't exactly right. A filibuster is the act of continuing to debate or otherwise use procedural techniques in order to block a vote. Ringwiss's edit makes that clear, and then explains how a filibuster can be ended. It then ends with the fact that a minority of Senators can stop passage of a bill. That is the essentials, and is all covered in the first paragraph. If you want to add "effectively raising the requirement for passage of a bill from 50 votes to 60 votes, in most instances" to the end of the last sentence, I wouldn't object. I do think the lead overall is too long and could probably be reduced generally. meamemg (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A filibuster is the act of continuing to debate or otherwise use procedural techniques in order to block a vote.

The previous version makes this even more clear compared to the language of this version... Lectrician1 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Particularly the part:

Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases, however, this requires a majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn

is difficult and unclear language an average reader cannot easily and immediately comprehend. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

regarding the page numbers next to numbered reference links

Shouldn't those go inside the references (at the bottom) themselves instead of in the page itself? just looks unslightly. Anyone explicitly mind if I just replace every single template:rp with an page number into the reference itself? I seriously don't see how this helps the casual reader, its just visual clutter to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink from what I have seen fixing references, adding the page numbers to the references causes duplicate errors with references, as multiple references may point to the same work, but to a different page within that work, instead of one reference in the list to one work, you will have multiple entries in the reference list to the same work, with the only difference being the page. 2600:1000:B10A:A459:A15F:5712:A6E4:2DC3 (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few different ways to handle. See WP:CITEPAGE. The forthcoming reference groups upgrade to the software will also help in the future. meamemg (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)