Talk:Constitution of the United States: Difference between revisions
Randy Kryn (talk | contribs) |
→Disputed inline footnote in middle of Preamble: another reference to WP guidelines |
||
Line 377: | Line 377: | ||
:::::I also agree with Randy in regards to the placement of your footnote within the quotation of the Preamble. It's the issue I raised before, and IMO he summed up what's wrong with this more succinctly than I did. [[User:Allreet|Allreet]] ([[User talk:Allreet|talk]]) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I also agree with Randy in regards to the placement of your footnote within the quotation of the Preamble. It's the issue I raised before, and IMO he summed up what's wrong with this more succinctly than I did. [[User:Allreet|Allreet]] ([[User talk:Allreet|talk]]) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::From [[WP:Quotations#Guidelines|WP:Quotations]]: {{tq|Our [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis.}} [[User:Allreet|Allreet]] ([[User talk:Allreet|talk]]) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
::::::From [[WP:Quotations#Guidelines|WP:Quotations]]: {{tq|Our [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]] (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis.}} [[User:Allreet|Allreet]] ([[User talk:Allreet|talk]]) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|Freoh}}: I also suggest taking a look at [[WP:Civil POV pushing]]. Several bulleted points on this page describe what's been going on here and elsewhere in the discussions and edits related to neutrality. I'll cite just one: {{tq|Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing.}} [[User:Allreet|Allreet]] ([[User talk:Allreet|talk]]) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:12, 1 February 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Constitution of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Errors in the United States Constitution was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 June 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Constitution of the United States. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Why is a footnote about insular areas not neutral?
A recent edit by @Dhtwiki removed a footnote about insular areas with the justification that it is "not NPOV." What is not neutral about a footnote discussing how the constitution applies to colonial territories? It seems misleading to describe the constitution as the "law of the land," as there is plenty of U.S. land where it does not apply. Freoh (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your phrasing "pretends that the new government stands for everyone", as well as insertion of "wealthy elites" and "imperial subjects" are what struck me as non-neutral. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- What about that phrasing is non-neutral? And if the phrasing is the problem, why are you removing the footnote entirely rather than fixing the offending phrasing? Freoh (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- This article has a lot of content about constitutional protections, but I don't think it's clear enough on who these protections apply to. Do you have any objections to me re-adding the link to insular areas and the bit about constitutional protections not applying to imperial subjects? Freoh (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add this content. Freoh (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, you haven't gained consensus for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you oppose the wikilink? And why do you oppose mentioning to whom constitutional protections apply? The current presentation is an oversimplification in my view, and omits details that deserve due weight. Freoh (talk) 15:49, 18 (edited 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC))
- I opposed the language for the reasons I stated. I'm not necessarily going to parse an edit I think is wrong, in order to keep what might be less objectionable. I think that it's as much up to you to see what I'm objecting to and re-propose the less objectionable part. And wait to see that others chime in in support. Just wanting to re-add the entire objected-to edit, which is what you seem to be proposing, is not going to get us anywhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't proposing to add the entire edit; an intermediate edit removed the need for one of the footnotes. Could you explain what is
non-neutral
about imperial subjects? What terminology would you prefer? Colonized subjects? Residents of colonial territories? Freoh (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)- What was wrong with what was there before? The United States does/did not refer to the inhabitants of its lands in such ways. Why do you insist on using such non-standard terms? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- What would you see as a more standard term? The cited source often uses the phrase
colonized subjects
, and I think it's worth specifying who is protected by the Constitution. Freoh (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC) - Dhtwiki, would you be okay with me referring to
colonized subjects
? I guess I avoided that originally because it sounded repetitive withcolonial territories
. Is there another way you would prefer I refer to these subjects? Freoh (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- All inhabitants of the insular territories are American citizens, according to the linked article. Why would "colonized subjects" be at all appropriate? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which
linked article
? And I'm not talking about Americans in general, but just the people living in U.S. colonies. I think that the termcolonized subjects
is appropriate, given that it's used throughout the cited source by Immerwahr. To be clear, this is what I'm proposing:
- Which
- All inhabitants of the insular territories are American citizens, according to the linked article. Why would "colonized subjects" be at all appropriate? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- What would you see as a more standard term? The cited source often uses the phrase
- What was wrong with what was there before? The United States does/did not refer to the inhabitants of its lands in such ways. Why do you insist on using such non-standard terms? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't proposing to add the entire edit; an intermediate edit removed the need for one of the footnotes. Could you explain what is
- I opposed the language for the reasons I stated. I'm not necessarily going to parse an edit I think is wrong, in order to keep what might be less objectionable. I think that it's as much up to you to see what I'm objecting to and re-propose the less objectionable part. And wait to see that others chime in in support. Just wanting to re-add the entire objected-to edit, which is what you seem to be proposing, is not going to get us anywhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you oppose the wikilink? And why do you oppose mentioning to whom constitutional protections apply? The current presentation is an oversimplification in my view, and omits details that deserve due weight. Freoh (talk) 15:49, 18 (edited 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC))
- No, you haven't gained consensus for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add this content. Freoh (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Current Proposal In this context, colonial territories held by the U.S. are not considered part of the land, so the constitution does not apply to them.[1] In this context, insular areas are not considered part of the land, so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects.[1][2]
- See Insular_area#Citizenship:
Congress has extended citizenship rights by birth to all inhabited territories except American Samoa, and these citizens may vote and run for office in any U.S. jurisdiction in which they are residents. The people of American Samoa are U.S. nationals by place of birth, or they are U.S. citizens by parentage, or naturalization after residing in a State for three months. Nationals are free to move around and seek employment within the United States without immigration restrictions, but cannot vote or hold office outside American Samoa.
