Talk:Constitution of the United States

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 index 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Why is a footnote about insular areas not neutral?

A recent edit by @Dhtwiki removed a footnote about insular areas with the justification that it is "not NPOV." What is not neutral about a footnote discussing how the constitution applies to colonial territories? It seems misleading to describe the constitution as the "law of the land," as there is plenty of U.S. land where it does not apply. Freoh (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your phrasing "pretends that the new government stands for everyone", as well as insertion of "wealthy elites" and "imperial subjects" are what struck me as non-neutral. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What about that phrasing is non-neutral? And if the phrasing is the problem, why are you removing the footnote entirely rather than fixing the offending phrasing? Freoh (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has a lot of content about constitutional protections, but I don't think it's clear enough on who these protections apply to. Do you have any objections to me re-adding the link to insular areas and the bit about constitutional protections not applying to imperial subjects? Freoh (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add this content. Freoh (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you haven't gained consensus for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you oppose the wikilink? And why do you oppose mentioning to whom constitutional protections apply? The current presentation is an oversimplification in my view, and omits details that deserve due weight. Freoh (talk) 15:49, 18 (edited 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC))

I opposed the language for the reasons I stated. I'm not necessarily going to parse an edit I think is wrong, in order to keep what might be less objectionable. I think that it's as much up to you to see what I'm objecting to and re-propose the less objectionable part. And wait to see that others chime in in support. Just wanting to re-add the entire objected-to edit, which is what you seem to be proposing, is not going to get us anywhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to add the entire edit; an intermediate edit removed the need for one of the footnotes. Could you explain what is non-neutral about imperial subjects? What terminology would you prefer? Colonized subjects? Residents of colonial territories? Freoh (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What was wrong with what was there before? The United States does/did not refer to the inhabitants of its lands in such ways. Why do you insist on using such non-standard terms? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What would you see as a more standard term? The cited source often uses the phrase colonized subjects, and I think it's worth specifying who is protected by the Constitution. Freoh (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, would you be okay with me referring to colonized subjects? I guess I avoided that originally because it sounded repetitive with colonial territories. Is there another way you would prefer I refer to these subjects? Freoh (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

All inhabitants of the insular territories are American citizens, according to the linked article. Why would "colonized subjects" be at all appropriate? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Which linked article? And I'm not talking about Americans in general, but just the people living in U.S. colonies. I think that the term colonized subjects is appropriate, given that it's used throughout the cited source by Immerwahr. To be clear, this is what I'm proposing:

Current	Proposal
In this context, colonial territories held by the U.S. are not considered part of the land, so the constitution does not apply to them.	In this context, insular areas are not considered part of the land, so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects.

Freoh (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC))

See Insular_area#Citizenship:

Congress has extended citizenship rights by birth to all inhabited territories except American Samoa, and these citizens may vote and run for office in any U.S. jurisdiction in which they are residents. The people of American Samoa are U.S. nationals by place of birth, or they are U.S. citizens by parentage, or naturalization after residing in a State for three months. Nationals are free to move around and seek employment within the United States without immigration restrictions, but cannot vote or hold office outside American Samoa.

So, your proposed text makes little sense to me, as well as seemingly making this article inconsistent with one that should carry some weight in this matter. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What's inconsistent? I don't understand what's not making sense here. And once again, how would you prefer that I refer to colonized subjects specifically? Freoh (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The linked article doesn't refer to "colonized subjects". The inhabitants apparently are all now US citizens, even if they were not always so in the past. Why do you insist on the term, apparently without qualification? For one thing, "subject" usually implies a monarchy, which would be incorrect here, whatever your opinion is of the despotism of American government. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't insist on that term. I've asked you a couple times for alternatives and I haven't heard any. A wikilink is not a reliable source, and I think changes could be made to that article as well. Why do you think that "subject" usually implies a monarchy? Freoh (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would I propose alternatives if I don't see anything wrong with the text, and you seem to be the only one who does? Other articles by themselves are not supposed to be sources, but their sources can be used, and one can by assuming good-faith that those articles reflect proper research, as well as consistency of terminology being a virtue. Any dictionary should give a sense of "subject" as one who is subject to someone else, as in vassalage. One tends not to refer to citizens of a republic as "subjects" for that reason alone, even though my dictionary does admit of subjection to a constitutional authority. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand that reason alone. How are colonized subjects not subject to someone else? Freoh (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, citizens of a republic are sovereign, in a monarchy they are by law subject to the sovereignty of another person, the monarch, however constrained that monarch's power may be. For that reason alone, "subject" is not a term I usually see applied to such sovereign citizens, however impoverished or otherwise degraded they may be. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you point me to sources that support your perspective? I'm using the wording directly from my sources, and I've never heard anyone refer to colonized subjects as sovereign citizens. Freoh (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, are you opposed to discussing to whom constitutional protections apply? If so, why? Freoh (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that you want to discuss it, it is inappropriate here. And you should have adduced my reasons from the replies I've already given. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The extent is currently a single footnote. Constitutional protections are described throughout the article without mentioning to whom they apply. Why is it not worth clarifying? Freoh (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Because your clarifications are not good ones, IMO, and I don't see others telling me that they are. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I've provided a reliable source that supports my content, and the only argument I've seen against it is your original research about sovereign citizens. Could you clarify your objections? What's "not good"? Freoh (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If your objections are based solely on original research and you won't explain further, then I'm going to add my proposal to the article. Freoh (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about the proposal in the next section, not the language quoted here, which makes things quite confusing. I see that you've gone ahead and added to the article the text proposed in the next section, although I don't see agreement there either. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to talk about this proposal separately. Do you have any objections to my proposal above about colonized subjects that aren't based solely on your original research about sovereign citizens? Freoh (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I've edited my proposal with an additional reference. If you won't explain your objection, then I'm going to add this edit.     — Freoh 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for objecting and see no consensus for your proposal. Where are the others in agreement with what you're proposing? You've added a Yale Law Journal article, which doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objections. Could you explain a few points for me?

• What is the connection between colonized subjects and sovereign citizens? Do you have a reliable source arguing that residents of colonial territories are not colonized subjects?
• Why are you opposed to clarifying who constitutional protections apply to? How is it outside the scope of this article?
• Are you questioning the reliability of my sources? No single source will necessarily represent the consensus of academic thinking, but I've given a couple of reliable sources supporting my proposal, so the burden is on you to provide contradicting sources.

Please clarify and help me understand.      — Freoh 13:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

As before, where are the others who think your changes need to be made? Apparently, others are satisfied with the article as written. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, you've argued elsewhere that "citizens" would be a more neutral term than "colonized subjects". Could you point me to which part of WP:NPOV supports this conclusion? My proposal would be nonsensical and inaccurate if it read constitutional protections do not extend to citizens.      — Freoh 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Flowery, biased, and factually incorrect

A recent edit by @Dhtwiki adds this text, which I see as problematic:

"One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

• It's really flowery language. What does it mean that people "dissolved their connection with one another"? This might be okay in a public speech, but I don't think it makes sense in an encyclopedia without significantly more context.
• It's biased, accepting as fact that the constitution represents the will of "the people," which is controversial. As per WP:VOICE, we should avoid stating opinions as facts.
• It's factually incorrect that "liberty" was "secured" for "all," unless you have an unusual interpretation for the words "liberty" and "all."

Freoh (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to want to have this article be a critique of constitutional language rather than an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value. Perhaps there is room here for the former, if it doesn't already exist; but I think it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value? WP:VOICE explicitly forbids stating opinions (such as those held by the writers of the constitution) as facts. Freoh (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

it requires discussion and consensus on what criticisms are appropriate

Based on the guidelines in WP:BOLD, I don't think it does. Freoh (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding tags requires you start a meaningful discussion, this doesnt qualify. I have reverted them Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don’t you find this discussion meaningful? Freoh (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied with the current text, which states that "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. Could you explain your objections to my proposal? Freoh (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have no objections, I'm going to re-add my edit. Freoh (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As before, my objection stands; and you haven't gotten other support for what you want to add. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. You asked for an analysis of the constitution that takes its words at face value, but this is the kind of thing that should not be stated in wikivoice. You asked for discussion and consensus, and I'm trying to get consensus, but I can't propose a compromise until I understand your objections. Could you please explain? Freoh (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Tamfang, you might be interested in the ongoing conversations in § Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000 and § The People proposal, where we are continuing to discuss how to present who the people really were.      — Freoh 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I didn't really add text; I merely reverted to what was already there. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The fact that your material was the status quo is not a justification to keep it. Freoh (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh:, @Dhtwiki:: The merits or demerits of these edits, relative to the prior text, is complicated by the fact that both are inappropriately subjective, albeit from opposing viewpoints, and neither realistically complies with WP:NPOV. Neither the cynical language of the previous text, nor the romantic notion of the edited text, are appropriate nor necessary in an encyclopedia built on the principle of WP:NPOV.

At the least, the editors could have claimed that these were "the declared intentions" of the Constitution's authors, signers and ratifiers -- citing further (and quoting) evidence from specific references, external to the Constitution itself (though there are so many such parties that a truly representative sample is unlikely, given the subjective lens through which a Wikipedia editor is likely to choose among them).

But without specific external declarations, from WP:RS sources, to cite as references, it is highly inappropriate for any Wikipedia editor to presume to assign motives to others' words, in the text of an article.

Freoh, please reconsider your language, in conformity with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Further, this matter is complicated by the fact that the contested edit was, in fact, multiple, separate edits, in different parts of the article, each an issue in its own right. In a subject so important, sensitive and controversial as the Constitution of the United States, it is reckless (and thoughtless of other editors) to scatter different edits all in one edit-event -- making it tricky to debate (and remove or restore) the disparate elements of the bunch-edit.

One edit at a time would make it easier to address specific differences, and resolve conflicts on those specific elements, without disturbing the other edits (or leaving them to other discussions, as separate edits). Please be considerate of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia in such cases.

~ Penlite (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC) (P.S.: I must withdraw from this debate, owing to other duties).

I am way too busy right now to get into the details of this issue, but I generally concur with User:Penlite's critique of both sides. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Penlite about the separate edits. I'll make a new proposal for this edit:

Current

Proposal

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

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

I know that the word claim is a word to watch, but I think it's appropriate in this case, given that there's historical consensus that it's a false claim. Freoh (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC))

@Freoh: I think your latest proposal is more congruent with WP:NPOV than either the original text or your previously proposed edits. I'm not looking closely (busy) but it seems OK. But I urge you to get others to buy it, before revising the article accordingly. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dhtwiki and Coolcaesar, any objections? Freoh (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Freoh:@Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:I retract my endorsement. I'm guilty of a recklessly ill-informed response -- having not checked the reference cited. The cited references apparently do not meet the standards of WP:NPOV, as they appear to be chielfy counter-cultural/arch-liberal sources, the last one is apparently an exposition propounding a highly controversial socio-poltiical theory -- Critical Race Theory -- and Freoh offers it as the sole supporting reference on it's point.

When toying with so precious and serious a matter as the Constitution, so steeped in historical controversy, it's simply reckless to offer one very partisan viewpoint as supporting reference for any arguably controversial statement. VERY inapproprirate, and sharply undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an objective and credible source.

Please find more truly neutral sources, multiples of them, (or pair each liberal source with a substantial conservative source) (or preferably a balanced mulitiplicity of them) that support your phrases. They're out there.

And, after meeting that WP:RS and WP:NPOV balance, I urge you to get others to buy your edit, before revising the article accordingly. Apologies for not having checked you proposal more carefully before responding the first time.

~Penlite (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is controversial about the information I'm adding? I've just added another supporting source. Personally, I see it as reckless to leave the current version in, which is significantly less accurate. Freoh (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I've revised my previous statement to be more inclusive of all your edits and cited sources. Please study and understand the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS before further edits. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that Freoh's making the language in the proposal more succinct may be helpful (watch for keeping to logical quoting, however), but tacking on the fact that the constitutional language is hypocritical (or is it? since slaves probably didn't count as "the people", at least not in full measure) as well as the overly specific example of the slave trade (which was to be abolished by 1808, there is that) being used (what about Native Americans, Indians, etc.?). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you feel like it's overly specific? The Constitution directly protects the slave trade, and reliable sources have described this specifically as a contradiction. Do you have something in mind for generalizing the "blessings of liberty" concept to Indigenous people? Freoh (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I've already made the point that this article is not the place to spend a lot of time picking apart constitutional language for its inaccuracies and manifestations of hypocrisy. That would deserve its own article. It's certainly not the place to point out protection of the slave trade in particular, especially since that was a compromise to gain Southern votes and because many Northern states abolished slavery around this time, if not before. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a POV fork? I don't think that it would be neutral to limit this article to content that presents the U.S. government in a favorable light. Why don't you think that the slave trade is worth mentioning? It seems like the compromise to gain Southern votes would be more appropriate in § History. Freoh (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Penlite, what conservative scholarship do you want to include? Is there a viewpoint that you feel is underrepresented? Do you have reliable sources that contradict my information? Do you have reason to doubt the reliability of my sources? I still don't see how the current version adheres better to the WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines than my proposal. Freoh (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Freoh:(copy to: @Dhtwiki:@Coolcaesar:) Again, I find both versions (original and yours) as unduly and unnecessarily biased -- yours particularly in its choice of very left-wing sources -- arguably outside the mainstream historical literature (mostly liberal) on Constitutional history -- in an obvious repudiation of the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

If you were to insist on citing these authors as sources, then you're reasonably obliged to find concurring statements from right-wing authors -- or simply replace them all (left and right) with comparatively centrist, mainstream authors.

Plenty of moderate-liberal, centrist and conservative historians exist as alternatives (or counterbalance) to your left-wing sources. Moderate-liberal work by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Jill Lepore, centrist work by David McCullough, conservative works by Jon Meacham, Joseph Ellis, Michael Beschloss, Russel Kirk, Wilfred McClay or if you wanted a far-right counterbalance to your reference to far-left Howard Zinn, consider Paul Gottfried (if you can find them agreeing on your point).

