This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

A recent 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)

Even for the standard hagiography, "assumed a sovereign nation-state" is bad language. The DoI speaks of assuming the status of a sovereign state; the founding conventions (not synonymous with the people, whatever they said) created a new entity, it's not something that can be "assumed". — Tamfang ( talk) 00:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Tamfang, you might be interested in the ongoing conversations in § Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000 and § The People proposal, where we are continuing to discuss how to present who the people really were.      —  Freoh 14:00, 11 March 2023 (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, clarification needed and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity". [1] disputed – discuss

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States," echoing the Declaration of Independence in its claim to speak for all Americans. [2] The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold: "to form a more perfect Union" and to "secure the blessings of liberty," [1] though this contradicts the legal protection given to the slave trade in § Article I. [3] [4]

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 ^[5]

• 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.'" ^[6]

[(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." ^[7]

• 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." ^[8]

(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:

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)

Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:

• The Amendments sections are exceedingly long as well as redundant considering that List of amendments to the United States Constitution covers the same ground. The main article also links with separate articles on each of the Constitution’s amendments.
• Judicial Review is another long section that has a main article, Judicial review in the United States.

Both of the above could be reduced to their essence with links provided to the main articles indicated. I’d appreciate feedback to see if we can reach a consensus on the suggested changes.

Allreet ( talk) 08:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes some sense, but we should give more than a nominal mention of these things here, as this is, after all, the Constitution of the United States article. A good amount of contextual overlap between articles is welcomed, which creates more of an interest and incentive for the reader to jump to any respective article, -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Or…long sections of marginal interest drive readers away. I know I haven't waded through the two sections in question, and it's a safe bet that's true of most of the article's million-plus annual readers. Allreet ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought but the unratified amendments section could probably be reduced to just 2 paragraphs to help with length concerns. BogLogs ( talk) 08:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to trimming these sections.      —  Freoh 00:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Allreet — Readers who visit this page to read up on the Constitution are likely not to find the Amendments of marginal interest. Currently the Amendments section covers each of the Amendments with a short paragraph, which seems barely adequate. This is not to say we shouldn't make other reductions as BogLogs suggested, and perhaps elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  As an encyclopedia it seems the Wikipedia page on the Constitution should include all manner of relevant information, a novella length summary of the document and its influence on the nation and the world. Would suggest not cutting anything topic-worthy for the sake of cutting material (and please keep information on this page, and not linked to a list article which would lose a good percentage of readers), make sure the main sections are higher on the page, and adding material where needed. Agree with what I read as Gwillhickers' implied suggestion about possibly expanding the descriptors of the amendments when they are just barely adequate. The original document and its amendments are what this page is all about. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Simplest is to just read Simon's footnote, which begins citing Brown (1956):

• Simon (p. 1498): "It has been estimated that eighteen to nineteen percent of the population at that time were adult males, and that only eighty to eighty-five percent of this population was eligible to participate in ratification elections."

Brown's math, then, is: 18% of the population (3.9 million) were adult males, slightly more than 700,000, 80% of whom were eligible to vote, which is about 560,000. Simon downplays the 80-85% with the word "only", yet according to Brown (see the last bullet below), more than 80-85% were eligible to vote.

Simon, however, immediately ignores Brown's numbers and instead cites Hacker (1947):

• "it is estimated, not many more than 160,000 adult males participated—one fourth or one fifth of a total possible electorate."

Hacker's 160,000, as Simon indicates, comes from Beard (1913):

• Beard (p. 250): "it seems a safe guess to say that not more than 5 per cent of the population in general, or in round numbers, 160,000 voters, expressed an opinion one way or another on the Constitution. In other words, it is highly probable that not more than one-fourth or one-fifth of the adult white males took part in the election of delegates to the state conventions. If anything, this estimate is high."

And Beard's estimate is based on Jameson (plus from what I can gather, in combination with other extrapolations):

• Beard (p. 242): "Dr. Jameson estimates that probably one-fifth of the adult males were shut out in Massachusetts, and it would probably be safe to say that nowhere were more than one-third of the adult males disfranchised by the property qualifications."

Back to Brown, he says this about Jameson, Beard, and others:

• Brown (p. 69): "As a matter of fact, Jameson’s estimate of eighty or eighty-five per cent of voters among the adult men was too low, as my own figures demonstrate, but from that day to this writers, including Beard, have cited Jameson and McKinley to prove how restricted the franchise was."

Note: The 80-85% mentioned by Brown refers to Jameson's estimate that "one-fifth of the adult males were shut out" because of the property requirement, and he is saying the number eligible to vote was higher. However, this says nothing about how many people actually voted and Beard's estimate is speculative, that is, based on a lot of guesswork.

