Talk:James Madison

Review ahead of possible featured article nomination

I have been asked by ErnestKrause to look at the article to see if it qualifies for featured article status. I will do my best to do so. As I mentioned on Ceranthor's talk page, although I am familiar with early American history and have experience writing featured articles on that subject on Wikipedia, I am not very familiar with Madison, and what I know about him comes mainly just through what I have gleaned from biographies on other Founding Fathers and general works about the time period. Therefore, because my factual competency on the subject is limited, my comments are likely to be focused mainly on the style of the article as well as on pointing out anything that I may not understand.

One thing that I want to mention, before even having read the article, is length. My preferred length for featured articles on important and highly visible subjects such as major U.S. presidents is 14,000-16,000 words. I will say before going forward that many editors disagree with me on this matter. The article on Andrew Jackson, one of my five featured articles, was close to 16,000 words at the time of its promotion to featured article status. Its size later increased to just over 17,000 words, which was too long. I trimmed it to a little over 15,000, which I felt was close to an ideal length. Yet a few editors demanded that it be trimmed considerably further. My firm opposition to doing so was a contributing factor in me being indefinitely blocked from that article and its talk page, which is why I have now chosen to semi-retire from editing Wikipedia. That is why I want to say before I get beyond this point that my views on article length are opposed by either a considerable number or at least a loud minority of editors.

As a result of heavy revisions taken place after I was blocked from that article (and to which I am heartily opposed), the Jackson article currently sits at just over 12,000 words. That's too short in my opinion, but it is still 2,000 words longer than this article, which at the time of my writing is a hair over 10,000 words. 10,000 words places it on the lower end of the spectrum for featured articles on U.S. presidents, and given Madison's significance, I believe that it should probably be average or slightly above average compared to the others in length. I believe that this article can probably be expanded. Again, I haven't yet read the article and my views on the subject may not be popular, but I needed to throw that out there for considertaion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but while WP:TOOBIG exists, an article is always going to have an easier time when it meets the guideline than when it flouts it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, that policy says that articles of up to 99 kb can exist on important subjects. 99 kb equates to a little over 16,000 words of text. Therefore, my preference is consistent with that policy. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an overly generous interpretation of that guideline, which says that 10,000 words is a good size, and that articles above 60kb probably should be split. Also, while it says larger topics may justify extra length, you need to justify that on the basis of the material. Arguing that 12,000 words is too short on principle has no basis whatsoever in policy; it's a personal preference of yours, at odds with the preference of most other editors. This page is now at almost exactly 10,000 words; if it sees a 50% increase in length, I will oppose at FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Vana and Hog Farm have been consistent in commenting about current trends on the FAC page to keep articles shorter, and its likely a good idea to endorse this trend and their assessment to keep the article at the size Vana has been recommending; previously it was 30-40 larger before my edits started several months ago. That said, Display name 99 makes points which appear to want to enhance the article, and I'm assuming that they are AGF. I'm still trying to attract a co-nominator for FAC, since the nomination of such a prominent president is apt to garner more attention than is usually expected at FAC. I'll be taking a few days to get through Display's list and all comments from the other editors are welcome. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, if there are specific pieces of information that someone else wants in the article, I would discuss these on the merits. My issue is with the general suggestion of lengthening, which I believe is contrary both to the guideline and to recent practice. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it is generally best to have the lead be four paragraphs. The paragraphs in the lead here are generally fairly short, and I encourage you to look for ways to combine some of them. If I were you, I might combine the second and third paragraphs, and move the final two sentences of the third paragraph (about Madison's performance as Secretary of State) to the fourth paragraph. But as the policy states, four paragraphs for the lead is not an absolute rule, so I would not be disenchanted if you chose not to implement this suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Giving it a try to see four paragraph version. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Madison...organized the Democratic–Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party." Would it not be more accurate to say that he did so alongside Thomas Jefferson? Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Alongside Jefferson is better. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• For the paragraph on the War of 1812, I would mention not only that British interference with trade led to the war but also the desire for land held by Britain, Spain, and Native Americans. To that end, I would move the sentence about the amount of land lost by Native Americans to the end of the section discussing the War of 1812. That sentence seems clunky and out of place where it is, and it would fit better in the section on the War of 1812, as virtually all of these losses occurred either during the War of 1812 or in conflicts directly related to it. Adding a greater focus on the role of land acquisition in the War of 1812 will also help this sentence to make more sense. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Add comment about Madison and American expansionism in lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That looks good, although I would encourage you to implement my suggestion of moving the sentence about Native American land cessions to the end of the discussion of the War of 1812. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like the final paragraph could do more to summarize Madison's legacy. What were his unique contributions to American political thought? One of the things that characterizes Madison is his seemingly shifting political philosophy. He was a nationalist in the 1780s who favored a strong central government, then a strict constructionist in favor of a limited central government during the 1790s, and then a nationalist again from his tenure as Secretary of State onward. He supported nullification in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 but later contradicted that position in retirement. How did Madison's positions impact, and how were they impacted by, the events taking place in the United States around him? What things caused Madison to change, and what impact did these things have on the nation? That's a thing to think about when writing biography. Focus on the subject, but never lose sight of the broader picture. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting comments to think about. The issues of seeking strong centralization, and the issues seeking limitations on centralized government are not necessarily contradictory. For example, one could speak of the importance of a strong centralized military, while still maintaining that there be limitations on a centralized government in asserting control over a free press. I'll see if I can add something along the lines of your comment to the summary in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuing

Bibliography

• Fieldman's name is not linked under "Works cited." Check for other examples. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Almost certainly Noah Feldman's fine book on Madison. I'm not sure the current version has a "Fieldman". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that's who I was referring to. His name is not linked in the citation. Display name 99 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Feldman's book is linked over a dozen times in the article; did I miss one of them? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Once again, you didn't link his name to his Wikipedia article in the citation in the "Works Cited" section. Display name 99 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• The citation style needs to be consistent. I like the use of Harvard citations, but if you're going to use that for some of the sources, you need to use it for all of them. For example, there's no reason for Ketcham 2003 to be a Harvard ref in citation 14 but not citation 11. Good academic has an easily navigable method of citing sources and remains consistently faithful to that method. This is something that any competently-carried out source review in a featured article will hit you on. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• As another example of something that needs to be standardized, citation 235 appears only in a citation but not in the Bibliography. You need to fix that and make it a Harvard reference. There may be other examples of this. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Early life and education

• "might have strained his delicate health." Unexplained illusion. If his health problems were significant enough to have a major affect on his life in such a manner, it is necessary to elaborate at least briefly upon what they were. A little later: Okay, so I see you did mention that at the end of the section, but the details should be explained before they become relevant, not after they have already been alluded to. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• These are references to his mental health issues which previous editors did not engage; Madison was subject to nervous exhaustion in his life, though for physical health he seemed to be otherwise robust for most of his life. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This does not address my problem. The subject of his health is alluded to only vaguely, and it is not until several paragraphs later that we get an explanation. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The mental health issue as opposed to the physical health issues were discussed as these issues were discovered to have occurred as covered by biographical sources. If Madison suffered from nervous exhaustion at a particular juncture in his career, then it is covered at the time that the historical juncture is encountered in his biography. I can list the examples, though I think you may have already read them in the subsequent sections of this biography. What alternate approach do you suggest for discussing this which might be preferable from your viewpoint? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, my problem is that you allude to him having concerns about his health but don't get any more specific than that, and it is not until the end of the section that we actually have a specific explanation of what any of his health problems were. Saying "might have strained his sensibilities concerning his own health" is extremely vague. In what ways did he perceive his health to be in danger? If it's related to what's at the end of the paragraph, then you need to move some of that stuff up. If it isn't, then say what it was. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a level of detail and reconstruction of RS for Madison's mental health is useful here even it may be an interesting topic for a long biography about Madison. As you discussed with Vana above, FAC articles are generally expected to be read in thirty minutes or less, which is pretty much the size of the article at present. If you would like to see Madison's mental health discussed comprehensively then something would hve to be deleted from other parts of the article. Do you have suggestions as to which is more important here. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

All that I am asking for is a sentence or maybe even just a few words about a subject that seemed to have a very big impact on Madison. That isn't too much to ask for, especially when the article is shorter than most other featured articles on presidents. Display name 99 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I read in Chernow's biography of Hamilton that Madison's rigorous college study program forced him to go with minimal sleep and eventually exhausted him, endangering his health. If this is is so, does it not deserve mention? I think it does. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've also read Chernow's Hamilton, though I don't have a copy in hand at this moment; if you happen to have the Chernow quote and page number, then I can add it. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Fond of Witherspoon and too weak to travel after graduation, Madison had lingered in Princeton for a year to study privately with "the old Doctor." When Madison finally returned to Virginia in the spring of 1772, he was still so debilitated from his intense studies that he feared for his health." (Chernow 2004, p. 48) The quote is not as specific as I remembered, I would look for more detail in a Madison biography. If it gets a mention, however passing, in a biography of another founder, it seems important enough to warrant inclusion here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Chernow often give his citations at the end of his book by page numbers, rather than by citation footnote numbers; did he give a citation at the end of his book for where he got this information? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is cited to Ketcham p. 38. The second has no citation after it. Again, look in a biography of Madison. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• We haven't even started talking about the Revolution yet, so why are we jumping ahead to what Madison did after the war in preparation for the Convention? Stay focused and leave that stuff for later. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• The section goes up to 1773, and the next section effectively starts with 1774 at the start of the Revolution and just prior to the Declaration. Where is that comment about the subsequent 'Convention' you refer to? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Right here: "Following the Revolutionary War, Madison spent time at Montpelier in Virginia studying ancient democracies of the world in preparation for the Constitutional Convention." Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Good section overall. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