Where no overwhelming consensus exists on a point, simply delete that text, and its marginal reference(s) -- or find an agreeing conservative reference to match with the liberal reference, or replace your far-liberal source (and, NO, there is not even a supporting consensus among liberals for Zinn's POV epic, and your proponents of Critical Race Theory are not yet mainstream, at least not outside the liberal arts college) with two or three mainstream references from reputable historians, such as recipients of the Bancroft Prize or the Pulitzer Prize for History.

Your recently proposed edit looks good, at first glance, but it's built on a foundation of sand -- poorly chosen supporting references -- so is not yet fit material for Wikipedia (any more than the text it presumes to replace).

Too busy to get any deeper on this here. On an article of this importance, and on an issue so fundamental to the subject, you should invite comment from a truly representative swath of prior editors on this article.

~ Penlite (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you want to delete my text (or which text exactly you want to delete). What content am I adding that differs from the mainstream? Why don't you think that my sources are reputable? If you have additional content you want to add or additional sources you want to cite, the burden is on you. Freoh (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Penlite, which version do you prefer, the original or my proposal? If your answer is "neither," then could you make your own proposal? Freoh (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines favor my proposal over the current version, and I haven't seen any other proposals. If you have no objections, I'm going to replace the current version with my proposal, and then you can feel free to add the right-wing authors you want. Freoh (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Freoh: (copy @Dhtwiki:, @Coolcaesar:), Again, the person making an edit has the sole responsibility for documenting their edits with WP:RS source(s) that validate the edits. You have not yet done so, and appear stubbornly determined to ignore wide evidence that they are not WP:RS and/or WP:NPOV sources (Frankly, some of those authors seem to take great pride in not having an NPOV).

Come on, Freoh: It's probably not that hard to find a WP:RS and WP:NPOV source for each of your proposed footnoted edits. Unless you just can't bring yourself to tolerate such sources, or are too lazy to do your own homework. I will not do it for you. I'm tired of cleaning up after impulsive and irresponsible editors who think it's someone else's responsiblity to take care of their responsibility.

If you need help finding WP:RS / WP:NPOV corroborating sources for your edit, and cannot or will not do it yourself, then please confer with members of the WP:WikiProject United States Constitution -- perhaps starting with those who are as conservative as you are liberal, if you insist on retaining your far-left sources in the edit. ~ Penlite (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh:: P.S.: In case you have not carefully read my remarks here, nor reviewed my User page, let me be clear, again, I do not favor far-right nor far-left sources. I'm committed to WP:NPOV -- and if you'd cited sources that were anywhere near that standard, I would have acquiesced by now. I'm not sure though, that you grasp the concept of WP:RS nor WP:NPOV. Please study those topics -- not looking for loopholes, but looking, with an open mind, for guidance. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't insist on these sources in particular, but I do insist on fixing the neutrality issues in the current text. Could you point me to evidence that my sources are not reliable? As I pointed out before, the burden is on you to add the conservative information you're asking for. Freoh (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh:Again, you are not reading me clearly. It is your responsibility alone to provide WP:RS for your edits. And, IMHO, you should only cite hard-right-leaning sources to counter-balance hard-left-leaning sources, pairing them together on points where they agree. And, frankly, I'm not sure that far-right/left sources constitute WP:RS, at all, even in evenly matched pairs. Ideally, you'll use neither -- instead substituting something comparatively neutral, supporting a WP:NPOV. But that's the job of the editor making the edit, not mine or anyone else's. ~ Penlite (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, how are my sources unreliable? Any reliable source is going to be biased in some way. Freoh (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: Arguably, yes -- but not WP:Fringe theories, which permeate the works of some of your sources.

@Freoh:: As a courtesy to you, I will provide you a credibility check on just one of your sources: Zinn. But it's your job to do this, not mine, and I'll let you do your own due diligence on your other sources, on your own time.

re: Zinn, Howard, and his book you cite, here are comments just from the two leading liberal newspapers in America, including their reviews of his book you cite.:

• Powell, Michael: "Howard Zinn, Historian, Is Dead at 87"; Jan. 28, 2010, New York Times, describes Zinn (in his obit) as: "Proudly, unabashedly radical,..." and notes he was a poli-sci prof, not a history prof, at B.U., when writing People's History

• Kirn, Walter: "Childrens Books" (book review of Howard Zinn's Young People’s History of the United States, and, indirectly, of his A People’s History of the United States), June 17, 2007, New York Times: Describes Zinn's "...Young People’s History..." as "a condensation and simplification of'" the "quite condensed and simple People’s History of the United States... a summing up.... [Zinn believes] telling the truth is not Job 1 for historians. Editing and motivating are. The goal is to 'pick and choose among facts' so as to 'shape the ideas and beliefs' that will 'help us imagine new possibilities for the future.'"

[(In other words: "Historians are supposed indoctrinate, more than inform" -- a bit presumptuous; not WP:NPOV, and not WP:RS ~Penlite)]

• Kammen, Michael (professor of American History, culture at Cornell): "How the Other Half Lived" (review of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), March 23, 1980, Washington Post, Prof. Kammen -- while endorsing Zinn's vision of "a new approach... history from 'the bottom up'... more egalitarian." -- concedes "I wish... I could [declare] Zinn's book a great success;... it is not. [It's] a synthesis of the radical... revisionist historiography of the [1970s], [with] many of the strengths [but] most of the weaknesses [in] that highly uneven... literature. ...much [focus on] historians, historiography and historical polemic... [leaving] little [room] for the substance of history. ...Phillip Foner,... radical historian,... cited nine times, [but] Thomas Jefferson... mentioned only eight. [The author's] sins of omission are... more serious. ...virtually no interest in religion... (a force... for three centuries... phenomenal... in American life...). [He] has little interest in ideas:...philosophical...or...more practical, technological... [Zinn] talks about the Berrigan brothers [yet] mentions just once,... in passing, John C. Calhoun,... who... made [a nearly-singular] truly original contribution to [American] political philosophy. [He] mentions Karl Marx [frequently],... Well then, who and what is discussed? Figures of social protest and political criticism..."

"We... deserve a people's history;... not [Zinn's] singleminded, simpleminded history,... of fools, knaves... Robin Hoods. [Rather] a judicious people's history... people [deserve to get] their history whole; not just [what] will anger or embarrass them."

• Zakaria, Fareed: "Stephen Bannon’s words and actions don’t add up," (op-ed), February 9, 2017, Washington Post, says: "In a strange way, [Trump advisor] Bannon’s dark, dystopian [vision] of U.S. history [most resembles] that of Howard Zinn, a... far-left scholar whose ...People’s History... is a tale of... ways [that] 99 percent of [the] Americans were crushed by [America's] all-powerful elites. ...the Zinn/Bannon worldview [is that] everyday people are [just] pawns manipulated by... evil overlords."

(When finished here, read the lede to the Wikipedia article on Howard Zinn, largely citing his own self-description, which hardly suggests WP:NPOV, or anything anywhere near it -- instead declaring a WP:Fringe POV.)

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that Zinn is biased, as are all sources. If you are arguing that I'm promoting a fringe theory, then please provide sources that contradict the presented facts. I have yet to see evidence that Zinn is unreliable aside from your interpretation of a novelist's review of a children's book. Freoh (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all sources are equally biased even if all are to some degree. Those writers who are careful with their facts, critical of their own hypotheses, and fair-minded toward opposing views are going to write better history than those who aren't. Penlite excerpted four criticisms from two newspapers that should be considered among the most likely to be sympathetic to Zinn and his aims. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've asked multiple times now [1] [2] [3] [4] for evidence that Zinn is not one of the reliable writers who are careful with their facts, and all I've seen is evidence that he is biased. Could you answer the question? I've just updated my proposal with an additional source. Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki pointed out that I wasn't correctly using logical quoting, so I'll edit my proposal to be formatted correctly:

Current

Proposal

Rather, it sets out the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. Its origin and authority is in "We the People of the United States". This echoes the Declaration of Independence. "One people" dissolved their connection with another, and assumed among the powers of the earth, a sovereign nation-state. The scope of the Constitution is presented as twofold. First, "to form a more perfect Union" than had previously existed in the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation. Second, to "secure the blessings of liberty", which were to be enjoyed by not only the first generation but for all who came after, "our posterity".

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

Freoh (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (edited Freoh (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC))

@Drdpw:@IAmChaos:@Winner 42:@CookieMonster755:@Libertybison:@Smasongarrison:@Fayenatic london:@TheVirginiaHistorian:@GregJackP:: Ladies & Gentlemen: I've been struggling with User:Freoh to help him get to a well-documented revision of a key passage in the article Constitution of the United States. I'm getting exhausted with the effort, and must withdraw for a while to attend to other responsibilities -- and, frankly, to cool down. However, the changes he intends to make are (IMHO) significant, important, and largely valid and appropriate.

Nevertheless, they are being offered with documentation from what appear to me to be some wildly biased and unreliable sources, edging (or leaping) towards WP:Fringe. If this was an article about a grocery chain, or a small-town politician, I wouldn't care so much -- but this proposal is about Wikipedia's characterization of the basis of the most important and influential law in the Western Hemisphere.

This really needs collaborative input from experienced Wikipedians -- liberal, centrist, and conservative -- who have shown actual commitment to this subject, and to WP:NPOV. I selected you because you either are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Constitution or recently edited it. Please engage here, with User:Freoh, as you can afford the time and effort. I must withdraw. Very respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Additional sources under Further Reading

I've added about 10 sources to the Further Reading section. Of course, many more could be added, but I tried to limit these to ones I consider relatively significant. While that's no doubt subjective, IMO all are important to a study and understanding of the Constitution's development - from historical sources such as Madison and Farrand to more contemporary works by historians such as Jillson and Rakove. That said, anyone is welcome to remove or revert any of these though I would appreciate some indication as to why. Allreet (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issues in § Preamble

Recent edit warring by Allreet has reintroduced some neutrality issues into § Preamble. In particular, we should not be describing anything as an improvement in wikivoice.      — Freoh 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Actually, what happened was I had reworded parts of the the Preamble section outside the editor and pasted in my revision without noticing I was deleting the additions you had made in the interim. So I was completely surprised when you accused me of edit warring (three times now), and I only figured out what you were referring to by going back through the edit history.

However, had I seen what you added - in effect changing the focus of the Preamble section into an attack on the framers - I would have reverted it on POV, RS, and other grounds. The same applies to your footnote disparaging the word "liberty". Yes, the Constitution goes on to sanction slavery, but that discussion belongs elsewhere, not in the section on the Preamble. Plus you and your sources are ignoring the reality nearly everyone else mentions: that the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise.

As for "improvement", that's how multiple sources describe Morris's work - in fact, they're even more effusive than that. How significant, then, are the other "neutrality issues"? Please be specific rather than make vague accusations. Allreet (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already made specific changes (which you reverted) [5] [6]. I believe you that these opinions are common, but that does not mean that they should be presented as fact:

... the phrase improved on the section's original draft ...

Morris's wording provided another improvement ...

... their value is in promoting an understanding for interpreting and applying the purposes of the articles that follow.

Why don't you think that my content belongs in § Preamble? It's relevant to your bit about the blessings of liberty. And if you want to mention that the Union would have dissolved if the framers had done otherwise, then feel free to do so, but that content might fit better in § 1787 drafting.      — Freoh 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: When responding, please ping me. The words chosen are fully supported and furthermore my sources are representative of the broad scholarship on the subject, meaning as reliable as they come. The same cannot be said of works that introduce critical race theory into the discussion. Most of what you added is focused on denigration. As for appropriateness, the subject here is the Preamble, whereas slavery falls under other provisions. The analysis you seem determined to offer belongs in a section of its own where both sides can be explored in detail.

My concern, btw, is for the hundreds of thousands who visit this page each year (1.2 million views in 2022, 3,400 per day). In their interest, we have a responsibility to reflect what the vast majority of historians have to say: that the Preamble was an "eloquent" and "brilliant" innovation. That's also true of the Constitution as a whole, despite its obvious failings. While we have a duty to mention those flaws, the "prevailing view" is that the framers didn't do too badly. To say so may or may not be completely neutral, but as I see it, our duty is to accurately report "the record", biased or not.

As for criticizing the framers as an "elite" (another issue you focused on), there's a truth to that. Patrick Henry , for example, called "we, the people" into question on similar grounds. His remarks are fair game and probably should be mentioned. But his was a reactionary argument skewed for rhetorical purposes. Of course the framers were an "elite". Who else gets elected or appointed to high office and who else then gets to "speak for the people" except their representatives? In short, the point is facile and to give it the weight you did could hardly be called neutral. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I just reviewed the latest changes you made. IMO, you're apparently determined to litter this section with your POV as well as templates and footnotes. Assuming good faith, I sincerely believe you don't fully understand neutrality in this context and thus I'm not saying any of this is being done with ill intent. Just to be clear, then, here's what's not neutral, not NPOV, and not commensurate with due weight:

• You've double footnoted the word "liberty" basically labeling it a hypocrisy.
• You've added another footnote, criticizing the framers for being"powerful white men".
• You've accused the Congressional Research Service of having a conflict of interest.
• And you missed the point about "new thought" entirely, that prior to this the states were credited with the authority for adopting a constitution, whereas Morris and his committee were recognizing the people as the source of sovereignty for the first time. Neither I nor the sources (read them) said anything about democracy.

I'll clarify that last point as you requested and remove the template, which you can reinstate if you're still unsatisfied. Since you ignored my previous request about the double footnoting, I'm also going to remove one of the notes per Citation Overkill. IMO, the better source/COI template should also be removed but if you think not, please explain why so I can satisfy whatever complaints remain.