- So, your proposed text makes little sense to me, as well as seemingly making this article inconsistent with one that should carry some weight in this matter. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- What's
inconsistent
? I don't understand what's not making sense here. And once again, how would you prefer that I refer to colonized subjects specifically? Freoh (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)- The linked article doesn't refer to "colonized subjects". The inhabitants apparently are all now US citizens, even if they were not always so in the past. Why do you insist on the term, apparently without qualification? For one thing, "subject" usually implies a monarchy, which would be incorrect here, whatever your opinion is of the despotism of American government. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't
insist
on that term. I've asked you a couple times for alternatives and I haven't heard any. A wikilink is not a reliable source, and I think changes could be made to that article as well. Why do you think that"subject" usually implies a monarchy
? Freoh (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- Why would I propose alternatives if I don't see anything wrong with the text, and you seem to be the only one who does? Other articles by themselves are not supposed to be sources, but their sources can be used, and one can by assuming good-faith that those articles reflect proper research, as well as consistency of terminology being a virtue. Any dictionary should give a sense of "subject" as one who is subject to someone else, as in vassalage. One tends not to refer to citizens of a republic as "subjects" for that reason alone, even though my dictionary does admit of subjection to a constitutional authority. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand
that reason alone
. How are colonized subjects notsubject to someone else
? Freoh (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- Theoretically, citizens of a republic are sovereign, in a monarchy they are by law subject to the sovereignty of another person, the monarch, however constrained that monarch's power may be. For that reason alone, "subject" is not a term I usually see applied to such sovereign citizens, however impoverished or otherwise degraded they may be. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Could you point me to sources that support your perspective? I'm using the wording directly from my sources, and I've never heard anyone refer to colonized subjects as sovereign citizens. Freoh (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Theoretically, citizens of a republic are sovereign, in a monarchy they are by law subject to the sovereignty of another person, the monarch, however constrained that monarch's power may be. For that reason alone, "subject" is not a term I usually see applied to such sovereign citizens, however impoverished or otherwise degraded they may be. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand
- Why would I propose alternatives if I don't see anything wrong with the text, and you seem to be the only one who does? Other articles by themselves are not supposed to be sources, but their sources can be used, and one can by assuming good-faith that those articles reflect proper research, as well as consistency of terminology being a virtue. Any dictionary should give a sense of "subject" as one who is subject to someone else, as in vassalage. One tends not to refer to citizens of a republic as "subjects" for that reason alone, even though my dictionary does admit of subjection to a constitutional authority. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't
- The linked article doesn't refer to "colonized subjects". The inhabitants apparently are all now US citizens, even if they were not always so in the past. Why do you insist on the term, apparently without qualification? For one thing, "subject" usually implies a monarchy, which would be incorrect here, whatever your opinion is of the despotism of American government. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dhtwiki, are you opposed to discussing to whom constitutional protections apply? If so, why? Freoh (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- To the extent that you want to discuss it, it is inappropriate here. And you should have adduced my reasons from the replies I've already given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The
extent
is currently a single footnote. Constitutional protections are described throughout the article without mentioning to whom they apply. Why is it not worth clarifying? Freoh (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- Because your clarifications are not good ones, IMO, and I don't see others telling me that they are. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- The
- To the extent that you want to discuss it, it is inappropriate here. And you should have adduced my reasons from the replies I've already given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- What's
Dhtwiki, I've provided a reliable source that supports my content, and the only argument I've seen against it is your original research about sovereign citizens. Could you clarify your objections? What's "not good"? Freoh (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- If your objections are based solely on original research and you won't explain further, then I'm going to add my proposal to the article. Freoh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're talking about the proposal in the next section, not the language quoted here, which makes things quite confusing. I see that you've gone ahead and added to the article the text proposed in the next section, although I don't see agreement there either. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I was trying to talk about this proposal separately. Do you have any objections to my proposal above about colonized subjects that aren't based solely on your original research about sovereign citizens? Freoh (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dhtwiki, I've edited my proposal with an additional reference. If you won't explain your objection, then I'm going to add this edit. — Freoh 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've given my reasons for objecting and see no consensus for your proposal. Where are the others in agreement with what you're proposing? You've added a Yale Law Journal article, which doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still don't understand your objections. Could you explain a few points for me?
- What is the connection between colonized subjects and sovereign citizens? Do you have a reliable source arguing that residents of colonial territories are not colonized subjects?
- Why are you opposed to clarifying who constitutional protections apply to? How is it outside the scope of this article?
- Are you questioning the reliability of my sources? No single source will
necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking
, but I've given a couple of reliable sources supporting my proposal, so the burden is on you to provide contradicting sources.
- Please clarify and help me understand. — Freoh 13:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- As before, where are the others who think your changes need to be made? Apparently, others are satisfied with the article as written. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still don't understand your objections. Could you explain a few points for me?
- I've given my reasons for objecting and see no consensus for your proposal. Where are the others in agreement with what you're proposing? You've added a Yale Law Journal article, which doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're talking about the proposal in the next section, not the language quoted here, which makes things quite confusing. I see that you've gone ahead and added to the article the text proposed in the next section, although I don't see agreement there either. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Dhtwiki, you've argued elsewhere that "citizens" would be a more neutral term
than "colonized subjects". Could you point me to which part of WP:NPOV supports this conclusion? My proposal would be nonsensical and inaccurate if it read constitutional protections do not extend to citizens
. — Freoh 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect
A recent edit by @Dhtwiki adds this text, which I see as problematic:
"One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".
- It's really flowery language. What does it mean that people "dissolved their connection with one another"? This might be okay in a public speech, but I don't think it makes sense in an encyclopedia without significantly more context.
- It's biased, accepting as fact that the constitution represents the will of "the people," which is controversial. As per WP:VOICE, we should avoid stating opinions as facts.
- It's factually incorrect that "liberty" was "secured" for "all," unless you have an unusual interpretation for the words "liberty" and "all."
Freoh (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to want to have this article be a critique of constitutional language rather than an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value. Perhaps there is room here for the former, if it doesn't already exist; but I think it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by
an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value
? WP:VOICE explicitly forbids stating opinions (such as those held by the writers of the constitution) as facts. Freoh (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC) it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate
- Based on the guidelines in WP:BOLD, I don't think it does. Freoh (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adding tags requires you start a meaningful discussion, this doesnt qualify. I have reverted them Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why don’t you find this discussion meaningful? Freoh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adding tags requires you start a meaningful discussion, this doesnt qualify. I have reverted them Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not satisfied with the current text, which states that
"One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state
. Could you explain your objections to my proposal? Freoh (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)- If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add my edit. Freoh (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- As before, my objection stands; and you haven't gotten other support for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your objection. You asked for
an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value
, but this is the kind of thing that should not be stated in wikivoice. You asked fordiscussion and consensus
, and I'm trying to get consensus, but I can't propose a compromise until I understand your objections. Could you please explain? Freoh (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your objection. You asked for
- As before, my objection stands; and you haven't gotten other support for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add my edit. Freoh (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by
- I should make it clear that I didn't really add text; I merely reverted to what was already there. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The fact that your material was the status quo is not a justification to keep it. Freoh (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh:, @Dhtwiki:: The merits or demerits of these edits, relative to the prior text, is complicated by the fact that both are inappropriately subjective, albeit from opposing viewpoints, and neither realistically complies with WP:NPOV. Neither the cynical language of the previous text, nor the romantic notion of the edited text, are appropriate nor necessary in an encyclopedia built on the principle of WP:NPOV.
At the least, the editors could have claimed that these were "the declared intentions" of the Constitution's authors, signers and ratifiers -- citing further (and quoting) evidence from specific references, external to the Constitution itself (though there are so many such parties that a truly representative sample is unlikely, given the subjective lens through which a Wikipedia editor is likely to choose among them).
But without specific external declarations, from WP:RS sources, to cite as references, it is highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia editor to presume to assign motives to others' words, in the text of an article.
Freoh, please reconsider your language, in conformity with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
Further, this matter is complicated by the fact that the contested edit was, in fact, multiple, separate edits, in different parts of the article, each an issue in its own right. In a subject so important, sensitive and controversial as the Constitution of the United States, it is reckless (and thoughtless of other editors) to scatter different edits all in one edit-event -- making it tricky to debate (and remove or restore) the disparate elements of the bunch-edit.
One edit at a time would make it easier to address specific differences, and resolve conflicts on those specific elements, without disturbing the other edits (or leaving them to other discussions, as separate edits). Please be considerate of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia in such cases.
