Talk:Constitution of the United States

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 index 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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 with colonial 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 term colonized subjects is appropriate, given that it's used throughout the cited source by Immerwahr. To be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

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.	In this context, insular areas are not considered part of the land, so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects.

Freoh (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC))

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 not subject 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 for discussion 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 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, 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".

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. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty," though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.

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:@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 as reckless to leave the current version in, which is significantly less accurate. Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 from the mainstream? Why don't you think that my sources are reputable? 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)

@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 the conservative 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.

@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

• 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.'"

[(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."

• 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."

(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)

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, 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".

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. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty", though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I.

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

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 mention that 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 replaced improvement with innovation, 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 too on 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 that Article I legally protected the slave trade and the delegates to the convention were all powerful white men are only opinions. They're widely verifiable facts and relevant to the article. Your text about an innovation that improved ... 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 and context 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)

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)

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 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)

Seems to me, we're getting too deep in the preamble. It's a short bit of text and merely a preamble, an exposition of lofty principles, and yet there's much to say about the text and its background. Most of it belongs not here but in the detail article Preamble to the United States Constitution. The section here more needs shortening than lengthening, if either. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the full text of the Preamble. I just don't think we should promote "liberty" without clarifying the scope of this liberty.      — Freoh 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim.henderson, this discussion relates to the footnote Freoh inserted in the Preamble quote in this article's Preamble section. As for his assertion, nobody is promoting anything about "liberty" or any other word. All I did was quote the passage in full in the interest of readers, and I have no intention nor do I see any justification for removing it. As for the issue of slavery, it should be raised elsewhere where the topic is relevant and can be explored in depth. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The justification for removing it is that this article is already too long, and your addition is a primary source.      — Freoh 20:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

If we're talking about constitutional protections, then talking about who they apply to seems well within the scope of this article. I don't understand how amendments are relevant here. Are you arguing that we shouldn't talk about what the Constitution does now because it could in theory change in the future?      — Freoh 18:05, 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)

"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 you don'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)

My purpose here is to accurately reflect the intention of the original source. The word Liberty is kind of vague, and it probably means something different to most modern Wikipedia readers than it did to the original Framers. I'm clarifying the meaning, not changing it.      — Freoh 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "liberty" was as well understood then as it is now. In that regard, many people today may fully grasp the word's meaning yet they still hold racist beliefs and condone discriminatory practices. In any case, the intention of the original source was not what you ascribe, given that he (Gouverneur Morris) was one of slavery's most outspoken opponents. Since all those things are true and what you just said at the top is not, I fail to see how your footnote is accurately reflecting or clarifying anything. Allreet (talk) 20:46, 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)

[Since this page is being overrun with sections and subsection I'll add a post I made above to this section as well, and address it here to the undue suggestion that editorializing about the lack of solving the slavery issue belongs smack in the middle of the direct quote providing the content of the preamble to Wikipedia's readers] 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 (and in this case have been) remedied by the citizens through avenues provided in the document itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or to advance a specific agenda. I'm trying to add neutral information that deserves due weight.      — Freoh 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The footnote's statement is not neutral or balanced if it's one-sided - if it omits what the vast majority of sources have to say about the Founders' failure (as I've done with the passages I cited above). And your comment about what you want to make clear to readers indicates a desire to advocate for this view. As a matter of fact, what you said isn't true. It so happens, most Framers even slaveholders recognized the immorality of slavery and many were embarrassed by its inclusion in the Constitution, unmentioned as the word was. Allreet (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, what am I focusing on that you did not mention? The tag you added says that This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts. Are you retracting that complaint?      — Freoh 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate your response to the items I just bolded. Regarding the dispute template, I applied it based on what the Template:Disputed inline says: This inline template helps highlight a particular disputed statement or alleged fact. The page says nothing about "contradicting facts". In checking back, I see that the template has a hover-over message related to this, but that's not my concern (it's an item created by a programmer). Now please address how the one-sided statement in the footnote you posted conforms with WP:NPOV. Allreet (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Moot

 – this footnote and a second footnote that would have resulted in another dispute have been removed. For details, see the following Talk section

Allreet (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of footnote accusing Framers of being "powerful white men"

I have just removed the second of two footnotes Freoh had added to the Preamble section. The first of these, which dealt with slavery and the word "liberty", was discussed in sections above at great length. As for the second footnote, it accused the Framers of being "powerful white men", and I'll get to the substance of that in a moment.

What prompted my action was a new section on Freoh's Talk page, where an editor, identified only as "Special Contributions" followed by an enigmatic string of characters, described his two footnotes as fairly "blatant violations of WP:NPOV". The editor's complete comments follow:

Footnotes c & d on [the U.S. Constitution], while not entirely incorrect, are pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV among other policies in their current state. They would be far more appropriate to place in the criticisms section, as leaving them where they are can only be interpreted as bludgeoning the reader with your personal POV.

They are fantastic additions to the article, but very inappropriately placed. <address omitted> 00:39, 28 January 2023

I'm a bit miffed that this was posted four days ago without any acknowledgement in our current discussion. However, I'll leave out Freoh's response to the above, since it's not much different from what's been posted here. I will repeat my comment, since it addresses the second footnote in greater detail:

I have been going around and around with Freoh on the Preamble issue, making these very points, but to no avail. The idea that the word "liberty" in the Preamble is somewhat vague and therefore, the issue of slavery should be interjected to clarify its meaning strikes me as absurd. More pointedly, the assessment above is accurate: the footnote represents a personal POV.

I was also about to apply an inline disputed template to the second footnote, which points out that the Framers were "powerful white men" who were not representative of "the people". Of course they were white, as was the dominant population; male, since women could not serve or be elected to office; and powerful, since being rich, educated, and influential were the main prerequisites for public service two centuries ago - and doesn't hurt today. As for being "representative", if that means being just like the average person, of course not. However, the accusation ignores the fact that the Framers were either elected to represent the people or were appointed by the people's elected representatives. Furthermore, the Constitution was originally a proposal, so "We the people" was meant to be approved if not by the people, then by their representatives.