Frankly, while I may have to "take my lumps" for inadvertently deleting your earlier edits, this appears headed toward an RFC. That's painful for other reasons, but apparently we need to have the community formally weigh in on what's neutral, what's polemics, what's reliable, and what's fringe. Otherwise, this seems likely to go around and around forever and in the meantime the article and with that our readers are going to suffer. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: On second thought I'm not going to touch your redundant inline note since it's evidence of your apparent determination to paint the Constitution and its framers in a negative light. The same is true of your "powerful white men" note. Neither of these is likely to stand the test of time. For the record, I changed the two words you objected to: value and improvement. Now please tell me what else needs to be changed to remove the NPOV template you've posted over the section? Allreet (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that your rewording of the "new thought" and your removal of "value" were improvements. However, it still says that the phrase improved on the section's original draft, and you replaced improvement with innovation, another peacock term. If you want to include these opinions, they need to be attributed. I still don't understand why you see my footnotes as non-neutral. The information is supported by more than one reliable source, so it seems like it deserves due weight. I think that your text has the potential to mislead without the clarifications.      — Freoh 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: So I'll substitute other synonyms, as accurate as these. And of course they're opinions, very positive ones, but that doesn't mean we can't quote or paraphrase them with similarly positive words. And yes, I did miss the other "improved" but I'll fix that too on second thought I'm going to leave that stand since it says exactly what the source did.

As for your footnotes, both reflect minority views: "an elite of powerful white men" and singling out the word "liberty" to poke a stick in the Preamble's eye. In the first case, 18th century America was a white, male dominated society and this particular group of largely wealthy, well-educated men was as well equipped as any to speak for the people of their states.

In the second case, honing in on the word "liberty" in the Preamble is equally absurd. Morris and the Preamble had nothing to do with slavery. He was outspokenly against the institution, and the Preamble touches on nothing directly related to the enslaved nor should we expect it to. To single out this word, then, is hardly justified, especially when the attack should address the Articles that perpetuated the practice.

As for your belief that this is "information", the truth is that both views are only opinions, no better or worse than saying the Morris's Preamble was an improvement. But given that there are hundreds and hundreds of sources on the Constitution, that puts your "more than one" in an extreme minority. On that note, I refer you to Jimbo Wales's assertion: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it." Allreet (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

​Do you have a reliable source supporting the idea that my footnotes reflect minority views? I don't understand how the facts that Article I legally protected the slave trade and the delegates to the convention were all powerful white men are only opinions. They're widely verifiable facts and relevant to the article. Your text about an innovation that improved ... is an opinion. I don't see how it's relevant here that one of the delegates opposed slavery.      — Freoh 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying CRT is not a controversial theory - that it's part of the prevailing historical view? I don't think I need to cite sources to prove what we already know. Anyway, the facts are not in dispute. Your application of them and your sources are.

My point about Morris (the only delegate of relevance) is that nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection.

By comparison, my use of the word "improved" is a blip and one that's easily fixed. Your footnote? It's a hot potato dropped into the middle of a section whose neutrality is in dispute. Yet you made no attempt to discuss it here or on the NPOV Noticeboard first. Allreet (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

​My sources are biased (as are all sources), but they're still reliable sources for the facts that I'm adding. Your argument that nothing he wrote had anything to do with protecting the institution of slavery, meaning the Preamble itself has no direct connection sounds like improper synthesis to me. Can you back this up with sources?      — Freoh 22:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe your two inflammatory footnotes amount to superficial potshots, meaning your approach is a less than acceptable way to address accusations of this magnitude. More depth and more sources, as well as balance, are needed considering the impressions they leave. As for reliability, your sources represent fringe views and don't have the weight to support these positions on their own. That's not just my opinion but what you were told by other editors early on.

Below are just a few of the sources that document Morris's positions on slavery and his authorship of the Preamble, plus a few positions on the subject of "liberty". These sources, among many others I can cite, reflect the prevailing views of historians, which may have their biases but unlike the leanings of your few sources, are widely shared.

• William Adams 2003: xi-xii, 81, 158-161, 163-164, 275, 295
• Richard Bernstein 1987: 183
• Catherine Bowen 1966: 42, 201, 240-241
• Jack Rakove 1996: 19, 88, 307-309, 335-336

I'll do the something similar for your "powerful white men" when I find the time. The vast majority of sources happen to regard this elite as a plus, not only the best of their generation but perhaps the most able group of representatives ever assembled. As a footnote to that, only a minority supported slavery, 19 delegates, but without their votes passage of the Constitution would have failed and the Union would have been lost. Allreet (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

​I looked through a few of those citations and I didn't see anything that contradicted my information. Am I missing something? If you want to describe content as fringe, you have to provide evidence against it. I still don't understand what's superficial; slavery was a huge part of American society at that point in history, and this article is about the Constitution, not Morris.      — Freoh 23:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The question isn't whether other sources contradict the views of the few you're citing. The subject here is neutrality, NPOV, and your sources are outside the mainstream of scholarship. To be neutral, you have to satisfy due weight and balance. Your footnotes don't do either. What you're missing, then, is the story. All you're doing is making two points without any context. White men wrote it, and they left slavery intact. That isn't superficial? Allreet (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? That's what I tried to do originally, but you removed it. What story and context are you looking for, exactly?      — Freoh 13:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Are you saying that you'd rather the text be integrated into the paragraphs rather than left in a footnote? Absolutely, though the discussion doesn't belong in the Preamble section. (I've already considered doing this.) I believe the story of the politicians who wrote the Constitution would more properly be addressed in the History and Influences sections, for example, while the account of how they legally sanctioned slavery, in the Articles, Ratified Amendments (Bill of Rights), and Criticisms sections. While slavery is addressed in those latter sections, a more succinct and focused approach may be needed, meaning in its own section. While a separate article, Slavery in the United States, already exists, the section here would focus on slavery within the context of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Allreet is correct in this discussion. Due weight would apply, and no need to add negativity to the concept of Liberty as discussed by the framers. The 'white' desciptor is superficial and irrelevant to the page and seems like pushing the focus which has no encyclopedic basis in the historical timeline of the constitution to push. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Each footnote now has three citations. If this doesn't deserve due weight, then neither does most of the content in this article.      — Freoh 23:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: Finkelman, your third cite, doesn't mention the Constitution's Preamble. I have no idea what Lovegrave has to say about the elite since I can't access his book. Why not try the 50+ works already cited since most are readily accessible? A thought not a mandate. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

​I added the quote you're looking for.      — Freoh 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sincerely. Not at all to be ungracious, I still think this material has no place in the Preamble section. However, I'm about to shift the focus. I started to take a look of where improvements could be made to satisfy your comments by adding to the lead and other sections. This led me to some conclusions that may surprise you, which I'll address in a new sub-section. I won't be able to get to this until later, but at worst by tomorrow. Allreet (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Randy Kryn has removed one of the footnotes. This section now has the same issues that it had before: over-reliance on a primary source for a misleading notion of liberty. To make this more balanced, we should include secondary sources that elaborate on what this liberty actually meant. I don't see how my footnote was "editorializing".      — Freoh 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't changed the quotation. Wikipedia's guidelines recommend using square brackets for insertions within quotations, so I think it's clear that this is not part of the original quotation.      — Freoh 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me, we're getting too deep in the preamble. It's a short bit of text and merely a preamble, an exposition of lofty principles, and yet there's much to say about the text and its background. Most of it belongs not here but in the detail article Preamble to the United States Constitution. The section here more needs shortening than lengthening, if either. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the full text of the Preamble. I just don't think we should promote "liberty" without clarifying the scope of this liberty.      — Freoh 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim.henderson, this discussion relates to the footnote Freoh inserted in the Preamble quote in this article's Preamble section. As for his assertion, nobody is promoting anything about "liberty" or any other word. All I did was quote the passage in full in the interest of readers, and I have no intention nor do I see any justification for removing it. As for the issue of slavery, it should be raised elsewhere where the topic is relevant and can be explored in depth. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The justification for removing it is that this article is already too long, and your addition is a primary source.      — Freoh 20:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Misleading tag: what issues remain?

Freoh: You applied the misleading template at the top of the article on January 5. Then, in the Talk page, you discussed "insular areas" in reference to U.S. territories. I think it was a bit of overkill to label the entire article misleading on the basis of this one issue.

I'll admit that I may have I created another issue along these lines with my edits on the Preamble, though these were similarly minor and not indicative of the article as a whole. However, I believe I cleared up all aspects of this with my edits late last week. (And thanks for your related thanks.)

What, then, remains that you regard as misleading? Allreet (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

​I placed that tag because the article as a whole spends a lot of text discussing protections granted by the Constitution, but it could do a much better job at specifying to whom those protections apply. I'd be happy to remove the tag if my proposal in § Why is a footnote about insular areas not neutral? were reinstated, but Dhtwiki has opposed these changes for reasons that I still don't understand. I've been meaning to continue that discussion (and maybe advertise an RfC), but I've gotten distracted by other issues. Happy to continue discussing that with you.      — Freoh 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That tag needs to go and please get consensus for returning it, your personal opinion isn't enough to tag a major page especially since Allreet has answered your concerns. I'll add a further answer: The Constitution provides protections as one of the main things it does. Who it protects is already stated, "We the People of the United States". It's not the job of the sections of this article to specify any further about who was or who wasn't protected at the start, unless in some controversy section. Please realize that the Constitution as written properly provided for the remedies to its inherent problems, all of which later were solved by the very words of the Constitution itself which allowed for a civil war, social movements for women and other legally-limited groups of people, and for introducing and passing amendments which addressed those former problems. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines recommend against segregating such material into a separate controversy section. And I'm not talking about former problems; I'm talking about the fact that constitutional protections don't currently apply to colonized subjects (unless explicitly granted by congressional legislation, which I think is outside the scope of this article).      — Freoh 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The constitution provides a remedy for your concern, a constitutional amendment. Pointing out one of many things that haven't reached the point that some may wish them to reach has nothing to do with a page on the constitution of the United States, other than to point out that they can be remedied by the citizens through avenues provided in the document itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about constitutional protections, then talking about who they apply to seems well within the scope of this article. I don't understand how amendments are relevant here. Are you arguing that we shouldn't talk about what the Constitution does now because it could in theory change in the future?      — Freoh 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Madison, Father of the Constitution...and other bunk

I just posted a stub for Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past, a collection of essays by leading historians published earlier this month. I don't have the book yet, but I ordered it for the chapter on America's founding by Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar. You can get a jump on the chapter by viewing "Was James Madison Truly Father of the Constitution?", a lecture by Amar. Some key points from his talk:

• Madison, was not the Father of the Constitution. I won't spoil the surprise by saying who qualifies, but I will say Amar seems to have nailed it.
• Charles Beard's 1913 An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, probably the most influential book on the Constitution published in the 20th century, maintains the document was written to benefit the wealthy 1%. Taught to generations as the gospel, this idea, says Amar, is total bunk.
• The framers, as we all have come to believe, supported the creation of a republic but disdained democracy. To put it crudely, Amar contends this thesis is warm and mushy as well.

I know many reading this will not agree, but the point should be made that history is not only about facts. It is also about interpretations, and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change. Allreet (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Allreet, I've watched most of the video and agree that it's a worthwhile use of time. Thanks. Missing (although presently, and inexplicably, the norm) is Amar's assessment of the Continental Association which was the forerunner of the uniting of the colonies (soon known by their accepted name, United Colonies) which Amar finds key to the existence of forming the new nation protected by a sea barrier rather than by lines in the sand. To unite the colonies, who largely saw themselves as independent nations, took the Constitution, but the foundation had been laid by the Continental Association. Amar's thoughts on this unification of semi-nations has made me more appreciative of the role that the Association played, a role that R. Jensen described as initiating a movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  Amar is focused more on his specialty, the Constitution. For details on the Continental Association, we need to look to the sources gwillhickers dug up during the RfC, which are still listed on the Founding Fathers talk page. I don't think it's inexplicable that more attention isn't paid. Many significant events occurred during the Revolutionary Era, a two-and-a-half decade period, and the earlier ones—Stamp Act Congress, Tea Party, First Continental Congress—are bound to get less attention than the developments they led to. Allreet (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"and those interpretations shift over time as the perspectives of historians change" That is the essence of historical revisionism, and why once popular ideas have been challenged and replaced by others. Available data change and ideologies are constantly shifting. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Article needs revision regarding slavery and possibly other issues

Freoh, I've taken your main contention to heart and I agree. While you may not have put it this way, I'm convinced the article inadequately addresses what was the most contentious issue in the summer of 1787, namely slavery.

How I arrived at my conclusion: My original thought was to add material here and there to satisfy your point about protections. So to assess things, my initial step was to search for the word "slave". Surprisingly, it first appearance was just short of the middle, 5,000 words in. Then I searched for "slavery" and found its first appearance almost 3,000 words later. With that, I didn't need to go any further.

I'm now in the process of a general assessment of the article's use of references, depth of scholarship, POV issues (balance, weight, neutrality), and so forth to get a handle on what needs to be revised besides adding more on slavery. That will take some time but I believe it's necessary, because my longer term thought is to work toward GA and FA.

That's where things stand. I don't think the neutrality discussion needs to continue, but I will note that what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se. No matter, except I'm pointing this out because I don't want to confuse things.

Meanwhile, thoughts from you and others on what I've just said will be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that the issue of slavery deserves more due weight. The only way to confidently solve these kinds of weight issues is to spend a lot of time reading a lot of sources, so I appreciate that you're willing to put in the time to ensure that this article is balanced. Constitutional law isn't something that I find particularly exciting, which is why I've kept my criticisms more focused on issues of clarity rather than weight. This article has a lot of discussion about "rights" and "liberties", but it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties. (One potential step toward making the latter clearer is in my proposal above.) I'm not sure exactly what you mean that what other editors have said above about POV guidelines is generally correct since as far as I can see nobody was addressing "protections" or slavery per se, but I'm interested to see your changes.      — Freoh 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My reference to other editors was to their comments about balance, due weight, and so forth. So in agreeing with you on the article's failure to adequately address slavery/protections, I wanted to make clear I was not negating what editors had said about those guidelines in relation to your proposals. At the same time I have no interest at the moment in revisiting our disagreements over your footnotes, other than to say they remain.