American Revolution and Articles of Confederation

• Why are we talking about an act that was passed in 1786 here? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Its meant to talk about the events leading up to the act eventually passed in 1786. I'll look at the wording there. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
• Article chronology does not mention 1786 until the following section; am I missing the reference you are referring to in 1786. This section is intended to get from the Declaration of Independence up to the Second Constitutional Convention; I do see '1786' mentioned at the start of the next section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Was the Church of England disestablished in Virginia? The text doesn't say for some reason. Did Madison take any active role in helping to make that happen? It's not clear here that he did, and if he didn't, why are we talking about it? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Disestablishment has a longer history, though "Madison participated in the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777, contributing to the discussion of religious freedom affecting the drafting of the Articles...". Madison earns his place in public debate at the Articles convention due to his comments on religion. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Historically, legislation was passed in the British Parliament (the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786) to allow bishops to be consecrated for an American church outside of allegiance to the British Crown (since no dioceses had ever been established in the former American colonies)." We're talking about an act that was enacted in 1786 and the colonies being "former" way before we have reached that point in the chronology. I see where the disestablishment is mentioned in the next section, but that makes me ask, why are we talking about it here? The whole second half of the first paragraph in this section needs to be moved to the next section. It's awkward and out of place here, and ends inconclusively without mentioning anything that Madison did. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to reflect that this was an on-going debate which only eventually became law afterwards. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't like it. "Historically, on-going debate and eventual legislation was passed" makes no sense. How can on-going debate be passed? And my central problem-that we devote several sentences to talking about something but leave it unclear as to whether Madison had any impact-has not been remedied. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1774, Madison took a seat on the local Committee of Safety, a pro-revolution group that oversaw the local Patriot militia." I would specify the region or town here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Back at Montpelier after Princeton. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The way that you worded that sentence is very awkward. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It still is: "In 1774, Madison took a seat on the local Committee of Safety after returning to Montpelier, a pro-revolution group that oversaw the local Patriot militia." Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• What did Madison do to earn a living between returning to Montpelier in 1772 and holding office during the revolution? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Estate management at Montpelier was in the hands of his sibling Ambrose who helped manage Montpelier for both his father (died 1801) and older brother until his own death in 1793. James was free to pursue and continue legal studies circa 1772. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Did he earn any money doing that? Did he just live off his family? Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

He was not employed at the time if that is what you are asking. I'm not sure that as a student from a wealthy family that much more was expected of him by his family during his student years. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• In what sense did he become a close ally of Jefferson? Given in particular the lengthy partnership that would endure between those two men and the great impact that it would have on the course of American history, surely the subject of what they had in common in this early stage should be explored, if only in a few brief words. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• There is more in the article about the close relation in the Ratification section, and in the Jefferson presidency section. Madison ended up closer to Jefferson even than to Washington. Are the comments in the subsequent sections sufficient, or, add another comment here? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to add another comment here if you're going to mention the relationship here. This sentence refers to Jefferson as governor, which he was not during the ratification of the Constitution. Whatever you're saying about their relationship there cannot be the same as what you're saying about it here. This is the same problem as with the health and disestablishment on religion issues. You can't expect people to hop back and forth around the article and still follow what you're saying. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I could speak to the issue of both men being from Virginia and having a long history as a result of that. Historically, their positions were aligned quite early, and went through successes and some set-backs over the years. These successes and set-backs were only clarified as the historical events took place and are covered in the article. I think its important to note, however, that we today have something like full hindsight of their life-long relationship and that with some certainty historians looks at the life-long successes and outnumbering the more limited number of setbacks. That seem reasonable to assume, possibly it can be added to the article in some way which you can share your thoughts upon here. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a simple question that you seem to be overcomplicating: How, specifically, did Madison align himself with Jefferson as governor? Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Other amendments by the committee and the entire Convention included the addition of a section on the right to a uniform government (Section 14)." Did Madison have any involvement with this project? Why is there a section number given here and nowhere else? I don't think that including section numbers is very important. I recommend deleting. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Looks better without specific designation. Madison participated in the draft of more articles than were eventually accepted; he debated to keep many of them though did not win all the debates. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If he affected the outcome of something, that needs to be discussed in the article. Also, it's not clear what committee is being referred to here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Virginia constitutional convention came before the convention for the drafting of the national Articles of Confederation, a year before the national convention took place. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with what I was saying. Again, did Madison have any noteworthy involvement with the project that I quoted above? What exactly is a "uniform government?" "Other amendments by the committee" What committee? Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I will delay making further comments for now until ErnestKrause can respond to what I have already written, but I just noticed that Madison is described as a diplomat in the opening sentence. Why? He was never an ambassador. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm just starting in today and it might a few days for these; I'll look forward to more of your comments. Regarding your very last comment, Madison was secretary of state, normally seen by many as a largely diplomatic post. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that the Secretary of State overseas diplomatic policies, Oxford defines a diplomat specifically as someone who represents a country abroad, which Madison never did at any point during his life. But I've checked other articles on secretaries of state who, like Madison, never held an ambassador post, and some of them use the term as well, and Merriam-Webster's definition of the word is more broad. I'll overlook it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's up to date I think, and the clean-up of the references I'll keep looking at as well. Ready for your further comments on the other sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello ErnestKrause. You are not yet up to date with all of my comments. You do not appear to have made any attempt to implement my last two comments in the "Bibliography" section. To many of my other comments, you left a number of responses that seemed off-topic or confused, and you often did not do what I was asking you to do. I would appreciate you taking another look through everything here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Bibliography section and the citation refinements which you mentioned, is it possible for you to look at some of this? I'm editing mostly from a 13-inch laptop which is very small for doing detailed citation refinements. If you could convert the Bibliography to a consistent format, then you could choose either sfn or Harvard, whichever one is preferable for you, and I'll try to support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing that. In fact, I think I'm done here. Goodbye. Display name 99 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Why prefer biased primary source wording?

BRD dispute by Freoh regarding revert made by Dhtwiki on 4 Dec

A recent edit by @Dhtwiki changed some wording that seems to strongly favor Madison's own views, in violation of WP:VOICE. The edit talks about majority factions only as "factions" or "tyrannical majority" and talks about their "corrupting effect." The justification given is that this wording is "according to source," which seems to violate WP:PSTS. Why are we restricting ourselves to Madison's own views in the name of "a balanced or consensus work"? Freoh (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You were quoting a "controversial study", according to the blurb at the worldcat page. How is that study less likely to be biased? Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Anything about politics is going to be controversial. I was citing a respected 20th century historian, which based on WP:PST and WP:RSAGE should be preferred over an 18th century primary source. Freoh (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You were citing an avowed iconoclast, as well as a scholar with definite left-wing views. Was he a notable expert on Madison? The lengthy quote seemed to be undue. If Zinn's point of view is to be incorporated into this article, I think it merits some discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You were citing an avowed iconoclast, as well as a scholar with definite left-wing views.

You were citing the subject of the article, as well as a scholar with definite right-wing views. Zinn is not a notable expert on Madison in particular, but I think this section was more reliably sourced before you changed it to cite only a primary source. Do you have a notable expert in mind? Feel free to cite them instead. Freoh (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't citing anyone. I was reverting to the status quo because I disagreed with your changes. I took a look at the bibliography in Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which is the most recent I have. It didn't see Zinn mentioned, although I only perused certain parts. Lance Banning's The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic is named in the "Constitution" section as "the most exhaustive account" of Madison. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edit made it so the only source cited regarding Madison's views on majority factions was Madison himself. If you have a secondary source that you think would be appropriate to cite here, I'd like to see your proposed change. Freoh (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a change; I'm objecting to your changes, which seem unreasonable. It's on you (see WP:BURDEN) to propose changes that others can agree to, not on others to propose changes because you find the article deficient. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong to point to WP:BURDEN, as that involves citing, which Freoh has not been lacking in doing, although the burden is still on their making the case and gaining consensus here. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The lengthy quote seemed to be undue.

It was part of the citation because I wanted to make it easier for people to see the cited content without having to find a copy of the book, but I'm happy to replace it with a page number if you'd prefer. I don't understand why a citation including a quote is justification for removing the whole citation. Freoh (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that providing quotes from offline sources can be helpful; but since I disagreed with what you were inserting, I found it undue and that undoing it was the best solution. Also, remember that this article is a featured article candidate and seems to be getting support. It must have been already well edited to have gotten that far. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nick-D and Hog Farm: New editor User:Freoh (with a total of 220 edits in his account) appears to feel that your pre-FAC comments did not lead to an 'already well edited' article, and he is presently reverting against 3 editors here on the Talk page for the Madison article. All 3 editors Jtbobsaysf, Dhtwiki and myself have asked him to revert but Freoh appears to be fixated on adding his Zinn material into the article without support. Was this an oversight in the pre-FAC review by Nick-D and Hog Farm about Zinn or should all of Freoh's edits be rolled back; he currently has no support on this Talk page for any of his edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Freoh appears to be fixated on adding his Zinn material into the article without support.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. I thought that you'd given me the go-ahead. Freoh (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Remember that consensus can change. Freoh (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Madison's article will likely contain the article subject's views. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the article can contain Madison's views, but it should be written from a neutral point of view. The WP:VOICE guidelines forbid stating opinions as facts. Freoh (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Both Dhtwiki and Jtb appear to be in agreement on this edit. After reading through it, there appears to be a better article to match the concern which you appear to be presenting which can be addressed on the Wikipedia page for Federalist No. 10, which discusses majoritarianism and factions at both the time of Madison and in later received opinion. Possibly you can add your edit there. For now both of these editors are in agreement and I'm restoring the version of the Madison article without the tags. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, please see the instructions at Template:POV section#When to remove. I have re-added the maintenance templates because the WP:NPOV concerns have not been addressed:

• This section uses judgmental language in violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Majority factions are referred to only as factions and a tyrannical majority, and their influence is described as dangers and a corrupting effect.
• It is overly reliant on primary sources, in violation of WP:PST.
• In general, it seems biased in favor of Madison. Madison explains, which is cautioned against in MOS:SAID. I'd argue that the weight given to the positive effects of Madison's ideology is WP:UNDUE, and it could be more balanced.