I disagree, however, that the footnotes are "fantastic additions" by themselves. I do believe both issues are worthy of addressing, but in greater depth, with more balance, and in more appropriate sections. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2023

Finally, I must add that that I find disputes in WP to be bewildering experiences that consume an inordinate amount of time, especially given that editors can Wikilawyer subjects endlessly. As a result, few other editors are willing to chime in and if they do, they eventually get frustrated and give up. Accordingly, I must thank Randy Kryn first, for taking WP:Bold to heart and then, for offering his supportive comments on key points. Allreet (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid giving preference to the dominant population, and I don't think that it's a personal POV to say that they were powerful white men. That's a pretty universally-acknowledged fact.      — Freoh 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your preference regarding the universally-acknowledged fact is a personal POV. Allreet (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Framers were not powerful white men?      — Freoh 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about whether to specify to whom the Constitution refers when it discusses the People, protections, and liberty

This article discusses the People who created the Constitution, the liberties it originally grantedguarded, and the protections it continues to provide. Should we specify that "the People" were powerful white men, that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and that "protections" do not apply to colonized subjects?      — Freoh 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC))

Survey

• Yes, as the creator of this RfC, I think that we should specify. As I've argued at length in several sections above, this information is covered in several reliable sources and deserves due weight.      — Freoh 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify and summarize, here are the sources I've previously tried citing:

  • Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  • Collier, Christopher; Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1987. New York: Random House. p. 103. ISBN 978-0394-52346-0.
  • Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712. The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
  • Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
  • 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.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2014-04-09). Slavery and the Founders (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. ix. doi:10.4324/9781315720869. ISBN 978-1-315-72086-9.
  • 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.

       — Freoh 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• This statement of the issue does not strike me as being a neutral statement of the issue. I do think the article should include information about who was considered to be part of "the people" and how the concept of "the people" has changed over the course of the Constitution's long life as a foundational document. I think it should include discussions of what was meant by liberties and protections and, again, how those concepts have evolved over the last ~200 years. I do not, however, think the footnotes discussed in the several sections above are the proper way to discuss these topics. These discussions need more than a footnote that reads like the article is attempting to argue with itself. They need to be handled with context and nuance and sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Between this talk page, associated user talk pages, and the NPOV noticeboard, it seems Freoh has been attempting to implement these changes for months without being able to find any meaningful support for them. As others have pointed out, these edits are subjective and would effectively insert opinion/interpretation into the article. In line with what ONUnicorn said above, there are ways to provide encyclopedic coverage of the role the Constitution has played historically without turning the article into a referendum or a critique. I think Penlite's comments on this talk page back in December said pretty much everything that needed to be said. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  How is this opinion/interpretation? I'm trying to limit this information to concrete facts with wide coverage in reliable sources.      — Freoh 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The wide coverage referred to includes some Fringe Theories but more importantly Freoh's roundup totally ignores sources that represent the prevailing view, specifically works by distinguished authors such as Ellis, Wood, Bernstein, Rakove, Ferling, Farrand, Maier, Jensen, Bowen, and Beeman. These works, which can be accessed through the Internet Archive via the article's bibliography, focus on the framing of the Constitution and generally concur on the concrete facts as well as their meaning. Allreet (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The Constitution does not pretend to be perfect, and never did. Right from the very start, it recognised that limitation, which is why Article V was included, and this facility has been used no less than 27 times in the last 231 years. Indeed, the words "more perfect" are right there in the preamble - and not the words "completely perfect". The people who drafted the Constitution were (and the lawmakers still are) striving for a Utopia that they knew would not happen straightaway, but which, given the right decisions and policies, could be achievable some day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the People and liberty, I'm talking mostly about § History and § Original frame. Historically, the Constitution protected slavery, even if it later outlawed it. Also, Wikipedia policy forbids discussing policies just because they "could be achievable some day".      — Freoh 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  100% agree that the constitution is not perfect. So we should mention the areas in which it was not perfect. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• the problem is due weight: this is an issue so much written about that it is possible to cite many many sources for almost any viewpoint; but overall, oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - liberties arn't granted by the constitution. A number of liberties are codified there mostly through the amendment process which produced the bill or rights etc. That aside yeah un due weight and neutrality issues with the wording of this proposal. Context can be shown in the article text that the founders were white, mostly wealthy, and accepting of slavery though. BogLogs (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I changed the wording from "granted" to "guarded."      — Freoh 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose although historical context somewhere should be discussed, but this specific version is substantially inaccurate. New Jersey, for example, stripped African Americans of the right to vote a few years after the constitution was written, meaning they could vote before that. New York similarly imposed burdensome property requirements on black voters, which again is a piece of racist history but also shows they did get that right in some circumstances. The nominator also states that it doesn't apply to US territories, but that again is not a full truth. Incorporated territories do fall under constitutional protection and the stop at that level is traditionally where territories move to before becoming states, it's refered to as incorporated. A territory can be organized or unorganized (referring to if it's been set up with a government) and incorporated or unincorporated (referring to if the constitution applies). There's an unorganized, incorporated territory existing today, and another territory that in any other period of US history would have moved to the organized, incorporated box by now, and a litany of historical examples of US incorporated territories. The proposal fails to adequately summarize the situation and historical context of this. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was focused on colonized subjects. The U.S. currently has no inhabited incorporated territory, so I thought this was a valid simplification, but I'm open to clarifying the distinction between the two.      — Freoh 12:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Considering that the vast majority of US territories become states eventually, noting that whether the constitution applies to a territory or not depends on an arbitrary decision by a body not composed of a voting representative from that territory is something I would support somewhere in the text provided it's drafted by someone more skilled in encyclopedic language then I. Likewise, placing in proper context that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty leaves the fact that they also weren't seen as being required either as a plain consequence and I would support that sort of language. The reasons I opposed don't represent any sort of philosophical opposition and with a more fully developed proposal in a 2nd RfC that follows the suggestions above is very much something I wod support. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good, I'll take this feedback into account for a more fleshed-out and specific proposal. While I agree that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty, I'm not sure how much decisions made by the courts fall within the scope of this article; I was talking more about the apparent contradiction within the Constitution itself – that is, the fact that the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery in the name of securing "Liberty".      — Freoh 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have a prior history of involvement in politics at a functional level, so that may be coloring my responses in that I tend to view the Constitution in terms of that- it's function and the interactions between people and government or branch of government and each other. That's also why my first comment highlighted what was the practical outcomes on those deficiencies you illustrated. I see now we were talking at something of crossed purposes and apologize for not picking that up sooner. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree the question is not neutral, but everyone should be able to sort out what is. Absolutely, the People, the enslaved, liberties and powerful white men should be discussed. Just as certainly, this exploration should reflect the prevailing view of the subject and address perspectives outside of this, all in accordance with WP:NPOV's guidelines regarding neutrality, balance, and due weight. However, the recent footnotes inserted into the article - scroll to the Preamble section - fail on every count, including their selective use of sources. While both edits raise legitimate issues, they also ignore what the vast majority of sources have to say, especially regarding the fact that limiting slavery would have doomed the Constitution and the Union. Based on the lengthy discussions above and on the NPOV Preamble Dispute page, I believe these edits and Freoh's "proposal" reflect his personal POV and thus violate WP:NPOV. Note: while the footnotes have been deleted, the related dispute template remains on the article, and it is my hope this RfC will result in its removal. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated above. The context here is not so black and white, no pun intended. Scapulus^takk 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Partial support in principle, in the form of footnotes, but not with the loaded terminology like "powerful white men" and political catchphrases like "colonized subjects". In Freoh's prior proposals there were problems with WP:WTW things like "asserted" which comes off as "claimed", "elite", etc. it just doesn't have an encyclopedic tone but more comes off as a politically charged college essay. In the foot notes we can attribute observations to a specific WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NPROF/WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:RS or phrase them neutrally. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is probably a place in the Wikipedia universe for articles on whether the words of the preamble allowed people to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, or whether, as some have it, those words (especially "we the people") facilitated later inclusion and democratization. Also, a discussion on how the demographic makeup of the convention may have caused others to be unfairly misrepresented could be had, but elsewhere, possibly linked to from this article. But these blunt and simplistic footnotes are not warranted where they've been placed, and are somewhat insulting (as though people don't know there was slavery on a racial basis), as well as vague (what constitutes "powerful white men" and how did they use their power?) and even racially fetishistic (why mention their race when race is supposed to be an artificial construct, and when religious, economic, and class differences probably were equally, if not more, important?). Dhtwiki (talk)
• Oppose as WP:NPOV fail. The topic is more complex than this. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with @Fad Ariff. The topic is far more complex than this. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I think it's important to give readers a sense of the scope at the time it was ratified. The sad fact is that early learners are not always aware of these caveats. Δπ (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per my points in the Discussion below. I usually hope that everyone involved in RfC's which have discussion sections considers reading them. This one has interesting things being brought up that I didn't know. For instance, which major Founder should have been thrown into debtor's prison but wasn't (answer below)? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, the limited and selective proposed language carries undue weight, as the Framers could also be sourced as intelligent, trustworthy (by those who appointed them to serve in this endeavor), dedicated, patriotic, and many other descriptors. Use them all or use none. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle, because those are facts backed up by RS. But something like "The rights and protections listed in the constitution were limited to white men, and did not extend to other groups such as ..." would be much better than "powerful white men oppressing colonized subjects. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support USA isn't a perfect democracy or a perfect liberty, and it never was. There are some Americans (especially those in jail for example) who don't have protections and liberties Some random serbian (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not in these terms. The article should explain the constitutional provisions' effectivites without loaded terminology. Sennalen (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per Sennalen. From the OP's post, it's a little unclear how specifically these changes are to be placed into the article. It seems that the article is already fairly clear to me about who the people were who created the Constitution, and it is difficult to determine what these changes will do other than add politically charged and non-neutral language to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form, primarily on NPOV grounds. The idea of mentioning such type of stuff has been politicized, and risks violating NPOV. If written in a manner such as "some scholars and many backers of the American Democratic Party believe this", while giving due weight to the opposite side (Republicans), I would likely support its inclusion, but the execution of such in its present form would be to politically jarring for the project. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but not in these terms. One of the most commonly commented on aspect in modern times is the distance between the 'universality' of the document's phrasing and its relatively narrow implementation (male, white, adult) but The article should explain the constitutional provisions … without loaded terminology per Sennalen. How to balance historical perspective and modern sensibility/reaction needs much more nuanced content than this proposal. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The question is where it should be mentioned. In the NPOV noticeboard Freoh was asking for it to be in the lede of Preamble to the United States Constitution. I did some quick searches to see how the Preamble was discussed and even the ACLU's page, such as it was, made no mention of these issues - it was one of the top results but it just listed the text. The question is a matter of WP:DUE weight. For it to be in the lede it would have to be prevalent in surface level discussions of the topic. These topics are mentioned in the Criticisms section, is that not adequate to give DUE weight to them? The RFC seems somewhat malformed because the article does already mention this. Freoh, where else do you want it mentioned, the lede, the main body of the article? Can you be more specific about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: just because you had one too many tildes in your sig invocation and theres only a date showing. But for a substantive comment, I'd also like to see proposed text, which is usually standard in RfC's like this. The proposal as is suffers from the issue of being oversimplified to the point of just being wrong, as I point out in my contribution to the survey. That could very well just be an artifact of how its been summarized for the RfC. Placed in proper context and with accurate background I could see myself supporting it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I was ever asking for it to be in the lede. My main concern is that the People, liberty, and protections are fairly vague terms (and somewhat abused by propaganda), so ideally the "to whom" would be clarified as soon as these terms are discussed in the body of this article, but I'm not very particular. I've made a few proposals trying to get this information included, but they've been shot down as "fringe theories". I was trying to use this RfC to draw attention to the fact that this information is widely-covered and noncontroversial, and that the article could be significantly more specific, but I see now that I made my summary too concise. Here are my past proposals:

• I have a proposal for addressing the lack of protections for colonized subjects. Insular areas are already mentioned, but given all of the content in this article about "protections," I think that it would be helpful to discuss the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects specifically.
• For the People, I originally proposed an in-text mention. When this was reverted, I proposed a footnote instead, but this was also deleted.
• For Liberty, I again proposed a footnote, hoping that this would be less controversial than an in-text mention, but this was also deleted.

Again, I'm not picky about where this content is mentioned. But I reject the notion that this information is a "fringe theory" – I haven't seen anything that contradicts it, just different historians who focus on different aspects of the history. I'm also open to re-wording this information in a more neutral way, though I'd like to point out that my wording doesn't fit the description of "editorializing" in Wikipedia's guidelines, and I'd argue that the labels of "protections", "liberty", and "the people" are at least somewhat value-laden.      — Freoh 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: Oh I apologize, I had not paid close enough attention in the noticeboard discussion and thought it was about the lede. I think it would be reasonable to include footnotes discussing these issues. I would say be careful on the phrasing not to load the discussion with things like asserted that the elite delegates to the convention represented the general American populace - this word choice does seem to be editorializing. Asserted there is getting awfully close to "claimed" which is the quintessential example in WP:NPOV of WP:WTW. That the word asserted was already there does not change this. We could attribute such characterizations to certain writers, or phrase things completely neutrally without trying to inject that kind of tone and insinuation. Similarly so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects uses a certain loaded and shall we say specialized terminology and we should avoid any such phrasing. Aside from the phrasing I support what you are aiming for. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh and DIYeditor: Footnotes are intended to provide additional information—they can't introduce large issues or offer sweeping conclusions on their own. Freoh is correct that mainstream sources don't contradict the facts of his sources. What he's missing is that the body of scholarship offers a more complete picture and then a different view of those facts. The subject of powerful white men and 18th century politics, for example, has been explored by dozens of sources over the course of hundreds of pages. And that's a far smaller matter than the issues the other footnote raises: liberty, protections, slavery. I agree these topics should be addressed, just not this way. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So where should they be addressed and should the primary mention of the topics which Freoh is concerned with make no reference to these other issues? I have seen varying types of information in footnotes over the years, including some that offered contradictory information that wasn't included in the main body of the text. I'm not familiar with manuals of style or standard practices on it. As far as Wikipedia:

Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:

references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,

explanatory information, or

source information for tables and other elements.

Footnotes or shortened footnotes may be used at the editor's discretion in accordance with the guideline on Variation in citation methods.

And I don't such more more explicit direction than that about what information can be conveyed there (but I may have missed it). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor and Freoh: These issues should be addressed in relevant sections, and given their importance and complexity, with greater depth. Footnotes are clearly not the way to do that. Allreet (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me, keeping in mind what I have said about phrasing and tone. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, how would you prefer that we refer to colonized subjects? I'm just using the terminology in the sources I'm using; is there another term that you think is more standard or neutral? What about it is "loaded"?      — Freoh 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not any particular one of these phrasings that you used, and perhaps that one is fine, but why is it not "colonial subjects" instead of "colonized subjects"? The people weren't colonized, the land was, and it was probably done before many of them were even alive. Could as easily be "conquered persons" or "noncitizens" or "alien residents" or something - not that these are used in sources, just saying there are many possible ways to phrase it. Do all sources on the early history of the US use "colonized subjects" or is it sources taking a particular approach? Is this a new way of phrasing things or long standing? Even "colonial subjects" sounds to me like how persons subject to the British Empire were described, not noncitizen inhabitants of the United States and its territories.

Since we are putting it in Wikipedia's voice we should use the most standard terminology and I don't remember histories I read in the past using the term "colonized subjects", FWIW. It would be fine to attribute (or quote) precisely what your sources have said as what they have said, but Wikipedia's voice should be free of quasi-neologisms and "engineered" terms of recent design, particularly keeping in mind that we are paraphrasing, not quoting (except when it's a quote). I see now that Dhtwiki had exactly the same concerns as I about your phrasings, and I had not seen what they had written. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with colonial subjects. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, I'm not talking about the early history of the US. The US didn't have unincorporated territories in its early history, but it does today.      — Freoh 11:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Colonial subjects" would be fine, if we were talking about the British Empire and its colonies, and I believe would actually be the standard phrasing. The people in question were not in colonies of the United States, but in its home territory. I will look into this more but my impression right now is that "noncitizens" would be a good choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The US government doesn't refer to its empire as colonies of the United States because colonialism is unpopular, but independent academics do refer to these as colonies. I don't think that "noncitizens" would be appropriate because some of these colonized subjects have been officially granted citizenship by Congress.      — Freoh 12:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be equivocating here. You just above said you were referring to a time when the US didn't have unincorporated territories and to the very early history of the US (the time of the writing of the Constitution), and now you seem to be referring to a time when it did ("American imperialism"). Also you were specific about "unincorporated" territories in your reply, but I had said only "territories", so I'm not sure what you were correcting.

If someone was granted citizenship they would have rights under the Constitution, wouldn't they? And are you again equivocating about time period?

That some sources may take a critical view of the US does not mean that is the prevailing view (or terminology) in the sources we are relying on for most of the article. We can attribute these views ("So-and-so has characterized such-and-such as being this-and-that") but to state it in Wikipedia's voice we need to use the prevailing terminology and viewpoint expressed by the majority of sources, or a neutral paraphrasing along those lines if we aren't using their exact terms. We might not even be able to attribute "colonized subjects" without quotes because it is not a literal expression, the persons were not colonized. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The topic strikes me as being outside this conversation, even though it's referenced in the RfC's opening question. At best the points raised might warrant mention in a subparagraph, but for what reason I can't fathom in terms of WP:N and the Constitution's development. Is there another article, for example, on constitutional law, where it would be more relevant? Allreet (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I see now that this was too much for a single RfC. These are really three separate issues:

• The fact that the People were all powerful white men is most relevant to the 1787 constitutional convention.
• The fact that liberty did not extend to enslaved Africans is most relevant to the first 20 years of the Constitution, when the legality of the slave trade was constitutionally enforced.
• The fact that protections do not extend to colonial subjects is most relevant after the Insular Cases of 1901, when the Supreme Court formally ruled that Constitutional protections do not apply to residents of the recently conquered colonies (regardless of whether these residents were citizens). This is still true today.

I'm not sure what the prevailing terminology is for colonial subjects. I'm basing my terminology off of the sources that I'm using, which probably differs from the official U.S. government terminology.      — Freoh 11:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your first two facts are widely accepted and have been explored extensively by scholars, particularly the second, slavery. Just before you filed the RfC, I pointed out that slavery isn't even mentioned in the article until half way through. You agreed and suggested that addressing this would require a lot of time reading a lot of sources. I'm doing that and taking copious notes as I go. I'm hoping others will do the same.

The other fact, powerful white men, is more problematic since it's a pejorative characterization and the view expressed in your footnote is inaccurate. The convention and the Constitution's ratification were part of a political process in which the the People were represented.