~ Penlite (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC) (P.S.: I must withdraw from this debate, owing to other duties).
- I am way too busy right now to get into the details of this issue, but I generally concur with User:Penlite's critique of both sides. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Penlite about the separate edits. I'll make a new proposal for this edit:
Current Proposal Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[3][disputed – discuss] Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States," echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[4] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty,"[3] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[5][6]
- I know that the word
claim
is a word to watch, but I think it's appropriate in this case, given that there's historical consensus that it's a false claim. Freoh (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC))
- @Freoh: I think your latest proposal is more congruent with WP:NPOV than either the original text or your previously proposed edits. I'm not looking closely (busy) but it seems OK. But I urge you to get others to buy it, before revising the article accordingly. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Dhtwiki and Coolcaesar, any objections? Freoh (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Freoh: I think your latest proposal is more congruent with WP:NPOV than either the original text or your previously proposed edits. I'm not looking closely (busy) but it seems OK. But I urge you to get others to buy it, before revising the article accordingly. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Freoh:@Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:I retract my endorsement. I'm guilty of a recklessly ill-informed response -- having not checked the reference cited. The cited references apparently do not meet the standards of WP:NPOV, as they appear to be chielfy counter-cultural/arch-liberal sources, the last one is apparently an exposition propounding a highly controversial socio-poltiical theory -- Critical Race Theory -- and Freoh offers it as the sole supporting reference on it's point.
- When toying with so precious and serious a matter as the Constitution, so steeped in historical controversy, it's simply reckless to offer one very partisan viewpoint as supporting reference for any arguably controversial statement. VERY inapproprirate, and sharply undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an objective and credible source.
- Please find more truly neutral sources, multiples of them, (or pair each liberal source with a substantial conservative source) (or preferably a balanced mulitiplicity of them) that support your phrases. They're out there.
- And, after meeting that WP:RS and WP:NPOV balance, I urge you to get others to buy your edit, before revising the article accordingly. Apologies for not having checked you proposal more carefully before responding the first time.
- ~Penlite (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think is
controversial
about the information I'm adding? I've just added another supporting source. Personally, I see it asreckless
to leave the current version in, which is significantly less accurate. Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think is
- Please note that I've revised my previous statement to be more inclusive of all your edits and cited sources. Please study and understand the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS before further edits. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think that Freoh's making the language in the proposal more succinct may be helpful (watch for keeping to logical quoting, however), but tacking on the fact that the constitutional language is hypocritical (or is it? since slaves probably didn't count as "the people", at least not in full measure) as well as the overly specific example of the slave trade (which was to be abolished by 1808, there is that) being used (what about Native Americans, Indians, etc.?). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you feel like it's
overly specific
? The Constitution directly protects the slave trade, and reliable sources have described this specifically as a contradiction. Do you have something in mind for generalizing the "blessings of liberty" concept to Indigenous people? Freoh (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)- I've already made the point that this article is not the place to spend a lot of time picking apart constitutional language for its inaccuracies and manifestations of hypocrisy. That would deserve its own article. It's certainly not the place to point out protection of the slave trade in particular, especially since that was a compromise to gain Southern votes and because many Northern states abolished slavery around this time, if not before. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting a POV fork? I don't think that it would be neutral to limit this article to content that presents the U.S. government in a favorable light. Why don't you think that the slave trade is worth mentioning? It seems like the
compromise to gain Southern votes
would be more appropriate in § History. Freoh (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting a POV fork? I don't think that it would be neutral to limit this article to content that presents the U.S. government in a favorable light. Why don't you think that the slave trade is worth mentioning? It seems like the
- I've already made the point that this article is not the place to spend a lot of time picking apart constitutional language for its inaccuracies and manifestations of hypocrisy. That would deserve its own article. It's certainly not the place to point out protection of the slave trade in particular, especially since that was a compromise to gain Southern votes and because many Northern states abolished slavery around this time, if not before. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you feel like it's
- I think that Freoh's making the language in the proposal more succinct may be helpful (watch for keeping to logical quoting, however), but tacking on the fact that the constitutional language is hypocritical (or is it? since slaves probably didn't count as "the people", at least not in full measure) as well as the overly specific example of the slave trade (which was to be abolished by 1808, there is that) being used (what about Native Americans, Indians, etc.?). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Penlite, what
conservative
scholarship do you want to include? Is there a viewpoint that you feel is underrepresented? Do you have reliable sources that contradict my information? Do you have reason to doubt the reliability of my sources? I still don't see how the current version adheres better to the WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines than my proposal. Freoh (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- @Freoh:(copy to: @Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:) Again, I find both versions (original and yours) as unduly and unnecessarily biased -- yours particularly in its choice of very left-wing sources -- arguably outside the mainstream historical literature (mostly liberal) on Constitutional history -- in an obvious repudiation of the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
- If you were to insist on citing these authors as sources, then you're reasonably obliged to find concurring statements from right-wing authors -- or simply replace them all (left and right) with comparatively centrist, mainstream authors.
- Plenty of moderate-liberal, centrist and conservative historians exist as alternatives (or counterbalance) to your left-wing sources. Moderate-liberal work by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Jill Lepore, centrist work by David McCullough, conservative works by Jon Meacham, Joseph Ellis, Michael Beschloss, Russel Kirk, Wilfred McClay or if you wanted a far-right counterbalance to your reference to far-left Howard Zinn, consider Paul Gottfried (if you can find them agreeing on your point).
- Where no overwhelming consensus exists on a point, simply delete that text, and its marginal reference(s) -- or find an agreeing conservative reference to match with the liberal reference, or replace your far-liberal source (and, NO, there is not even a supporting consensus among liberals for Zinn's POV epic, and your proponents of Critical Race Theory are not yet mainstream, at least not outside the liberal arts college) with two or three mainstream references from reputable historians, such as recipients of the Bancroft Prize or the Pulitzer Prize for History.
- Your recently proposed edit looks good, at first glance, but it's built on a foundation of sand -- poorly chosen supporting references -- so is not yet fit material for Wikipedia (any more than the text it presumes to replace).
- Too busy to get any deeper on this here. On an article of this importance, and on an issue so fundamental to the subject, you should invite comment from a truly representative swath of prior editors on this article.
- ~ Penlite (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you want to
delete
my text (or which text exactly you want to delete). What content am I adding that differs fromthe mainstream
? Why don't you think that my sources arereputable
? If you have additional content you want to add or additional sources you want to cite, the burden is on you. Freoh (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC) - Penlite, which version do you prefer, the original or my proposal? If your answer is "neither," then could you make your own proposal? Freoh (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines favor my proposal over the current version, and I haven't seen any other proposals. If you have no objections, I'm going to replace the current version with my proposal, and then you can feel free to add the
right-wing authors
you want. Freoh (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you want to
@Freoh: (copy @Dhtwiki:, @Coolcaesar:), Again, the person making an edit has the sole responsibility for documenting their edits with WP:RS source(s) that validate the edits. You have not yet done so, and appear stubbornly determined to ignore wide evidence that they are not WP:RS and/or WP:NPOV sources (Frankly, some of those authors seem to take great pride in not having an NPOV).
