Talk:Federalist Papers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Federalist Papers has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
Federalist Papers is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Christopher Parham (talk • contribs) |
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 |
- The page is still there, at List of Federalist Papers
[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)
- Federalist No. 10, check her out. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:55, 2005 August 14 (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)
- 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)
[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)
[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)
