Talk:Federalist Papers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federalist Papers article.
Article policies
Good article Federalist Papers has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Federalist Papers is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Christopher Parham (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous questions

Im looking to add a brief summary of each essay, I can start contributing on 28+ soon. If anyone else is in the process of reading them please help.

±I'm rather curious to know why there is no mention to the Anti-Federalist Papers, not even a wikipedia entry on them. These papers were written in response to the Federalists Papers (along with other pro-ratification speeches) and were just as important to the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. [Constitution.org] has some of the Anti-Federalist Papers for reference. KeoniPhoenix 15:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that the german version of this article is about twice as long as the english one?--64.80.226.186 17:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

this article needs to emphasize that these men wrote the Federalist papers under a pseudonym. also, please explain why they were written under a pseudonym, and how they chose the false name. Also, the story needs to be told about how these men designed it so their names would be revealed after their deaths. Kingturtle 16:48, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi; I'm not registered with wikipedia, but I noticed that the picture of the cover of the Federalist Papers seems to say that the author is "Philo-Publis" not "Publis." I do know a bit of Latin, and "philo" means "lover" and "publis" means "people." Philosopher means "lover of wisdom," hemopheliac (sic?) means "lover of blood" (as in, the person's body seems to love bleeding so much that it can't stop once it starts) and so on. ("Publis" is used in words like publicity and public.) So Philo-Publis would mean "Lover of the People", which would make sense, since obviously the authors of the Federalist Papers (whether one agrees with them or not) were putting forth their opinions because they thought that it would be to the great benefit of America. If the pseudonym was simply "Publis" that would mean "people" and sort of imply that they thought they were speaking for all Americans in the Federalist Papers. Its pretty clear to me that the Federalist Papers are not some testiment of what all or most Americans necessarily believed; rather they were meant to convince Americans that the Constitution should be adopted and the Articles of Confederation should be left to the historians. In summation; I think the pseudonym is "Philo-Publis," not Publis, and that the article should be changed to reflect that when/if you agree with me. Thanks!

  • Actually Philo-Publius was a different guy (William Duer) who wrote in support of the Federalist (the name is intended to mean "Friend of Publius"). Christopher Parham (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Contents

There is a large table in the middle of this article: in the external links section there are two links to a similar table but also with links to each paper. I would suggest that this table takes up a lot of space, maybe should be made it's own article with each line formign a link to a stub. What do you think?--68.121.144.176 03:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The TOC for this was listed under VfD. I moved it here in case anyone wants to do anything with it (such as link it to a series of articles) in the future.

This is a listing of the Federalist Papers.

1 General Introduction
2-7 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
8 The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
9-10 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
11 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy
12 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue
13 Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government
14 Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered
15-20 The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
21-22 Other Defects of the Present Confederation
23 The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
24-25 The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
26-28 The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
29 Concerning the Militia
30-36 Concerning the General Power of Taxation
37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government
38 The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed
39 The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
40 The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
41-43 General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution
44 Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
46 The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
47 The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
48 These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other
49 Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention
50 Periodic Appeals to the People Considered
51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
52-53 The House of Representatives
54 The Apportionment of Members Among the States
55-56 The Total Number of the House of Representatives
57 The Alleged Tendency of the Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
58 Objection that the Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered
59-61 Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
62-63 The Senate
64-65 The Powers of the Senate
66 Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered
67-77 The Executive Department
78-83 The Judiciary Department
84 Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered
85 Concluding Remarks

[edit] Proposed Expansion

I would like to see this article expanded significantly, with excerpts and analysis of each of the Federalist Papers, and how they have been cited over the years (e.g., in Supreme Court decisions). Or, a separate article could be created for each one, linked together with a template (like the one for the Constitution). Anyone else think this is a good idea?--JW1805 20:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I actually have an article on Federalist No. 10 that I started working on but took a break from, looking at Publius's arguments, the Anti-Federalist arguments it was responding to, etc. If someone else is interested in working on this stuff I'll upload it tonight in its semi-finished state, I just have to get it off my other comp. Overall, I like the idea of having more detailed commentary on this stuff; I'm not sure that organizing by the Federalist Papers is the best way to go. Ultimately, we may want an article on each of the major issues of contention (e.g. Debates over the ideal size of the union, Debates over the structure of the judiciary) that can present the Fed. and Anti-Fed. views in contrast. But the Federalist Papers are a good place to start. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis

Are there any online works that discuss and/or analyze the Federalist Papers? Is there any way they could be added as links to the article?