BTW, I think you'd enjoy Amar's video that I mentioned above. He's a leading expert on Constitutional Law but the subject here is history. I also recommend viewing other lectures available on YouTube on the Constitution's history. As for balance, most of the authors who give these talks are reflecting "the prevailing view", that is, the overview someone would have if they read the major books on the subject (some issues aside). Allreet (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Disputed inline footnote in middle of Preamble

I am disputing Freoh's good faith footnote which is affixed to the word "liberty" in the middle of the Preamble in the Constitution article:

This liberty did not extend to Africans, as § Article I legally protected the slave trade.

Freoh's reason for applying the footnote appears in a discussion above:

...it should be clear to an average reader that the Framers' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave and that not all Americans enjoy these rights and liberties.

While I don't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote, I consider the assertion to be judgmental without any concern for neutrality, balance, and what most sources have to say on the subject. Here's a small but representative sample: '

• Bernstein, pp. 177-178: Many later historians and politicians have denounced what they see as the Convention's failure of nerve, moral courage, and ingenuity in dealing with the problem of slavery...(Yet) The delegates knew that a charter that denounced slavery, no matter how mildly, would be rejected by the southern states, at least three of which had economies bound up with the slave system.

• Maier, p. 284: Madison explained that "the Southern States"...would not agree to the Constitution without that temporary continuation of the slave trade. Mason (George Mason of Virginia) was ready to leave those states out of the Union unless they agreed to discontinue "this disgraceful trade," but Madison disagreed. "Great as the evil is," he said, "a dismemberment of the Union would be worse."

• Ellis, p. 202: What strikes us as a poignant failure of moral leadership appeared to Washington as a prudent exercise in political judgment...Whatever his personal views on slavery may have been, his highest public priority was the creation of a unified American nation.

• Collier, p. 141: It was clear that slavery would eventually be ended in the North. By 1787 the Massachusetts courts had abolished it, and the gradual abolition of slavery in other northern states, especially Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, was under way. Surely slavery was a dying institution; why cause an uproar over it when it was bound to wither away soon enough?

The Founders however imperfect were hardly villains, and in fact, most were heroes. That's the prevailing view, meaning what most sources have to say. Yes, we should report both sides, but we shouldn't be dropping a one-sided non sequitur into the middle of the Preamble because it suits a particular POV of the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

​Where's the contradiction here? How can the footnote have reliable sources with contradicting facts if you don't disagree with the essential truth of the footnote?      — Freoh 01:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

At issue is the lack of balance and neutrality embodied in your footnote. It's also out of context and has no place in the Preamble section. I'm sure there's a way you could explore it further in this section, and that might be proper though it would be difficult for someone to write objectively about this if their starting point was the belief that the Founders' notion of "liberty" included the right to enslave. The "essential truth" is that slavery was allowed to endure - there's no denying that - but there are other essential truths and one of them is that many Founders shared your disgust regarding slavery, but could do little about it. Allreet (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask again: where is the contradiction? If you're adding a tag that says This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts, then you need to specify the contradiction.      — Freoh 11:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Have just added this as a reply in an above section and see that it is directly related to this section as well, so will add it here) The editorializing footnotes you want to include were right in the middle of directly quoting the Preamble to the Constitution. Direct quotes are not changed on Wikipedia. Since the Preamble contains neither the footnotes themselves, nor their viewable reference number, the footnotes don't belong there. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, I agree with Randy Kryn that this one-sided assertion amounts to editorializing. Please address the aspects of WP:POV I raised instead of focusing on something I did not mention. Balance means acknowledging all significant facts associated with a story, while affording due weight to those facts. Neutrality means presenting a dispassionate account of the facts without taking any side.

I also agree with Randy in regards to the placement of your footnote within the quotation of the Preamble. It's the issue I raised before, and IMO he summed up what's wrong with this more succinctly than I did. Allreet (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

From WP:Quotations: Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a direction that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis. Allreet (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My purpose here is to accurately reflect the intention of the original source. The word Liberty is kind of vague, and it probably means something different to most modern Wikipedia readers than it did to the original Framers. I'm clarifying the meaning, not changing it.      — Freoh 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "liberty" was as well understood then as it is now. In that regard, many people today may fully grasp the word's meaning yet they still hold racist beliefs and condone discriminatory practices. In any case, the intention of the original source was not what you ascribe, given that he (Gouverneur Morris) was one of slavery's most outspoken opponents. Since all those things are true and what you just said at the top is not, I fail to see how your footnote is accurately reflecting or clarifying anything. Allreet (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: I also suggest taking a look at WP:Civil POV pushing. Several bulleted points on this page describe what's been going on here and elsewhere in the discussions and edits related to neutrality. I'll cite just one: Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Allreet (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

[Since this page is being overrun with sections and subsection I'll add a post I made above to this section as well, and address it here to the undue suggestion that editorializing about the lack of solving the slavery issue belongs smack in the middle of the direct quote providing the content of the preamble to Wikipedia's readers] The constitution provides a remedy for your concern, a constitutional amendment. Pointing out one of many things that haven't reached the point that some may wish them to reach has nothing to do with a page on the constitution of the United States, other than to point out that they can be (and in this case have been) remedied by the citizens through avenues provided in the document itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy or to advance a specific agenda. I'm trying to add neutral information that deserves due weight.      — Freoh 18:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The footnote's statement is not neutral or balanced if it's one-sided - if it omits what the vast majority of sources have to say about the Founders' failure (as I've done with the passages I cited above). And your comment about what you want to make clear to readers indicates a desire to advocate for this view. As a matter of fact, what you said isn't true. It so happens, most Framers even slaveholders recognized the immorality of slavery and many were embarrassed by its inclusion in the Constitution, unmentioned as the word was. Allreet (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, what am I focusing on that you did not mention? The tag you added says that This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts. Are you retracting that complaint?      — Freoh 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate your response to the items I just bolded. Regarding the dispute template, I applied it based on what the Template:Disputed inline says: This inline template helps highlight a particular disputed statement or alleged fact. The page says nothing about "contradicting facts". In checking back, I see that the template has a hover-over message related to this, but that's not my concern (it's an item created by a programmer). Now please address how the one-sided statement in the footnote you posted conforms with WP:NPOV. Allreet (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Moot

 – this footnote and a second footnote that would have resulted in another dispute have been removed. For details, see the following Talk section

Allreet (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of footnote accusing Framers of being "powerful white men"

I have just removed the second of two footnotes Freoh had added to the Preamble section. The first of these, which dealt with slavery and the word "liberty", was discussed in sections above at great length. As for the second footnote, it accused the Framers of being "powerful white men", and I'll get to the substance of that in a moment.

What prompted my action was a new section on Freoh's Talk page, where an editor, identified only as "Special Contributions" followed by an enigmatic string of characters, described his two footnotes as fairly "blatant violations of WP:NPOV". The editor's complete comments follow:

Footnotes c & d on [the U.S. Constitution], while not entirely incorrect, are pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV among other policies in their current state. They would be far more appropriate to place in the criticisms section, as leaving them where they are can only be interpreted as bludgeoning the reader with your personal POV.

They are fantastic additions to the article, but very inappropriately placed. <address omitted> 00:39, 28 January 2023

I'm a bit miffed that this was posted four days ago without any acknowledgement in our current discussion. However, I'll leave out Freoh's response to the above, since it's not much different from what's been posted here. I will repeat my comment, since it addresses the second footnote in greater detail:

I have been going around and around with Freoh on the Preamble issue, making these very points, but to no avail. The idea that the word "liberty" in the Preamble is somewhat vague and therefore, the issue of slavery should be interjected to clarify its meaning strikes me as absurd. More pointedly, the assessment above is accurate: the footnote represents a personal POV.

I was also about to apply an inline disputed template to the second footnote, which points out that the Framers were "powerful white men" who were not representative of "the people". Of course they were white, as was the dominant population; male, since women could not serve or be elected to office; and powerful, since being rich, educated, and influential were the main prerequisites for public service two centuries ago - and doesn't hurt today. As for being "representative", if that means being just like the average person, of course not. However, the accusation ignores the fact that the Framers were either elected to represent the people or were appointed by the people's elected representatives. Furthermore, the Constitution was originally a proposal, so "We the people" was meant to be approved if not by the people, then by their representatives.

I disagree, however, that the footnotes are "fantastic additions" by themselves. I do believe both issues are worthy of addressing, but in greater depth, with more balance, and in more appropriate sections. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2023

Finally, I must add that that I find disputes in WP to be bewildering experiences that consume an inordinate amount of time, especially given that editors can Wikilawyer subjects endlessly. As a result, few other editors are willing to chime in and if they do, they eventually get frustrated and give up. Accordingly, I must thank Randy Kryn first, for taking WP:Bold to heart and then, for offering his supportive comments on key points. Allreet (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid giving preference to the dominant population, and I don't think that it's a personal POV to say that they were powerful white men. That's a pretty universally-acknowledged fact.      — Freoh 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your preference regarding the universally-acknowledged fact is a personal POV. Allreet (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Framers were not powerful white men?      — Freoh 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about whether to specify to whom the Constitution refers when it discusses the People, protections, and liberty

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community considers suggestions by Freoh to amend our article on the US Constitution. I say "proposals", plural, because Freoh changed his proposed wording on several occasions in response to editors' concerns. Contrary to suggestions below, this is allowed. One of the best uses of Wikipedia's Request for Comment process is to workshop changes to articles and see what would gain consensus.

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

Nevertheless, Freoh and those who support him are welcome to continue to workshop alternative changes to the article.—S Marshall T/C 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

---

This article discusses the People who created the Constitution, the liberties it originally grantedguarded, and the protections it continues to provide. Should we specify that "the People" were a small number of powerful white men, that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and that "protections" do not apply to colonized subjects?      — Freoh 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC); 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC))

Survey

• Yes, as the creator of this RfC, I think that we should specify. As I've argued at length in several sections above, this information is covered in several reliable sources and deserves due weight.      — Freoh 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify and summarize, here are the sources I've previously tried citing:

  • Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  • Collier, Christopher; Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1987. New York: Random House. p. 103. ISBN 978-0394-52346-0.
  • Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712. The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
  • Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
  • Bell, Derrick (2008). And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7867-2269-3. OCLC 784885619.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2014-04-09). Slavery and the Founders (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. ix. doi:10.4324/9781315720869. ISBN 978-1-315-72086-9.
  • Immerwahr, Daniel (2019). How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-71512-0. OCLC 1086608761. The Constitution's references to 'the United States,' the argument continued, were meant in that narrow sense, to refer to the states alone. Territories thus had no right to constitutional protections, for the simple reason that the Constitution didn't apply to them. As one justice summarized the logic, the Constitution was 'the supreme law of the land,' but the territories were 'not part of the "land."'
  • Rolnick, Addie C. (June 2022). "Indigenous Subjects". Yale Law Journal. 131 (8): 2652–2758.