I was satisfied with this section before the edit, but I'm open to compromise, as long as these concerns are taken into account. Freoh (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@General Ization, Jtbobwaysf, and Dhtwiki:: User:Freoh is apparently edit warring against Wikipedia policy on this page. His edit was reverted under BRD because he has no support for his edit, and because all three editors Jtbobwaysf, Dhtwiki and myself are in agreement that his wanting to force his edit into the article is undue. Could you comment of this situation, which appears to be a repeat of his other edit warring notifications which you (General Ization and Jtb) have made on his Talk page previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, I'd recommend you read WP:INAPPNOTE. It seems that you invited @General Ization to this discussion because of a months-ago disagreement with me, and your invitation is not neutrally worded. Freoh (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

his wanting to force his edit into the article

I am not attempting to force my edit. I am trying to reach a compromise that addresses my concerns. Freoh (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August. If you believe this is a behavioral issue that violates one or more policies, WP:ANI or WP:EWN may be appropriate places to seek assistance. General Ization ^Talk 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Freoh is also edit warring on other articles and probably ends up at ANI shortly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's go slow on taking this to one of the noticeboards. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

He was been edit warring and serially tag bombing the article for 4-5 days now; when you reverted him on 4 Dec for his edit on 3 Dec, then he needed to go to Talk page for discussion under BRD. Instead, he has used the 'politeness to new users' policy to make nearly 13-14 violation against Wikipedia policy for BRD. Once you reverted him on 4 Dec, he needed to start Talk page for which he still has no support. Are you suggesting another 4-5 days of "politeness to new editors" as the most appropriate approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

My reversion was based on taking issue with what seemed POV-pushing, especially in using pointed language ("slave owner" rather than "planter") and an undue addition from Zinn's point of view. However, Freoh has made further objections that may have some merit. I was going to let editors more well versed in the literature decide those issues, especially those active in promoting the article to FA status, of which you seem to one. If Freoh seems to be an otherwise intractable editor, then noticeboards may be the only solution, although patient argument here might still be the solution. I'm not going to stop anyone from taking raise this at the appropriate board. It's just that I think it should only be a last resort. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC))

Given that nobody has proposed a solution to these problems, I'll make my own proposal that addresses the opposition people have about citing Howard Zinn. I propose that we return this section to the way it was before the edit by @Dhtwiki, with an additional reference to Feldman 2017, p. 210. Freoh (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If you could restore the edit to the one you refer to just now with Feldman, 2017, pages=208–209, then that appears to be what Dhtwiki is requesting along with Jtbobways. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But aren't pages 208-209 about Federalist 51 and the balance of powers? My proposal was about content earlier in the paragraph, about Federalist 10 and majority factions, which Feldman discusses on page 210. Freoh (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the update to Feldman, page 210, would likely work for the request made by Dhtwiki and Jtbobways for you to restore the edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, made the change. Freoh (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be expanding your edit again to get your Zinn edit into the article, which you have no support for on this Talk page. You have just stated that you would restore the article to this edit which does not include the Zinn edit, and is without the Zinn material. I'm suggesting that you restore the article to the version without the Zinn edit and then return to this Talk page for discussion as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I think there was a miscommunication here. I was proposing to revert it to the way it was before the edit, not after, and I was proposing an additional reference supporting the same content supported by Zinn. I am not satisfied with the version after the edit because of the reasons listed earlier in this conversation. Feel free to revert my recent changes and discuss further here. Freoh (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been asked to keep all of your comments on this Talk page, and not to put them elsewhere such as on my Talk page over and over again. Keep all your comments in one place, here on the Madison Talk page so that all editors participating here can see what you are commenting on. If you are serious about your last offer above to restore the previous version, then it would be useful for you to stop editing the article before consensus for your edits is reached on this Talk page; three editors @Jtbobwaysf and Dhtwiki: and myself have asked for you to stop your edits. You would made things easier for all involved if you could rollback all of your edits in order to give others a chance to present the Wikipedia process for altering and updating articles which are peer reviewed. Jts is apparently on the verge of reporting you for edit warring on multiple pages and your edits here on the Madison page are not helping you on this count. If you can rollback all of your edits, then the editors here can explain the Wikipedia process for editing peer reviewed articles. You currently have 150-160 edits, and there is an understanding in the Wikipedia pillars that experienced editors like Jtb and Dhtwiki will usually go out of their way to explain things if you give them a chance. May I request that you rollback your edits in order to engage these experienced editors more effectively on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As you requested, I just reverted my edit. I'm interested to see your proposal for this section. Freoh (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I have made attempts to notify Freoh on his peronsal talk page of policy violations as well as explain on a case by case basis on these article talk pages. I am only here on this talk page as I noticed policy violations by Freoh on other talk pages and came here to have a look if the pattern of TE was continuing (it is in my opinion). Freoh is conducting WP:SEALION across a multitude of articles including this one and the only reason I have held off on a report is due to WP:BITE. As Ernest stated Freoh should leave their comments on the article talk pages, rather than on personal talk pages. If Freoh cannot find consensus to make changes, then the content stays as it is. This practice of pushing a WP:FRINGE POV (whatever it may be) through WP:TE must stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made attempts to notify Freoh on his peronsal talk page

As Ernest stated Freoh should leave their comments on the article talk pages, rather than on personal talk pages.

I'm confused by these comments. Where would you prefer editors leave comments about each other's behavior? Freoh (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This practice of pushing a WP:FRINGE POV (whatever it may be)

I guess my biggest question here is this: what's "fringe" here? My edit was supported by more than one reliable source, and the current version is supported only by Madison himself. Freoh (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This response is WP:SEALION. Fringe is that Dht has already responded to you above in the very start of this section relating to this iconoclast source and you then you admitted "Zinn is not a notable expert on Madison" and are still going on about someone else should propose a source because they didnt agree to your addition. Adding the templates to my talk page (while a bit absurd) is fine, and its good and appropriate that you continue to discuss this Madison content on this talk page (rather than mine). +1 there. Back to the crux, adding a long and undue quote to an article (from a source you admit is not an expert) doesnt require another editor to provide a counter-source to refute your addition. The burden is on you to find some content and source that is neutral and agreeable to the other editors. All of this has been explained to you above (and on other talk pages) and you continue to WP:BLUDGEON about your views, please WP:LISTEN. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Add Feldman as non-primary source for Fed. #10; remove citation tag. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause, I think this part is improved by your addition of a secondary source, but it still doesn't seem neutral enough to me.

• The language is still judgmental. You refer to majority factions as a tyrannical majority, and you describe their influence as a danger and a corrupting effect. I didn't see this language used in the text you cited except for the word "danger" in a Madison quote, so this seems like original research.
• You removed an aspect that I think deserves due weight: the way Madison used the government to favor the interests of the property-holding minority against the popular opinion of citizens.

Freoh (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring against three editors who have asked you to stop violation of Wikipedia BRD policy for your disputed edit which was reverted by Dhtwiki. I'm requesting again that you stop edit warring on the article and ask you to remove your 13-14 edits made in violation of Wikipedia policy for BRD since 4 Dec. You have no support for your edit on this Talk page and three editors have asked you to stop edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 13-14 edits made in violation of Wikipedia policy. Are you asking that I get your approval before making any edits to this article? Because that seems like ownership behavior to me. Freoh (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What is considered "excessive cruelty" to slaves?

A recent edit from @Antiok 1pie added content stating that Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves. This is a very subjective statement. It's also not supported by the source, which states only that Madison avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers. This seems like a low bar not worth mentioning in the article, especially when other sources write that Madison's slaves were not "always whipped all day long" (Broadwater, Jeff (2012). "Chapter Nineteen: James Madison and the Dilemma of American Slavery". In Leibiger, Stuart (ed.). A Companion to James Madison and James Monroe.) Freoh (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

One common objective measure of a master's cruelty is how many runaway slaves they had to advertise for, in order to get them back. Those advertisements could be quite self-incriminatory, as they could contain personal descriptions that would include signs of cruelty, such as scarring (from being whipped), other deformities (from being in unsafe work environments), or signs of psychological trauma (such as having a speech impediment). I can't speak to Madison in particular, but Virginia plantation owners were noted for having adopted a paternalistic attitude towards those in bondage, an attitude lacking among more hardscrabble exploiters of such labor, who would be more likely to be found in newer territories that allowed slavery (e.g. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your WP:OR on slavery today is different from what historians are pointing out and what Dht refers to above. Comparing a good slave owner to a bad slave owner might sound strange to you, but historians are making the distinction and your objection to it is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe you that Madison wasn't as cruel as the worst slaveowners and that he viewed himself as relatively humane, but that doesn't seem enough to justify saying that he abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves. "Cruel," "humane," and "excessive" are all subjective, and we should avoid stating opinions as fact. Freoh (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What original research are you referring to? This seems like a clear cut case of a source being misrepresented.XeCyranium (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The word "excessive cruelty" could be subjective, but I see no logical reason the wording should be changed. Readers can make their own judgements on Madison and his treatment of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears "eccessive cruelty" has been removed from the article. There still is a neutrality tag on the slavey section of the article. Hopefully editors can work together and get the neutrality tag removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this article could help. Article: Princeton & Slavery James Madison Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing Removal of maintenance tags before reaching consensus

@ErnestKrause, could you please stop removing maintenance tags without reaching consensus on the talk page first? I already asked you to do so on your talk page, but you requested that I do it here instead. I find this behavior disruptive. Please see Template:POV section#When to remove for more information. Freoh (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"When to remove" says, among other things, "There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved." You are singular in some of your allegations and should not be able to hold the article hostage if there isn't consensus that the article is deficient. See, for example, WP:OVERTAGGING and other sections on that page. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Which of my edits do you feel are over-tagging? I added the inline tags because @ErnestKrause seemed unclear on where in particular the issues were, so I was trying to follow those guidelines in avoiding vague tags. Freoh (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We are all having enough of the continuing WP:SEALION on this and other articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I have no time to get deeply involved here, but I will note that Freoh is correct in saying we should not present Madison's views in Wikipedia's voice, and that the description of Federalist 10 does in fact fall into this trap, regardless of the intention of the writers. Similarly, given the text of the source presented above about "excessive cruelty", it seems clear that the intention of the source is not conveyed very precisely. Both issues can be solved by wordsmithing, and I suggest the participants here focus on doing so, instead of discussing Freoh's behavior. If the behavior is a problem, this isn't the forum to talk about it in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 If you are endorsing Freoh's last edit today then possibly you can remove the template tag which he has been serially adding to that section. Previously, even when I added a Feldman edit, he then continued to keep restoring the template tag. Still, if you can remove it then your removal of it might stick this time. The current status of the page protection has not been re-evaluated since Bongwarrior in 2012 and I'll ask if you would increase the page protection to extended protection. The article has gone through successful GAN peer review earlier this year, and it would be helpful for the article to be protected in the future from less experienced editors who only have 220 edits and keep forcing their edits into the article as Freoh has been doing. User:Jtbobsf has been preparing a report regarding Freoh's edit warring on multiple Wikipedia pages and he'll make an assessment of Noticeboard status when he signs back on today or tomorrow. Increasing the page protection level would be useful in the future for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I neither endorse nor reject the edit at the moment; I have no time to read the source. However, it is reasonable to ask Freoh to remove the tag, given that they have changed the sentence in question. EC protection isn't an option here; it's to stop active disruption from new users, and cannot be used in a content dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Could Freoh "remove the tag". ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93; There are currently 3 maintenance tags and 2 section tags which have been edited (forced) into the article by Freoh; if you could list them with the suggested changes in a 'change x to y format', then Dwtwiki and Jtsbobwaysf can make edit suggestions which you could then add into the article in whatever format you believe best for Wikipedia and remove the 5 tags added. Could you do that in order that Dhtwiki and Jtsbobwaysf can move forward on this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  The tags currently in the article are there because of two edits that I found problematic. One is described above in the section you titled #BRD dispute by Freoh regarding revert made by Dhtwiki on 4 Dec, and the other is described in section #What is considered "excessive cruelty" to slaves?. Neither issue has been resolved. The discussions above have gotten kind of long and convoluted, and I feel like I haven't heard much about why you oppose my proposed changes. I'm open to compromise, but I feel like I still don't understand your content concerns. Your comments above make me think that you don't really understand my content concerns either. Would you like me to try to summarize? Freoh (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please summarize, as you've made several edits since, some of which have stuck. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I have proposed replacing this text:

  In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by factions and argues that their negative effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He states that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their corrupting effect because no single faction can become a tyrannical majority.