Come on, Freoh: It's probably not that hard to find a WP:RS and WP:NPOV source for each of your proposed footnoted edits. Unless you just can't bring yourself to tolerate such sources, or are too lazy to do your own homework. I will not do it for you. I'm tired of cleaning up after impulsive and irresponsible editors who think it's someone else's responsiblity to take care of their responsibility.
If you need help finding WP:RS / WP:NPOV corroborating sources for your edit, and cannot or will not do it yourself, then please confer with members of the WP:WikiProject United States Constitution -- perhaps starting with those who are as conservative as you are liberal, if you insist on retaining your far-left sources in the edit. ~ Penlite (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Freoh:: P.S.: In case you have not carefully read my remarks here, nor reviewed my User page, let me be clear, again, I do not favor far-right nor far-left sources. I'm committed to WP:NPOV -- and if you'd cited sources that were anywhere near that standard, I would have acquiesced by now. I'm not sure though, that you grasp the concept of WP:RS nor WP:NPOV. Please study those topics -- not looking for loopholes, but looking, with an open mind, for guidance. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't
insist
on these sources in particular, but I do insist on fixing the neutrality issues in the current text. Could you point me to evidence that my sources are not reliable? As I pointed out before, the burden is on you to add theconservative
information you're asking for. Freoh (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)- @Freoh:Again, you are not reading me clearly. It is your responsibility alone to provide WP:RS for your edits. And, IMHO, you should only cite hard-right-leaning sources to counter-balance hard-left-leaning sources, pairing them together on points where they agree. And, frankly, I'm not sure that far-right/left sources constitute WP:RS, at all, even in evenly matched pairs. Ideally, you'll use neither -- instead substituting something comparatively neutral, supporting a WP:NPOV. But that's the job of the editor making the edit, not mine or anyone else's. ~ Penlite (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, how are my sources unreliable? Any reliable source is going to be biased in some way. Freoh (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Freoh: Arguably, yes -- but not WP:Fringe theories, which permeate the works of some of your sources.
- Again, how are my sources unreliable? Any reliable source is going to be biased in some way. Freoh (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Freoh:Again, you are not reading me clearly. It is your responsibility alone to provide WP:RS for your edits. And, IMHO, you should only cite hard-right-leaning sources to counter-balance hard-left-leaning sources, pairing them together on points where they agree. And, frankly, I'm not sure that far-right/left sources constitute WP:RS, at all, even in evenly matched pairs. Ideally, you'll use neither -- instead substituting something comparatively neutral, supporting a WP:NPOV. But that's the job of the editor making the edit, not mine or anyone else's. ~ Penlite (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Freoh:: As a courtesy to you, I will provide you a credibility check on just one of your sources: Zinn. But it's your job to do this, not mine, and I'll let you do your own due diligence on your other sources, on your own time.
- re: Zinn, Howard, and his book you cite, here are comments just from the two leading liberal newspapers in America, including their reviews of his book you cite.:
- Powell, Michael: "Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87"; Jan. 28, 2010, New York Times, describes Zinn (in his obit) as: "Proudly, unabashedly radical,..." and notes he was a poli-sci prof, not a history prof, at B.U., when writing People's History[7]
- Kirn, Walter: "Childrens Books" (book review of Howard Zinn's Young People’s History of the United States, and, indirectly, of his A People’s History of the United States), June 17, 2007, New York Times: Describes Zinn's "...Young People’s History..." as "a condensation and simplification of'" the "quite condensed and simple People’s History of the United States... a summing up.... [Zinn believes] telling the truth is not Job 1 for historians. Editing and motivating are. The goal is to 'pick and choose among facts' so as to 'shape the ideas and beliefs' that will 'help us imagine new possibilities for the future.'"[8]
- [(In other words: "Historians are supposed indoctrinate, more than inform" -- a bit presumptuous; not WP:NPOV, and not WP:RS ~Penlite)]
- Kammen, Michael (professor of American History, culture at Cornell): "How the Other Half Lived" (review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), March 23, 1980, Washington Post, Prof. Kammen -- while endorsing Zinn's vision of "a new approach... history from 'the bottom up'... more egalitarian." -- concedes "I wish... I could [declare] Zinn's book a great success;... it is not. [It's] a synthesis of the radical... revisionist historiography of the [1970s], [with] many of the strengths [but] most of the weaknesses [in] that highly uneven... literature. ...much [focus on] historians, historiography and historical polemic... [leaving] little [room] for the substance of history. ...Phillip Foner,... radical historian,... cited nine times, [but] Thomas Jefferson... mentioned only eight. [The author's] sins of omission are... more serious. ...virtually no interest in religion... (a force... for three centuries... phenomenal... in American life...). [He] has little interest in ideas:...philosophical...or...more practical, technological... [Zinn] talks about the Berrigan brothers [yet] mentions just once,... in passing, John C. Calhoun,... who... made [a nearly-singular] truly original contribution to [American] political philosophy. [He] mentions Karl Marx [frequently],... Well then, who and what is discussed? Figures of social protest and political criticism..."
- "We... deserve a people's history;... not [Zinn's] singleminded, simpleminded history,... of fools, knaves... Robin Hoods. [Rather] a judicious people's history... people [deserve to get] their history whole; not just [what] will anger or embarrass them."[9]
- Zakaria, Fareed: "Stephen Bannon’s words and actions don’t add up," (op-ed), February 9, 2017, Washington Post, says: "In a strange way, [Trump advisor] Bannon’s dark, dystopian [vision] of U.S. history [most resembles] that of Howard Zinn, a... far-left scholar whose ...People’s History... is a tale of... ways [that] 99 percent of [the] Americans were crushed by [America's] all-powerful elites. ...the Zinn/Bannon worldview [is that] everyday people are [just] pawns manipulated by... evil overlords."[10]
- (When finished here, read the lede to the Wikipedia article on Howard Zinn, largely citing his own self-description, which hardly suggests WP:NPOV, or anything anywhere near it -- instead declaring a WP:Fringe POV.)
- Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Zinn is biased, as are all sources. If you are arguing that I'm promoting a fringe theory, then please provide sources that contradict the presented facts. I have yet to see evidence that Zinn is unreliable aside from your interpretation of a novelist's review of a children's book. Freoh (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not all sources are equally biased even if all are to some degree. Those writers who are careful with their facts, critical of their own hypotheses, and fair-minded toward opposing views are going to write better history than those who aren't. Penlite excerpted four criticisms from two newspapers that should be considered among the most likely to be sympathetic to Zinn and his aims. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've asked multiple times now [1] [2] [3] [4] for evidence that Zinn is not one of the reliable
writers who are careful with their facts
, and all I've seen is evidence that he is biased. Could you answer the question? I've just updated my proposal with an additional source. Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've asked multiple times now [1] [2] [3] [4] for evidence that Zinn is not one of the reliable
- Not all sources are equally biased even if all are to some degree. Those writers who are careful with their facts, critical of their own hypotheses, and fair-minded toward opposing views are going to write better history than those who aren't. Penlite excerpted four criticisms from two newspapers that should be considered among the most likely to be sympathetic to Zinn and his aims. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Zinn is biased, as are all sources. If you are arguing that I'm promoting a fringe theory, then please provide sources that contradict the presented facts. I have yet to see evidence that Zinn is unreliable aside from your interpretation of a novelist's review of a children's book. Freoh (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Dhtwiki pointed out that I wasn't correctly using logical quoting, so I'll edit my proposal to be formatted correctly:
Current | Proposal |
---|---|
Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another,[clarification needed] and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".[3][disputed – discuss] | Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States", echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans.[11][3][4] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty",[3] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.[5][6] |
Freoh (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC))
@Drdpw:@IAmChaos:@Winner 42:@CookieMonster755:@Libertybison:@Smasongarrison:@Fayenatic london:@TheVirginiaHistorian:@GregJackP:: Ladies & Gentlemen: I've been struggling with User:Freoh to help him get to a well-documented revision of a key passage in the article Constitution of the United States. I'm getting exhausted with the effort, and must withdraw for a while to attend to other responsibilities -- and, frankly, to cool down. However, the changes he intends to make are (IMHO) significant, important, and largely valid and appropriate.
Nevertheless, they are being offered with documentation from what appear to me to be some wildly biased and unreliable sources, edging (or leaping) towards WP:Fringe. If this was an article about a grocery chain, or a small-town politician, I wouldn't care so much -- but this proposal is about Wikipedia's characterization of the basis of the most important and influential law in the Western Hemisphere.
This really needs collaborative input from experienced Wikipedians -- liberal, centrist, and conservative -- who have shown actual commitment to this subject, and to WP:NPOV. I selected you because you either are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Constitution or recently edited it. Please engage here, with User:Freoh, as you can afford the time and effort. I must withdraw. Very respectfully,
~ Penlite (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Immerwahr, Daniel (2019). How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-71512-0. OCLC 1086608761.
The Constitution's references to 'the United States,' the argument continued, were meant in that narrow sense, to refer to the states alone. Territories thus had no right to constitutional protections, for the simple reason that the Constitution didn't apply to them. As one justice summarized the logic, the Constitution was 'the supreme law of the land,' but the territories were 'not part of the "land."'
- ^ Rolnick, Addie C. (June 2022). "Indigenous Subjects". Yale Law Journal. 131 (8): 2652–2758.
- ^ a b c d e Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136.
- ^ a b Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 50622172.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ a b Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ a b Bell, Derrick (2008). And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7867-2269-3. OCLC 784885619.
- ^ Powell, Michael: "Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87," January 28, 2010, New York Times, retrieved January 2, 2022
- ^ Kirn, Walter: "Children's Books," (book review of Howard Zinn's Young People’s History of the United States), June 17, 2007, New York Times, retrieved January 2, 2022
- ^ Kammen, Michael (professor of American History, culture at Cornell): "How the Other Half Lived" (review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), March 23, 1980, Washington Post, retrieved January 2, 2022
- ^ Zakaria, Fareed: "Stephen Bannon’s words and actions don’t add up," (op-ed), February 9, 2017, Washington Post, retrieved January 2, 2022
- ^ Collier, Christopher (1987). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. James Lincoln Collier (reprint ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 103. ISBN 0-345-34652-1. OCLC 16382999.
Additional sources under Further Reading
I've added about 10 sources to the Further Reading section. Of course, many more could be added, but I tried to limit these to ones I consider relatively significant. While that's no doubt subjective, IMO all are important to a study and understanding of the Constitution's development - from historical sources such as Madison and Farrand to more contemporary works by historians such as Jillson and Rakove. That said, anyone is welcome to remove or revert any of these though I would appreciate some indication as to why. Allreet (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality issues in § Preamble
Recent edit warring by Allreet has reintroduced some neutrality issues into § Preamble. In particular, we should not be describing anything as an improvement
in wikivoice. — Freoh 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh: Actually, what happened was I had reworded parts of the the Preamble section outside the editor and pasted in my revision without noticing I was deleting the additions you had made in the interim. So I was completely surprised when you accused me of edit warring (three times now), and I only figured out what you were referring to by going back through the edit history.
- However, had I seen what you added - in effect changing the focus of the Preamble section into an attack on the framers - I would have reverted it on POV, RS, and other grounds. The same applies to your footnote disparaging the word "liberty". Yes, the Constitution goes on to sanction slavery, but that discussion belongs elsewhere, not in the section on the Preamble. Plus you and your sources are ignoring the reality nearly everyone else mentions: that the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise.
- As for "improvement", that's how multiple sources describe Morris's work - in fact, they're even more effusive than that. How significant, then, are the other "neutrality issues"? Please be specific rather than make vague accusations. Allreet (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have already made
specific
changes (which you reverted) [5] [6]. I believe you that these opinions are common, but that does not mean that they should be presented as fact: ... the phrase improved on the section's original draft ...
Morris's wording provided another improvement ...
... their value is in promoting an understanding for interpreting and applying the purposes of the articles that follow.
- Why don't you think that my content belongs in § Preamble? It's relevant to your bit about
the blessings of liberty
. And if you want to mentionthat the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise
, then feel free to do so, but that content might fit better in § 1787 drafting. — Freoh 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)- Freoh: When responding, please ping me. The words chosen are fully supported and furthermore my sources are representative of the broad scholarship on the subject, meaning as reliable as they come. The same cannot be said of works that introduce critical race theory into the discussion. Most of what you added is focused on denigration. As for appropriateness, the subject here is the Preamble, whereas slavery falls under other provisions. The analysis you seem determined to offer belongs in a section of its own where both sides can be explored in detail.
- My concern, btw, is for the hundreds of thousands who visit this page each year (1.2 million views in 2022, 3,400 per day). In their interest, we have a responsibility to reflect what the vast majority of historians have to say: that the Preamble was an "eloquent" and "brilliant" innovation. That's also true of the Constitution as a whole, despite its obvious failings. While we have a duty to mention those flaws, the "prevailing view" is that the framers didn't do too badly. To say so may or may not be completely neutral, but as I see it, our duty is to accurately report "the record", biased or not.
- As for criticizing the framers as an "elite" (another issue you focused on), there's a truth to that. Patrick Henry , for example, called "we, the people" into question on similar grounds. His remarks are fair game and probably should be mentioned. But his was a reactionary argument skewed for rhetorical purposes. Of course the framers were an "elite". Who else gets elected or appointed to high office and who else then gets to "speak for the people" except their representatives? In short, the point is facile and to give it the weight you did could hardly be called neutral. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh: I just reviewed the latest changes you made. IMO, you're apparently determined to litter this section with your POV as well as templates and footnotes. Assuming good faith, I sincerely believe you don't fully understand neutrality in this context and thus I'm not saying any of this is being done with ill intent. Just to be clear, then, here's what's not neutral, not NPOV, and not commensurate with due weight:
- You've double footnoted the word "liberty" basically labeling it a hypocrisy.
- You've added another footnote, criticizing the framers for being"powerful white men".
- You've accused the Congressional Research Service of having a conflict of interest.