In short, given Beard v. Brown, the 2.5% is uncertain and the number of people who voted remains a matter of debate. Allreet ( talk) 17:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Freoh, Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and DIYeditor: pings Allreet ( talk) 18:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) [Add:] @ Rjensen:

We should also remember that many average citizens didn't have a mind for law, let alone were able to fully understand a document like the Constitution, but I would think that it's safe to say that, while many people had reservations about that Constitution, most were in favor of national unity and independence, regardless, esp so shortly after their victory against the British, and that the idea of We the People, is a reflection on these eminent ideas. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Passages were printed and commented upon in newspapers; discussed in taverns, on the streets, and in homes; and were dissected in speeches, as well as in the Federalist Papers, which were also published. As one author commented, the subject was the national pastime, the sport of the day. The Federalist position favoring a strong central government played better in the towns, while the Anti-Federalist, states rights view played better in rural areas. So sentiments ran high, but whether that spurred actual voting is an open question. Allreet ( talk) 00:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

( edit conflict)

Yes, these things were widely discussed, esp in newspapers, and esp in cities and towns where larger groups of people were more apt to gather. While a fair number of the Federalist papers were reprinted in newspapers, it wasn't exactly easy reading for many people. There's no denying that the Constitution, at first, was met with much reservation from a states rights perspective, but the need for a solid Union was becoming more evident, esp with Britain waiting in the wings, ever willing to pit one state against an other, which ultimately happened later with the British helping to arm and fund the Confederacy. I would image all the talk spurred voting, for or against, but another open question still remains, i.e.whether the term We the People was only a reference to a small percentage of a Independence minded population. It would seem that if most of the people didn't approve of the Constitution, it never would have been ratified. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Historians agree that Brown's deeply researched study is much better than Beard's thinly-based speculation. Rjensen ( talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the 2.5% is uncertain. Based on DIYeditor's suggestion, I added ... historians estimate that ... to the proposal to make this clearer. However, the only conflict that you presented is between only eighty to eighty-five percent of this population was eligible to participate and Jameson’s estimate of eighty or eighty-five per cent of voters among the adult men was too low. That figure is only one part of the 2.5% estimation, and your comparison between Brown's eligibility estimate and Hacker's participation estimate is a false equivalence. Even if you increased this number by 20% (that is, roughly 80% to 95%), that would not bring the widely-cited estimate over 3%.      —  Freoh 13:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, although these are interesting discussions and Allreet's and Gwillhickers in-depth research has time-after-time answered and rebutted your concerns, you yourself appear to have the concerning un-Wikipedian habit of constantly not being aware of when the horse has passed away. This has occurred on this page to a worrisome extent, and likely other pages, as if you purposely attempt to wear volunteer editors down until they give up. Other editors have been indef banned for such attempts, and, in non-Wikipedian language, this is "not cool". Please be more aware of volunteer editor's time and play and edit accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Freoh: historians estimate that is not attributing it. Attributing it would be naming the people who believe it is 2.5% rather than implying that a preponderance of the historians estimate that. Historian Charles Beard estimates that (assuming he has not already been named) or Beard estimates that... —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, — Agree with Randy Kryn, this Talk page has been continuously inundated with ever changing and new proposals, four of which, including the RfC, have just been closed with a no consensus ruling, and it's rather clear that this proposal is going nowhere also. Several other editors have also made similar comments about this behavior. Editors are compelled to reply so as not to give the impression that these proposals have much or any merit and are being silently accepted. Currently the Talk page has approximately 125 browser pages of text, mostly made up of sections and proposals you initiated, and which have gone no where. At this point it's beginning to appear that your. capacity here at Wikipedia is that of a Single-purpose account, bent on a common purpose in an effort of casting aspersions on the U.S., using isolated and racially charged statements, trying to give the impression that the Constitution was forced on the overwhelming majority of the people, and so forth. --- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn, I am only trying to keep this article more neutral. DIYeditor, I would be okay with changing the attribution to include one of the historian's names:

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, ^{[1] [2]} though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. ^{[3] [4] [5]} 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. ^{[6] [7]} 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. ^{[8] [9]}

     —  Freoh 05:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But at that point wouldn't we have to state how many Americans voted against ratification to not make it seem 97% of the country actively opposed ratification? I'm not sure any change is needed but wouldn't it be simpler to state voting at the time was restricted in many states to property holding white men with the exception of New Jersey where women enjoyed suffrage? BogLogs ( talk) 07:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In response to Freoh, the "conflict" is the 400,000 difference—560000 less 160000—which Brown believes would be on the low side. In any case, by your own admission, the numbers are uncertain, a matter of contention and not established fact. Despite that, we should raise the question immediately, in an introductory sentence, and give approximately the same weight to speculation that we do to widely-accepted assertions?