  ...with this:

  In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He argues that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority, and thus it becomes easier for the government to repress popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth.

  Also, I have proposed replacing this text:

  Although Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves, to avoid criticism from peers, he worked his slaves from dawn to dusk, six days a week, allowing Sundays off for rest.

  ...with this:

  Madison worked his slaves from dawn to dusk, six days a week, allowing Sundays off for rest.

  Here are my issues with the original version:

  • The language used is too judgmental for Wikipedia's voice. It's talking very much from Madison's point of view, especially the words negative, corrupting and tyrannical. (I guess maybe I meant to tag negative instead of dangers; I think it's clearer that dangers is Madison's POV).
  • It describes who Madison was removing from power (majority factions) without describing who he was keeping in power (the minority propertied class). I think this deserves due weight, as it's covered in multiple sources and it feels like a weird omission.
  • It misrepresents the White House Historical Association source, which is already a little questionable in my eyes and states only that Madison avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers. Again, it's treating the POV of Madison and his neighbors as if it's the objective Wikipedian view.

  Freoh (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree fully with the identified issues with Wikipedia's voice. I'm not convinced about the best ways to handle the Zinn source (which you want) or the white house history source (which EK wants). I suggest the following as a compromise; include Freoh's versions of the text, minus the fragment "and thus it becomes easier for the government to repress popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth". The rest of it ought to be non-controversial. Remove the tags, and have an RfC about the inclusion of Zinn's commentary; it's a larger question, on which reasonable people may disagree. Reframe the "excessive cruelty" piece as a separate sentence, make it clear that it was specifically from the perspective of his peers, and if disagreement as to its inclusion persists, then have a second RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• All editors opposed to Freoh on this Talk page (Dhtwiki, Jtbobwaysf, XeCyranium and myself) I think would trust to Vanamonde93 to separate the wheat-from-the-chaff in Freoh's tag-bombing of the article, if she is willing to do this in order to remove the arbitrary template tags. I've followed Vanamonde's advice above to ask him to remove the template tags and Freoh has refused the request. Could you help make the edits which would remove Freoh's template tags. (He is forcing them into the article when I have removed them previously while requesting BRD). ErnestKrause (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  It seems like we're at least in agreement on the minor wording changes, so I went ahead and changed them and removed the in-line tags. I replaced argues with theorizes to avoid repetition and because I felt like states was less informative, hope that's okay. Freoh (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The first suggested change is tacking on Zinn's point of view to a paragraph that is obviously quoting or paraphrasing Madison, i.e. "In it..." So, we shouldn't think that it's to be taken as being in Wikipedia's voice.

The second change leaves a bare statement of Madison's work requirements that makes them seem unusual when they weren't. Even the original indicates that Madison might have been a cruel master if not constrained by social mores, while at the same time indicating that such constraints did exist. The White House site gives evidence that Madison was an enlightened master: by Madison's secretary freeing his own slaves and Madison suggesting in his will that slave families not be separated if sold. A change that I suggest would be to place the WH citation after "...to avoid criticism from peers...", as that is supported at the WH site, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A change that I suggest would be to place the WH citation after "...to avoid criticism from peers..."

Could I see the full text of your proposal? I want it to be clear that the idea that Madison was not excessive is a minority POV, not the consensus of historians. Freoh (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I now wouldn't have any change, as it's the White House reference that supports the entire sentence and the Feldman reference, which I haven't seen, that supports only part. I had the two mixed up. If the White House reference talks of Madison's abstaining from cruelty, that is unlikely to be a minority position on the part of historians. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the White House source supports the entire sentence. The problem is that cruelty is subjective. Historians can agree that Madison whipped his slaves only sometimes, but we still shouldn't say that Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves in wikivoice, because the idea that his actions were not excessive is only an opinion of a minority of white slave owners. Freoh (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enslaved people worked from dawn to dusk, six days a week, with the customary Sunday off. Madison maintained control, but avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers. That's verbatim from the White House site. It's so close to what's in the article, with elements somewhat reversed, that I think what we have here might be a copyright violation. If cruelty is subjective, why try to estimate it at all? Madison himself probably didn't whip his slaves. A demanding owner might have caused whippings by an overseer, but Madison was known for running his farm in the red. Early biographies of Madison mentioned by my Britannica are by John Quincy, and Henry, Adams, who couldn't be counted on to be apologists for slave owners. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be okay with this proposal, though I agree it might be better if it was worded a bit differently from the source. Freoh (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove the tags, and have an RfC about the inclusion of Zinn's commentary

Aren't the tags supposed to stay until the dispute is resolved? Freoh (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Disputes aren't always resolved to the satisfaction of all parties; indeed, I'd say it's rare. If the lot of you aren't able to compromise on a text, an RfC is the logical next step, and its outcome will be something all parties will be beholden to. So if you'd not like to have your hands tied that way, I suggest offering compromise. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to compromise, and I'm not attached to the Zinn citation in particular. I felt like that controversial clause was also supported by the Feldman citation on page 210:

Finally, Madison shifted to protection of the property-holding minority against the majority. A hereditary monarch could protect minority rights but might side with the majority or turn against all the citizens. As in Federalist No. 10, enlargement was the answer. "The society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from the interested combinations of the majority."

I don't care if we cite Zinn or use his wording, but I do think it's relevant to note which minority Madison was siding with when he opposed the "tyrannical" majority. It's something that multiple historians have written about, and I fear that the current text might be misleading for modern audiences. A lot of modern dialogue about minorities concerns those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy, so it seems worth part of a sentence to clarify that the minority Madison was concerned with was the minority at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy -- that is, the propertied classes. Freoh (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at compromise. Hopefully this version addresses @Dhtwiki's concerns about priority being given to Zinn's point of view. I changed it to past tense because I think it flows better with the rest of the content that way.

Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. Madison described the dangers posed by majority factions and argued that their effects could be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorized that in large republics the large number of factions that emerged would control their influence because no single faction could become a majority. Madison feared an "overbearing majority" in part because of the threat it could face to the minority class of property owners. In Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, would establish a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one institution would become too powerful.

Freoh (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 18:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC))

Where does this imputing that Madison's intent was to protect property owners come from? Madison was a Francophile and a Jeffersonian, as well as reputedly being in favor of emancipation (his reluctance to free slaves born of his concern that, being free, they wouldn't necessarily thrive), which indicates that he was unlikely to be in the corner of protecting the wealthy. But I'll leave it to those better versed in the modern literature to determine whether Madison's fear was of a threat to the monied elite, although I don't think that's a fair assumption to make without concrete evidence. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does this imputing that Madison's intent was to protect property owners come from?

I added the relevant quote from the Feldman citation. Does that answer your question? Freoh (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that you're on firm ground when you say that Madison was concerned about property rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean for a tiny minority of the super wealthy. Middlekauff writes:

[Madison] hated paper money and feared the wild schemes of debtors, and most of all he feared majority tyranny and its sometime offspring, anarchy. But Madison loved political liberty[...] he believed that political liberty could survive in a republic only if the people were faithfully represented. Ignored or frustrated, they would continue what they were doing when the [Consititutional] Convention was called—invade the rights of property.

Looking at the Feldman quote, the question remains is when and why had he "shifted" and what sorts of "minority" and "majority" are we talking about. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on your problem with my proposal. My text doesn't say a tiny minority of the super wealthy, but rather the minority class of property owners. I don't think that this is controversial, and multiple historians have commented on it, so it seems like it deserves due weight. Feel free to look into when and why had he "shifted" and what sorts of "minority" and "majority" are we talking about, but I don't see how my text is incomplete without these details. I interpret your quote as supporting the idea that Madison sided with creditors over debtors, though it doesn't state it quite that explicitly. Freoh (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

When originally reverted, you had written "...and thus it becomes easier for the government to repress popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth." Your compromise proposal above reads, "Madison feared an 'overbearing majority' in part because of the threat it could face to the minority class of property owners." Madison's concern for an invasion of "the rights of property", as Middlekauff puts it, doesn't necessarily mean he's protecting "those monopolizing the society's wealth" or even a "minority class of property owners", as likely most people have some kind of property and want it protected. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that your quote doesn't explicitly support my text, and I don't think it's worth citing for my text. But I also don't think that it contradicts my text, and I still don't see what's wrong with my text as-is, given that it's supported by reliable sources. Freoh (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Middlekauff seems to be quoting Irving Brant, who published much on Madison. His six-volume study of Madison is not recent (1941–1961) and not used in the article, AFAICT, but must be considered still valid, as well as much of it apparently being online. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: I'm not seeing anyone else being willing to accept a compromise I'd write, and I haven't the time for extensive negotiations. I'm also concerned that most editors here are uninterested in finding a middle ground. An RfC might be your best option at this point. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I'm recalling that all of this may already have been fully covered back in April 2022 when the James Madison and slavery sibling article was split from the main biography article due to page size discussions at that time. In other words, there is already a full article on this subject and if the pertinent issue is that you might like to refactor several of the sibling article sentences back into the main article in order to remove the 5 citation tags (2 section tags, and 3 reference tags) then that seems perfectly reasonable to do. You can identify which, say, 2-3 sentences you would like to be refactored into the article here for discussion, or you could just refactor them back into the main article itself. Since the article on Madison and slavery is already written as a previously split sibling article, then it might make sense to make the best use of it. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like Dhtwiki and I have been converging toward solutions we're both happy with, but I'm interested to hear what others have to say. Freoh (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, the formatting of the replies above seems to have gotten a bit messed up, so I'll reply to your most recent comment here. Which 5 tags are you referring to? I only see 3, but I could be missing some. Dhtwiki and I have been discussing these issues here in the talk page, and you're welcome to join in. Would you like me to reiterate the current text change proposals? Freoh (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, based on comments you've made elsewhere, it sounds like you'd like the proposed changes to be reiterated. I'll format them into a table:

Proposed changes

Current	Proposal
Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorizes that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority. In Federalist No. 51, he goes on to explain how the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, establishes a system of checks and balances that ensures that no one institution would become too powerful.	Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. Madison described the dangers posed by majority factions and argued that their effects could be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorized that in large republics the large number of factions that emerged would control their influence because no single faction could become a majority. Madison feared an "overbearing majority" in part because of the threat it could face to the minority class of property owners. In Federalist No. 51, he argued that the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, would establish a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one institution would become too powerful.
Although Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves, to avoid criticism from peers, he worked his slaves from dawn to dusk, six days a week, allowing Sundays off for rest.	Enslaved people worked from dawn to dusk, six days a week, with the customary Sunday off. Madison maintained control, but avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers.