Of course, the convention's outcome was most unfavorable for the fifth of the population not spoken for, namely enslaved and indigenous peoples. We need to address that. The larger question is, given the politics and the times could we have expected more? The prevailing view is probably not. In any case, all we can do is try to provide a balanced account of what most sources say occurred. Allreet (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do, add balance to an article that makes simplistic generalizations. The opinion that the People were represented is controversial and should be attributed if mentioned. I don't see how powerful white men is pejorative; lots of sources comment on the fact that all of these delegates were white, male, and powerful, but I'm open to wording it differently.      — Freoh 14:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Because choosing just one aspect and not-easily-defined descriptor, "powerful", seems undue. They were also intelligent, civic-minded, literate (not a universal trait in the late 18th century), influential, revolutionary, brave, white men. "Powerful" really doesn't describe anything outside of each reader's perception of the word, it does not contain enough specificity. As for some of your other concerns, please realize that the constitution was written to be self-correcting. The amendment process eventually corrected the slavery issue. It is understood in the literature that the Framers could not have ended slavery in 1787 because the constitution would not have been approved, the attempt to write a new constitution would have ended there in Independence Hall, and even if written the document would not have been ratified by the required states. The new nation was not ready to address the issue but, as mentioned, did leave within the document a way to eventually do so (after a war 73 years later, where hundreds of thousands of men died keeping the founder's and nation's promise of a perpetual union). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Describing them as intelligent is an opinion, but there's plenty of objective evidence (and coverage in reliable sources) that these men were disproportionately wealthy and held powerful political offices. And again, when I'm talking about the People, I'm talking about the 1787 political convention, and the sections § History and § Original frame, so I don't see how later political activity is relevant.      — Freoh 14:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Being selected by their fellow state leaders to attend the convention can also be described as trustworthiness. That they crafted a document and a government the likes of which the world had never seen before, a government which stopped the import of slaves in 17 years, historically ended legally accepted slavery in 78, and has stood up to time and distress for a quarter of a millennium to, for example, accomplish 182 years later what would have been considered a miracle at the time, men walking on the Moon, makes their intelligence as a volunteer crowd source obvious. So yes, intelligence as a descriptor also fits, as do many others. Add a few of those and you've got a good sentence. The "later political activity", a step-by-step refining of the union, was built into the document as inevitable given time, because the Constitution provided for its own self-correction. That seems to have everything to do with relevancy. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, your footnotes are hardly scholarly observations. As another editor pointed out about the slavery footnote, it's as if readers didn't know slavery existed back then and it needed to be brought to their attention. The same would go for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and company. People need to be told they were not only powerful but white and male. Uh, your point? Allreet (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, their trustworthiness and intelligence are opinions that should not be stated in wikivoice. The facts that they were extremely wealthy and politically powerful should take priority.      — Freoh 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Facts...should take priority if there's some point to be made, as well as an effort to tell the whole truth. The related facts: Most of these guys made substantial financial sacrifices to do what they did, and a fair number of them—particularly Washington and Jefferson—were land (and slave) rich but cash poor. Only a few founders were extremely wealthy, your opinion, and none in the sense that we use the term. Robert Morris (the so-called financier of the Revolution) would be the closest example of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but the other side is that he ended up in debtor's prison and died a pauper. Jefferson? He had to sell his extensive library to make ends meet and also died deeply in debt. He should have been in debtor's prison, too, except nobody had the chutzpah to foreclose on one of the foundingest of fathers. Allreet (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking about their status at the time of the 1787 convention, so I don't see how their later financial troubles are relevant here. Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly contradict these?

As we shall see in more detail later, the United States was a "deferential" society, in which a small elite of the wealthy and wellborn expected to lead, and in fact were expected by the people to do so. To a considerable extent, the very people to whom the poor farmers owed money were also the judges who convicted them and the colonels who called out the militia to enforce the decrees.
— 

Edmund Morgan sums up the class nature of the Revolution this way: "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established." Looking at the situation after the Revolution, Richard Morris comments: "Everywhere one finds inequality." He finds "the people" of "We the people of the United States" (a phrase coined by the very rich Gouverneur Morris) did not mean Indians or blacks or women or white servants. In fact, there were more indentured servants than ever, and the Revolution "did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage."
— Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 84. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
— Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.

     — Freoh 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not even necessarily a matter of contradicting them. As far as stating in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing, we need to go by WP:DUE which is going to require the analysis of how a broad range of sources characterize things. WP:CHERRY picking a few sources that you agree with doesn't work. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this is a fringe theory? These are five reputable historians and highly reliable sources. Most of the facts in this article are supported by only one source. If you are arguing that I'm "cherry picking", then please provide evidence.      — Freoh 17:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If 20 prominent sources take a less critical view of an issue that would outweigh 3-5 of a more critical nature. The Colliers are more or less in agreement with the prevailing view; Zinn and Westerkamp are not. Call the latter what you want, but their perspectives are not exactly mainstream and hardly justify your stand-alone one-liner. So the question is, what do you propose doing with this alternative viewpoint? Allreet (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: You asserted that the people were not represented, yet Collier contradicts this and says the small elite of the wealthy and wellborn was expected to lead...by the people. So what are you saying? Westerkamp talks about the new rhetoric of citizenship...a white, masculine language. What was so new in 1787 about either the language of the founders or a male-dominated society? Of course other sources don't contradict this; they report it but without editorializing in the directions you favor.

And no kidding blacks and indigenous were excluded. They still are, but that's not our axe to grind. Oddly enough, for all the inequality back then, there was less poverty in the Americas than in England and Europe as a whole. And despite property requirements, four-fifths of white males could vote for whom they wanted as representatives.

As for contradicting Zinn, many scholars do. WP's article on his People's History cites a round-up of sources who contend his is a black-and-white story of elite villains and oppressed victims. Matter of fact, sounds very much like your own approach.

DIYeditor hit the nail on the head. The views you've emphasized—with the same three sources over and over—need to be addressed in accordance with WP:DUE. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, you asked for contradictions, so I looked into Zinn's references to Richard B. Morris and Edmund S. Morgan. It turns out both historians are at odds with the point Zinn is trying to make in his People's History of the United States.

• Morris's "We the People of the United States" essay: The sentence Everywhere one finds inequality is used out of context. The meaning Zinn is trying to convey is different from what Morris says leading up to and following the quote (pages 5-6). Zinn's view is also contradicted by Morris's general premise (page 2): Public sentiment clearly dictated the replacement of an unresponsive and corrupt monarchical system by a republic founded on public morality and, through the elective system and representative institutions, recognizing the sovereignty of the people.
• Morgan's "Conflict and Consensus in the American Revolution" essay: Immediately before the passage Zinn quotes, Morgan wrote (page 292): The Revolution probably increased social mobility temporarily both upward and downward, ruining the fortunes of many established families and opening opportunities for speedy ascent by daring upstarts. This very mobility engendered, as it always has, political disputes, but seldom along class lines. As for the passage itself, Morgan clearly says the dispute was between members of an upper class: the new against the established, not between upper and lower classes (benefitting one to the detriment of the other).