That's not neutral; it's making an editorial point, one intended to cast doubt at the outset. Which is not to say the issue shouldn't be discussed, but as with most critical examinations in Wikipedia, it should come later, after the prevailing view has been presented and where greater detail can be offered. Allreet ( talk) 15:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, could you show me the quote where Brown says that the estimate of 160 thousand total voters is on the low side? I have not yet seen evidence that this estimate is a matter of contention, and this estimate seems widely-accepted to me, unlike the idea that the American people as a whole legitimate the federal government. BogLogs, I am surprised that both you and Gwillhickers have assumed that 3% voting for a proposal means 97% opposing it, as the majority of the American population could not vote at all. To make this clearer, I propose the following:

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, ^{[1] [2]} though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 5% of Americans voted for delegates to the ratifying conventions. ^{[3] [4] [10]} 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. ^{[6] [7]} 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. ^{[11] [9]}

Would that be better?      —  Freoh 21:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is also vague and still gives the impression that the Constitution was forced on 95% of the American people, which is no doubt what you're trying to suggest. And when you say "American" are you including women who couldn't vote and who make up approximately 50% of the population, and those under 21, which also makes up a huge chunk of the population. Stating what percentage of eligible voters voted for ratification would be the more honest thing to say. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, as it stands Im not sure any change would be an improvement from the current article and almost all of the changes mentioned would make the article less neutral than its current state. Also giving a look over this talk page, talk about beating a dead horse! BogLogs ( talk) 13:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The question is also a matter of where...

Content is one issue. The other is where should it be used? As I've said several times, including during the RfC, what you're suggesting does not have the weight to be mentioned near the top of the section. It's not among the first things someone needs to know on the subject. In fact, I just said as much in my last comment:

Despite that (the uncertainties), we should raise the question immediately, in an introductory sentence, and give approximately the same weight to speculation that we do to widely-accepted assertions?...(critical analysis) should come later...after the prevailing view has been presented and where greater detail can be offered.

Allreet ( talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Another aporopriate place for what you want to add would be under Ratification where you'd be able to flesh this out. The connection between the Preamble and the ratification elections is tenuous at best. Meanwhile, the 3% issue needs more detail, little of which relates to the Preamble, whereas it's 100% relevant to ratification. Allreet ( talk) 12:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be fine moving this point to § Ratification by the states, provided that we also cut out your vague and misleading text about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.      —  Freoh 12:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

My "vague and misleading text" reflects the prevailing view - what most historians have written: that the Constitution is a democratic document that resulted from an unusually democratic process. Freoh's view, the opposite of this, is largely based on a conspiracy theory, which is how Robert Brown (pp. 56, 61, 141, and 169) characterizes the motif postulated by Charles Beard and his followers. To summarize this conspiracy, in terms Freoh has been using, in 1787 aristocratic rich white men colluded to create a document intended to promote their economic and political interests.

While I appreciate Freoh's offer to discuss ratification in a more relevant context, I am not about to compromise what I do as an editor: to do my best to report what mainstream sources have to say. Allreet ( talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Allreet ( talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain several times before [5] [6] [7], this article is already too long, and I think that we should limit ourselves to undisputed facts and omit contested opinions. We do not have to present information in the same wording as your preferred sources, especially when plenty of other reliable sources have taken issue with this presentation style. Are you arguing that it is not misleading to describe 3% of the population as the people? I agree with you that 3% is a lot more buy-in than contemporary European legal codes and that the ratification process was unusually democratic for white people at the time, but we should be presenting a global perspective, and the United States was not the first democracy in America. ^[12]      —  Freoh 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (edited 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC))

The Colonies were settled by white people, and the founding documents were drafted, debated and signed by white people, which is nothing unusual as you apparently want readers to believe. "White people" were the only ones trying to establish an independent Union. Indians were not, and few if any slaves at the time were not nearly as concerned with the Constitution, if at all, as they were their freedom. So yes, the founding was established by white people, the same as the Japanese founded their own government. All along you've been trying to present this as some negative and unusual idea..
Now we have yet another one of your issues, that the article is too long. The readable prose size is only 76k. Btw, above you linked to this page rather than the correct one.
Last, the so called "Democracy" that existed among one tribe, the Iroquois, was hereditary based, an idea that was vehemently rejected by the colonists,. So called Iroquois democracy is an idea rejected by a number of historians, including Elizabeth Tooker, a professor of anthropology, who regards the idea as myth – all explained on the very page you linked to, btw. Democracy in America was based on the idea of the Rights of Englishmen, an idea that goes all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and once again, it's becoming rather apparent that you are bent on slighting American history any way you can, which is one of the reasons your never ending proposals have continuously been failures. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the wrong link; I just fixed it. According to those guidelines, any article over 9000 words Probably should be divided, and this article currently has over 12,000. I do not see what in my proposal seems negative and unusual to you. I am mainly trying to remove undue puffery that describes 3% of the population as the people.      —  Freoh 01:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How's this for an introductory summary…

The framers of the Constitution were especially concerned with limiting the power of government and securing the liberty of citizens. The doctrine of legislative, executive, and judicial separation of powers, the checks and balances of each branch against the others, and the explicit guarantees of individual liberty were all designed to strike a balance between authority and liberty as the central purpose of American constitutional law.