[edit] References

Personally, I strongly prefer the reference system {{ref}}/{{note}}, although it would be nice if this system too was hard-coded into wikimedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on the Ratification Debate?

It would be nice to see a discussion on the Papers influence on the ratification debate.


[edit] Authorship

It would be helpful if the two authorship lists were covered here. Septentrionalis 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Federalist_Papers#Disputed_essays is intended to cover taht issue...what in particular would you like to see added? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Four sets of numbers: Jay's contributions, Madison's contributions, which of them were claimed by Hamilton, and Hamilton's consensus contributions. (I suppose the last is redundant.) Not a matter of deep import, but it is what I came looking for. Septentrionalis 04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • List of Federalist Papers has most of this information, except identifying the disputed papers, which I will add shortly. In any case, they are 49-58 and 62 and 63. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (This list is now updated to that effect)

[edit] Your request for GA status has passed

I have passed your request for this article to be listed as one of Wikipedia's Good Articles. The article clearly explains its idea, and purpose. The only thing I see wrong with it is its loose references system. In order to advance this above GA, I suggest you try to incorporate the references and notes sections into one (using the <ref> tag over one of the refrences), so it is easier to find out what the related notes mean. There should also be more citations in the lead. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I added citations for some the fact tags you placed. However, the reference setup is fairly standard and I don't see any compelling reason to change it. It also makes the citations shorter and easier to add and maintain. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In general, leads should not have footnotes; they should summarize article text, which should be sourced. However, since the (quite reasonable) claim that 10 and 51 are the most influential occurs only in the lead, it could use a source. Septentrionalis 06:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a Socsci tag. Should it be History instead? JoelleJ 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrayed false

The federalist paper's with Hamilton was for a royalist governship. And the Anti-federalist paper as wacky as it seems was for a republican with sovereign people. But as the name "federalist" was already taken for a paper they had to choose another name. So this article makes me very confused regarding what this. Lord Metroid 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I'm confused regarding your comment, could you be clearer? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe after he reads them he can correct himself. 70.146.15.172 01:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to text

The External Links section has several links to copies of the Papers, including a link to Wikisource copies. Are any of the linked materials very different from the others? (SEWilco 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

The following sentence is unclear. I would like to see someone knowledgable about this subject rewrite this sentence to include who "it" is and explain who the "opponents" of the constitution were. This statement begs the question of whether or not anti-federalists were opponents of the constitution.

Immediately, it was the target of numerous articles and public letters written by Anti-Federalists and other opponents of the Constitution.

71.146.106.81 20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)chime

I would think it's obvious that "it" is the Constitution, the subject of the previous sentence and the only reasonable antecedent mentioned in the paragraph to that point. The Anti-Federalist movement did oppose the ratification of the constitution, as I think the sentence makes clear by lumping them with "other opponents of the Constitution." I'm not attached to the current language but it's not apparent to me how these ideas could be made clearer. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


I think a great addition to the Federalist Papers page would be (http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=93) which directs to TheFinalClub.org a new site that among other things includes full texts of public domain texts with hypertext commentary on works ranging from Macbeth to the Federalist Papers. The texts are cleanly formatted and the commentary is unique, interesting, and authoritative. Check out the site. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made minor corrections throughout the article and added two sources for several quotes. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006, although it could be expanded further. The statement "As of the year 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[26]", should be updated if possible. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)