As for another refutation, in the book that includes Morgan's essay is an essay by Bernard Bailyn on "The Central Themes of the American Revolution". Bailyn's premise is at distinct odds with Zinn's view and yours (page 28):

Everywhere in America the principle prevailed that in a free community the purpose of institutions is to liberate men, not to confine them, and to give them the substance and the spirit to stand firm before the forces that would restrict them. To see in the Founders' failure to destroy chattel slavery the opposite belief, or some self-delusive hypocrisy that somehow condemns as false the liberal character of the Revolution—to see in the Declaration of Independence a statement of principles that was meant to apply only to whites and that was ignored even by its author in its application to slavery, and to believe that the purpose of the Constitution was to sustain aristocracy and perpetuate black bondage—is, I believe, to fundamentally misread the history of the time.

Allreet (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, we should be prioritizing facts over opinions. These broad and vague questions—whether the People were represented and whether the Constitution was actually liberating—are ultimately opinions on which there is disagreement. Polling favorable versus critical sources is beside the point. The fact that the Framers were largely wealthy and powerful elites is an uncontroversial fact with lots of coverage. I'll work on a new proposal that addresses some of the issues people have raised here.      — Freoh 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do the preponderance of sources from across the years say "wealthy and powerful elites" or "upper class" or "landowning" or even "gentry" or something else? I mean all the sources on the topic, not just the ones you are preferring to draw from. I'm still getting a sense of trying to force the use of a certain terminology rather than mere facts. If we could separate the facts from the potentially loaded phrasing, as was discussed above, I think there would be less room for disagreement on the inclusion of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do multiple sources emphasize "wealthy and powerful elites"? No. I've searched dozens of sources from the bibliography, and the words are all but absent as a phrase, and the subject, rarely mentioned as a factor in the outcome. True, all of this has had lots of coverage, but so far, Freoh has referenced just three sources, one of which doesn't have much to say about this small elite of the wealthy and wellborn and two of which indulge primarily in polemics, that is, opinion over fact.

Based on the numerous sources I've reviewed, the people as a whole were well represented. While significant groups were excluded, a greater portion of the population had a say in the end result than in other revolution up to that time. Similarly, the Constitution did a better job in liberating people than any previous document of its kind. As for polling favorable versus critical sources being beside the point. I disagree, since that's how we determine "the prevailing view" and with that our editorial directions. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording; do you have suggestions? The criterion for inclusion is not that the information has to be addressed in the preponderance of sources. DIYeditor, are you suggesting that we should delete any facts in this article backed by fewer than three sources? Allreet, are you saying that it is just an opinion that the Framers controlled disproportionate wealth and power?      — Freoh 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No, even a single WP:RS can be fine. The question is WP:DUE and if the view or phrasing is contradicted or not held by other WP:RSs on the same topic. If, just for illustration I'm not saying this is the case, 20 of the best RSs refer only to the democracy of the Constitution and 1 source refers to it as a tool of "powerful white men" or "elites" then that view will probably need to be attributed rather that stated as a simple fact. Omission of the characterizations found in a minority of sources may be as good as contradiction. I think you have consistently skirted around the issues of WP:DUE (and possibly WP:NPOV as a whole). Why do you object to the use of attribution to secure the inclusion of the sources and POVs you want to see represented? Seems better than not having them included at all.

As to the wording it will take some research on my part. I believe I've usually seen it phrased as something like "white landowning males" or "white male landowners" broadly speaking (as to whom the Constitution initially protected the rights and interests of). —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep this neutral, and I'm not opposed to mentioning that the Constitution laid out a democratic republic. I was thinking that was already clear enough from statements like with the people voting for representatives. The Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, and I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the Framers were powerful white men.      — Freoh 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh and DIYeditor: I've said several times that I don't regard these issues as matters of opinion; the disagreement is over how the facts should be addressed. As for sources, a single source is okay in some instances, but with fringe views, even multiple sources can be given short shrift or simply ignored, depending on other factors. This happens to be the case with Zinn and Westerkamp, who are not just reporting the founders' wealthy status but are editorializing about it. The prevailing view is closer to Collier and Collier's thought: the people expected those of high standing to lead.

I was about to post the above, when Freoh issued his latest assertion, that the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy. Here, finally, is what the dispute over wealthy elites is actually about. For everyone's edification, Charles Beard introduced this idea, about the Constitution benefiting the 1%, in 1913 with An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The concept was later adopted by Howard Zinn and other ideologues intent on lambasting the Constitution as a conspiracy benefiting the rich. Beard has since been debunked by leading scholars, starting with Bernard Bailyn of Harvard and more recently by Amar Akhil Reed of Yale. Allreet (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Zinn and Westerkamp have opinions does not make their facts unreliable.      — Freoh 23:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say their facts were unreliable. The opinions they offer based on those facts are not because both have political axes to grind. What we're getting, then, is not history but polemics. My question is what are your sources for the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, because that also sounds more like political theory than fact? Allreet (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We are getting history. That the facts are presented alongside relevant opinions does not make the facts any less historical.      — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

These terms (democracy and republic) are etymologically and historically synonymous and gained this nuance you assert primarily through the views of Madison which were not even widely accepted in his time, or since then. Clearly the US government is both democratic and a democracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the U.S. Constitution, which uses the words 'republican form of government". I'm not using nuance, these are the words of the document. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is no difference in meaning between the words. I suggest you read this Britannica article thoroughly. Being a republic is not exclusive of being a democracy, in fact, they are interchangeable words to most people. The distinction you're making is often cited by some people and I'm not quite sure why, but I don't think holds much weight linguistically or in real world use of the word "democracy". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You've using the definition of "representative democracy" for "democracy". I'm citing the Constitution. This is a tangential non-argument anyway, as the RfC is not about what is or isn't labeled a 'democracy' in form or function. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, I get what you're saying about the facts, except the opinions are not relevant if they're not true or accurate. So if you said in a sentence, "Nearly all of the delegates were wealthy", fine, because it's accurate. If you said what Westerkamp does, The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution, that's only her opinion and it's not accurate since most mainstream sources would disagree. As for Zinn, who expresses something similar by quoting others, he is misrepresenting what those sources say, as I've already pointed out. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The People proposal

It seems that I have finally convinced some people that this deserves due weight. I'll make the wording of my proposal more explicit:

Current

Proposal

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. ...

The opening words represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. In this case, "the people" who attended the convention were largely aristocratic white men. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase changed the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. ...