I know it's somewhat vague in that it doesn't give any dates or names or hard numbers, yet it does offer facts, a distillation of what historians have identified as the product and meaning of the founders' labors. Anyway, it's what the Encyclopedia Britannica thinks its readers should know about the significance if the Constitution. There's nothing wring, then, with us doing something similar. Allreet ( talk) 03:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including some of this information, but I do not see how this is relevant to the question of whether the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.      —  Freoh 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The section should relate as to what percentage of the delegates/states voted for and against ratification. Again making a vague reference to all the American people, way over 50% of whom did not vote, can be misleading. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I just edited § Preamble to avoid making a vague reference to all the American people.      —  Freoh 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's already been reverted by another editor, I would have reverted such a large change as well as a matter of consensus which is still clearly lacking after so many attempts. BogLogs ( talk) 07:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, could you please explain your recent reversion? I think that we should avoid making a vague reference to the people, given that it is disputed and potentially misleading.      —  Freoh 18:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, as I said in my edit summary, you removed much of the Preamble section, so I reverted. Having a Preamble section and not mentioning Gouverneur Morris would be a (edit: loss to the page) WikiCrime, so I put the paragraph back. And the RfC result and the results of other discussions on this page don't seem to indicate that it would be okay to remove much of the descriptor portion of the Preamble section. That's all, simply put, and, in good faith, I have no intention of getting into one of those twenty-thousand word discussions with you. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Artem.G, could you explain your recent ? It is misleading and disputed to describe 3% of the American population as representative of the people as a whole.      —  Freoh 12:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware about the lengthy discussion here, but it looks that not many editors agree with your views. I also saw that you were reverted multiple times, so it's not only me thinking that your edits are, let's say, problematic. Artem.G ( talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: We can go around and around forever on your points, but not on what S Marshall ruled on 11 March 2023 at the close of the RfC:

By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. There is no such consensus to be found here. Therefore these proposed changes should not be made, and if made, may freely be reverted.

Accordingly, please refrain from making any additions or deletions until you've proposed them here and found sufficient support from other editors. As for what the article currently says, it's not misleading for us, for Wikipedia, to report the prevailing view of mainstream sources. Allreet ( talk) 05:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit included this sentence:

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.

What makes you say that this is the prevailing view of mainstream sources? I have given plenty of sources disputing this idea. I know that my RfC did not achieve a consensus, as people were concerned that my facts conflicted with your opinions, which is why I propose removing the opinionated content entirely.  —  Freoh 14:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comment, of course, is your opinion, not necessarily factual in terms of what occurred in the RfC.

As a constructive suggestion: Try gathering a range of sources, including those you've already noted plus a few from the article's Bibliography. Then write a paragraph as a proposal documenting the assertion (which is different from "fact") that voting at the grassroots level, whether for or against, was sparse. Avoid offering the observation that the Constitution was not representative of "We the People". Simply encapsulate what sources say about the voting and allow the information drawn from sources speak for itself.

If you don't do this or something like it, I will, because I believe the "3%" and related ideas should be documented. IOW, nobody is trying to suppress information. "Our concerns" are over how. Allreet ( talk) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In reply to your question regarding the prevailing view of mainstream sources, I invite you to peruse the bibliography of sources I've compiled. These materials, available on a research page I created, include more than 50 books and papers on the Constitution alone, as well as hundreds of related works on the founders, Articles of Confederation, and so forth. Of course, I haven't read everything here, but from what I have reviewed, I've found very little that concurs with the handful of sources you've offered. Allreet ( talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Freoh:

As is explained, at Template:POV section, removal of the POV tag can occur when:

• 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
• 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
• 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Yet on three different occasions in the last several days Freoh continues to re-add the POV tag. There has been no further discussion about, and no consensus for, the POV tag, while the discussion has been abandoned, while Freoh continues to create even more issues. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose POV tag — My reasoning: the article may need improvement, but is not misleading in any way. As noted above, all changes to the Constitution page require consensus. This would apply to the removal of tags and their assignment. Any edit warring on this must cease, and discussion, such as as this, should begin. If a sufficient number of editors weighs in one way or the other, we should follow their wishes. Thanks for posting. Allreet ( talk) 22:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons outlined above. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was in § The question is also a matter of where..., but I can continue it here. The main problem in § Preamble is that it includes a non- neutral opinion: the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Some historians express this view, but others contradict it. Allreet has not given sufficient evidence to justify their unbalanced presentation, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote the U.S. government. The onus is on Allreet to get consensus for this content, which they have not achieved after months of discussion. Personally, I would be satisfied if we returned to this version. The {{ POV section}} should remain until we can reach a compromise.  —  Freoh 01:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@ S Marshall: The recent RfC resulted in a consensus against Freoh's interpretation of the Preamble. In concluding the RfC, you stated:

By our rules, any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made.

Despite your ruling, Freoh has applied a POV tag to the article's Preamble section while we were in the process of seeking a consensus as to whether such a tag is justified. Please advise us regarding how to proceed. Allreet ( talk) 03:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh — If you are claiming there is a neutrality issue, it is incumbent on you to substantiate it. Thus far all you've done is to claim some sources contradict others, without much explanation. You have not established any consensus, unlike Allreet, for the content in question. The ideal that the People are the source of authority of the government has been established, not only in the Constitution itself, but in numerous sources. You'll need to do more than to claim some sources say otherwise, but show how any authority is derived from anything else but The People. Since you were already turned down at the RfC you initiated, while you've have no consensus all along, I've removed your POV tag. We've lost count of how many times you've used POV tags, here and elsewhere, yet on my Talk page, you just complained about lack of good faith. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. Closing an RfC doesn't make me Article Manager, and what follows is my personal view as an uninvolved editor.