- And you missed the point about "new thought" entirely, that prior to this the states were credited with the authority for adopting a constitution, whereas Morris and his committee were recognizing the people as the source of sovereignty for the first time. Neither I nor the sources (read them) said anything about democracy.
- I'll clarify that last point as you requested and remove the template, which you can reinstate if you're still unsatisfied. Since you ignored my previous request about the double footnoting, I'm also going to remove one of the notes per Citation Overkill. IMO, the better source/COI template should also be removed but if you think not, please explain why so I can satisfy whatever complaints remain.
- Frankly, while I may have to "take my lumps" for inadvertently deleting your earlier edits, this appears headed toward an RFC. That's painful for other reasons, but apparently we need to have the community formally weigh in on what's neutral, what's polemics, what's reliable, and what's fringe. Otherwise, this seems likely to go around and around forever and in the meantime the article and with that our readers are going to suffer. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh: On second thought I'm not going to touch your redundant inline note since it's evidence of your apparent determination to paint the Constitution and its framers in a negative light. The same is true of your "powerful white men" note. Neither of these is likely to stand the test of time. For the record, I changed the two words you objected to: value and improvement. Now please tell me what else needs to be changed to remove the NPOV template you've posted over the section? Allreet (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think that your rewording of the "new thought" and your removal of "value" were improvements. However, it still says that
the phrase improved on the section's original draft
, and you replacedimprovement
withinnovation
, another peacock term. If you want to include these opinions, they need to be attributed. I still don't understand why you see my footnotes as non-neutral. The information is supported by more than one reliable source, so it seems like it deserves due weight. I think that your text has the potential to mislead without the clarifications. — Freoh 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)- Freoh: So I'll substitute other synonyms, as accurate as these. And of course they're opinions, very positive ones, but that doesn't mean we can't quote or paraphrase them with similarly positive words. And yes, I did miss the other "improved" but
I'll fix that tooon second thought I'm going to leave that stand since it says exactly what the source did. - As for your footnotes, both reflect minority views: "an elite of powerful white men" and singling out the word "liberty" to poke a stick in the Preamble's eye. In the first case, 18th century America was a white, male dominated society and this particular group of largely wealthy, well-educated men was as well equipped as any to speak for the people of their states.
- In the second case, honing in on the word "liberty" in the Preamble is equally absurd. Morris and the Preamble had nothing to do with slavery. He was outspokenly against the institution, and the Preamble touches on nothing directly related to the enslaved nor should we expect it to. To single out this word, then, is hardly justified, especially when the attack should address the Articles that perpetuated the practice.
- As for your belief that this is "information", the truth is that both views are only opinions, no better or worse than saying the Morris's Preamble was an improvement. But given that there are hundreds and hundreds of sources on the Constitution, that puts your "more than one" in an extreme minority. On that note, I refer you to Jimbo Wales's assertion: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it." Allreet (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source supporting the idea that my footnotes
reflect minority views
? I don't understand how the facts thatArticle I legally protected the slave trade
andthe delegates to the convention were all powerful white men
areonly opinions
. They're widely verifiable facts and relevant to the article. Your text about aninnovation
thatimproved ...
is an opinion. I don't see how it's relevant here that one of the delegates opposed slavery. — Freoh 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)- Are you saying CRT is not a controversial theory - that it's part of the prevailing historical view? I don't think I need to cite sources to prove what we already know. Anyway, the facts are not in dispute. Your application of them and your sources are.
- My point about Morris (the only delegate of relevance) is that nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection.
- By comparison, my use of the word "improved" is a blip and one that's easily fixed. Your footnote? It's a hot potato dropped into the middle of a section whose neutrality is in dispute. Yet you made no attempt to discuss it here or on the NPOV Noticeboard first. Allreet (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- My sources are biased (as are all sources), but they're still reliable sources for the facts that I'm adding. Your argument that
nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection
sounds like improper synthesis to me. Can you back this up with sources? — Freoh 22:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)- I believe your two inflammatory footnotes amount to superficial potshots, meaning your approach is a less than acceptable way to address accusations of this magnitude. More depth and more sources, as well as balance, are needed considering the impressions they leave. As for reliability, your sources represent fringe views and don't have the weight to support these positions on their own. That's not just my opinion but what you were told by other editors early on.
- Below are just a few of the sources that document Morris's positions on slavery and his authorship of the Preamble, plus a few positions on the subject of "liberty". These sources, among many others I can cite, reflect the prevailing views of historians, which may have their biases but unlike the leanings of your few sources, are widely shared.
- William Adams 2003: xi-xii, 81, 158-161, 163-164, 275, 295
- Richard Bernstein 1987: 183
- Catherine Bowen 1966: 42, 201, 240-241
- Jack Rakove 1996: 19, 88, 307-309, 335-336
- I'll do the something similar for your "powerful white men" when I find the time. The vast majority of sources happen to regard this elite as a plus, not only the best of their generation but perhaps the most able group of representatives ever assembled. As a footnote to that, only a minority supported slavery, 19 delegates, but without their votes passage of the Constitution would have failed and the Union would have been lost. Allreet (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I looked through a few of those citations and I didn't see anything that contradicted my information. Am I missing something? If you want to describe content as fringe, you have to provide evidence against it. I still don't understand what's
superficial
; slavery was a huge part of American society at that point in history, and this article is about the Constitution, not Morris. — Freoh 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)- The question isn't whether other sources contradict the views of the few you're citing. The subject here is neutrality, NPOV, and your sources are outside the mainstream of scholarship. To be neutral, you have to satisfy due weight and balance. Your footnotes don't do either. What you're missing, then, is the story. All you're doing is making two points without any context. White men wrote it, and they left slavery intact. That isn't superficial? Allreet (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? That's what I tried to do originally, but you removed it. What
story
andcontext
are you looking for, exactly? — Freoh 13:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)- Freoh:
Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote?