How's this? I'm avoiding footnotes and sticking to mainstream facts. Is this neutral enough?      — Freoh 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well, what ties the characterization of the demographics of the (purported) representatives and "the people" in that sentence to the "We the People" in the prior? Shouldn't we say that they were acting as representatives? Would you mind quoting the material from the sources you are relying on for the new sentence? Also, the scare quotes or whatever the intended purpose of the quotes around "the people" seems contrary to MOS. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think we should use the word aristocratic to describe them. They specifically rejected the concept of nobility in sections 9 and 10. Yes, many of them were members of noble families under British rule, and accepting a broader definition of aristocracy, they could be described as such, but using that word in this context inaccurately implies that the concept of a hereditary ruling class was one that was to continue under the goverment the constitution established. Despite the fact that these were wealthy white men who would have been part of the ruling class regardless, they were attempting to create a government that rejected the concept of a "ruling class" or distinctions based on heredity. Yes, for all their talk of equality, they weren't there as regards women or non-white persons, and even made distinctions among white men who owned land vs. those who didn't, but using the word "aristocratic" to describe them in the context of attempting to define who "the people" were implies a continuation of a type of social stratification they were attempting to eliminate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Moreover, I don't think this discussion is well integrated in your proposed text. The individuals who attended the convention considered themselves the people's representatives - they did not think "the people" were limited to those who attended the convention. I think we need to try to define who "the people" when the constitution refers to "the people", and that is different than who the persons were that attended the convention and drafted the document. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Why is We the People left out and de-linked, which link redirects to Preamble to the United States Constitution? That is a fairly comprehensive article but almost exclusively relies on official court judgments, not academic scholarship, to interpret those words, which is probably how we should be limiting our commentary at this article. It's an especially glaring omission given that "the people" are referenced later on in the text. Scholarly interpretations belong in other articles, ones dealing with, say, the nature of 18th century American society. And "aristocratic" is just as bad, if not worse, than "powerful". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 02:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) and 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC))

  I now see that the Preamble article is linked by sectional hatnote, but "We the People" should be restored, but without being linked. Also, Founding Fathers of the United States has considerable information on the demographics of the founders. This article should mirror/summarize it. Many of the same editors here edit at that article. So, they would probably voice at least some of the same objections there to what is proposed here, and suggestions should be made at the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, before I'm going to agree to any wording I am going to have to look more into what is really out there. As I have said, my recollection is that the sources I have seen cover this describe the people fully protected by the Constitution as "white male landowners". I think it would be ok to include some mention of the fact that there was some assumption about who "the people" were, assuming we can find good sources that make that observation in relation to the time the Constitution was ratified. I wish that Freoh would take a deeper dive into this and provide some varied sources (and direct quotes of them for discussion), since Freoh seems to be highly interested in some change to how this is presented. It seems like in this case the onus is on them to make a case for it. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neither neutral, nor encyclopedic. The portrayal of the framers as aristocrats is biased as well as outside the mainstream. Two of the sources, Zinn and Westerkamp, have political aims and are editorializing. Zinn says It is pretended..."we the people" wrote that document. But the Preamble doesn't say this. It says the people do ordain what follows, which they did during the ratification process, directly in some states and through representatives in others. As for Westerkamp, no mainstream scholar concurs with this: The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution. ONUnicorn is correct, then, in his analysis that the framers represented "the people" and rejected concepts of "nobility", "aristocracy", and the like. Allreet (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Aristocracy is afaik a synonym for nobility. I thought otherwise and made a category for people without noble titles and called it aristocracy but really that is not accurate. They mean the same thing. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understand they're the same. Freoh's POV, in any case, is to present the framers as aristocrats who wrote the Constitution to benefit their economic interests. That's Zinn's and Westerkamp's view and it's being imposed on the Preamble, even though most scholars disagree. For more on the subject, start with Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution, which devotes its first 50 pages to the Preamble. But if you want a quick synopsis (and awakening), read the opening page (page 5 which electronically could show up as 20) and then the first paragraph on page 472. Allreet (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (how did this RfC get hijacked into, what, a new RfC?), as the proposed wording comes off as snarly, as a major change in Wikipedia's voice, and unless you miscopied something it reads as if you want to remove the words and link We the People in the lead sentence. The finely crafted lead paragraph needs no change towards opinion unless much more is added to balance out such undue wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed We the People to eliminate redundancy: it is already linked and quoted in § Preamble, both in the text and in the image caption. I think ONUnicorn brings up a good point, that there are a few different notions of "representation" that sometimes get blurred: whether the demographics of the convention corresponded to the general American population, whether the delegates were legitimately representing their people, and whether the government itself is sufficiently democratic. I am having some trouble differentiating this concisely, so it seems to me that the best solution here is to keep the politics of the convention in § 1787 drafting, and limit this section to describing the results, so that it can mostly be in present tense, like the other sections in § Original frame. Given that this article is already too long (as Jim.henderson previously mentioned), I think some trimming could be helpful. How's this?

Current

Proposal

Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government. Although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators, the opening words emphasize that the people (rather than the states) ultimately legitimate and empower the centralized government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I originally used the word aristocratic because that was the wording used in my source, but I think it's only appropriate if we're focusing on the convention itself.      — Freoh 16:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Just tack on "...although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators", with suitable citations, to the end of "that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy" in the original, without further rearrangement, and you might come close to something that's acceptable. And I don't know why we need to reference Howard Zinn on this. He's not a consensus historian, even if reading him will knock you on your ass. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

None of this works better than the original, and the RfC seems a snow close to not use the suggested wording. Continuing to change words and putting up new proposals within this RfC itself seems to indicate that the nominator knows the change has not passed and is now doing a form of forum-shopping, interestingly, within the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this proposal not "acceptable"? Given that this article is too long, we should be working to shorten it, not lengthen it.      — Freoh 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed text is unacceptable. My counter-proposal would cause the article to be lengthened. I have to agree with Randy Kryn, and there is, generally, so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — The proposed phrase—only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators—is not acceptable because it's intended as a criticism and no mainstream historian would start a discussion of the Preamble this way. There are other problems. Graeber's The Democracy Project doesn't mention the Preamble. Zinn's A People's History does (pp. 632, 684) but he's addressing convention delegates and other issues. For the most part, all three sources seem to be focused on class warfare, a fringe theme, though all I can access on Westerkamp is the quote previously provided. Finally, the phrase is misleading: three states had already dropped property requirements by 1787, while New York did so specifically for a direct vote on ratification. Allreet (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point about the misleading wording, though I don't see how the existence of property qualifications is a fringe opinion. Allreet, I'll reword it to account for the few states that did allow poor white men to vote for legislators and limit it to sources focused on "We the People". Dhtwiki and Randy Kryn, I'll drop my length and link duplication concerns from this RfC and cover it later in another talk section. How's this?