I think that adding a tag is not a substantive change to the article, and that while a good faith dispute persists, it's reasonable to display a tag inviting readers to give their view. But this doesn't mean the tag should linger indefinitely; in my view it should be there only while good faith debate continues, which means only while editors are engaging with each other's point of view, responding to each other and introducing new ideas and suggestions. Stonewalling is not continuing a good faith debate.

If a consensus emerges, then the tag should be removed when any appropriate changes are made, and if it becomes clear that the debate has stalled without consensus, then the article remains as it is by default and the tag should still be removed. I hope that Freoh will be able to perceive when one of these things has happened and remove the tag himself. Incidentally, and I know that nobody has suggested this, it's just that long experience of Wikipedia is forcing me to type it out: Nobody should launch an RfC over a POV tag. A talk page consensus here will be sufficient.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You've made things much clearer. I've been here a while myself but have not had to deal with such issues until now. So while experience can be a good teacher, it always helps to have some sound advice as well. Allreet ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per the comments above and Allreet's well researched "A brief survey of the available scholarship" below. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Hoppyh ( talk) 22:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

As I posted earlier, IMO the article’s greatest weakness is its avoidance of the Convention’s #1 issue: Slavery.

• The first mention of slavery, not including the two paragraphsI added to the lede, was just short of the middle, 5,000 words in.
• The next mention is about 3,000 words later.
• The Articles subsections, under Original Frame, make no mention of the provisions regarding slave trade, runaways, 3/5ths compromise, etc.

Some ideas that need to be covered:

• Preserving the Union was considered paramount not just for its own sake but in regards national defense, expansion, and trade.
• Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery economically and both threatened to quit the Union if any restrictions were imposed. Thus many compromises were made.
• The provisions protecting slavery need to be spelled out in the Articles subsections.
• Trivial but of interest: The word slavery did not appear in the original Constitution. It was finally inteoduced with the 13th Amendment (1865).

The above should be given priority. Regarding length, please see my next post (in progress, need time). Allreet ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the need for that last bit of trivia, and I think that we should be careful about our use of ambiguous synecdoche when describing the Georgian and South Carolinian governments, which were clearly not representative of their state populations as a whole. Other than that, I agree.      —  Freoh 01:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If nearly all sources assert that Georgia and South Carolina were opposed to limitations on slavery, we do not have to qualify our phrasing to indicate it was the government or leaders of the state who did so. I'll also add that this not at all akin to Synecdoche, which refers to slang, idioms, metaphors, and other informal elocutions. Allreet ( talk) 06:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as it is clear from context that you are using Georgia and South Carolina to refer to their respective governments, I am fine with it. I can take a look at your text when you have a more concrete proposal.  —  Freoh 13:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the omission of the word "slavery" from the Constitution is trivial; I've definitely read multiple sources that explain how that omission was a deliberate part of the careful compromise around slavery that was hammered out during drafting, though I don't have any sources handy right now. (I'm sure though that at least some of the sources we've already discussed on this page talk about the omission of the word "slavery".)