Both of these proposals address my bias concerns. (I still only see two section tags and one inline tag, not 3 reference tags.) For the first proposal, I'm not sure if Dhtwiki still has objections. For the second proposal, I think we're both satisfied with the NPOV, though we're both unsure about the copyright status. Any thoughts? Freoh (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC))

ErnestKrause, your comments elsewhere indicate to me that you are okay with these changes. Can I go ahead and add them? Have we reached a consensus? Are there any objections? Freoh (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see ErnestKrause agreeing with your edits, just that he's saying that I "...seem to only one left to be able to communicate to him." That is not full-throated support for your changes.

The first proposed change adds "Madison feared an 'overbearing majority' in part because of the threat it could face to the minority class of property owners." I question that because "minority class" isn't implied in my reading of Middlekauff. Madison could well have been worried about regular settlement of the northwest territories, and thus an expansion of property ownership, when concerned about people invading "the rights of property". I also don't see Zinn as a fair witness. I don't know Feldman, but he also dubiously talks of protecting minority interests. Zinn and Feldman sound to me like they're trying to blame the bad slave owner for writing the present-day wealth imbalance into the constitution.

The second change doesn't improve a sentence that is already doubtful. The "Current" version could imply that Madison could barely be restrained, by his neighbors, from being cruel to his slaves. The "Proposal" doesn't solve my objection to the original but also adds the wordy "Enslaved people" (which speciously, IMO, is supposed to add dignity to that condition, but takes away the ability to distinguish those originally enslaved from those born to that condition), as well as the mystifying "...maintained control..." Maintained control how? Slaves and land had to sold to pay off debts. That doesn't sound like a plantation owner maintaining control.

In any case, you'll need positive agreement here before adding anything. People are tiring of dealing with this. Other editors are not engaging with this discussion because it is endless, I have to suppose. On the whole, you are not suggesting appropriate solutions to real deficiencies, and this can be seen as a big waste of time. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I question that because "minority class" isn't implied in my reading of Middlekauff. Madison could well have been worried about regular settlement of the northwest territories, and thus an expansion of property ownership, when concerned about people invading "the rights of property".

Is this your original research? I believe you that Middlekauff focuses on different aspects of Madison's career than other historians, but that doesn't make this content undue. Why don't you see Zinn as a fair witness? What is dubious about Feldman? If he's not a reliable source, then a lot of this article needs to be rewritten.

As for the bit about how Madison maintained control over enslaved people, you were the one who originally suggested that wording, so I don't think it's fair for you to pin the big waste of time on me. XeCyranium has also commented that the current version misrepresents the source. Freoh (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern for a "minority class" just isn't in Middlekauff. It's not mentioned. So, implication by omission is not quite original research. Zinn thinks that "we all have an enormous responsibility to [cause people] to rethink long-held ideas." Thus, he's an iconoclast and not necessarily interested in a well balanced approach. Feldman's similar assertion needs to be explained. What minority class was there to defend, and could it be defended? The country was being opened up, and even if property (i.e. land, although there are all sorts of property) were held by a minority it would be an expanded minority. I think talking about a minority without qualification is apt to be misleading. That's not to say that Zinn and Feldman aren't reliable sources, but they won't necessarily reflect published consensus in everything they write.

I quoted the White House site to allay your doubt that it didn't support the text for which it was given as a reference. I wasn't recommending it beyond that. I have to assume that "maintained control" had to do with maintaining discipline among his workers, although that part isn't quite clear. And, yes, this discussion is taking up a lot of time. I don't see your changes gaining a lot of traction. The templates you've placed need to be resolved before the article can gain FA status. It's time to wind it up. How do we do that? Dhtwiki (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you that implication by omission is not quite original research. Actually, both of these issues seem to me like questions of original research. I don't think that we should reject information that multiple experts found significant just because another expert didn't mention it, and I don't think that we should state that Madison was not cruel just because sources say he was relatively humane for an enslaver. Maybe it would be best to ask the original research noticeboard for an outside opinion? I've never used it before, but it seems like an appropriate place to get a fresh set of eyes. Freoh (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I've removed the tagged sentence in the Slavery section now based on comments from Hawkeye7, and I'm not finding any citations tags in the Ratification section at this time though it has been section tagged apparently residually. If you could confirm this and remove the section tag from that Ratification section which is currently left in the article then the other edits can continue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, thanks for that change, I hope Dhtwiki is okay with it. There's still one issue remaining: we're discussing Madison's opposition to the majority without specifying which minority he's protecting. ErnestKrause, what is your opinion on my proposed change in the table above? You're clearly eager to remove the tag, and the change above addresses my concerns, but I haven't heard your objections. Freoh (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that if the disagreement is over which minority class Madison was referring to, that you examine other recent scholarly sources that look at that essay. Two sources aren't going to lead to an agreement, and original research isn't admissible in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay Vanamonde93, I've edited the proposal to add a third reference from 2017. It seems like more than that would be overkill. Freoh (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Three references (or two, or one) is fine in the article. I suggest finding more to resolve the dispute, so you can see where the balance of opinion lies. You needn't cite them all. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Freoh: My ramblings were somewhat to serve to suggest how Madison might have thought about property rights, but I think it's fair to say that it's telling that Middlekauff doesn't make the connection that Zinn and Feldman do. In short, I'm saying !A -> !A, not A + B -> C. Absent someone showing how Madison was primarily concerned for minority property rights, rather than minority rights in general, a safeguard that has been extolled throughout the nation's history, I'm not sure that Zinn and Feldman aren't also basing their conclusions on original research. What is this love of noticeboards? I probably should report Zinn and Feldman, if they don't somehow show their work. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that Zinn, Feldman, Walton, Smith, and Wallace are basing their conclusions on original research. They're experts, and that's their job. We now have three sources saying pretty much the exact same thing, and nothing contradicting it. The only argument against including it is your implication by omission, and if you're going to continue arguing that this is not original research, then this sounds like a more fundamental disagreement that the experts at WP:NOR/N might be able to help us clarify. Freoh (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I've rewritten that section left by a previous editor and expanded with 2 sentences with 2 new sources I've added to the Cite list. If it looks improved, then you could delete the cite tag after you have a chance to confirm the updates. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have that authority, EK, not unless the tag is disruptive. I appreciate the re-wording, but I see it's not directly relevant to the contentious sentence. Also: I offer no opinion on the current or proposed text, but Freoh is quite correct that scholarly sources are expected to be doing original research, and we're expected to use scholarly sources that do original research; that is their purpose. It is OR by Wikipedia editors that is prohibited. Scholarly reliability is examined based on other metrics, such as the reputation of the scholar and the publisher, and the extent to which their views are shared among other sources. Which is why I suggest you look for other sources examining this issue, and see what they say. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I am looking for what research proves Madison's concern for minority rights stems from his being primarily concerned for minority property rights. Is it from something he's written? If that is made explicit, it would go a long way toward validating that contention? Such proof would not have to be in the article. Also, some confirmation from a source given by another editor, and their support for Freoh's point of view, would be helpful here. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: In reference to your comment that you may act only in the presence of edit disruption, then there appears to be a disruption with Freoh not providing the type of support for his edits which was expected when you extended a protective wing for him to be free of needing to follow BRD. Although everyone here believes that your sysops insights are fully trustworthy here and that you may bring in any edits into the article which you believe will be a benefit to it, then it appears that Freoh has not met the level of trust you have placed into his account by allowing him to continue editing without following BRD. Dhtwiki reverted him 2 weeks ago, and Freoh should have been required to establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to any further edits. When Jtbobwaysf reported it to noticeboard, then no-one at sysops would action the violation because it seems apparent that you, as a fully trusted sysops editor, had extended a protective wing to allow Freoh to continue editing without following BRD rules, which everyone else on this talk page is required to follow. I'm stating this because Freoh has not come through on his edit promises of supporting his edits, and appears to have simply returned to what appears to be his fixation of "Howard Zinn"-related editing, which he himself had previously withdrawn in discussion with Dhtwiki. Now Freoh has come full circle and is again requiring the "Howard Zinn"-related edit to be added into the article in his edit format request of change "X into Y".

Regarding your question on the correct interpretation of Federalist No. 10, then there is no mention of Freoh’s approach in any of the sources I’ve just added last week (Gustafson and Manweller, which were reverted again by Freoh) or anywhere in Feldman concerning the odd interpretation of Federalist No. 10 by Freoh; the main concern of Madison there was with the fairness of government to not favor majorities arbitrarily over justifiable minority issues discussed in a general framework of government principles. Freoh appears to be opposed to all 3 sources I've put forward and seems again to be editing based on his fixation for "Howard Zinn"-related edits. Everyone trusted Vanamonde to make the right decision, and if she wanted to give Freoh a chance to edit without following BRD, then there should be some fixed time frame for Freoh to come through on his edit promises. Freoh has not delivered on his promise to provide new sources to counter the 3 sources which I've just presented and he still has no support for his edits on this Talk page. Since he has been given over two weeks to find support, then he appears to have failed. Freoh currently has no support, with multiple editors on this Talk page now who oppose him and his desire to want to write an POV “enslaver” article for Madison just because he wants it that way for personal reasons. I'm requesting that Vanamonde remove her protective wing which gives Freoh edit privileges to ignore BRD, and now allow Dhtwiki to revert him under BRD which would require Freoh to keep his edits on the Talk page until he makes consensus for his edits. Vanamonde has trusted Freoh for over two weeks now and he appears to have failed to come through on his promises to provide convincing new sources for his edits. No-one at sysops appears to want to action any noticeboard requests, such as the one from Jtbobwaysf, when it is plain that Vanamonde is extending a protective wing to Freoh and his "Howard Zinn"-related edits. Freoh has not come through on his edit promises to you and you have given him more that ample time within which to make his case. He has no support on this Talk page for his edits. My request is to allow Dhtwiki to make his BRD reverts to remove the edits and tags for which Freoh has not established any agreement on this Talk page. Otherwise Vanamonde may bring in any edits into the Madison article which she see as useful which I'm sure that all editors will accept based on the high level of trust for Vanamonde's editing experience at Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause, I'd recommend you focus on content and avoid walls of text. Are you saying that Howard Zinn is not a reliable source? Could you point me to a more specific page number that contradicts my proposed text? Freoh (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't given Freoh an exemption from BRD, and I lack the authority to do so. I have been trying to moderate this dispute to the best of my abilities, so that it may be resolved, and your FAC, ErnestKrause, that you wanted assistance with, may move forward. If you no longer want my presence here, I'm happy to move on and leave you to it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a fourth reference:

Second, a majority may set aside the rule of law under the sway of a standing interest or a momentary passion. This was Madison's main worry. "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger." This distinction between interest and passion is crucial. If the poor or relatively propertyless form a majority, their interest might induce them to enact laws that are contrary to the rights of property, by creating paper money, legislating debtor relief and so on.
— The Politics of Human Rights. p. 124. ISBN 9781859843734.

