|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federalist Papers 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Miscellaneous questions
- 2 Table of Contents
- 3 Proposed Expansion
- 4 Analysis
- 5 References
- 6 Influence on the Ratification Debate?
- 7 Authorship
- 8 Your request for GA status has passed
- 9 Portrayed false
- 10 Links to text
- 11 Automatic addition of "class=GA"
- 12 GA Sweeps Review: Pass
- 13 Madison's quote
- 14 Title
- 15 Translations
- 16 linking to free Federalist Papers audio
- 17 Individual articles
- 18 Intro
- 19 Anonymity
- 20 A Collection: Infobox date for publication
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)
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)
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?--184.108.40.206 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.
|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|
|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|
- The page is still there, at List of Federalist Papers
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)
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?
Influence on the Ratification Debate?
It would be nice to see a discussion on the Papers influence on the ratification debate.
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)
I believe that essays 18-20 can be fully attributed to Madison. The source you site in note 1, The Encyclopedia of New York City, albeit on page 394, not 194, credits Madison with no mention of being in dispute. While I have not read the Adair essay you cite, in Meyerson's Liberty's Blueprint, he says that "Adair reviewed the content of the essays and decided that Madison's list better reflected the different policy orientations of the two. Later, Jacob Cooke reviewed the reliability of the different lists and the people who claimed to have seen them. He came to the same conclusion as Adair, namely that Madison's list was correct." Meyerson goes on to say that while others disagreed with Adair and Cooke, numerous studies based on stylometry (the science of using statistics to measure literary style) indicate that Madison was likely the author of the disputed essays. Histowi (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 220.127.116.11 01:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
18.104.22.168 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)
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)
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.", 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)
This edit added text to a referenced quotation. The added text seemed plausible but didn't reference a source, so I reverted it until it could be confirmed. If it can be it seemed like a decent addition to me though I'm not highly familiar with the topic. - Taxman Talk 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This page says that Federalist 10 talks about preventing faction. Not at all. It talks about how the Founding Fathers could thwart the power of the Majority by increasing the number of factions in each voting district by increasing the size of the district. By increasing the number of factions, Madison and the other founding fathers planned to make it harder for the majority to unite and discover their common interest and thereby use the power of the government to tax away the wealth of Madison and the other Founding Fathers. So Fed 10 is NOT about preventing faction. It is about how Madison and the other wealthy founding fathers should be USING factions by increasing the number of factions in the voting district and thereby making it harder for us commoners to organize, unite and use the power of govt to take the wealth of the "minority of the opulent" (to quote madison). -cryofan
I move that since the TRUE title of the work is "The Federalist" and NOT "The Federalist Papers" the title of this article should be changed to "The Federalist" with searches for "(The) Federalist Papers" redirected to it. "The Federalist Papers" is a later title: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay very specifically wanted the work to be called "The Federalist" because a federalist was the type of man whose virtues they wanted to promote, a man like Publius--The title "The Federalist" refers to a type of PERSON, not a collection of papers. Calling them "The Federalist Papers" very much changes the authors' intent.
Does anyone know if the federalist papers has been translated into Arabic? I would like to think that people forming a completely new government (Egypt) could have access to the concepts contained in the federalist. This could be a valuable resource to improve our world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been providing an audio narration of the Federalist Papers for free on my website for about four years. It seems like a useful resource for people wanting to learn more about the Federalist Papers. Would you consider adding this recording to the External Links section of this article?
Is it really neccessary to have an article for every single essay? It seems that at least 74 of these are pretty weak stubs and don't give any more information than what is already on the list page. I would suggest that somebody with subject expertise cleans up and picks out the most notable for thier own articles and merges the rest into the main article.
If you want an argument from policy I'd argue that the individual essays are either non-notable or they fail to establish independant notability. Just because 'the federalist papers' are notable, does not mean that every federalist paper is also notable, WP:BK Bob House 884 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The Introduction (before the table of contents) is disconcertingly long and full of text which seems like it should go into the body. Ideally I would like to see the intro just outline the main idea of the papers (ie The Constitution should be adopted) and a bit about their authors and the context in which they were written. In keeping with other similar articles, the intro should be one to two paragraphs. Since there seems to be a lot of relevant information in the introduction, I would like to see it moved into the body.
I don't have time to make these edits right now as I am working on a class project at the moment. This is probably for the best as it will give anyone with a contrary (or supporting) opinion a chance to chime in. I'm all for being Wikipedia:Bold, but this is a good class article and I am a somewhat erratic editor. As such I would appreciate any commentary below. Regards, --Mortosthegodly (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why did the authors publish anonymously? What would have been the downside of publishing with attribution? The Federalist Papers are often cited as a reason to support anonymity of free speech in modern times, so this issue seems important. -- Beland (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
A Collection: Infobox date for publication
The source for the date of this collection was not provided. The Roman Numeral date on the cover translates to 1783 - this can't be correct. Another source here: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html - this gives the publishing date as 1799. I'll remove the date "1783" (or "1788") from infobox until confirmed. 36hourblock (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)