Absolutely, though the discussion doesn't belong in the Preamble section. (I've already considered doing this.) I believe the story of the politicians who wrote the Constitution would more properly be addressed in the History and Influences sections, for example, while the account of how they legally sanctioned slavery, in the Articles, Ratified Amendments (Bill of Rights), and Criticisms sections. While slavery is addressed in those latter sections, a more succinct and focused approach may be needed, meaning in its own section. While a separate article, Slavery in the United States, already exists, the section here would focus on slavery within the context of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh:
- Allreet is correct in this discussion. Due weight would apply, and no need to add negativity to the concept of Liberty as discussed by the framers. The 'white' desciptor is superficial and irrelevant to the page and seems like pushing the focus which has no encyclopedic basis in the historical timeline of the constitution to push. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? That's what I tried to do originally, but you removed it. What
- The question isn't whether other sources contradict the views of the few you're citing. The subject here is neutrality, NPOV, and your sources are outside the mainstream of scholarship. To be neutral, you have to satisfy due weight and balance. Your footnotes don't do either. What you're missing, then, is the story. All you're doing is making two points without any context. White men wrote it, and they left slavery intact. That isn't superficial? Allreet (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I looked through a few of those citations and I didn't see anything that contradicted my information. Am I missing something? If you want to describe content as fringe, you have to provide evidence against it. I still don't understand what's
- My sources are biased (as are all sources), but they're still reliable sources for the facts that I'm adding. Your argument that
- Do you have a reliable source supporting the idea that my footnotes
- Freoh: So I'll substitute other synonyms, as accurate as these. And of course they're opinions, very positive ones, but that doesn't mean we can't quote or paraphrase them with similarly positive words. And yes, I did miss the other "improved" but
- I think that your rewording of the "new thought" and your removal of "value" were improvements. However, it still says that
- Freoh: On second thought I'm not going to touch your redundant inline note since it's evidence of your apparent determination to paint the Constitution and its framers in a negative light. The same is true of your "powerful white men" note. Neither of these is likely to stand the test of time. For the record, I changed the two words you objected to: value and improvement. Now please tell me what else needs to be changed to remove the NPOV template you've posted over the section? Allreet (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh: I just reviewed the latest changes you made. IMO, you're apparently determined to litter this section with your POV as well as templates and footnotes. Assuming good faith, I sincerely believe you don't fully understand neutrality in this context and thus I'm not saying any of this is being done with ill intent. Just to be clear, then, here's what's not neutral, not NPOV, and not commensurate with due weight:
- I have already made
Each footnote now has three citations. If this doesn't deserve due weight, then neither does most of the content in this article. — Freoh 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh: Finkelman, your third cite, doesn't mention the Constitution's Preamble. I have no idea what Lovegrave has to say about the elite since I can't access his book. Why not try the 50+ works already cited since most are readily accessible? A thought not a mandate. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I added the quote you're looking for. — Freoh 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, sincerely. Not at all to be ungracious, I still think this material has no place in the Preamble section. However, I'm about to shift the focus. I started to take a look of where improvements could be made to satisfy your comments by adding to the lead and other sections. This led me to some conclusions that may surprise you, which I'll address in a new sub-section. I won't be able to get to this until later, but at worst by tomorrow. Allreet (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I added the quote you're looking for. — Freoh 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I notice that Randy Kryn has removed one of the footnotes. This section now has the same issues that it had before: over-reliance on a primary source for a misleading notion of liberty
. To make this more balanced, we should include secondary sources that elaborate on what this liberty
actually meant. I don't see how my footnote was "editorializing". — Freoh 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't
changed
the quotation. Wikipedia's guidelines recommend using square brackets for insertions within quotations, so I think it's clear that this is not part of the original quotation. — Freoh 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't
Misleading tag: what issues remain?
Freoh: You applied the misleading template at the top of the article on January 5. Then, in the Talk page, you discussed "insular areas" in reference to U.S. territories. I think it was a bit of overkill to label the entire article misleading on the basis of this one issue.
I'll admit that I may have I created another issue along these lines with my edits on the Preamble, though these were similarly minor and not indicative of the article as a whole. However, I believe I cleared up all aspects of this with my edits late last week. (And thanks for your related thanks.)
What, then, remains that you regard as misleading? Allreet (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I placed that tag because the article as a whole spends a lot of text discussing protections granted by the Constitution, but it could do a much better job at specifying to whom those protections apply. I'd be happy to remove the tag if my proposal in § Why is a footnote about insular areas not neutral? were reinstated, but Dhtwiki has opposed these changes for reasons that I still don't understand. I've been meaning to continue that discussion (and maybe advertise an RfC), but I've gotten distracted by other issues. Happy to continue discussing that with you. — Freoh 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- That tag needs to go and please get consensus for returning it, your personal opinion isn't enough to tag a major page especially since Allreet has answered your concerns. I'll add a further answer: The Constitution provides protections as one of the main things it does. Who it protects is already stated, "We the People of the United States". It's not the job of the sections of this article to specify any further about who was or who wasn't protected at the start, unless in some controversy section. Please realize that the Constitution as written properly provided for the remedies to its inherent problems, all of which later were solved by the very words of the Constitution itself which allowed for a civil war, social movements for women and other legally-limited groups of people, and for introducing and passing amendments which addressed those former problems. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines recommend against segregating such material into a separate controversy section. And I'm not talking about
former problems
; I'm talking about the fact that constitutional protections don't currently apply to colonized subjects (unless explicitly granted by congressional legislation, which I think is outside the scope of this article). — Freoh 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)- The constitution provides a remedy for your concern, a constitutional amendment. Pointing out one of many things that haven't reached the point that some may wish them to reach has nothing to do with a page on the constitution of the United States, other than to point out that they can be remedied by the citizens through avenues provided in the document itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines recommend against segregating such material into a separate controversy section. And I'm not talking about
- That tag needs to go and please get consensus for returning it, your personal opinion isn't enough to tag a major page especially since Allreet has answered your concerns. I'll add a further answer: The Constitution provides protections as one of the main things it does. Who it protects is already stated, "We the People of the United States". It's not the job of the sections of this article to specify any further about who was or who wasn't protected at the start, unless in some controversy section. Please realize that the Constitution as written properly provided for the remedies to its inherent problems, all of which later were solved by the very words of the Constitution itself which allowed for a civil war, social movements for women and other legally-limited groups of people, and for introducing and passing amendments which addressed those former problems. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Madison, Father of the Constitution...and other bunk
I just posted a stub for Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past, a collection of essays by leading historians published earlier this month. I don't have the book yet, but I ordered it for the chapter on America's founding by Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar. You can get a jump on the chapter by viewing "Was James Madison Truly Father of the Constitution?", a lecture by Amar. Some key points from his talk:
- Madison, was not the Father of the Constitution. I won't spoil the surprise by saying who qualifies, but I will say Amar seems to have nailed it.
- Charles Beard's 1913 An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, probably the most influential book on the Constitution published in the 20th century, maintains the document was written to benefit the wealthy 1%. Taught to generations as the gospel, this idea, says Amar, is total bunk.
- The framers, as we all have come to believe, supported the creation of a republic but disdained democracy. To put it crudely, Amar contends this thesis is warm and mushy as well.
I know many reading this will not agree, but the point should be made that history is not only about facts. It is also about interpretations, and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change. Allreet (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Allreet, I've watched most of the video and agree that it's a worthwhile use of time. Thanks. Missing (although presently, and inexplicably, the norm) is Amar's assessment of the Continental Association which was the forerunner of the uniting of the colonies (soon known by their accepted name, United Colonies) which Amar finds key to the existence of forming the new nation protected by a sea barrier rather than by lines in the sand. To unite the colonies, who largely saw themselves as independent nations, took the Constitution, but the foundation had been laid by the Continental Association. Amar's thoughts on this unification of semi-nations has made me more appreciative of the role that the Association played, a role that R. Jensen described as initiating a movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Amar is focused more on his specialty, the Constitution. For details on the Continental Association, we need to look to the sources gwillhickers dug up during the RfC, which are still listed on the Founding Fathers talk page. I don't think it's inexplicable that more attention isn't paid. Many significant events occurred during the Revolutionary Era, a two-and-a-half decade period, and the earlier ones—Stamp Act Congress, Tea Party, First Continental Congress—are bound to get less attention than the developments they led to. Allreet (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Allreet, I've watched most of the video and agree that it's a worthwhile use of time. Thanks. Missing (although presently, and inexplicably, the norm) is Amar's assessment of the Continental Association which was the forerunner of the uniting of the colonies (soon known by their accepted name, United Colonies) which Amar finds key to the existence of forming the new nation protected by a sea barrier rather than by lines in the sand. To unite the colonies, who largely saw themselves as independent nations, took the Constitution, but the foundation had been laid by the Continental Association. Amar's thoughts on this unification of semi-nations has made me more appreciative of the role that the Association played, a role that R. Jensen described as initiating a movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- "and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change" That is the essence of historical revisionism, and why once popular ideas have been challenged and replaced by others. Available data change and ideologies are constantly shifting. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Article needs revision regarding slavery and possibly other issues
Freoh, I've taken your main contention to heart and I agree. While you may not have put it this way, I'm convinced the article inadequately addresses what was the most contentious issue in the summer of 1787, namely slavery.