       — Freoh 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• This statement of the issue does not strike me as being a neutral statement of the issue. I do think the article should include information about who was considered to be part of "the people" and how the concept of "the people" has changed over the course of the Constitution's long life as a foundational document. I think it should include discussions of what was meant by liberties and protections and, again, how those concepts have evolved over the last ~200 years. I do not, however, think the footnotes discussed in the several sections above are the proper way to discuss these topics. These discussions need more than a footnote that reads like the article is attempting to argue with itself. They need to be handled with context and nuance and sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Between this talk page, associated user talk pages, and the NPOV noticeboard, it seems Freoh has been attempting to implement these changes for months without being able to find any meaningful support for them. As others have pointed out, these edits are subjective and would effectively insert opinion/interpretation into the article. In line with what ONUnicorn said above, there are ways to provide encyclopedic coverage of the role the Constitution has played historically without turning the article into a referendum or a critique. I think Penlite's comments on this talk page back in December said pretty much everything that needed to be said. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  How is this opinion/interpretation? I'm trying to limit this information to concrete facts with wide coverage in reliable sources.      — Freoh 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The wide coverage referred to includes some Fringe Theories but more importantly Freoh's roundup totally ignores sources that represent the prevailing view, specifically works by distinguished authors such as Ellis, Wood, Bernstein, Rakove, Ferling, Farrand, Maier, Jensen, Bowen, and Beeman. These works, which can be accessed through the Internet Archive via the article's bibliography, focus on the framing of the Constitution and generally concur on the concrete facts as well as their meaning. Allreet (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The Constitution does not pretend to be perfect, and never did. Right from the very start, it recognised that limitation, which is why Article V was included, and this facility has been used no less than 27 times in the last 231 years. Indeed, the words "more perfect" are right there in the preamble - and not the words "completely perfect". The people who drafted the Constitution were (and the lawmakers still are) striving for a Utopia that they knew would not happen straightaway, but which, given the right decisions and policies, could be achievable some day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the People and liberty, I'm talking mostly about § History and § Original frame. Historically, the Constitution protected slavery, even if it later outlawed it. Also, Wikipedia policy forbids discussing policies just because they "could be achievable some day".      — Freoh 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  100% agree that the constitution is not perfect. So we should mention the areas in which it was not perfect. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• the problem is due weight: this is an issue so much written about that it is possible to cite many many sources for almost any viewpoint; but overall, oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - liberties arn't granted by the constitution. A number of liberties are codified there mostly through the amendment process which produced the bill or rights etc. That aside yeah un due weight and neutrality issues with the wording of this proposal. Context can be shown in the article text that the founders were white, mostly wealthy, and accepting of slavery though. BogLogs (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I changed the wording from "granted" to "guarded."      — Freoh 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose although historical context somewhere should be discussed, but this specific version is substantially inaccurate. New Jersey, for example, stripped African Americans of the right to vote a few years after the constitution was written, meaning they could vote before that. New York similarly imposed burdensome property requirements on black voters, which again is a piece of racist history but also shows they did get that right in some circumstances. The nominator also states that it doesn't apply to US territories, but that again is not a full truth. Incorporated territories do fall under constitutional protection and the stop at that level is traditionally where territories move to before becoming states, it's refered to as incorporated. A territory can be organized or unorganized (referring to if it's been set up with a government) and incorporated or unincorporated (referring to if the constitution applies). There's an unorganized, incorporated territory existing today, and another territory that in any other period of US history would have moved to the organized, incorporated box by now, and a litany of historical examples of US incorporated territories. The proposal fails to adequately summarize the situation and historical context of this. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was focused on colonized subjects. The U.S. currently has no inhabited incorporated territory, so I thought this was a valid simplification, but I'm open to clarifying the distinction between the two.      — Freoh 12:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Considering that the vast majority of US territories become states eventually, noting that whether the constitution applies to a territory or not depends on an arbitrary decision by a body not composed of a voting representative from that territory is something I would support somewhere in the text provided it's drafted by someone more skilled in encyclopedic language then I. Likewise, placing in proper context that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty leaves the fact that they also weren't seen as being required either as a plain consequence and I would support that sort of language. The reasons I opposed don't represent any sort of philosophical opposition and with a more fully developed proposal in a 2nd RfC that follows the suggestions above is very much something I wod support. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good, I'll take this feedback into account for a more fleshed-out and specific proposal. While I agree that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty, I'm not sure how much decisions made by the courts fall within the scope of this article; I was talking more about the apparent contradiction within the Constitution itself – that is, the fact that the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery in the name of securing "Liberty".      — Freoh 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have a prior history of involvement in politics at a functional level, so that may be coloring my responses in that I tend to view the Constitution in terms of that- it's function and the interactions between people and government or branch of government and each other. That's also why my first comment highlighted what was the practical outcomes on those deficiencies you illustrated. I see now we were talking at something of crossed purposes and apologize for not picking that up sooner. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree the question is not neutral, but everyone should be able to sort out what is. Absolutely, the People, the enslaved, liberties and powerful white men should be discussed. Just as certainly, this exploration should reflect the prevailing view of the subject and address perspectives outside of this, all in accordance with WP:NPOV's guidelines regarding neutrality, balance, and due weight. However, the recent footnotes inserted into the article - scroll to the Preamble section - fail on every count, including their selective use of sources. While both edits raise legitimate issues, they also ignore what the vast majority of sources have to say, especially regarding the fact that limiting slavery would have doomed the Constitution and the Union. Based on the lengthy discussions above and on the NPOV Preamble Dispute page, I believe these edits and Freoh's "proposal" reflect his personal POV and thus violate WP:NPOV. Note: while the footnotes have been deleted, the related dispute template remains on the article, and it is my hope this RfC will result in its removal. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated above. The context here is not so black and white, no pun intended. Scapulus^takk 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Partial support in principle, in the form of footnotes, but not with the loaded terminology like "powerful white men" and political catchphrases like "colonized subjects". In Freoh's prior proposals there were problems with WP:WTW things like "asserted" which comes off as "claimed", "elite", etc. it just doesn't have an encyclopedic tone but more comes off as a politically charged college essay. In the foot notes we can attribute observations to a specific WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NPROF/WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:RS or phrase them neutrally. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – There is probably a place in the Wikipedia universe for articles on whether the words of the preamble allowed people to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, or whether, as some have it, those words (especially "we the people") facilitated later inclusion and democratization. Also, a discussion on how the demographic makeup of the convention may have caused others to be unfairly misrepresented could be had, but elsewhere, possibly linked to from this article. But these blunt and simplistic footnotes are not warranted where they've been placed, and are somewhat insulting (as though people don't know there was slavery on a racial basis), as well as vague (what constitutes "powerful white men" and how did they use their power?) and even racially fetishistic (why mention their race when race is supposed to be an artificial construct, and when religious, economic, and class differences probably were equally, if not more, important?). Dhtwiki (talk)
• Oppose as WP:NPOV fail. The topic is more complex than this. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with @Fad Ariff. The topic is far more complex than this. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I think it's important to give readers a sense of the scope at the time it was ratified. The sad fact is that early learners are not always aware of these caveats. Δπ (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per my points in the Discussion below. I usually hope that everyone involved in RfC's which have discussion sections considers reading them. This one has interesting things being brought up that I didn't know. For instance, which major Founder should have been thrown into debtor's prison but wasn't (answer below)? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, the limited and selective proposed language carries undue weight, as the Framers could also be sourced as intelligent, trustworthy (by those who appointed them to serve in this endeavor), dedicated, patriotic, and many other descriptors. Use them all or use none. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle, because those are facts backed up by RS. But something like "The rights and protections listed in the constitution were limited to white men, and did not extend to other groups such as ..." would be much better than "powerful white men oppressing colonized subjects. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support USA isn't a perfect democracy or a perfect liberty, and it never was. There are some Americans (especially those in jail for example) who don't have protections and liberties Some random serbian (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not in these terms. The article should explain the constitutional provisions' effectivites without loaded terminology. Sennalen (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per Sennalen. From the OP's post, it's a little unclear how specifically these changes are to be placed into the article. It seems that the article is already fairly clear to me about who the people were who created the Constitution, and it is difficult to determine what these changes will do other than add politically charged and non-neutral language to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form, primarily on NPOV grounds. The idea of mentioning such type of stuff has been politicized, and risks violating NPOV. If written in a manner such as "some scholars and many backers of the American Democratic Party believe this", while giving due weight to the opposite side (Republicans), I would likely support its inclusion, but the execution of such in its present form would be to politically jarring for the project. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but not in these terms. One of the most commonly commented on aspect in modern times is the distance between the 'universality' of the document's phrasing and its relatively narrow implementation (male, white, adult) but The article should explain the constitutional provisions … without loaded terminology per Sennalen. How to balance historical perspective and modern sensibility/reaction needs much more nuanced content than this proposal. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "powerful white men", given the scope of today's socio-political anti-male climate, obviously comes off divisive and that this is somehow unfair or unusual. As such the term would play on the sentiments of many (not all) women and Blacks. It's like saying the Chinese government was founded by "powerful Asian men", or that the Greek democracy was founded by "powerful Greek men". Also, many of the Framers were not necessarily "powerful", as if they were all rich and had the potential to be dictators. Many of the Founders had humble beginnings, and this sort of divisive phrase would also ignore that. .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  The framers were disproportionately wealthy, politically powerful, and universally white men. My proposed wording doesn't say powerful white men specifically.      — Freoh 02:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of the framers were intelligent and business minded. That was an asset, as structuring a government and making it a viable success incorporates the same worldly mindset. Some were wealthy, but not filthy and worldly rich, like the European kings and bankers lurking behind the scenes, who chartered most of the plantations, and whose output, i.e.cotton and tobacco, largely went to Europe, esp Britain and France, right up until the Civil War. i.e.Proportionately, little to do with the Founders. What sort of government would have been founded if all the framers were simple, naive and idealistic farmers and merchants? In any case, the phrase "powerful white men" is inaccurate, divisive and misleading for reasons mentioned above, and ignores much for any objective account of these people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - Like Pincrete, I support the principal but not the terms suggested. I think elaboration in the prose might be warranted, but not in the loaded way suggested. - Aoidh (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Aoidh, did you see the proposed wording below? Could you explain what you think is loaded?      — Freoh 01:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did see them. They are unsuitible for that much emphasis, as my understanding of reliable sources as a whole is that this emphasis on this definition of who "the people" were is not consistently elaborated on to the point that it need be in the summary of the preamble in that way. Elaborated at some point perhaps, but the above and below proposals are not the best ways to handle that issue in my mind. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't have to present information in the same way as all of our sources. I would argue that referring to the 2.5% of supporters as the people is a misleading euphemism, because it could reasonably be significantly misinterpreted to mean that most people supported the ratification. This eleven-word clarification is widely covered in reliable sources. How would you support the principle in different terms?      — Freoh 14:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SSF is about style and titling which isn't relevant here since this is about content, and WP:SSF certainly doesn't supersede WP:DUE. I have stated above what I would suggest. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find Freoh's arguments on this point, here and in previous discussions, to be thoroughly unconvincing, and largely agree with Allreet's various posts on this page. We should use the most representative, reputable sources for this article, and this proposal would move us away from that, by failing to properly contextualise the relevant issues. DFlhb (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not as worded in the RFC and not through footnotes. Either the information is DUE inclusion or its not. Don't hide it in footnotes if it is. Additionally, Freoh should have done a better job at WP:RFCBEFORE and consulted with experienced editors on how to word and propose the RFC. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ixtal, did you see the proposed wording in the discussion below?      — Freoh 01:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Freoh, I don't believe it appropriate for me to vote on an option not presented at the top of an RFC. In any case, I would vote against the proposed wording as I believe mentioning the founding fathers as white men is best left for a second or third paragraph of the lead. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Ixtal. — At this point in time, unfortunately, the idea of "while male" is so often put out there as some derogatory sort of an entity, which ignores the idea that in any given country the inhabitants were largely homogeneous, be it Asian, Japan the Middle east, etc. "Powerful white males" in the colonies set up the most free nation in the history of the world, where many thousands of people, trying to escape religious and political persecution, came to the new world, and to also start a new life where, beforehand, kings, lords, and their bankers, had for several centuries oppressed or smited these people to one extent or another, usually to the greater. There was very little middle class in Europe and elsewhere. In America, the middle class comprised the greater portion of the population, by far, for the first time in human history, and with a Constitution they had a voice, with 'teeth' in it. It's unfortunate that enslaved Africans didn't come into the fold right off, but throughout history, racial and cultural barriers were overcome slowly, and today, here we are, still the most free nation on the planet. Okay, guess I'm on a soapbox here, but that's actually the glaring truth, imo, and this perspective needs to be better reflected in any proposal that attempts to put out the idea that "powerful white males", or any other such phrase, in a callous manner, authored the Constitution. Many Founders were mindful of these advents, which is well covered in the Founding fathers of America article, that several editors here, for quite some time, have been forging. A visit to the talk page there might give you a better idea of the debates, sometimes heated, but insightful, that occurred there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Aspects of this proposal are POV, particularly the "a small number of powerful" bit. While the Founders weren't particularly thinking about people of color or women, many of them clearly intended that most or all white men should take part in the republic.

And the bit about "colonized subjects" -- see Insular area#Citizenship -- this is POV, and there seems to be a consensus to oppose the proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your speculation about the Founders' intentions, the small number of white men and the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects are facts, not points of view.      — Freoh 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The question is where it should be mentioned. In the NPOV noticeboard Freoh was asking for it to be in the lede of Preamble to the United States Constitution. I did some quick searches to see how the Preamble was discussed and even the ACLU's page, such as it was, made no mention of these issues - it was one of the top results but it just listed the text. The question is a matter of WP:DUE weight. For it to be in the lede it would have to be prevalent in surface level discussions of the topic. These topics are mentioned in the Criticisms section, is that not adequate to give DUE weight to them? The RFC seems somewhat malformed because the article does already mention this. Freoh, where else do you want it mentioned, the lede, the main body of the article? Can you be more specific about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: just because you had one too many tildes in your sig invocation and theres only a date showing. But for a substantive comment, I'd also like to see proposed text, which is usually standard in RfC's like this. The proposal as is suffers from the issue of being oversimplified to the point of just being wrong, as I point out in my contribution to the survey. That could very well just be an artifact of how its been summarized for the RfC. Placed in proper context and with accurate background I could see myself supporting it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I was ever asking for it to be in the lede. My main concern is that the People, liberty, and protections are fairly vague terms (and somewhat abused by propaganda), so ideally the "to whom" would be clarified as soon as these terms are discussed in the body of this article, but I'm not very particular. I've made a few proposals trying to get this information included, but they've been shot down as "fringe theories". I was trying to use this RfC to draw attention to the fact that this information is widely-covered and noncontroversial, and that the article could be significantly more specific, but I see now that I made my summary too concise. Here are my past proposals:

• I have a proposal for addressing the lack of protections for colonized subjects. Insular areas are already mentioned, but given all of the content in this article about "protections," I think that it would be helpful to discuss the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects specifically.
• For the People, I originally proposed an in-text mention. When this was reverted, I proposed a footnote instead, but this was also deleted.
• For Liberty, I again proposed a footnote, hoping that this would be less controversial than an in-text mention, but this was also deleted.

Again, I'm not picky about where this content is mentioned. But I reject the notion that this information is a "fringe theory" – I haven't seen anything that contradicts it, just different historians who focus on different aspects of the history. I'm also open to re-wording this information in a more neutral way, though I'd like to point out that my wording doesn't fit the description of "editorializing" in Wikipedia's guidelines, and I'd argue that the labels of "protections", "liberty", and "the people" are at least somewhat value-laden.      — Freoh 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: Oh I apologize, I had not paid close enough attention in the noticeboard discussion and thought it was about the lede. I think it would be reasonable to include footnotes discussing these issues. I would say be careful on the phrasing not to load the discussion with things like asserted that the elite delegates to the convention represented the general American populace - this word choice does seem to be editorializing. Asserted there is getting awfully close to "claimed" which is the quintessential example in WP:NPOV of WP:WTW. That the word asserted was already there does not change this. We could attribute such characterizations to certain writers, or phrase things completely neutrally without trying to inject that kind of tone and insinuation. Similarly so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects uses a certain loaded and shall we say specialized terminology and we should avoid any such phrasing. Aside from the phrasing I support what you are aiming for. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh and DIYeditor: Footnotes are intended to provide additional information—they can't introduce large issues or offer sweeping conclusions on their own. Freoh is correct that mainstream sources don't contradict the facts of his sources. What he's missing is that the body of scholarship offers a more complete picture and then a different view of those facts. The subject of powerful white men and 18th century politics, for example, has been explored by dozens of sources over the course of hundreds of pages. And that's a far smaller matter than the issues the other footnote raises: liberty, protections, slavery. I agree these topics should be addressed, just not this way. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So where should they be addressed and should the primary mention of the topics which Freoh is concerned with make no reference to these other issues? I have seen varying types of information in footnotes over the years, including some that offered contradictory information that wasn't included in the main body of the text. I'm not familiar with manuals of style or standard practices on it. As far as Wikipedia:

Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:

references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,

explanatory information, or

source information for tables and other elements.