  The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, though less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

  Is this better?      — Freoh 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in comparison with the original, it's better. However, it's still too negative for what should be a neutral, straightforward introduction. It's akin to starting with, "The Constitution, while it created a frame of government that's survived two centuries, really didn't represent the views of the people." Later on you could explore this, but not in the first sentence. It's still pushing a political POV that seeks to shine a dark light on most everything. As for what's fringe, I couldn't have been more explicit. Zinn and Graeber are focused on class warfare—the rich versus the poor—as a theme, which is far afield from the prevailing view.

None of this strikes me as being in the interests of readers. What would serve those interests IMO would be to document what's missing in the first half of the article, the number one issue in 1787 and one that more than any other determined both the short and long-term outcomes: slavery. Here's where we need to be critical of the founders, not condemnatory but not forgiving either. As for additional issues of relevance, the congress.gov source you provided parallels the editorial direction of most sources. One example: Patrick Henry questioned who authorized the framers to speak for the people. His point and the response should be addressed because it's highly notable, which is why it's part of the consensus approach to the Constitution's story. Allreet (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "though less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification" is either particularly negative or against the interests of the reader, assuming it is properly cited and accurate. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, the phrase may not be negative per se but its placement in the lede is. Of all the things to write about the Preamble, is this among the most notable, one of the 3-4 things readers should know immediately? Does any other historian begin their discussion of the Preamble on such a note? What's not in the interests of readers is Freoh's consistently negative approach, for example, the phrasing "the people were the source of the government's legitimacy, but not really".

A straightforward treatment, the one followed by most historians, is to describe the Preamble in neutral terms and then provide details that flesh out the story. I cannot access the source so I have no idea what it says about the 3% but on its own it's misleading because it omits a crucial detail: that the people were represented in the Constitution's adoption through legislators they elected. Hence, many people didn't get to vote directly, but that doesn't negate the fact initially stated. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, if this is based partly on the number of legislators who voted to ratify it and excludes people who voted for them, that could be quite misleading and that paints it in another light. So the actual enfranchised population was much higher than 3%. At this point I am growing a bit tired of Freoh's approach to this article but I will wait to see their response. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the 3% figure is including the people who voted for legislators. About 100 thousand people voted in favor of ratification out of a population of about 4 million.      — Freoh 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, regardless of that, Allstreet made addressed the heart of the problem about as convincingly as anyone can. This is not one of the top few things with which nearly any academic historian would begin a discussion of the Constitution or any part of it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to present this information in the same style as our sources. On Wikipedia, facts precede opinions, so we should prioritize the fact that less than 3% of the country was represented over the opinion that the People legitimate the Constitution.      — Freoh 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yeah we do. We give weight to certain facts over others based on how they are presented in reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Well, I guess in light of the policy, I should rephrase. Does it have to be in the same style in the sense that it should look the same and read the same way? No, not necessarily. But the substance has to be the same. So while the tone of our article here might be different than that of sources, we could not, for example, treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do simply because we feel like it. That violates one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do, and I'm not doing it simply because I feel like it. Are you saying that the legitimacy of the Constitution and the People who voted for it are outside the scope of this article? Which of Wikipedia's most basic principles am I violating, and how?      — Freoh 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh You are giving substantially more weight to certain details than most sources do. Based on much of what you've said so far, your motivation in all of this appears to be less than neutral. In your previous proposal, you also misused sources by synthesizing material to come up with a unique phrase not supported by any single source. These would be the primary basic principles of concern. As for your current sources, since I can't access them, I would appreciate if you would provide a quote or passage that indicates only 3% of the population voted to ratify the Constitution or voted for legislators who supported ratification. Allreet (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on one proposal at a time. Right now, I'm talking about the 3% one. Here's a direct quote:

See, e.g., Larry G. Simon, The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 1482, 1498 n.44, 1499-1500 & n.48 (1985) (estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution).
— Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.

     — Freoh 01:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

By 1787, property requirements were being relaxed, so in some states (I'm tied up at the moment and will enumerate them later, with sources) you only needed to be a taxpayer. But in NY state, the requirement was dropped entirely for this occasion. The source also doesn't address legislators who were elected, and most voting was at the state conventions. Meanwhile, the issue was as hot as the presidential election of 2016. Now consider that males would be about half of the population and 4/5 of them were white. Do you have another source, meaning this is fairly weak? Allreet (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• "roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification"
• "See ... Simon, ... estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution"
• "Professor Larry Simon calculates that only about 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the ratification of the Constitution."
• "According to estimations, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favour of ratifying the Constitution (since only property-holding adult white males were empowered, and not all of them supported ratification)."
• "See Larry G. Simon, ... (collecting sources and estimating that 'roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification')"

What do you think is weak here? Do your sources give different estimates, or are you arguing based on your own original research?      — Freoh 21:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of the weaknesses:

• The five cites provided amount to little more than one source, Larry Simon, since the others all refer to him but say nothing in terms of confirming his "estimate" vis a vis their own research. (This presumes Roznai is also citing Simon.)
• Unable to access the sources provided, I can't determine the validity of the 2.5%, but I do question it in several respects. For one, it's absurdly low, and it's also not clear whether the percentage accounts for states where ratification elections were held versus those where convention delegates were appointed by popularly-elected legislatures.* To get a sense of the numbers, 971 delegates voted for ratification versus 575 against, a 2-1 margin if you average the results in each state (my math is based on Warren's state-by-state results).
• Related to this, "property qualifications" were not as exclusionary as your sources seem to indicate. It's estimated 60-65% of white males were qualified to vote under state constitutions as either taxpayers or property owners.
• Since the framers wanted the people's consent, several states relaxed or eliminated the requirements specifically for the ratification vote.
• The greatest weakness here is that you're trying to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Constitution with a handful of sources versus hundreds that recognize the source of the document's authority as resting with "We the People".

* One of the complexities in assessing the voting, as Spaulding indicates on page 130: More Anti-Federalists were elected in New York than Federalists, yet the state's convention voted in favor of ratification. Did the Anti-Federalist delegates who "defected" ignore the wishes of voters? You could say that, except by the time of the convention, the required nine states had ratified already, so the decision in New York, as in North Carolina and Rhode Island, was more a matter of electing to remain in the Union.Allreet (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Allreet (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References