Talk:Constitutional Convention (United States)

FOEDERAL

The article begins "The Philadelphia Convention (also known as the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Convention, or in the newspapers of the time the "Foederal Convention" or merely the "Grand Convention at Philadelphia")..." This clearly needs revision, but I don't know what the papers of the time called it. Jonathunder 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The papers of the time refered to it as either the "Grand Convention" (or the "Grand Convention at Philidelphia") or the "Foederal Convention." In the book that is understood to be the possibly the best account on the events of the Convention "Miracle at Philadelphia" by Catherine Drinker Bowen says on the last paragraph on page 4:

"[...] Neither to the delegates nor the country at large was this meeting known as a constitutional Convention. How could it be? The title came later. The notion of a new 'constitution' would have scared away two-thirds of the members. Newspapers announce a Grand Convention at Philadelphia, or spike of the "Foederal Convention," always with the nice inclusion of the classical diphthong. [...]" -Demosthenes- 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Why do people keep changing "Foederal" to "Federal"? It was quite the common term in the 1700's. http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_53.htm http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch6s13.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s30.html

Each person who vandalizes the page like this should get a warning, merely a subst:test, or we might have to lock the page down.

• This is just an archaic spelling/typeface for "Federal". It isn't a separate word. Putting it in the opening is just confusing to the reader. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It's a part of history. -Demosthenes- 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Can anyone tell me the origin of the quote from William Findley? An accurate attributation would be very helpful, as i'm keen to track it down. I think it was William Findley- I'm not sure.

Republican bias

Historial context, paragraph 3:

"In the ratification debate, Federalists exaggerated the desperate need for a new government."

Unsubstantiated claim. Seems to be skewed in favor of Republicans. William Findley was a "strong supporter of Thomas Jefferson," throwing his observations of Federalist motives into the biases of the day. Who is Louis Otto? How much weight can a visiting Frenchman's cursory inspection of the national economy have?

The paragraph preceding "Historical context" raises three reasons for the Philadelphia Convention - economic (revenue) and military (Shay's Rebellion, inability to cope with blockades). The paragraph in question unsubstantially places Federalist exaggerations in the economic field only. The Republicans were far more anti-military than the Federalists, and that, if anything, caused them to excessively downplay the crisis facing the Articles of Confederation. If we're going to talk partisan exaggeration, let's be fair. No less a party authority than Thomas Jefferson endorsed Shay's Rebellion ("I like a little rebellion now and then").

I think the paragraph in question should be deleted altogether. --Troznov 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, there is little mention of the Small State Plan, or New Jersey Plan. --mercruz 07:13, 23 October 2007 (PST)

Elijah Hodges

Who is Elijah Hodges? The same IP has added that name at least twice, but he's not in the standard list of delegates. Is this a vandal, or is Mr. Hodges attested? --Chaifilius 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Page completely re-done

I have replaced the old page with a page I have been working on for a while in my sand-box. The new page has citations and all relevant information from the old page. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Further examination of my findings:

• All images were suitable and were captioned appropriately.Y
• No evidence of original research; in fact, it read professionaly!Y
• There were only a few grammar, spelling and reference position mistakes. But that's easily rectified.Y
• References that were provided were reliable, used appropriately (i.e. after the punctuation) and were used in the correct places, when used to cite. Y
• Manual of style compliant.Y
• The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail.Y

Considering all this, and the extraordinary efforts by all those involved, I am willing to pass this article. Well done! Best, Rt. 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Video Program?

Around the 1987 Bicentenial, The Learning Channel ran a 2 hour documentary about the convention. I can't find any info about this program online. Does anyone have some info on it? CFLeon (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This page has been vandalized repeatedly by unregistered users. This article needs protection (and I need this for political research). Maildiver (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)