Footnotes or shortened footnotes may be used at the editor's discretion in accordance with the guideline on Variation in citation methods.

And I don't such more more explicit direction than that about what information can be conveyed there (but I may have missed it). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor and Freoh: These issues should be addressed in relevant sections, and given their importance and complexity, with greater depth. Footnotes are clearly not the way to do that. Allreet (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me, keeping in mind what I have said about phrasing and tone. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, how would you prefer that we refer to colonized subjects? I'm just using the terminology in the sources I'm using; is there another term that you think is more standard or neutral? What about it is "loaded"?      — Freoh 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not any particular one of these phrasings that you used, and perhaps that one is fine, but why is it not "colonial subjects" instead of "colonized subjects"? The people weren't colonized, the land was, and it was probably done before many of them were even alive. Could as easily be "conquered persons" or "noncitizens" or "alien residents" or something - not that these are used in sources, just saying there are many possible ways to phrase it. Do all sources on the early history of the US use "colonized subjects" or is it sources taking a particular approach? Is this a new way of phrasing things or long standing? Even "colonial subjects" sounds to me like how persons subject to the British Empire were described, not noncitizen inhabitants of the United States and its territories.

Since we are putting it in Wikipedia's voice we should use the most standard terminology and I don't remember histories I read in the past using the term "colonized subjects", FWIW. It would be fine to attribute (or quote) precisely what your sources have said as what they have said, but Wikipedia's voice should be free of quasi-neologisms and "engineered" terms of recent design, particularly keeping in mind that we are paraphrasing, not quoting (except when it's a quote). I see now that Dhtwiki had exactly the same concerns as I about your phrasings, and I had not seen what they had written. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with colonial subjects. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, I'm not talking about the early history of the US. The US didn't have unincorporated territories in its early history, but it does today.      — Freoh 11:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Colonial subjects" would be fine, if we were talking about the British Empire and its colonies, and I believe would actually be the standard phrasing. The people in question were not in colonies of the United States, but in its home territory. I will look into this more but my impression right now is that "noncitizens" would be a good choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The US government doesn't refer to its empire as colonies of the United States because colonialism is unpopular, but independent academics do refer to these as colonies. I don't think that "noncitizens" would be appropriate because some of these colonized subjects have been officially granted citizenship by Congress.      — Freoh 12:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be equivocating here. You just above said you were referring to a time when the US didn't have unincorporated territories and to the very early history of the US (the time of the writing of the Constitution), and now you seem to be referring to a time when it did ("American imperialism"). Also you were specific about "unincorporated" territories in your reply, but I had said only "territories", so I'm not sure what you were correcting.

If someone was granted citizenship they would have rights under the Constitution, wouldn't they? And are you again equivocating about time period?

That some sources may take a critical view of the US does not mean that is the prevailing view (or terminology) in the sources we are relying on for most of the article. We can attribute these views ("So-and-so has characterized such-and-such as being this-and-that") but to state it in Wikipedia's voice we need to use the prevailing terminology and viewpoint expressed by the majority of sources, or a neutral paraphrasing along those lines if we aren't using their exact terms. We might not even be able to attribute "colonized subjects" without quotes because it is not a literal expression, the persons were not colonized. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The topic strikes me as being outside this conversation, even though it's referenced in the RfC's opening question. At best the points raised might warrant mention in a subparagraph, but for what reason I can't fathom in terms of WP:N and the Constitution's development. Is there another article, for example, on constitutional law, where it would be more relevant? Allreet (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I see now that this was too much for a single RfC. These are really three separate issues:

• The fact that the People were all powerful white men is most relevant to the 1787 constitutional convention.
• The fact that liberty did not extend to enslaved Africans is most relevant to the first 20 years of the Constitution, when the legality of the slave trade was constitutionally enforced.
• The fact that protections do not extend to colonial subjects is most relevant after the Insular Cases of 1901, when the Supreme Court formally ruled that Constitutional protections do not apply to residents of the recently conquered colonies (regardless of whether these residents were citizens). This is still true today.

I'm not sure what the prevailing terminology is for colonial subjects. I'm basing my terminology off of the sources that I'm using, which probably differs from the official U.S. government terminology.      — Freoh 11:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your first two facts are widely accepted and have been explored extensively by scholars, particularly the second, slavery. Just before you filed the RfC, I pointed out that slavery isn't even mentioned in the article until half way through. You agreed and suggested that addressing this would require a lot of time reading a lot of sources. I'm doing that and taking copious notes as I go. I'm hoping others will do the same.

The other fact, powerful white men, is more problematic since it's a pejorative characterization and the view expressed in your footnote is inaccurate. The convention and the Constitution's ratification were part of a political process in which the the People were represented.

Of course, the convention's outcome was most unfavorable for the fifth of the population not spoken for, namely enslaved and indigenous peoples. We need to address that. The larger question is, given the politics and the times could we have expected more? The prevailing view is probably not. In any case, all we can do is try to provide a balanced account of what most sources say occurred. Allreet (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do, add balance to an article that makes simplistic generalizations. The opinion that the People were represented is controversial and should be attributed if mentioned. I don't see how powerful white men is pejorative; lots of sources comment on the fact that all of these delegates were white, male, and powerful, but I'm open to wording it differently.      — Freoh 14:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Because choosing just one aspect and not-easily-defined descriptor, "powerful", seems undue. They were also intelligent, civic-minded, literate (not a universal trait in the late 18th century), influential, revolutionary, brave, white men. "Powerful" really doesn't describe anything outside of each reader's perception of the word, it does not contain enough specificity. As for some of your other concerns, please realize that the constitution was written to be self-correcting. The amendment process eventually corrected the slavery issue. It is understood in the literature that the Framers could not have ended slavery in 1787 because the constitution would not have been approved, the attempt to write a new constitution would have ended there in Independence Hall, and even if written the document would not have been ratified by the required states. The new nation was not ready to address the issue but, as mentioned, did leave within the document a way to eventually do so (after a war 73 years later, where hundreds of thousands of men died keeping the founder's and nation's promise of a perpetual union). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Describing them as intelligent is an opinion, but there's plenty of objective evidence (and coverage in reliable sources) that these men were disproportionately wealthy and held powerful political offices. And again, when I'm talking about the People, I'm talking about the 1787 political convention, and the sections § History and § Original frame, so I don't see how later political activity is relevant.      — Freoh 14:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Being selected by their fellow state leaders to attend the convention can also be described as trustworthiness. That they crafted a document and a government the likes of which the world had never seen before, a government which stopped the import of slaves in 17 years, historically ended legally accepted slavery in 78, and has stood up to time and distress for a quarter of a millennium to, for example, accomplish 182 years later what would have been considered a miracle at the time, men walking on the Moon, makes their intelligence as a volunteer crowd source obvious. So yes, intelligence as a descriptor also fits, as do many others. Add a few of those and you've got a good sentence. The "later political activity", a step-by-step refining of the union, was built into the document as inevitable given time, because the Constitution provided for its own self-correction. That seems to have everything to do with relevancy. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, your footnotes are hardly scholarly observations. As another editor pointed out about the slavery footnote, it's as if readers didn't know slavery existed back then and it needed to be brought to their attention. The same would go for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and company. People need to be told they were not only powerful but white and male. Uh, your point? Allreet (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, their trustworthiness and intelligence are opinions that should not be stated in wikivoice. The facts that they were extremely wealthy and politically powerful should take priority.      — Freoh 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Facts...should take priority if there's some point to be made, as well as an effort to tell the whole truth. The related facts: Most of these guys made substantial financial sacrifices to do what they did, and a fair number of them—particularly Washington and Jefferson—were land (and slave) rich but cash poor. Only a few founders were extremely wealthy, your opinion, and none in the sense that we use the term. Robert Morris (the so-called financier of the Revolution) would be the closest example of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but the other side is that he ended up in debtor's prison and died a pauper. Jefferson? He had to sell his extensive library to make ends meet and also died deeply in debt. He should have been in debtor's prison, too, except nobody had the chutzpah to foreclose on one of the foundingest of fathers. Allreet (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm talking about their status at the time of the 1787 convention, so I don't see how their later financial troubles are relevant here. Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly contradict these?

As we shall see in more detail later, the United States was a "deferential" society, in which a small elite of the wealthy and wellborn expected to lead, and in fact were expected by the people to do so. To a considerable extent, the very people to whom the poor farmers owed money were also the judges who convicted them and the colonels who called out the militia to enforce the decrees.
— 

Edmund Morgan sums up the class nature of the Revolution this way: "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established." Looking at the situation after the Revolution, Richard Morris comments: "Everywhere one finds inequality." He finds "the people" of "We the people of the United States" (a phrase coined by the very rich Gouverneur Morris) did not mean Indians or blacks or women or white servants. In fact, there were more indentured servants than ever, and the Revolution "did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage."
— Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 84. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
— Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.

     — Freoh 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not even necessarily a matter of contradicting them. As far as stating in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing, we need to go by WP:DUE which is going to require the analysis of how a broad range of sources characterize things. WP:CHERRY picking a few sources that you agree with doesn't work. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this is a fringe theory? These are five reputable historians and highly reliable sources. Most of the facts in this article are supported by only one source. If you are arguing that I'm "cherry picking", then please provide evidence.      — Freoh 17:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If 20 prominent sources take a less critical view of an issue that would outweigh 3-5 of a more critical nature. The Colliers are more or less in agreement with the prevailing view; Zinn and Westerkamp are not. Call the latter what you want, but their perspectives are not exactly mainstream and hardly justify your stand-alone one-liner. So the question is, what do you propose doing with this alternative viewpoint? Allreet (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: You asserted that the people were not represented, yet Collier contradicts this and says the small elite of the wealthy and wellborn was expected to lead...by the people. So what are you saying? Westerkamp talks about the new rhetoric of citizenship...a white, masculine language. What was so new in 1787 about either the language of the founders or a male-dominated society? Of course other sources don't contradict this; they report it but without editorializing in the directions you favor.

And no kidding blacks and indigenous were excluded. They still are, but that's not our axe to grind. Oddly enough, for all the inequality back then, there was less poverty in the Americas than in England and Europe as a whole. And despite property requirements, four-fifths of white males could vote for whom they wanted as representatives.

As for contradicting Zinn, many scholars do. WP's article on his People's History cites a round-up of sources who contend his is a black-and-white story of elite villains and oppressed victims. Matter of fact, sounds very much like your own approach.

DIYeditor hit the nail on the head. The views you've emphasized—with the same three sources over and over—need to be addressed in accordance with WP:DUE. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, you asked for contradictions, so I looked into Zinn's references to Richard B. Morris and Edmund S. Morgan. It turns out both historians are at odds with the point Zinn is trying to make in his People's History of the United States.

• Morris's "We the People of the United States" essay: The sentence Everywhere one finds inequality is used out of context. The meaning Zinn is trying to convey is different from what Morris says leading up to and following the quote (pages 5-6). Zinn's view is also contradicted by Morris's general premise (page 2): Public sentiment clearly dictated the replacement of an unresponsive and corrupt monarchical system by a republic founded on public morality and, through the elective system and representative institutions, recognizing the sovereignty of the people.
• Morgan's "Conflict and Consensus in the American Revolution" essay: Immediately before the passage Zinn quotes, Morgan wrote (page 292): The Revolution probably increased social mobility temporarily both upward and downward, ruining the fortunes of many established families and opening opportunities for speedy ascent by daring upstarts. This very mobility engendered, as it always has, political disputes, but seldom along class lines. As for the passage itself, Morgan clearly says the dispute was between members of an upper class: the new against the established, not between upper and lower classes (benefitting one to the detriment of the other).

As for another refutation, in the book that includes Morgan's essay is an essay by Bernard Bailyn on "The Central Themes of the American Revolution". Bailyn's premise is at distinct odds with Zinn's view and yours (page 28):

Everywhere in America the principle prevailed that in a free community the purpose of institutions is to liberate men, not to confine them, and to give them the substance and the spirit to stand firm before the forces that would restrict them. To see in the Founders' failure to destroy chattel slavery the opposite belief, or some self-delusive hypocrisy that somehow condemns as false the liberal character of the Revolution—to see in the Declaration of Independence a statement of principles that was meant to apply only to whites and that was ignored even by its author in its application to slavery, and to believe that the purpose of the Constitution was to sustain aristocracy and perpetuate black bondage—is, I believe, to fundamentally misread the history of the time.