Freoh (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Slave" is a noun. "Enslaved" is an adjective. That's the reason to switch. "Enslaved person" is a more complete, accurate communication than "slave". Once that has been pointed out, continuing to cling to the old de-humanizing language is not neutral. Joined today just to point this out. Seattle Science Teacher (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I boldly made some additions: Along with several new sources, I added the fact that Madison tried to protect the minority rights of property owners, but also that protecting property owners wasn't his only concern. I didn't use the Howard Zinn source, since there are better sources out there, which make similar points in a more neutral way. Hopefully, this works for most editors so the POV template finally gets removed. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I made some changes and removed the tags. I think we need to be careful about describing Madison supporting minority rights without qualification. Freoh (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Madison is described by several 20th-/21st-century reliable sources as supporting "minority rights" (excl. the ones which I've already cited in the article, see: [1], [2], [3]). Although Madison's concept of "minority rights" probably didn't include racial minorities, use of the term in Madisonian context seems pretty common so I see no reason for us to not use it in the article. I also object to the use of wikilinks for "propertied" and "propertyless", since they redirect to the bourgeoisie and proletariat articles respectively, implying that Madison sought to protect the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Excluding the fact that these terms are politically charged: 1) not all proletariat were propertyless and 2) according to Madison, To ensure that majorities would not threaten property rights, it was necessary (and perhaps sufficient) that a majority of citizens owned property. As property owners, they would have an interest in protecting—not invading—the rights of property [4]. The quote shows that Madison's concerns regarding property rights had nothing to do with bourgeoisie/proletariat or anything of the sort. As such, the wikilinks are inappropriate. Antiok 1pie (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, could you explain your reversion? Calling the text unpalatable is not constructive on its own. Freoh (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I "just don't like it", it's edit warring at the article, which this page is meant to avoid. "Unpalatable" was just my way of expressing what I saw as a lack of balance after your edit. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Antiok 1pie, I'm okay dropping those two wikilinks, though one of the main distinctions between bourgeoisie and proletariat is control of property, and I don't agree with your interpretation of that quote.

I think it's misleading to talk about minority rights without qualification, especially because the first sentence of that article describes racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or gender and sexual minorities, most of which Madison acted against. I'll propose this as a compromise:

Current

Proposal

Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorizes that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority. In Federalist No. 51, he goes on to explain how the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, establishes a system of checks and balances that ensures that no one institution would become too powerful.

Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorizes that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority. Since no single faction could dominate, minority factions would be safe. More generally, Madison believed that an "overbearing majority" could threaten individual rights. He especially feared that, in the future, a propertied minority could become vulnerable against to a propertyless majority and, as such, he sought to protect the former by strengthening the constitutional guarantees of property. Madison's concern advocacy for minority rights extended to religious minorities as well, but not all racial minorities. In Federalist No. 51, he goes on to explain how the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, establishes a system of checks and balances that ensures that no one institution would become too powerful.

     — Freoh 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC); 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC); 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC))

Dhtwiki, you mentioned a lack of balance above. Does this compromise satisfy you? Freoh (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this proposal? Freoh (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to add this version. Freoh (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some issues with this version. The Alondra Nelson source (p. 19-20) doesn't corroborate the assertion that Madison didn't care for racial minorities. It talks about how Madison allegedly fathered a child with an enslaved woman. Additionally, one of the sources provided in support for the sentence Madison's concern for minority rights extended to religious minorities as well doesn't specify religious minorities, but rather talk about minorities in general. The Michael P. Zuckert source actually says that Madison sought to protect any minority in a majority rule system. Also, after some research, I found out that there are sources stating that Madison did indeed try to protect (at least some) racial minorities, for example Native Americans. I recommend reading the paper in its entirety, but here's a quote relevant to this discussion: Protecting minority rights—the basic liberal individual rights of members of ethnic minorities, including their freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, and their right to hold their property [...] is precisely in the spirit of the Madisonian constitutional project and solidly in line with Madison’s own defense of Indian rights. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Founding Fathers who wrote passionately about freedom both held slaves and likely bore children with women who were deemed biologically inferior (Jefferson) and not worthy of personal liberty (Madison).
— Alondra Nelson

If that's not explicit enough for you, I edited my proposal to add a second reference and specify all racial minorities. Freoh (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Does your source say "not worthy"? My reading of the White House site is that Madison was likely to be dubious of slaves' chances as free labor, witness his caution to the secretary who did free his own slaves. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Template:Talk quote block above is a direct quote from the Alondra Nelson source. Freoh (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh Can we get a similar quote from the new Taylor source please? Larataguera (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I edited the references in my proposal to include the relevant quotes. Freoh (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Antiok 1pie and Dhtwiki, do you have any objections to this proposal?      — Freoh 19:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of "objections", you should ask if we agree. You imply that if we don't object, then you are welcome to change the article, rather than waiting for positive expressions of agreement before changing anything. I'll follow Antiok to some extent, as they seem to have better access to the sources that you're using.

One objection I have is to "but not all racial minorities." The attached references and quotes seem inappropriate. The quote from the Taylor book is too long, mystifying (who is Gardner?), and more appropriate to the James Madison and slavery article, which doesn't have such detail. It also contradicts the Nelson quote, which says that Madison thought slaves "not worthy" of liberty, when he understood that Gardner (evidently a knowledgable (literate?) but possibly rebellious slave) would understand and yearn for it, as a "human being". So, "not worthy" seems rather to be concern for maintaining discipline among his slaves. "[I]f you would keep a people unfree, then you must keep them ignorant." The imposition of ignorance (especially illiteracy) among slaves, as a control, implied that they were capable of literacy. It was also one of the reasons slavery was a terrible system, even more than the wanton cruelty of some slaveowners.

One more thing, a minor point of language use: I wouldn't write "vulnerable against" but "vulnerable to". Dhtwiki (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand what contradicts here. It seems consistent to me that Madison viewed his slaves as human beings who were not worthy of rights and liberty, despite being capable of literacy. Regardless, I do think that "concern" is a little vague here, and it does seem like Madison may have had some level of concern, so I edited my proposal to replace "concern" with advocacy. Does that sound reasonable?      — Freoh 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feldman (2017) p. 121: In a stunning twist, Madison pointed to slavery as the ultimate example of a majority oppressing a minority: "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, the ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." A lifelong slaveholder whose entire material existence depended on slave labor was using the example of slavery to demonstrate the evil of majority government. In the process, he implicitly denied that people of African descent were inferior, and affirmed that slavery was obviously unjust. Ignoring the paternalistic claim that race slavery served the interests of slaves, Madison frankly called it "the most oppressive dominion" that had ever existed. West (1997) p. 125 Madison provides an example: "Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes . . . fallacious." The majority that consents to make slavery lawful deprives the minority of their rights to life, liberty, and property. Vile (2005) p. 434 Madison recognized that the problem of race was a problem of a minority being kept in subjection by the majority. Madison was, indeed, concerned about every minority, including black slaves. I believe that my original wording (based on Zuckert) was better and more congruent with RS. I have no issues with replacing "concern" for "advocacy", but I oppose changing the sentence which states that Madison was concerned about/advocated for every minority (in a majority rule system). Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe you that Madison knew that he was being oppressive and occasionally paid lip service to the people he enslaved. My point is that his lifelong actions worked against minority rights, and we should prioritize facts over opinions. I'll change the wording so that it's not diminishing Madison's concerns, but rather pointing out separately that his actions contradicted these concerns:

Current

Proposal

Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorizes that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority. In Federalist No. 51, he goes on to explain how the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, establishes a system of checks and balances that ensures that no one institution would become too powerful.

Federalist No. 10, Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy. In it, Madison describes the dangers posed by majority factions and argues that their effects can be limited through the formation of a large republic. He theorizes that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their influence because no single faction can become a majority. Since no single faction could dominate, minority factions would be safe. More generally, Madison believed that an "overbearing majority" could threaten individual rights. He especially feared that, in the future, a propertied minority could become vulnerable to a propertyless majority and, as such, he sought to protect the former by strengthening the constitutional guarantees of property. Madison's concern for minority rights extended to other minorities as well, such as religious minorities, but historians have commented that his enslavement of African Americans contradicted these ideals. In Federalist No. 51, he goes on to explain how the separation of powers between three branches of the federal government, as well as between state governments and the federal government, establishes a system of checks and balances that ensures that no one institution would become too powerful.

How does that sound?      — Freoh 17:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Does anyone above support the text changes that Freoh is advocating for? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing others' comments

ErnestKrause, I have previously asked you to stop editing my comments on this talk page, but you have continued. Could you please stop? I find this behavior disruptive. Freoh (talk) ~16:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring against BRD as stated on your Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Enslaver" vs "slave owner" etc

"Enslaver" is the preferred term as per National Archives [5]. It's the term used in the opening para of the article on Slavery. This term should be restored in my edits JQ (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

NARA's rationale for using the term is that: "Use of the preferred term enslaver addresses slave's harm in the context of Western chattel enslavement of Africans and their descendants." It may, until people get used to it. Then it will be just wordiness. "Enslaved person" is similarly recommended, saying that: "'Slave' normalizes and reifies the condition of slavery as a state of being, rather than an active process of dehumanization and bondage imposed on a person or people." As though the new term won't do that, especially after people get used it, or don't use it because EP adds even more wordiness. Leave it to people who ostensibly want to make people aware of the horrors of slavery to add to the burden of people who edit an encyclopedia for free. What about e.p. as a succinct alternative (after such as f.p.c., for "free person of color", etc.)? I feel an RfC at MOS coming on. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What "ostensibly" mean here? Are you saying that NARA has a hidden motive?

And there's no real burden here. No one is asking you to make any substitutions, just to refrain from reversions unless there is a clear benefit from them JQ (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I was being somewhat facetious, but only somewhat. Of course wordiness is a burden, both for the writer if wordier terms become common, and for the reader when expressions become long-winded, especially when terms, such as "enslaver", are made less distinct by being extended beyond what they previously meant (e.g. "enslave" = "to reduce to...slavery", from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 7th edition). Reversions take place when there is no benefit from the original change. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I would recommend reverting only when necessary, and John Quiggin has explained the benefit from this change. Personally, I find slave owner to be more wordy than enslaver, given that it's the same number of syllables but an extra word. Are you arguing that Madison did not reduce people to slavery? Freoh (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I do revert only when I find it necessary, and I must not have been satisfied with John Quiggin's explanation. You're cherry picking your examples. "Enslaver" is less wordy than "slave owner" but the latter was your substitution for "planter", if you will recall. Other examples, especially "enslaved people" for "slave", show that the complaint of unnecessary wordiness is justified. And, no, Madison did not reduce people to slavery, by my definition. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to this edit by Nettless. And I guess maybe we're interpreting the word reduce differently, but I think that Madison did reduce people to slavery. Freoh (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

JQ should make clear what edits they want restored. An earlier edit than the one I reverted, and reverted by someone else, substituted "enslaver family" for "planter family". Beside the fact that the NARA guidelines allow for using "slave" adjectivally (e.g. "slave manifest"), are we supposed to invariably substitute every reference to slave ownership with the word "enslaver", even though that is a very new recommendation and the word has not percolated through the literature that we are to take our cue from? Dhtwiki (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

John Quiggin, are you referring to this edit? I feel like there are a number of terms in common usage, and it's fine to vary them. The current version of the article uses the terms slave-owning, slave-owner, slaveholder, slave, enslaved, and enslaver. I'm not opposed to changing some of these, but in that particular case, I think slave-owning planter flows better than planter and enslaver. Freoh (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

John Quiggin, I've just made a few changes that aren't exactly what you asked for, but I hope they address your main concerns. Freoh (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these are very helpful thanks JQ (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: per the Google Ngram Viewer, the terms "slave owner and "slave master" are more commonly used than "enslaver", with "slave owner" being the most common one by far. [6]. Similarly, "slave" is more commonly used than "enslaved", whereas the usage of "enslaved person" and "enslaved people" is very low. [7] Antiok 1pie (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of historically common usages that are now deprecated as racist. More generally, a Google search will produce many erroneous claims, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should endorse them. We should be choosing the right term, not the most common one JQ (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not referring to the terms' historically common usage but rather to their current common usage. The word "slave", as well as "slave owner" and "slave master", are obviously not deprecated. Interestingly, the stats above show that the terms became more common post-2000. Also, what do you mean by the right term? Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The right term is that supported by reliable authorities who have considered the question. I cited one, but you are welcome to cite authorities with a different view. If current common usage differs from the recommendation, it is likely to be deprecated in the future. JQ (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If current common usage differs from the recommendation, it is likely to be deprecated in the future. WP:CRYSTALBALL. If, and when, the terms become deprecated we can start treating them as such. Nevertheless there seem to be different views on the subject, even among professionals. Historians such as Eric Foner ([8]) believe that the term slave is better due to it being less wordy. It's worth noting that a similar opinion was voiced by Dhtwiki above. Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My recent edits

Apart from new material on Liberia, which I assume is uncontroversial, I haven't added or deleted anything, just reorganized, so that multiple topics aren't jumbled together, particularly in a way that buries the issue of slavery. Happy to discuss this. JQ (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Making the "Slavery" into a section, as opposed to a subsection, might be controversial, but I don't see any issue with it. Antiok 1pie (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

JQ, you added more than just the mention of Liberia. You added "He supported the end of the slave trade, but opposed most restrictions on slavery within the US." You also deleted the sentence "who favored republican government over democratic assembly" which you also did in an earlier edit, both without mentioning why in your edit summaries. You should be clearer in your edit summaries if you add or delete material while simultaneously reorganizing paragraphs or make those changes separately. We also shouldn't have too many paragraphs in the lede. I understand that you want to make slavery not buried in the lede. Your edit on James Monroe appears to have been made for that purpose by having Missouri Compromise mentioned at the beginning of a paragraph but you should be clearer in the edit summary. Nettless (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to reinsert the clause about republican government as a sentence on its own. It makes no sense as an addendum to a sentence about slavery. The distinction to which it presumably refers (representative vs direct democracy) will be obscure to modern readers, as can be seen by the prevalence of nonsense rhetoric about "a republic not a democracy", so it should be explained carefully. JQ (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you consider a republic not a democracy to be nonsense rhetoric? Madison writes very explicitly about the great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, and anti-democratic ideology was a key feature of his career. Freoh (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that, in the current usage of the phrase, "democracy" is interpreted as "representative democracy", which is, roughly, what Madison meant by "republic".

People using the phrase now typically take it to justify measures like voter suppression, gerrymandering and so on, which undermine representative democracy. That's totally different from Madison's opposition to direct democracy (which survives today only intown meetings and similar). JQ (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Democracy can refer to either direct democracy or representative democracy. What makes you say that Madison's opposition to direct democracy is totally different from voter suppression? That's not obvious to me. Freoh (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I've overstated the case a bit, but it remains true that the people who now quote "a republic not a democracy" are not using either of these terms in the way Madison did. JQ (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinks

A recent edit by Dhtwiki removed wikilinks to Federalist No. 10 and checks and balances in § Ratification of the Constitution. Why were these removed? Are they not relevant connections? Freoh (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I merely reverted to the last stable version. If those links were not in that version, then that is why they're gone. I didn't mean to remove them. When I revert, I might remove things that I would leave in were I to take the time to closely parse the edits in question. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

POV tag

I can't see an easy way of resolving the dispute over slavery, but readers ought to be aware that it is in dispute. JQ (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the points you've made here and at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Madison/archive1, but I think it might be helpful if you made a more concrete list here of your problems with the current version and the changes you'd like to see. Freoh (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy to do this. The central question is whether the article should treat slavery as a central issue in Madison's life and career, or as a marginal issue to be assigned to a separate article. This same question is a matter of hot political debate right now, for example, in relation to the management of Montpelier. There is a strong view, that any attention paid to this issue is "woke", "critical race theory" and so on. See, for example [9]. The article, as it stands, reflects the view of the anti-woke critics, and disregards the view that slavery was not only critical in Madison's life and times, but is reflected in systematic injustice today. Fixing this is going to be difficult, and the article needs to be tagged until we get closer to balance. JQ (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is an explication of the "woke" point of view and a sense that it doesn't suffer from WP:RECENTISM and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Criticism by The Heritage Foundation isn't likely to be any more illuminating that assertions by Howard Zinn. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Recentism is about recent events, not recent scholarship. "Righting great wrongs" is about fringe ideas, and there are whole books about Madison and slavery. I think you're misinterpreting those essays. Freoh (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The increased popular focus on Madison, and others, as slave owners, and how that might have colored their actions and how history should look upon them in a more negative light, is a recent event and a rather public one. A shift in scholarly focus that seems to be in consequence should be looked upon with skepticism. That leads to not letting the article becoming unbalanced by including too much of recent and fashionable scholarship ("...giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion."). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say that the shift in scholarly focus is a consequence of recent events? Regardless of your skepticism, these are reliable sources. Freoh (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I note that User:Nettless has a consistent pattern of editing articles relating to racism, invariably playing down its significance. Obviously, I am advocating increased attention to the issue. This disagreement needs to be resolved, ideally by editors with more detachment before the tag can be removed.JQ (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Nettless seems to have disappeared from the discussion since I posted this, but has now moved on to defending the Jan 6 insurrectionists and the Proud Boys. Any changes this editor made should be presumed to be in bad faith. JQ (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

1990'sguy, I noticed that you removed the tag, so I re-added it. Could you discuss the issue here and try to reach consensus before removing these maintenance tags? Freoh (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: In this edit summary, JQ talked about the article ignoring the expansion of slavery, likely referring to Madison's support on the Missouri Compromise. With my recent edits, I added an analysis on why Madison supported it. I don't see, however, how the article reflects views of enslaver political class at the time, and their contemporary defenders. Also, I'm aware of previous size discussions regarding the "Slavery" section in the article so, if needed, I wouldn't mind substantially trimming my recent edit and moving the trimmed part to the James Madison and slavery article. I would appreciate ErnestKrause's comments on this. Antiok 1pie (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Antiok 1pie; That's a good comment. You and Dhtwiki are very close to each other in this edit and if you look at my exchange with him on his Talk page then you'll see that he is rather sympathetic to your edit. If the two of you could agree on a version of your original edit (possibly with optional tweaks from Dhtwiki) then the two of you would be in a better position to place your edit into the article in order to enhance the text and remove the template tag. (You can add your comments directly to mine on Dhtwiki's Talk page thread as needed, and Greeting for the New Year.) ErnestKrause (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that § Slavery was more neutral before your recent edits. Madison spent much of his life enslaving people and much of his career protecting the enslaver class. To lead with Madison opposed slavery throughout his life is misrepresenting the literature. Freoh (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources show that he opposed slavery in general, and the section goes into more detail about his thoughts on it. Trying to interpret his actions to make statements about his beliefs would be original research. I think Antiok's edits are an improvement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources show that he found slavery morally problematic but actively participated and promoted it nonetheless. Summarizing this with Madison opposed slavery throughout his life is very misleading. Facts should precede opinions, and this section does the opposite. Also, I think opposed is a poor word choice because usually when political figures oppose something, it implies action. Freoh (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Federalists anti-slavery

Added some brief material pointing out that slavery was an issue in the 1816 election, and that the Federalists opposed slavery. I'll wait for objections before expanding it JQ (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yours and Freoh's recent edits seem to be on the reasonable side. I must not be looking closely enough. The 1816 election resulted in Monroe's election by a landslide, an extension of the Era of Good Feelings. If slavery was an issue, it wasn't a major one for the Federalists, and it did not seem to resonate with most of the country, even in the North (and with King carrying Delaware, a slave state). So, I would find its inclusion at this article to be likely undue. Why not focus on 1808 and 1812, as those were when Madison was elected president. Slavery does not seem to be a major issue then, either. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Slavery isn't mentioned once in the 1816 United States presidential election article. I see no indication that it was a major campaign issue. If reliable sources can't show that it was a major, national campaign issue, it is WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE to mention it in James Madison's article. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A wikilink is not a reliable source. Slavery was a big part of the economy and very relevant to Madison's life. Why doesn't it qualify as major in your eyes? Freoh (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I said campaign issue, not a big part of the economy/society. Once again, if reliable sources don't show that it was a major campaign issue, then we can't mention it in the article, much less James Madison's article. My linking to the 1816 United States presidential election article had to do with WP:UNDUE/WP:COATRACK issues of mentioning slavery as a campaign issue in this article, and not the actual election article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a major campaign issue to mention it in the article? If it was a big part of the economy/society, it was a big part of Madison's life and career, and historians are writing extensively about it, then I think it deserves due weight. Is anything here a minority view?      — Freoh 20:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to the comment at the top of the subsection, that stated (without evidence) that slavery was specifically a big campaign issue in the 1816 presidential election. My reply was unrelated to whether slavery was a big part of Madison's life in general. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

John Quiggin did not state that slavery was specifically a big campaign issue in the 1816 presidential election. He stated that slavery was an issue in the 1816 election, and that the Federalists opposed slavery. This—combined with the fact that historians have written extensively about it, the major role slavery played in the economy and later politics, and its relevance to Madison's life—make me think that it deserves due weight and that your removal was unwarranted.      — Freoh 15:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As regards 1816 and the decline of the Federalists, it's covered at length in the article, so it seems at least reasonable to point out that the losing candidate was a public opponent of slavery.

More broadly, many of the Wikipedia articles on this period reflect the views of historians from the 19th and (most of) the 20th century, most of whom paid little attention to slavery. A process of reassessment has been going on since the Civil Rights era, which can seen, for example, at Montpelier and in the wiki article on the topic Montpelier, but not in this article, or the one on the 1816 election. JQ (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The link to the article on Madison's Montpelier has to be better specified. Your link leads to a disambiguation page. It wasn't that previously historians ignored slavery, it was just that their take on it wasn't according to modern tastes, which may at this point overstate what a horrific experience it was for all, as well as laying too much blame on slavery itself as the cause of modern economic disparity. The Montpelier article seems to have more specifics on farm life there than the James Madison and slavery article, and it seems to be fairly presented, however tending to over-generalization. I found more pointers to the literature specific to Madison's estate at the former article than at the latter. That probably could stand to be adjusted. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that historians overstate what a horrific experience it was and lay too much blame on slavery itself as the cause of modern economic disparity? Do you have reason to doubt their reliability? Freoh (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As regards "modern tastes", Uncle Tom's Cabin sold millions of copies with a presentation of slavery entirely consistent with the view of slavery predominant today (though not universal, as this discussion has shown). Pro-slavery and anti-slavery views were present from the day the first slaves arrived, and are still present today. It's just that the relative strength of the two sides has (mostly) changed.

If we are to give weight to the views of past historians who endorsed or excused slavery, we should label them as such, not treat them as neutral sources. JQ (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Uncle Tom's Cabin as a work of history. But if you regard it as such, you can't say that historians of that century "paid little attention to slavery". The historians I read haven't "endorsed or excused slavery" as much as they've regarded the institution as providing a variety of experiences and effects on people and society than I'm apt to encounter while listening to or reading recent popular presentations on the subject. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how dead historians should get more weight than advocates like Harriet Beecher Stowe. Assuming that there is any kind of progress in the discipline, it's current scholarship that should matter. If it's all opinion then no view is more reliable than any other, which makes the whole Wikipedia project pretty much pointless.JQ (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You might not agree with Stowe's advocacy of sending ex-slaves back to Africa. Neither the historians nor Stowe seem to have shed much light on the treatment of slaves by Madison himself. There are parallels in Stowe's book to Madison's situation: the benevolence of Shelby but the need to sell slaves to settle debts; St. Claire's promise to liberate Tom being abrogated by the former's widow; the, albeit too-late, intention by Shelby's son to free Tom; etc. According to James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, based on studies by Blassingame and others, about 1/5 to 1/3 of slave families were broken up by slaveholder action, which Stowe overstates by basing the pathos of her book on just such breakups, which may have been more frequent during her time when only diehards thought slavery was an institution worth keeping, so much of America, and the world, having turned against chattel slavery since the time of Madison, who, again, lived where the slave regime was considered relatively benevolent. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm really stunned by these continuous apologetics for slavery. Only 1/3 of families were broken up, the "need" to sell enslaved people to pay debts incurred to support the lifestyle of an enslaver, just 72 hours of work per week, and floggings only when necessary to ensure this. Srsly? JQ (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References
References

Slavery section neutrality

Does anyone object to me making edits to get the Slavery section back to a neutral tone? I would be using this source: Princeton & Slavery James Madison It is very unbiased and from princeton.edu, Madison's Princeton University alma mater. The author of the article is Paris Amanda Spies-Gans. She has a Ph.D. in History from Princeton University. I think the article would help a lot to make the article neutral. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Madison's alma mater is the place to find the least egregious bias (as everything written is biased in some way) account, and you probably specify what changes you want to make here, rather than expecting carte blanche. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Cmguy777, edit away. That's why we're here...to edit. However, in keeping with Dhtwiki's concern, it might be better to proceed incrementally. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on any one source, especially in a case where sources abound. So the more, the merrier. Allreet (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. My edits would try and make some sense on Madison's views and non actions toward slavery with background information. Other sources could be used on Madison's actual treatment of slaves. The goal is just to make the article neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I added an intro paragraph with the Spies-Gans (2013) James Madison Princeton source. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Added a few more things. Mentioned Madison's slave Swaney. I am trying to fix the chronology of the section. Madison inherited his father's slaves in 1801. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: — your edits seem fair enough, with one possible exception i.e. . . . and he also sold slaves for profit. — We have to remember that the entire advent of slavery occurred to make a profit, so saying Madison did so in a stand alone out of context statement presents the idea as something unusual. Madison was not in business to simply sell slaves, and when he did it was to satisfy many of the debts he had acquired. At the time of Madison's death there were many outstanding debts, which soon forced Dolly to sell Montpelier and its slaves to pay them off. The statement as it stands suggests that Madison sold slaves on a regular basis for no other reason than to make a profit. Paying off debts is not exactly making a profit, as the current statement more than suggests. I would recommend that it be removed, as this idea is better covered in that same paragraph. i.e. "During the 1820s and 1830s, Madison sold some of his land and slaves to repay debt." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am all for making your change and I appreciate your advise Gwillhickers. I was only going by the source. The statement that Madison sold slaves for profit was meant only to be one only of fact, not of judgement, or imply anything was unusual. I hope more editors will get in on the conversation. I did not want to make anymore edits until other editors got involved. Hopefully we can endeavor to get the Madison article back to neutrality. As long as you supply the source feel free to make the change. Also you are free to make any other changes that make the slavery section neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What should also be mentioned is that Madison freed one slave. Madison sold a slave with a contract the slave would be free after 7 years of servitude. That adds neutrality to the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Madison sold slaves for profit information in the last part of the sentence. More context is essential. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I added information and tweaked the first paragraph. I think it is an improvement. It reads better. Feel free to make any changes. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. I have reservations about the source that was used. Spies-Gans, 2023. While she certainly is a credentialed historian from Princeton she, imo, comes of a little naive, as she doesn't once mention that Madison sold some of his slaves and land to pay off outstanding debts. The opening heading statement in her essay simply reads...

James Madison, Princeton alumnus and fourth President of the United States, held contradictory views on slavery throughout his life, arguing that slavery was incompatible with Revolutionary principles even as he owned over one hundred slaves on his Virginia plantation, brought enslaved people to the White House, and ultimately sold them for personal profit.

Her essay at no time qualifies this opening statement. Also, her contention that Madison had "conflicting views" about slavery isn't nearly true. Madison's views were consistent, but not in line with the fact that he never freed any of them, the reasons of which are well outline in Gutzman, 2012, pp. 356, and Ketcham, 1990, pp. 626- 628. Madison, like Jefferson and others, had strong reservations about freeing slaves, with nothing but a pat on the back and good luck wishes, as slaves, esp woman and children had no means of support, no shelter, would have to forage or beg for food, etc, and would force many to resort to theft, or worse, to survive. There was also the concern that once freed, many slaves would take on arms and pose a threat to their former masters, encouraging other freed slaves to do the same, resulting in a race war they would likely lose. He also believed that freed Blacks in a biracial society was a situation that would be most harmful to blacks. Madison, however, differed in his views of Jefferson and did not subscribe to the idea that Blacks were of inferior intelligence, and simply recognized that their condition, along with not being able to read and write, not yet westernized, which takes generations to effect, was largely responsible. In any case, the account you've authored looks realistic, but it might do well to add a few other points regarding Madison's views, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I am not disagreeing with any of your statements. But I believe Spies-Gans helps the article get to neutral status. There are other sources used in the section. Also, Spies-Gans said that Madison did free one slave, which I think is a fair statement for the article. Even though we can disagree with Spies-Gans, she is a qualified historian from Princeton, Madison's alma mater. I suppose what she meant by making a profit from slavery is that Madison used them as collateral for loans, such as selling them to pay for a debt. But I did take that part out of the article. She was unclear on that. The first paragraph does mention Madison sold his slaves to get out of his debts. But I agree there was too much conjecture in Spies-Gan's statement on making a profit from slavery, so I removed it from the article. My other concern is that I don't really know why the neutrality tag was placed. Whoever put that there, I hope would tell us why the Madison slavery section is not neutral. My only goal right now is to get rid of the neutrality tag. What is it that makes the section not neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Spies-Gans is acceptable, but her opening paragraph left a lot of open ended assertions, esp about Madison's views. In any case, yes, it appears the section is balanced out thanks to the other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Poll

Changes have been made to the Slavery section. Spies-Gans opinion has been added. Information on Madison freeing a slave has been added. Please point out any neutrality issues. Is this enough to remove the neutrality tag? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Vote: Yes I can't find any neutrality issues. The above changes have been made. The neutrality tag should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, imo the tag shouldn't have been added in the first place, and was added by an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk. He is currently under review for this sort of behavior here, and for a good number of other articles, at ANI.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about the short description

There is an ongoing discussion about the short descriptors of the first four U.S. presidents at Talk:John Adams#Short description, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)