How I arrived at my conclusion: My original thought was to add material here and there to satisfy your point about protections. So to assess things, my initial step was to search for the word "slave". Surprisingly, it first appearance was just short of the middle, 5,000 words in. Then I searched for "slavery" and found its first appearance almost 3,000 words later. With that, I didn't need to go any further.
I'm now in the process of a general assessment of the article's use of references, depth of scholarship, POV issues (balance, weight, neutrality), and so forth to get a handle on what needs to be revised besides adding more on slavery. That will take some time but I believe it's necessary, because my longer term thought is to work toward GA and FA.
That's where things stand. I don't think the neutrality discussion needs to continue, but I will note that what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se. No matter, except I'm pointing this out because I don't want to confuse things.
Meanwhile, thoughts from you and others on what I've just said will be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I agree that the issue of slavery deserves more due weight. The only way to confidently solve these kinds of weight issues is to spend a lot of time reading a lot of sources, so I appreciate that you're willing to put in the time to ensure that this article is balanced. Constitutional law isn't something that I find particularly exciting, which is why I've kept my criticisms more focused on issues of clarity rather than weight. This article has a lot of discussion about "rights" and "liberties", but it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties. (One potential step toward making the latter clearer is in my proposal above.) I'm not sure exactly what you mean that
what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se
, but I'm interested to see your changes. — Freoh 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)- My reference to other editors was to their comments about balance, due weight, and so forth. So in agreeing with you on the article's failure to adequately address slavery/protections, I wanted to make clear I was not negating what editors had said about those guidelines in relation to your proposals. At the same time I have no interest at the moment in revisiting our disagreements over your footnotes, other than to say they remain.
- BTW, I think you'd enjoy Amar's video that I mentioned above. He's a leading expert on Constitutional Law but the subject here is history. I also recommend viewing other lectures available on YouTube on the Constitution's history. As for balance, most of the authors who give these talks are reflecting "the prevailing view", that is, the overview someone would have if they read the major books on the subject (some issues aside). Allreet (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Disputed inline footnote in middle of Preamble
I am disputing Freoh's good faith footnote which is affixed to the word "liberty" in the middle of the Preamble in the Constitution article:
This liberty did not extend to Africans, as § Article I legally protected the slave trade.
Freoh's reason for applying the footnote appears in a discussion above:
...it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties.
While I don't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote, I consider the assertion to be judgmental without any concern for neutrality, balance, and what most sources have to say on the subject. Here's a small but representative sample: '
- Bernstein, pp. 177-178: Many later historians and politicians have denounced what they see as the Convention's failure of nerve, moral courage, and ingenuity in dealing with the problem of slavery...(Yet) The delegates knew that a charter that denounced slavery, no matter how mildly, would be rejected by the southern states, at least three of which had economies bound up with the slave system.
- Maier, p. 284: Madison explained that "the Southern States"...would not agree to the Constitution without that temporary continuation of the slave trade. Mason (George Mason of Virginia) was ready to leave those states out of the Union unless they agreed to discontinue "this disgraceful trade," but Madison disagreed. "Great as the evil is," he said, "a dismemberment of the Union would be worse."
- Ellis, p. 202: What strikes us as a poignant failure of moral leadership appeared to Washington as a prudent exercise in political judgment...Whatever his personal views on slavery may have been, his highest public priority was the creation of a unified American nation.
- Collier, p. 141: It was clear that slavery would eventually be ended in the North. By 1787 the Massachusetts courts had abolished it, and the gradual abolition of slavery in other northern states, especially Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, was under way. Surely slavery was a dying institution; why cause an uproar over it when it was bound to wither away soon enough?
The Founders however imperfect were hardly villains, and in fact, most were heroes. That's the prevailing view, meaning what most sources have to say. Yes, we should report both sides, but we shouldn't be dropping a one-sided non sequitur into the middle of the Preamble because it suits a particular POV of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Where's the contradiction here? How can the footnote have
reliable sources with contradicting facts
if youdon't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote
? — Freoh 01:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)- At issue is the lack of balance and neutrality embodied in your footnote. It's also out of context and has no place in the Preamble section. I'm sure there's a way you could explore it further in this section, and that might be proper though it would be difficult for someone to write objectively about this if their starting point was the belief that the Founders'
notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave
. The "essential truth" is that slavery was allowed to endure - there's no denying that - but there are other essential truths and one of them is that many Founders shared your disgust regarding slavery, but could do little about it. Allreet (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)- I'll ask again: where is the contradiction? If you're adding a tag that says
This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts
, then you need to specify the contradiction. — Freoh 11:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)- (Have just added this as a reply in an above section and see that it is directly related to this section as well, so will add it here) The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Freoh, I agree with Randy Kryn that this one-sided assertion amounts to editorializing. Please address the aspects of WP:POV I raised instead of focusing on something I did not mention. Balance means acknowledging all significant facts associated with a story, while affording due weight to those facts. Neutrality means presenting a dispassionate account of the facts without taking any side.
- I also agree with Randy in regards to the placement of your footnote within the quotation of the Preamble. It's the issue I raised before, and IMO he summed up what's wrong with this more succinctly than I did. Allreet (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- From WP:Quotations:
Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis.
Allreet (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC) - Freoh: I also suggest taking a look at WP:Civil POV pushing. Several bulleted points on this page describe what's been going on here and elsewhere in the discussions and edits related to neutrality. I'll cite just one:
Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing.
Allreet (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- From WP:Quotations:
- (Have just added this as a reply in an above section and see that it is directly related to this section as well, so will add it here) The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll ask again: where is the contradiction? If you're adding a tag that says
- At issue is the lack of balance and neutrality embodied in your footnote. It's also out of context and has no place in the Preamble section. I'm sure there's a way you could explore it further in this section, and that might be proper though it would be difficult for someone to write objectively about this if their starting point was the belief that the Founders'
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class law articles
- Top-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class United States Constitution articles
- Top-importance United States Constitution articles
- WikiProject United States Constitution things
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Top-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress things
- B-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class Libertarianism articles
- Mid-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- High-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- High-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English