Allreet (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, we should be prioritizing facts over opinions. These broad and vague questions—whether the People were represented and whether the Constitution was actually liberating—are ultimately opinions on which there is disagreement. Polling favorable versus critical sources is beside the point. The fact that the Framers were largely wealthy and powerful elites is an uncontroversial fact with lots of coverage. I'll work on a new proposal that addresses some of the issues people have raised here.      — Freoh 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do the preponderance of sources from across the years say "wealthy and powerful elites" or "upper class" or "landowning" or even "gentry" or something else? I mean all the sources on the topic, not just the ones you are preferring to draw from. I'm still getting a sense of trying to force the use of a certain terminology rather than mere facts. If we could separate the facts from the potentially loaded phrasing, as was discussed above, I think there would be less room for disagreement on the inclusion of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do multiple sources emphasize "wealthy and powerful elites"? No. I've searched dozens of sources from the bibliography, and the words are all but absent as a phrase, and the subject, rarely mentioned as a factor in the outcome. True, all of this has had lots of coverage, but so far, Freoh has referenced just three sources, one of which doesn't have much to say about this small elite of the wealthy and wellborn and two of which indulge primarily in polemics, that is, opinion over fact.

Based on the numerous sources I've reviewed, the people as a whole were well represented. While significant groups were excluded, a greater portion of the population had a say in the end result than in other revolution up to that time. Similarly, the Constitution did a better job in liberating people than any previous document of its kind. As for polling favorable versus critical sources being beside the point. I disagree, since that's how we determine "the prevailing view" and with that our editorial directions. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording; do you have suggestions? The criterion for inclusion is not that the information has to be addressed in the preponderance of sources. DIYeditor, are you suggesting that we should delete any facts in this article backed by fewer than three sources? Allreet, are you saying that it is just an opinion that the Framers controlled disproportionate wealth and power?      — Freoh 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No, even a single WP:RS can be fine. The question is WP:DUE and if the view or phrasing is contradicted or not held by other WP:RSs on the same topic. If, just for illustration I'm not saying this is the case, 20 of the best RSs refer only to the democracy of the Constitution and 1 source refers to it as a tool of "powerful white men" or "elites" then that view will probably need to be attributed rather that stated as a simple fact. Omission of the characterizations found in a minority of sources may be as good as contradiction. I think you have consistently skirted around the issues of WP:DUE (and possibly WP:NPOV as a whole). Why do you object to the use of attribution to secure the inclusion of the sources and POVs you want to see represented? Seems better than not having them included at all.

As to the wording it will take some research on my part. I believe I've usually seen it phrased as something like "white landowning males" or "white male landowners" broadly speaking (as to whom the Constitution initially protected the rights and interests of). —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep this neutral, and I'm not opposed to mentioning that the Constitution laid out a democratic republic. I was thinking that was already clear enough from statements like with the people voting for representatives. The Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, and I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the Framers were powerful white men.      — Freoh 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh and DIYeditor: I've said several times that I don't regard these issues as matters of opinion; the disagreement is over how the facts should be addressed. As for sources, a single source is okay in some instances, but with fringe views, even multiple sources can be given short shrift or simply ignored, depending on other factors. This happens to be the case with Zinn and Westerkamp, who are not just reporting the founders' wealthy status but are editorializing about it. The prevailing view is closer to Collier and Collier's thought: the people expected those of high standing to lead.

I was about to post the above, when Freoh issued his latest assertion, that the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy. Here, finally, is what the dispute over wealthy elites is actually about. For everyone's edification, Charles Beard introduced this idea, about the Constitution benefiting the 1%, in 1913 with An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The concept was later adopted by Howard Zinn and other ideologues intent on lambasting the Constitution as a conspiracy benefiting the rich. Beard has since been debunked by leading scholars, starting with Bernard Bailyn of Harvard and more recently by Amar Akhil Reed of Yale. Allreet (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Zinn and Westerkamp have opinions does not make their facts unreliable.      — Freoh 23:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say their facts were unreliable. The opinions they offer based on those facts are not because both have political axes to grind. What we're getting, then, is not history but polemics. My question is what are your sources for the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, because that also sounds more like political theory than fact? Allreet (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We are getting history. That the facts are presented alongside relevant opinions does not make the facts any less historical.      — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

These terms (democracy and republic) are etymologically and historically synonymous and gained this nuance you assert primarily through the views of Madison which were not even widely accepted in his time, or since then. Clearly the US government is both democratic and a democracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the U.S. Constitution, which uses the words 'republican form of government". I'm not using nuance, these are the words of the document. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, there is no difference in meaning between the words. I suggest you read this Britannica article thoroughly. Being a republic is not exclusive of being a democracy, in fact, they are interchangeable words to most people. The distinction you're making is often cited by some people and I'm not quite sure why, but I don't think holds much weight linguistically or in real world use of the word "democracy". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You've using the definition of "representative democracy" for "democracy". I'm citing the Constitution. This is a tangential non-argument anyway, as the RfC is not about what is or isn't labeled a 'democracy' in form or function. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, I get what you're saying about the facts, except the opinions are not relevant if they're not true or accurate. So if you said in a sentence, "Nearly all of the delegates were wealthy", fine, because it's accurate. If you said what Westerkamp does, The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution, that's only her opinion and it's not accurate since most mainstream sources would disagree. As for Zinn, who expresses something similar by quoting others, he is misrepresenting what those sources say, as I've already pointed out. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The People proposal

It seems that I have finally convinced some people that this deserves due weight. I'll make the wording of my proposal more explicit:

Current

Proposal

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. ...

The opening words represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. In this case, "the people" who attended the convention were largely aristocratic white men. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase changed the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. ...

How's this? I'm avoiding footnotes and sticking to mainstream facts. Is this neutral enough?      — Freoh 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well, what ties the characterization of the demographics of the (purported) representatives and "the people" in that sentence to the "We the People" in the prior? Shouldn't we say that they were acting as representatives? Would you mind quoting the material from the sources you are relying on for the new sentence? Also, the scare quotes or whatever the intended purpose of the quotes around "the people" seems contrary to MOS. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think we should use the word aristocratic to describe them. They specifically rejected the concept of nobility in sections 9 and 10. Yes, many of them were members of noble families under British rule, and accepting a broader definition of aristocracy, they could be described as such, but using that word in this context inaccurately implies that the concept of a hereditary ruling class was one that was to continue under the goverment the constitution established. Despite the fact that these were wealthy white men who would have been part of the ruling class regardless, they were attempting to create a government that rejected the concept of a "ruling class" or distinctions based on heredity. Yes, for all their talk of equality, they weren't there as regards women or non-white persons, and even made distinctions among white men who owned land vs. those who didn't, but using the word "aristocratic" to describe them in the context of attempting to define who "the people" were implies a continuation of a type of social stratification they were attempting to eliminate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Moreover, I don't think this discussion is well integrated in your proposed text. The individuals who attended the convention considered themselves the people's representatives - they did not think "the people" were limited to those who attended the convention. I think we need to try to define who "the people" when the constitution refers to "the people", and that is different than who the persons were that attended the convention and drafted the document. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Why is We the People left out and de-linked, which link redirects to Preamble to the United States Constitution? That is a fairly comprehensive article but almost exclusively relies on official court judgments, not academic scholarship, to interpret those words, which is probably how we should be limiting our commentary at this article. It's an especially glaring omission given that "the people" are referenced later on in the text. Scholarly interpretations belong in other articles, ones dealing with, say, the nature of 18th century American society. And "aristocratic" is just as bad, if not worse, than "powerful". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 02:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) and 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC))

  I now see that the Preamble article is linked by sectional hatnote, but "We the People" should be restored, but without being linked. Also, Founding Fathers of the United States has considerable information on the demographics of the founders. This article should mirror/summarize it. Many of the same editors here edit at that article. So, they would probably voice at least some of the same objections there to what is proposed here, and suggestions should be made at the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, before I'm going to agree to any wording I am going to have to look more into what is really out there. As I have said, my recollection is that the sources I have seen cover this describe the people fully protected by the Constitution as "white male landowners". I think it would be ok to include some mention of the fact that there was some assumption about who "the people" were, assuming we can find good sources that make that observation in relation to the time the Constitution was ratified. I wish that Freoh would take a deeper dive into this and provide some varied sources (and direct quotes of them for discussion), since Freoh seems to be highly interested in some change to how this is presented. It seems like in this case the onus is on them to make a case for it. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neither neutral, nor encyclopedic. The portrayal of the framers as aristocrats is biased as well as outside the mainstream. Two of the sources, Zinn and Westerkamp, have political aims and are editorializing. Zinn says It is pretended..."we the people" wrote that document. But the Preamble doesn't say this. It says the people do ordain what follows, which they did during the ratification process, directly in some states and through representatives in others. As for Westerkamp, no mainstream scholar concurs with this: The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution. ONUnicorn is correct, then, in his analysis that the framers represented "the people" and rejected concepts of "nobility", "aristocracy", and the like. Allreet (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Aristocracy is afaik a synonym for nobility. I thought otherwise and made a category for people without noble titles and called it aristocracy but really that is not accurate. They mean the same thing. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understand they're the same. Freoh's POV, in any case, is to present the framers as aristocrats who wrote the Constitution to benefit their economic interests. That's Zinn's and Westerkamp's view and it's being imposed on the Preamble, even though most scholars disagree. For more on the subject, start with Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution, which devotes its first 50 pages to the Preamble. But if you want a quick synopsis (and awakening), read the opening page (page 5 which electronically could show up as 20) and then the first paragraph on page 472. Allreet (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (how did this RfC get hijacked into, what, a new RfC?), as the proposed wording comes off as snarly, as a major change in Wikipedia's voice, and unless you miscopied something it reads as if you want to remove the words and link We the People in the lead sentence. The finely crafted lead paragraph needs no change towards opinion unless much more is added to balance out such undue wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The sentence you propose to insert is, with respect, blatant POV, and not really accurate. It suggests that the Framers were basically a cabal of property owners making their own rules, rather than representatives of a democratic (if stratified and unequal -- but Athens and Rome were much more so) process. But thanks for making a more specific proposal! RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed We the People to eliminate redundancy: it is already linked and quoted in § Preamble, both in the text and in the image caption. I think ONUnicorn brings up a good point, that there are a few different notions of "representation" that sometimes get blurred: whether the demographics of the convention corresponded to the general American population, whether the delegates were legitimately representing their people, and whether the government itself is sufficiently democratic. I am having some trouble differentiating this concisely, so it seems to me that the best solution here is to keep the politics of the convention in § 1787 drafting, and limit this section to describing the results, so that it can mostly be in present tense, like the other sections in § Original frame. Given that this article is already too long (as Jim.henderson previously mentioned), I think some trimming could be helpful. How's this?

Current

Proposal

Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution The Preamble, the Constitution's introductory paragraph, lays out the purposes of the new government. Although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators, the opening words emphasize that the people (rather than the states) ultimately legitimate and empower the centralized government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I originally used the word aristocratic because that was the wording used in my source, but I think it's only appropriate if we're focusing on the convention itself.      — Freoh 16:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Just tack on "...although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators", with suitable citations, to the end of "that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy" in the original, without further rearrangement, and you might come close to something that's acceptable. And I don't know why we need to reference Howard Zinn on this. He's not a consensus historian, even if reading him will knock you on your ass. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

None of this works better than the original, and the RfC seems a snow close to not use the suggested wording. Continuing to change words and putting up new proposals within this RfC itself seems to indicate that the nominator knows the change has not passed and is now doing a form of forum-shopping, interestingly, within the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this proposal not "acceptable"? Given that this article is too long, we should be working to shorten it, not lengthen it.      — Freoh 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed text is unacceptable. My counter-proposal would cause the article to be lengthened. I have to agree with Randy Kryn, and there is, generally, so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — The proposed phrase—only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators—is not acceptable because it's intended as a criticism and no mainstream historian would start a discussion of the Preamble this way. There are other problems. Graeber's The Democracy Project doesn't mention the Preamble. Zinn's A People's History does (pp. 632, 684) but he's addressing convention delegates and other issues. For the most part, all three sources seem to be focused on class warfare, a fringe theme, though all I can access on Westerkamp is the quote previously provided. Finally, the phrase is misleading: three states had already dropped property requirements by 1787, while New York did so specifically for a direct vote on ratification. Allreet (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point about the misleading wording, though I don't see how the existence of property qualifications is a fringe opinion. Allreet, I'll reword it to account for the few states that did allow poor white men to vote for legislators and limit it to sources focused on "We the People". Dhtwiki and Randy Kryn, I'll drop my length and link duplication concerns from this RfC and cover it later in another talk section. How's this?

  The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, though historians estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

Is this better?      — Freoh 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC))

Yes, in comparison with the original, it's better. However, it's still too negative for what should be a neutral, straightforward introduction. It's akin to starting with, "The Constitution, while it created a frame of government that's survived two centuries, really didn't represent the views of the people." Later on you could explore this, but not in the first sentence. It's still pushing a political POV that seeks to shine a dark light on most everything. As for what's fringe, I couldn't have been more explicit. Zinn and Graeber are focused on class warfare—the rich versus the poor—as a theme, which is far afield from the prevailing view.

None of this strikes me as being in the interests of readers. What would serve those interests IMO would be to document what's missing in the first half of the article, the number one issue in 1787 and one that more than any other determined both the short and long-term outcomes: slavery. Here's where we need to be critical of the founders, not condemnatory but not forgiving either. As for additional issues of relevance, the congress.gov source you provided parallels the editorial direction of most sources. One example: Patrick Henry questioned who authorized the framers to speak for the people. His point and the response should be addressed because it's highly notable, which is why it's part of the consensus approach to the Constitution's story. Allreet (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "though less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification" is either particularly negative or against the interests of the reader, assuming it is properly cited and accurate. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, the phrase may not be negative per se but its placement in the lede is. Of all the things to write about the Preamble, is this among the most notable, one of the 3-4 things readers should know immediately? Does any other historian begin their discussion of the Preamble on such a note? What's not in the interests of readers is Freoh's consistently negative approach, for example, the phrasing "the people were the source of the government's legitimacy, but not really".