I think WP:TERTIARY provides good guidance: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I'd look to reliable tertiary sources to figure out how much due weight to give various aspects of the topic, like slavery, but also everything else (women, the Articles, economic interests, Locke, and so on). The ideal sources would be overviews of the Constitution (rather than any one aspect of it) that are of a similar length to a Wikipedia article--so less than book length, something like an entry in an encyclopedia or chapter in a book, published by an academic publisher in the last 10 years. We could look and see how much weight they give to aspects like slavery, and expand our article as needed. I'm sure we could find multiple such sources on WP:TWL, but I won't have a chance to look myself until later next week. Levivich ( talk) 03:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The omission of the word is significant. I'm in the midst of compiling notes on slavery for both the Constitution and Founding Fathers articles, and what comes across is that this was the number one issue at the 1787 convention, not large state-small state or economic interests. For sources, I have a Research Page set up with a separate section on Slavery. Feel free to peruse. There's a quick link to Slavery under the Sources: Revolutionary Era, 1765-1790 title . Allreet ( talk) 03:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look when I get back to a desktop computer next week. (I just don't want anyone to think I'm drive-by complaining on an article talk page. I know the hard work is in the research and am also willing to help with that.) Levivich ( talk) 04:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of my notes come from the "mainstream" histories in the Constitution section above the Slavery bibliography. The best introduction, perhaps, is a collection of essays titled Slavery and Its Consequences: The Constitution, Equality, and Race, which digs somewhat deeper into the subject than general sources. I believe the contributors are conservatives (it's published by American Enterprise Institute), but I didn't notice any biases. Allreet ( talk) 15:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as it is reasonably clear from context that Importation of ... Persons held the same legal weight as if they had said slave trade explicitly.  —  Freoh 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In the First government section, comprised of one sentence, the First and Second Continental Congress are mentioned, in rather general terms. Should we not at least mention the inciteful issues (Intolerable Acts) that brought the colonial delegates together? The first official document of the Continental Congress, which brought these delegates together, was the Articles of Association, and as such, it functioned in a governmental capacity, with colonial representatives, the likes of which ultimately fed into the Revolutionary War only weeks later, as the indignant and arrogant King George III wouldn't yield one inch to colonial appeals. No, we won't refer to it as a Founding Document, but it was something that surely planted the seeds of independence and functioned as a separate government, independent of royal oversight. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course. The Continental Association is considered by many as one of the four main Founding documents of the United States (the Association created the United Colonies). Highly important to the first government of the nation being formed by these various actions and documents. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as said, to avoid another ongoing 'rematch', we'll just mention it in neutral terms as to whether it was a Founding Document, and simply concentrate on the course of events that brought the colonies together, which ultimately led to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution itself, as these chain of events are all part of the same train. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Just was accenting that yes, it should be mentioned within the sentence, in a few but enough words to capsulize its importance and meaning to the flow of founding events (agreed that the "founding document" language not needed here). Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The Continental Congress of course warrants mention. Many sources indicate it was the first step toward Union, and all identify the Intolerable Acts as the impetus. While the Continental Association was significant, I wouldn't credit it as a step leading to war. The King's indignation was aroused well before the idea for forming a Congress was conceived. In February 1774, he wrote to Lord Dartmouth that " the dye is now cast", while Dartmouth complained of the colonists' " propositions that lead to inevitable destruction" in August, a month before Congress met. Interestingly, according to some sources, the Congress was an extra-legal body that was formed as an early expression of "the will of the people", since it had no formal grounding and was intended to circumvent the official assemblies in each of the colonies. Allreet ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the king was already peeved at the colonists, but the Continental Association, with its representatives, prospect of boycott and colonial independence, was sort of an official slap in the face, and was much more than a final straw - it was throwing gasoline on the fire. We don't have to say it was the sole reason that led to war, as there were many issues up in the air, but the Continental Association brought everything to a head and made it clear that colonial independence was more than a mere idea, it was something that now had teeth in it, and the Continental Association, with its boycott in actual motion, made those teeth felt. It's certainly no mere coincidence that war followed almost immediately. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on sources, I tend to disagree. Britain declared Massachusetts in a "state of rebellion" in February 1775. The Continental Association might merit a footnote (drawing on the declaration's mention of vague "combinations and engagements...in other colonies") but absent specific acknowledgement in sources, attributing anything more would be conjecture. The same applies to coincidence. Much happened between October and February, and we can't "write history" from guesswork, only hard evidence. Allreet ( talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Assuming the Continental Association, largely prompted by circumstances in Massachusetts, btw, was something that had little bearing in Britain's decision to wage war on the entire continent, not just Massachusetts, would be a mistake. The Association told the King that all the colonies were behind Massachusetts, and as such, told him that all the colonies were in a state of rebellion. As said, no one is going to say any one issue, i.e.Massachusetts, was the cause of the war. We simply list briefly the course of events that led up to the war, and ultimately an independent government. Many notable historians place great significance on the Continental Association, and it deserves more than a footnote at the bottom of the article. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clearer. As a "footnote" I only meant in relation to steps leading to war. In terms of steps leading to Union and Independence, it was a significant one. If I had to list them, I'd include the Intolerable Acts, First Continental Congress, Declarations & Resolves, Continental Association, Petition to the King, Second Continental Congress, Olive Branch Petition, and Declaration. That's in chronological order, not order of importance. Also significant as you mentioned were events in Massachusetts that fueled sentiments (Boston Tea Party, Savoy Resolves, town meetings, colonial assembly, militias) and caught the attention of the Brits. I'm sure I missed something, but it's a start. And I agree there was no single cause, but a succession of causes and effects. Allreet ( talk) 02:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Alleet! I thought we were going to lock horns through the summer on that one -- just like ole times. :-) . Yes, let's just list significant events/issues and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

lol Allreet ( talk) 17:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Original Frame" may have been a title used for the Constitution as drafted and ratified, but the document has been significantly altered since then by various amendments. Thus, this section says nothing about the original Articles and instead focuses solely on the Constitution's current provisions.

For a guide to the changes in the Constitution's language, refer to the following pdf: U.S. Constitution. The pdf includes both the original and current wording. Text that has been changed is identified by a bracket and asterisk (in each case).

There are numerous possibilities for renaming the section. I prefer "The Constitution" since it's simple, direct, and implies currency. "Preamble and Articles" would also work, as would "The Constitution's provisions". I don't feel the same about something generic such as "Current provisions" or obscure such as "Current frame".

