Talk:Censure in the United States

message: What does censure mean and how does it work. We have a lot of trivia in this article but little substance.
*Why would someone be censured?
*How is censure won - voted on?
*Who can be censured?
*What does it mean when a censure has taken place? Is it a law? Is there any repercussion? Is it just a kind of non-binding resolution?
For instance in regards to the recent censure of moveon.org in the news (Sept 2007) this article provides no help in figuring out the story or the meaning of 'censure.'
We need someone who understands this issue to clarify it!
154.20.109.121 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The definiton of censure, as used by the U.S. Congress, is defined in the first sentence of the article as a reprimand.  A reprimand, according to :wiktionary, may be a "severe, formal or official reproof; reprehension, rebuke, private or public."  It appears that from the first line of the article, we can answer your questions, "what does censure mean" and "who can be censured?"  As far as the substance of the article, I agree it is very much lacking, and a more extensive description of the general practice is needed rather than the current piecemeal presentation. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: George W. Bush is here due to the fact that censures were or are being proposed. The list is not simply about those who where successfully censored but also any politician for whom a censored motion has been suggested, pending, or even voted down. Being on the list does not make any statement on the validity of the proposed or adopted censure motion.--Cab88 09:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain censure

message: What's with the Joe McCarthy apologists putting something like "...intercepted Soviet communications from the now-declassified VENONA project, as well as the opening of Soviet Archives, indicate that some of the individuals he pursued were, in fact, Soviet spies or Communist sympathizers" after every mention of his wrongdoings?  Ok, so he might have been right about a couple of people but the ubiquity of that phrase around these parts makes it seem as if he's been rehabilitated.  It's not like he didn't deserve to be censured. SchnappM 04:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the anti-McCarthyites claiming that McCarthy was "censured" when in fact he was "condemned"? What does this sentence have to do with the "condemnation":
McCarthy had recklessly accused employees of the U.S. government of membership in the communist party, or of communist sympathies. McCarthy's efforts did not result in any convictions or criminal prosecutions for espionage but created in the country what has been called "The Red Scare."
This is completely POV and violates Wiki rules. Jtpaladin 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy 

message: NOthing is really going on that relates to this topic--Storm63640 16:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless the article had rapid page development/editing. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be a current event?

message: Okay, I've cleaned up most of the article, but the section on the House of Representatives still needs attention. Specifically, there are no sources and the inclusion of only Democratic examples presents the appearance of pro-Republican bias. 02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Someone with more advanced English skills than me shoud add a new section "fiction", referring to the fictional censure of Josiah Bartlet on the TV-show The West Wing. --MrMister88 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A fictional censure would not fall within the scope of the article's title, but rather would be best served by a "See Also" section, the main :censure page, or no link at all. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional section referring to The West Wing 

message: Expulsion - I would have though a more important topic. Maybe it could be merged with this page ("Expulsion and Censure"), or have its own page, and a list (like on this page) of those expelled from Congress, with links to Impeachment or Impeachment in the United States. - Matthew238 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expulsion

message: Why is there a neutrality tag on Representative censures but no discussion on the talk page?  What does the dispute relate to and how are we going to resolve it if nobody knows? --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Talk:Censure in the United States#NPOV tag. CB...(ö) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: Much of the information in this article is from no source or a single source; I've tried looking up such facts as the proposed censure of President John Adams and cannot find a corroborating online reference via Google.  Thus, I am adding a  tag. CB...(ö) 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced/erroneous? information

message: This sentence needs editing, "It derives from the formal condemnation of either a congressional body of their own members."
May I suggest three alternatives?
1. It is the formal condemnation of either congressional body of one of their own members.
2. It derives from the formal condemnation a congressional body of one of their own members.
3. It derives from the formal condemnations by legislative bodies of their own members.
Lifeofthemind (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to suggest, you can just do.  That's how it works around here!  Go for it ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is nice an civil sometimes, if you think a matter could be controversial, to do without discussion.  IMHO.  I would go with number 1, personally, but change "condemnation of" to "condemnation by".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Alert 

message: Much of the lists in this article cover the same ground as List of United States senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded.  It might be better to take the lists out of here and focus this article on a more general treatment of what censure is about, how the notion has developed over time, how exactly motions of censure work, etc.  The explanations could incorporate descriptions of well-known or especially illustrative cases of censure, but wouldn't try to cover all of them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either approach works for me.  It might be though that we could combine both into this one article/list, so readers don't have to go two places for a less than 100KB subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the two other lists were only of members censured, I would agree.  But they also include members expelled, or who survived expulsion attempts, or (for the House) who were reprimanded.  What would become of those lists?  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I'll defer to you as to how to handle.  I see competing rationales, and don't love either choice (which are all we have).  So either approach is reasonable, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of other lists 

message: This page could be improved IMHO by pulling in some pix, which should be quite easy.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pix 

message: reading through the other sections here, it sounds like this article was truly atrocious at one point.  it appears that so much was deleted, that the page is essentially pointless.  i tried to rewrite the intro so that the very basic definition/understanding of "censure" as it relates to the u.s. government is at least presented here.  i admit that the one reference i found might not be the best (the Free Dictionary), but at least it had some info.  even the senate.gov pages didn't say much.
i hid the first reference in the "presidential censure" section.  yes, the linked page DOES include the info about the near-censure of John Adams, but it is ludicrous to think that a transcript of a speech by a person who merely MENTIONS the John Adams episode counts as a primary source.  particularly when the person who gave the speech being transcribed is a living person, and a current politician, and the use of the source could be seen as presenting bias.
it might be nice to note in that section (presidential censure) why there are so few tallied votes in the censure votes from the 1800s.  i tried to look it up--but the vote totals don't match the number of states at the time, so that's not it.Colbey84 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not merely a mess, but a lying, stinking mess. So what else is new in #PresidentTweety's America? Where Trump was just censured for overt racism and Wikipedia has nary a mention. It's a historical fact NOW, not an NPV violation. Shanen (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree with others - this page is a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Censure in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070725222200/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ac.htm to http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/jcoc2ac.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Censure in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127000903/http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/tyler/essays/biography/4 to http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/tyler/essays/biography/4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified