This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey @ Jeffersonpayne: impressive work throwing so many articles together in such quick succession. On this article, you reinserted Aquinas into the article, citing the Summa. You then contextualize it in the following sentences with modern sources. In the latter of those two sources, I could not find direct reference to Aquinas or an attribution to his theory (sorry if it was there) and the first source (Vermuele's book) lacks a page number for the citation. There are a few other concerns I have with this page, but most of them are minor. I would suggest just dropping the Summa and Hammer citation and sticking to a close paraphrase of Vermuele's book if he references Aquinas (add the page number by copying this template and adding it after the citation : page x ). If he does not, then that section would run afoul of WP:SYNTH (not a big deal, there is almost certainly a source that references Aquinas's ideas in the context of CGC). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Common Good Constitutionalism remains a very niche school of thought, albeit one which has received inflated attention over the last couple of years, in part due to the funding behind its doyen, Adrian Vermeule, and in part due to the controversial nature of its claims. As it stands, this page reflects a fairly accurate account of CGC, from the point of view of a CGC advocate. I am not sure that is what wikipedia ought to be aiming for, particularly as CGC is rejected - fairly robustly - by the vast majority of academics. This does not really come across in the article as it stands. In fact, my hunch, given that the article lists a number of very junior scholars specifically (Dr Conor Casey and Mr Michael Foran), is that sections of this page have been drafted, or influenced by, a junior scholar who is part of this core CGC group - perhaps one of the aforementioned scholars.
Of course, ideas which are strongly contested by the majority of academia ought still be detailed on wikipedia, especially given the controversy surrounding this particular theory. But it would be better to edit the article in light of this wider framing. I recommend:
1. Indicating at the outset that CGC remains something of a fringe movement, (I would contend that it is largely one led by Adrian Vermeule himself and a few of his adherents, but this is perhaps something readers can decide for themselves).
2. Re-framing or re-phrasing the information on the current page to indicate that the narrative presented is that of CGC advocates, and that those claims are, at best, heavily contested.
3. Including a section on criticisms or negative responses to the CGC claim. There are currently some responses of this nature on the Adrian Vermeule wikipedia page. The following seems a good place to start: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/vermeule-catholic-integralism-theocracy-progressives-conservatives-constitution.html. Conservatives and Catholics have also been critical: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/medieval-fantasists-infiltrated-america-catholic-right-integralists-vermeule/ and https://www.discoursemagazine.com/ideas/2022/01/27/the-integralist-argument-is-wrong-even-if-youre-catholic/. Unfortunately, criticism of this kind is sometimes hard to come by due to the seemingly obvious nature of the critique. The core idea that laws should bend towards a defined moral goal is contestable and has been for thousands of years. Not only would anyone who does not subscribe to the tenets of the Natural Law Tradition (itself a minority view within the academy) disagree heavily with CGC, but almost all expositions of CGC involve agreement with a very specific set of Catholic moral doctrine and the aims of integralism.
4. Removing reference to certain academics to make the page appear less like a pet project or 'boys club' involving a small group of scholars. The relevance of Dr Casey is debatable, but he has, on inspection, published in this area (albeit usually in order to promote Vermeule's own views). The relevance of Mr Foran is peripheral at best, even in the small circle of CGC advocates. Leaving in Mr Foran's citation detracts from the integrity of the article. 2A02:C7C:3831:C300:70CB:647A:7ADE:76B5 ( talk) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This page appears to be something of a mess. Some major problems include:
I would propose the following reorganization:
Intro: A very short lede which simply states that CGC is a theory of constitutional law proposed by Vermeule
History and Development: Perhaps one paragraph tracing the publication of the article, the book, and mentioning in passing Vermeule's other responses. This section should also mention in the development of CGC as a response to originalism and living constitutionalism, the broader fight on the American legal right over the future of originalism.
Principles?? Could name this section something else]: A very short breakdown of the theory, using the book as a primary source. The start of this already exists, but probably needs a little more detail.
Reactions: Most if not all critical responses should be moved here. I think it would be especially helpful to highlight three kinds of reactions: 1) responses from the judiciary, including citations (like the military court mentioned) and negative responses from circuit judges like Pryor 2) responses from academics, both positive and negative and 3) "spin off" theories, like Josh Hammer's Common Good Originalism. I think it is especially important to focus on responses to the book as opposed to the article - which is now two years and a half years old.
Hopefully with the right structure, we can cut down on unsourced content, duplicative content, POV content, and edit warring. All that said, I don't want to make major edits to this page until this has been discussed further. 76.178.17.50 ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added a POV tag because this article is heavily unbalanced towards those in favor of Common good constitutionalism. The theory has been roundly criticized from both the right and the left, but most of this article is devoted to views in support of the theory. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
At 14:36 on 29 August 2022, 192.63.0.203 added text, including the sentence in the 2nd paragraph beginning with "Vermeule himself argues..." Is there a typo in that sentence? I can't figure out how to scan it. Specifically, should the word "either" be removed? There is no "or"... Wbforbes ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey @ Jeffersonpayne: impressive work throwing so many articles together in such quick succession. On this article, you reinserted Aquinas into the article, citing the Summa. You then contextualize it in the following sentences with modern sources. In the latter of those two sources, I could not find direct reference to Aquinas or an attribution to his theory (sorry if it was there) and the first source (Vermuele's book) lacks a page number for the citation. There are a few other concerns I have with this page, but most of them are minor. I would suggest just dropping the Summa and Hammer citation and sticking to a close paraphrase of Vermuele's book if he references Aquinas (add the page number by copying this template and adding it after the citation : page x ). If he does not, then that section would run afoul of WP:SYNTH (not a big deal, there is almost certainly a source that references Aquinas's ideas in the context of CGC). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Common Good Constitutionalism remains a very niche school of thought, albeit one which has received inflated attention over the last couple of years, in part due to the funding behind its doyen, Adrian Vermeule, and in part due to the controversial nature of its claims. As it stands, this page reflects a fairly accurate account of CGC, from the point of view of a CGC advocate. I am not sure that is what wikipedia ought to be aiming for, particularly as CGC is rejected - fairly robustly - by the vast majority of academics. This does not really come across in the article as it stands. In fact, my hunch, given that the article lists a number of very junior scholars specifically (Dr Conor Casey and Mr Michael Foran), is that sections of this page have been drafted, or influenced by, a junior scholar who is part of this core CGC group - perhaps one of the aforementioned scholars.
Of course, ideas which are strongly contested by the majority of academia ought still be detailed on wikipedia, especially given the controversy surrounding this particular theory. But it would be better to edit the article in light of this wider framing. I recommend:
1. Indicating at the outset that CGC remains something of a fringe movement, (I would contend that it is largely one led by Adrian Vermeule himself and a few of his adherents, but this is perhaps something readers can decide for themselves).
2. Re-framing or re-phrasing the information on the current page to indicate that the narrative presented is that of CGC advocates, and that those claims are, at best, heavily contested.
3. Including a section on criticisms or negative responses to the CGC claim. There are currently some responses of this nature on the Adrian Vermeule wikipedia page. The following seems a good place to start: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/vermeule-catholic-integralism-theocracy-progressives-conservatives-constitution.html. Conservatives and Catholics have also been critical: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/medieval-fantasists-infiltrated-america-catholic-right-integralists-vermeule/ and https://www.discoursemagazine.com/ideas/2022/01/27/the-integralist-argument-is-wrong-even-if-youre-catholic/. Unfortunately, criticism of this kind is sometimes hard to come by due to the seemingly obvious nature of the critique. The core idea that laws should bend towards a defined moral goal is contestable and has been for thousands of years. Not only would anyone who does not subscribe to the tenets of the Natural Law Tradition (itself a minority view within the academy) disagree heavily with CGC, but almost all expositions of CGC involve agreement with a very specific set of Catholic moral doctrine and the aims of integralism.
4. Removing reference to certain academics to make the page appear less like a pet project or 'boys club' involving a small group of scholars. The relevance of Dr Casey is debatable, but he has, on inspection, published in this area (albeit usually in order to promote Vermeule's own views). The relevance of Mr Foran is peripheral at best, even in the small circle of CGC advocates. Leaving in Mr Foran's citation detracts from the integrity of the article. 2A02:C7C:3831:C300:70CB:647A:7ADE:76B5 ( talk) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This page appears to be something of a mess. Some major problems include:
I would propose the following reorganization:
Intro: A very short lede which simply states that CGC is a theory of constitutional law proposed by Vermeule
History and Development: Perhaps one paragraph tracing the publication of the article, the book, and mentioning in passing Vermeule's other responses. This section should also mention in the development of CGC as a response to originalism and living constitutionalism, the broader fight on the American legal right over the future of originalism.
Principles?? Could name this section something else]: A very short breakdown of the theory, using the book as a primary source. The start of this already exists, but probably needs a little more detail.
Reactions: Most if not all critical responses should be moved here. I think it would be especially helpful to highlight three kinds of reactions: 1) responses from the judiciary, including citations (like the military court mentioned) and negative responses from circuit judges like Pryor 2) responses from academics, both positive and negative and 3) "spin off" theories, like Josh Hammer's Common Good Originalism. I think it is especially important to focus on responses to the book as opposed to the article - which is now two years and a half years old.
Hopefully with the right structure, we can cut down on unsourced content, duplicative content, POV content, and edit warring. All that said, I don't want to make major edits to this page until this has been discussed further. 76.178.17.50 ( talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added a POV tag because this article is heavily unbalanced towards those in favor of Common good constitutionalism. The theory has been roundly criticized from both the right and the left, but most of this article is devoted to views in support of the theory. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
At 14:36 on 29 August 2022, 192.63.0.203 added text, including the sentence in the 2nd paragraph beginning with "Vermeule himself argues..." Is there a typo in that sentence? I can't figure out how to scan it. Specifically, should the word "either" be removed? There is no "or"... Wbforbes ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)