I would appreciate other suggestions and related discussion, leading to a request for consensus. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 13:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. 'Preamble and Articles' seem most accurate ('The Constitution' would be a duplicate, kind of, of the page's title, and would necessitate moving the amendment sections to subsections). Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the existing section title is sort of generic. I believe simplicity is best, using The Constitution for the title, leaving the Articles, which are already in subsections, where they are, as they are indeed components of the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I tend to like "The Constitution". The current title isn't just generic—it's incorrect. I understand Randy's point. "The Constitution" does seem redundant given the main title. That said, in its "minimalist" simplicity, it's explicit, possesses immediacy, and has a certain (if I may say) "charm". Let's wait for feedback from more editors. Allreet ( talk) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but to make my point of view clearer, if "The Constitution" is used then not only the Preamble and Articles would be included as subsections but the amendments would have to be subjections as well. Seems better presentation to not do that, because the Preamble and Articles are the original constitution in a section separate from the amendments. And your option name of "Preamble and Articles" would then fit better, and it may grow on you. , Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Or how about best of both worlds "The Constitution:Preamble and Articles". Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Randy: In revisiting the subject, I see your point about the Amendments being part of the Constitution as well and therefore belong under this section. If we would do what you suggest, we'd have 4 main subsections—Preamble, Articles, Closing Endorsement, Amendments—with multiple "4th level" subsections under the 2nd and 4th of these. This would make the Constitution section exceptionally long (Unratified Amendments would still have their own section), but that's not necessarily a "deal breaker". Anyone else have some thoughts on this? Allreet ( talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Took another look at the table of contents and yes, "The Constitution" works (the table makes it obvious that the wording means the original constitution and doesn't include the amendments). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Preamble, Articles (I-VII) and the Closing endorsement sub-sections should go under The Constitution, as they do now under the Original Frame section. Since the Amendments came along after the Constitution was ratified, both the Amending the Constitution and Ratification sections should have their own major sections, all sections coming under the umbrella of the Constitution article itself. Imo all we really need do is change the name from Original Frame to The Constitution. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: Agreed on all of the above. One additional possibility is to include a title with each Article. This is done occasionally at other sites. Here's the Constitution Center's lineup:

• Article I — Legislative Branch
• Article II — Executive Branch
• Article III — Judicial Branch
• Article IV — States, Citizenship, New States (alternative The States)
• Article V — Amendment Process
• Article VI — Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests (alternative Legal Status of the Constitution)
• Article VII — Ratification

What I like is that the titles tell what's inside, giving each Article an identity. I also prefer the alternatives, which came from the American Bar Association. Of course, there are other possibilities, such as The Presidency for Article II and The Judiciary for Article III. The decision becomes subjective, so it's doubtful all editors would agree on each and every title given the range of possibilities. What we do need to agree on is the concept, and then let a single editor make the final call. Allreet ( talk) 14:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Allreet, good thinking. If nobody objects please do as you see best. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I second that. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 17:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with renaming the section The Constitution. The whole article is about the constitution, and the proposed structure makes it seem like the § Ratified amendments are not part of § The Constitution. It also ignores the MOS:SECTIONHEAD guidelines. What is wrong with § Original frame? Allreet, are you saying that the Three-fifths Compromise is not original because it was not part of the first draft of the constitution? I think that it is clear from context that original means at the time of ratification, and it better justifies the structural separation from § Ratified amendments.  —  Freoh 16:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Original frame" is obtuse. I can't wrap my head around why it was chosen. The section it's introducing is the contents of the document, so why are we giving the document a different name that what is used everywhere else just for this title? Then combine it with the term "lead header" immediately underneath and you quash any chance of a layperson understanding. One of these terms has to go. The Savage Norwegian 17:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lead caption" I mean, whoops. The Savage Norwegian 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The title "Original frame" would apply to the Constitution's original text, whereas the section in question addresses the Constitution's current provisions, which are different because of various amendments. Re-read the rationale I provided above for changing the title. But to add a specific example: The Three-Fifths Compromise was spelled out in Article I of the "original frame" and was referred to in other articles, but amendments related to slavery and elections changed all that. Hence, the compromise is not mentioned anywhere in the section, and hence, the title "Original frame" is incorrect besides being "obtuse", as TheSavageNorwegian points out.

And so, Freoh, what would you suggest for a title to replace it? "Current provisions"? "The Constitution today"? Both boring but acceptable. In any case, do as I did: suggest something and see what others have to say. BTW, the section's opening paragraph also needs to be changed. It probably should address how the Constitution has changed over the years. I've been looking high and low for sources and haven't found any as of yet that offer an explicit explanation. Odd, I know, but true. Allreet ( talk) 18:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The only changes to the Constitution were the addition of Amendments. Since the Ratification in 1788 the Preamble and the Articles have remained the same, which is why Original frame is inappropriate, as it suggests the Articles, the framework of the Constitution, have changed since 1788. We should just name the section Framework. Finding sources that cover the addition of Amendments in overall context shouldn't be difficult. A good place to begin might be here. As you know, there are many books and journals about Amending the Constitution that can be found in Bibliography of the United States Constitution. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is correct in that the provisions changed by amendment still appear; however, in all the copies I've seen, the defunct language is bracketed or "greyed out" to indicate it no longer applies. Meanwhile, the text on the Articles only discusses the provisions that remain in effect; it includes nothing on subjects such as the Three-Fifths Compromise or the return of escaped slaves.

