From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contemporary Federalism[edit]

I find it an odd coincidence that the definition of 'Federalist' was changed to have a contemporary meaning, opposite of that which is the actual definition according to Marion Webster, to suddenly fit the answer given by Gov. Sarah Palin during the Katie Couric interview. Gov. Palin said she was pro-state rights because she was a Federalist, which is strange considering a Federalist is someone who is pro-strong central government. I find it odd that as of yesterday there was a definition to fit this bizarre 'new' definition. The only backing to this sudden new definition was a Wiki article which did not meet the proper standards for an article. Am I the only one who has never heard this new definition?

Blacksoulchoir (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC) blacksoulchoir Oct. 1st 5:54pm

You're right. The Palin-centric definition that replaced the previous contemporary definition adds nothing. I have reverted to the definition as it was before the Palin interview. Pfmiller (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This appears to have resurfaced. I added a Fact template to it, because the only verification of it was another wikipedia article that had it's accuracy questioned that also had no citations. I can't seem to find any support for this definition of "Federalist" other than Palin's remarks during the interview, and McCain's statement in the 3rd US Presidential Debate for 2008. Perhaps it is their campaign's definition? I can't locate a source, but maybe whoever keeps adding this can. (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


There is also a Federalist period in American Architecture. I do not have time to research this, so perhaps we could just mention it?

Not clear[edit]

The following isn't very clear:

This ideology is opposed to Quebec sovereignty, proponent of lampester independence, most often (but not for all followers) along with an economic union with Canada similar to the European Union.

Is the ideology opposed to a series of things, the second of which is "proponent of Quebec independence"? Or is an -ism now to be considered an anthropomorphic proponent of Quebec independence? The rest of the sentence is similarly confusing. I would fix it as a simple run-on sentence (or a series of run-on sentences) if I knew what its intent was.

Please clarify.



Why isn't this article at Federalism? On almost all parallel articles (Conservatism, for example) that is where we put them. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The reason Federalism is currently a disambiguation page is that there seem to be two separate meanings of the term:
  • Federalism as an institution or system (covered by the Federation article)
  • Federalism as a philosophy (covered by Federalist).
Until a few months ago the federalism article covered only the first meaning and more or less duplicated the information found at Federation. So the first meaning seems to be the one assumed by many Wikipedians. Using the title Federalist seemed to me to be a natural way of disambiguating the term. The alternative might be an ugly title like Federalism (philosophy).
Iota 16:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incomprehensible phrase cut[edit]

I cut the parenthetical phrase out of the following because it was incomprehensible. If someone understands what was intended, feel free to fix and restore. "Usually federalism (read practicle confederacy) is proposed as a solution to issues that may have strong support in some parts of the country and strong opposition in other parts… - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd interwiki link[edit]

fi:Yhdysvaltojen Federalistinen puolue, currently linked, looks wrong to me, but I don't read Finnish. It looks like it is on a specific federal republic, or some such, not on federalism generally. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know how to open my own discussion, but someone has vandalized this article.

Unqualified US-centric sentence[edit]

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists switched sides over the past years because the Anti-Federalists then realized that the government was too hard and the were willing to connect with the constitution.Note that Federalist viewed the constitution strictly!

I assume that this refers to federalism in the United States. In any case it's a bit incongruous in this article. Should it be moved?--Ejrh 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Bold text good stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this article? disambig? summary?[edit]

I don't understand what this article is trying to be. It has some useful stuff in the Latin America section and then some summaries of other main articles. I think it makes sense to move the Latin American section to its own article and move the rest to the disambig page. Any objections? Bhny (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)