While I have plenty of sources on the amendments, what I haven't been able to find is a straightforward explanation of the redacting practice. As for "Framework" as a title, I think it's obscure, that is, not very meaningful or widely understood. Allreet ( talk) 05:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

New title and introductory text

I changed the title and added introductory text. The title that had been applied should not have been reverted to "Original frame". While MOS:SECTIONTITLES guidelines suggest not using a title that refers back to the main title, far worse is allowing a title we know to be erroneous to stand. Changing the section's title also required a new introduction, so rather than keep the irrelevant explanation of "original frame", I posted a temporary intro and will add citations to support it once I find the appropriate sources. Suggestions regarding these proposed changes would be appreciated. Allreet ( talk) 14:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just took a quick look, maybe 'Articles' in place of 'Provisions' (less confusing?). Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I dunno. Now we have a rather long section title that replicates two subsections titles below it, which is redundant.. I still feel Framework is more appropriate, as a 'frame' is the basic structure of any thing or idea, and since that title comes under the heading of the US Constitution article there should be nothing obscure or confusing about it, as it's a straightforward and basic idea. .-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC).
• Re: Redacting. Since there was no fundamental change in the principles set forth in the Preamble and Articles, this idea is more of a historical curiosity than anything else. I've no objections to mentioning this idea as long as it's brief, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers: I understand both your concerns, mostly. "Provisions" was an attempt to avoid redundancy, but there is no synonym for Preamble. "Framework" is kinda okay except the Constitution is more a solid foundation than an outline, though it's certainly both. The other problem is its "originality" and then the fact that the average reader is not likely to understand it as such. Comprehension or the lack of it applies to "redacted" as well; a little used word. The length of the title bothers me too.

Thinking out loud, the word "text" very broadly says it all, as does "content". A synonym for either that's more specific and to the point (appropriate) would be "provisions". And so, how's "The Constitution's provisions"? That even covers the endorsement, again, broadly speaking. "Jumping the gun", I'll post it so you both (and others) can get a "real feel". If it rubs the wrong way, revert immediately—or rather, after taking a deep breath. And sincere thanks for the feedback...we'll get there yet. Allreet ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How about "Original document". Randy Kryn ( talk) 02:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Constitution's provisions seems to work, as it's an all inclusive idea.. Original document would be no different than Original framework. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 02:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Original document" seems more understandable and defining than "Original framework". It describes the actual thing which became, upon signing, the United States Constitution. The preamble and articles sections have always referred to the original wording. Not everyone knows what "provisions" means in this context, not really a common word and may not exactly fit as a descriptor for either the preamble or the closing endorsement. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't dug much into this aspect yet, but I thought Allreet thought the idea of Original was inappropriate. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Original Constitution, as another option. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The section is more about the "Current document", and that would be fine as a title, though we should probably move the Amendments into this section since they're part of the Constitution. There's very little under the Articles on the original text. Allreet ( talk) 04:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Randy Kryn, Gwillhickers, Freoh, and Thesavagenorwegian: feedback? Allreet ( talk) 04:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a difficult one, summarizing the original constitution in a few words. If the amendments are moved into the section then your idea of "The Constitution" would fit (I was trying to come up with something acceptable for a section devoted to the original document's preamble, articles, and the closing signed page). If everything is included then "The Constitution" would be both accurate and non-confusing. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this may be an exception to MOS:SECTIONTITLES which describes its guidelines as preferences, not hard rules. But for the sake of compromise and moving on, I was suggesting a combination of your last recommendation and one that fits the section: "Current document". That also suits the new intro. I'll move the Amendments into the section to see how it looks, but will wait on changing the title until we hear from others. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made the proposed changes. I think the section looks good as formatted and conforms with WP standards as well as "universal" ones. Length is a bit of a concern, but more important is "reader interest"; that is, if they've come here to learn about the Constitution, here it is. Now "Current document" would work well as the section's title since it covers the current text of all sections. Feedback? Allreet ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Normally I have reservations about using level 3 and 4 sub sections, but the layout as it is now looks good. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the new structure is better, though it might be better as just Provisions rather than § The Constitution's provisions.  —  Freoh 13:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I was curious regarding the size of the Constitution article relative to related articles as well as to its "popularity" (as measured by page views). The following table tells the tale on both counts:

Taking into account the Constitution's significance, its detailed background, and the interest of readers, I'd say the article is about the right size and could even accommodate some additional material. Not too much, buts its current size shouldn't deter us from adding more material nor require us to cut anything. Allreet ( talk) 00:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article size, the likes of which are only covered by Guidelines, not rigid WP policy, was never an issue with me, until someone made it so. The Constitution is among the most written about subjects, par with Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, and judging from the never ending stream of sources we've encountered over this last month, I dare say, even more. The Constitution being the longest lasting document and form of government anywhere, I'd say (tongue in check), let's double the size of the article. Given the multitude of sources, a Historiography section could be one such addition, with a few brief statements about how historians have covered the document, given the vast acclaim, and of course the criticism and controversy among the naysayers, who, if I may, seem to have ignored the big picture and the test of time that the Constitution has endured..-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)