A straightforward treatment, the one followed by most historians, is to describe the Preamble in neutral terms and then provide details that flesh out the story. I cannot access the source so I have no idea what it says about the 3% but on its own it's misleading because it omits a crucial detail: that the people were represented in the Constitution's adoption through legislators they elected. Hence, many people didn't get to vote directly, but that doesn't negate the fact initially stated. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, if this is based partly on the number of legislators who voted to ratify it and excludes people who voted for them, that could be quite misleading and that paints it in another light. So the actual enfranchised population was much higher than 3%. At this point I am growing a bit tired of Freoh's approach to this article but I will wait to see their response. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the 3% figure is including the people who voted for legislators. About 100 thousand people voted in favor of ratification out of a population of about 4 million.      — Freoh 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, regardless of that, Allstreet made addressed the heart of the problem about as convincingly as anyone can. This is not one of the top few things with which nearly any academic historian would begin a discussion of the Constitution or any part of it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to present this information in the same style as our sources. On Wikipedia, facts precede opinions, so we should prioritize the fact that less than 3% of the country was represented over the opinion that the People legitimate the Constitution.      — Freoh 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yeah we do. We give weight to certain facts over others based on how they are presented in reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Well, I guess in light of the policy, I should rephrase. Does it have to be in the same style in the sense that it should look the same and read the same way? No, not necessarily. But the substance has to be the same. So while the tone of our article here might be different than that of sources, we could not, for example, treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do simply because we feel like it. That violates one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do, and I'm not doing it simply because I feel like it. Are you saying that the legitimacy of the Constitution and the People who voted for it are outside the scope of this article? Which of Wikipedia's most basic principles am I violating, and how?      — Freoh 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh You are giving substantially more weight to certain details than most sources do. Based on much of what you've said so far, your motivation in all of this appears to be less than neutral. In your previous proposal, you also misused sources by synthesizing material to come up with a unique phrase not supported by any single source. These would be the primary basic principles of concern. As for your current sources, since I can't access them, I would appreciate if you would provide a quote or passage that indicates only 3% of the population voted to ratify the Constitution or voted for legislators who supported ratification. Allreet (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on one proposal at a time. Right now, I'm talking about the 3% one. Here's a direct quote:

See, e.g., Larry G. Simon, The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 1482, 1498 n.44, 1499-1500 & n.48 (1985) (estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution).
— Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.

     — Freoh 01:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential weaknesses

By 1787, property requirements were being relaxed, so in some states (I'm tied up at the moment and will enumerate them later, with sources) you only needed to be a taxpayer. But in NY state, the requirement was dropped entirely for this occasion. The source also doesn't address legislators who were elected, and most voting was at the state conventions. Meanwhile, the issue was as hot as the presidential election of 2016. Now consider that males would be about half of the population and 4/5 of them were white. Do you have another source, meaning this is fairly weak? Allreet (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• "roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification"
• "See ... Simon, ... estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution"
• "Professor Larry Simon calculates that only about 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the ratification of the Constitution."
• "According to estimations, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favour of ratifying the Constitution (since only property-holding adult white males were empowered, and not all of them supported ratification)."
• "See Larry G. Simon, ... (collecting sources and estimating that 'roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification')"

What do you think is weak here? Do your sources give different estimates, or are you arguing based on your own original research?      — Freoh 21:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of the weaknesses:

• The five cites provided amount to little more than one source, Larry Simon, since the others all refer to him but say nothing in terms of confirming his "estimate" vis a vis their own research. (This presumes Roznai is also citing Simon.)
• Unable to access the sources provided, I can't determine the validity of the 2.5%, but I do question it in several respects. For one, it's absurdly low, and it's also not clear whether the percentage accounts for states where ratification elections were held versus those where convention delegates were appointed by popularly-elected legislatures.* To get a sense of the numbers, 971 delegates voted for ratification versus 575 against, a 2-1 margin if you average the results in each state (my math is based on Warren's state-by-state results).
• Related to this, "property qualifications" were not as exclusionary as your sources seem to indicate. It's estimated 60-65% of white males were qualified to vote under state constitutions as either taxpayers or property owners.
• Since the framers wanted the people's consent, several states relaxed or eliminated the requirements specifically for the ratification vote.
• The greatest weakness here is that you're trying to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Constitution with a handful of sources versus the possibly hundreds of books and papers that accept the document's authority as resting with "We the People".

* One of the complexities in assessing the voting, as Spaulding indicates on page 130: More Anti-Federalists were elected in New York than Federalists, yet the state's convention voted in favor of ratification. Did the Anti-Federalist delegates who "defected" ignore the wishes of voters? You could say that, except by the time of the convention, the required nine states had ratified already, so the decision in New York, as in Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, was also a matter of electing to remain in the Union.Allreet (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, the document's authority as resting with "We the People" is your opinion. As I've previously explained, facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, so we should not exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on your opinions.      — Freoh 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: My statement about "We the People" is not an opinion, but is based on three of the sources I cited:

• Richard Beeman, page 412: (The Constitution) did recognize "we the people" of the nation as the ultimate source of political authority.
• Murray Dry, page 281: the Constitution was but a proposal until ratified by the people, through specially chosen conventions.
• Akhil Reed Amar, page 5: the Preamble laid the foundation for all that followed. "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

And contrary to your accusation that I'm trying to exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on (my) opinions, what I oppose are the statements you're injecting out of context to create false impressions about the Constitution's legitimacy, particularly your footnotes, which I should remind you are the subject of this RfC. The same objection applies to your phrase about the 3%, though what you've proposed is not relevant to the RfC. Allreet (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You were opposed to footnotes, so I am trying to incorporate your feedback into my proposal and reach a compromise. Why do you believe that the phrase about the 3% is out of context? I would argue that your partial quote about the ultimate source of political authority is more out of context.      — Freoh 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the 3% should to be attributed per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. As with most of what you have wanted to include, attributing it is the path to getting included which avoids the major problems. Also may be getting into WP:STICK territory here because as far as I can tell you don't have consensus even for the lesser footnote or attribution options, yet keep plowing ahead with bold statements in Wikipedia's voice in somewhat WP:IDHT fashion —DIYeditor (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have edited the proposal to include an attribution. I am aware that I do not have consensus, which is why I am discussing here on the talk page. What specifically do you feel like I am not hearing?      — Freoh 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just said this discussion has nothing to do with the RfC. That needs to be heard.

So forgetting what I just said about the RfC and in answer to your question about context, the lead of an article or section is not the appropriate place for introducing novel ideas. The point is, if something is not widely accepted, it doesn't belong in the lead, not as a footnote, not as a phrase. However, assuming the 3% has sufficient support, it would be appropriate to address the assertion later on in a deeper examination of We the People and ratification.

For an idea of what the lead and later discussions should address, primarily, please take a look at the opening chapter of Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography. Besides an overview of the Preamble and the ratification process, you'll find a retort to the phrase rich white men, which Amar points out is used to "mock" the founders. Per WP:LEAD, a mock is something that doesn't belong in a lead either. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: What's said in the proposal about voting and privilege had little to do with ratification. Those restrictions were either relaxed or dropped in most states for the popular vote. You really do need to read the chapter I recommended. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Freoh: — Agree with Allreet, and with Randy Kryn further above, that we are getting away from the original RfC. It would be foolish to try and define The People and the Signatories with one term or idea, as, wealthy or not, their views, motivations and ideals were significantly diverse. Various historians have expounded on these differences at considerable length. The highly influential Charles A. Beard held that the Founders were largely motivated by economic interests and whose view is well articulated in his work, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Contrasting this view are the essays of Frederick Jackson Turner, also very influential, who outlined in his work, The frontier in American history, that the influence of the frontier, (during the founding era the "frontier" was considered to be the lands stretching west of the eastern seaboard. e.g.upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, western Virginia, etc) and the challenges they presented, were a strong factor in shaping American ideals and the colonial rejection of royalty and hereditary class ruling.

Forrest McDonald, in his 1958 work, p. v, We the people : the economic origins of the Constitution, explains that both Beard and Turner had a remarkable capacity to break away from the dogmatic conventions that often shaped historical interpretations in the early 20th century and were highly influential in shaping later interpretations regarding the Founders, and The People, however, he warned that, as these two men helped to get historians out of one rut, they created another between the two, maintaining that most historians eventually fell somewhere in between the two schools of though held by Turner and Beard. The backgrounds and views of the founders, even if they were all wealthy, vary considerably, and are well documented at this late date, and are embodied in the term We the People. It would be a self defeating endeavor for anyone to attempt to define the founders, and We the People, in terms of race and wealth, or as aristocrats. As such, we should resolve the existing RfC before were further deliberate the merits of other proposals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As ONUnicorn pointed out earler in this conversation, I was admittedly blurring the lines a bit between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who the Framers believed they represented, and the people who actually voted in favor of ratification. In the interest of moving toward a consensus, I have struck through the word "powerful" in the original RfC wording to make this clearer.      — Freoh 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Liberties proposal

I will be clearer about what I am proposing in regards to liberties. Again, I am not particular about wording, as long as it is clarified that the liberties originally enshrined by the Constitution did not extend to African Americans. Given that people have been opposed to the use of explanatory notes, I am proposing the following more concretely:

Current	Proposal
Generally favoring the most highly populated states, it used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke to emphasize civil liberties.	Generally favoring the most highly populated states, it used the philosophy of John Locke to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu for divided government, and Edward Coke to emphasize civil liberties for white Americans.
Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.	Many white liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

I also think that § Article I should mention the constitutional protection of the Atlantic slave trade in some form.      — Freoh 01:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, since you seem determined to detract attention away from the RfC, and to keep everything in proper context , any such statement should also include that Jefferson, a key Founding Father, went on to outlaw the Atlantic slave trade, which African tribal chiefs were a central part of. You seem to be, imo, more interested in focusing on slaves, than you are over the idea that the Revolution, and ultimately, the Constitution, which opened the door to freedom of religion, speech, the press, etc, inspired other revolutions around the world, starting with the French Revolution, and which also laid the groundwork for national abolition over the states. Unfortunately it took a civil war to effect this. Any such statement, if it actually makes it to the article, will be contextualized with a brief statement in this regard, and I'm sure there will be an overwhelming consensus on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not determined to detract attention away from the RfC. The RfC asks whether this article should specify that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and some editors have objected to a previous attempt to convey this information through explanatory notes, so I am trying to compromise and demonstrate another way that this information can be clarified. I am focusing on slaves at the moment only because this article is not giving slavery the due weight that it deserves. Your synthesis connecting the Constitution to later politics seems outside the scope of this article to me.      — Freoh 15:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's really a matter of opinion.  Some sorts of SYNTH are perfectly acceptable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh: My impression is: here we go again. Neither statement is supported by sources, and all we're getting is another attempt at proving your "white" thesis. You just wrongly accused me on my personal Talk page of being disruptive, yet you don't see how counter-productive your three-month crusade of disputes has been. In February, for example, virtually no progress was made on the Constitution article, aside from two paragraphs I added to the lead, and the same is true of the James Madison article.

As Dhtwiki told you earlier, "so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles". And as DIYeditor just indicated, it's nigh time to put down the stick. We're going nowhere with the POV you're trying to advance, in circles. Accordingly, I am asking the RfC's reviewing editors to address this because it's clear you're intent on continuing despite the consensus of the community. Allreet (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that white men were in power is a fact, not a thesis. If we are going nowhere, it has more to do with your failure to listen.      — Freoh 12:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also a fact that Asian men are in power in China. Your words have been read by all, with your obvious fixation on race. Not agreeing with where you're going with this is not the same as not listening. At this point it seems like you simply want to make some sort of negative gesture about white men being in power. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What is negative here? I am trying to keep my wording neutral. Why are you opposed to mentioning the racial issues relevant to the Constitution? Why do you want to discuss liberties without clarifying that they did not extend to African Americans?      — Freoh 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"Opposed"? These questions are inappropriate and your issues have been addressed. Saying that the Constitution only pertained to white men, is a misnomer. Slavery had not been abolished at the time of ratification, while the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was based on the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say "whites only", or anything to that effect. If you wish to say the Constitution only pertained to powerful white males, or white men in power, or any other such statement that attempts to infer this idea, out of context, it will come off racially charged and play on the racial sentiments of everyone, and not being entirely naive, I'm sure you know this. Advancing Federal legislation over the states abolishing slavery was put on hold because the entire issue of abolition would have divided the yet to be Union, ruined any chance of ratification, and a civil war would have occurred long before 1860. Many of the founders wanted to do away with slavery as was done in the northern states, but they were not so idealistic as to push the issue on the Federal level at that time. If we're going to include this sort of racial issue it should be presented in this context, as has been already explained for you.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My proposals are for § 1787 drafting and § Influences on the Bill of Rights, so I do not see how the 13th Amendment is relevant here. We should not omit important elements of legal history just because the Constitution was later changed.      — Freoh 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The addition of amendments, including the first ten - the Bill of Rights - occurred because the Constitution was written as a self-correcting document. The only difference between the relevance and legality of the first ten amendments and the thirteenth is the amount of time it took to actively correct and improve the document. All amendments seek to attain a "more perfect union", and the thirteenth, continuing the Constitution's drafting process, did so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that in § 1787 drafting we should present the current (amended) Constitution as if all of the amendments were originally part of the Virginia Plan?      — Freoh 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrase rich white men is intentionally derogatory, not a "fact" but an expression of contempt. It's also offered through the lens of Recentism, which focuses on current views to the exclusion of the broader historical context:

"America's Founding gave the world more democracy than the planet had thus far witnessed. Yet many modern Americans, both lawyers and laity, have missed this basic fact. Some mock the Founding Fathers as rich white men who staged a reactionary coup, while others laud the framers as dedicated traditionalists rather than democratic revolutionaries. A prominent modern canard is that the very word 'democracy' was anathema to the Founding generation." — Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography (page 14)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allreet (talk • contribs)

How is this is relevant to the question of whether constitutional liberties extended to African Americans? Randy Kryn's suggestion to write § 1787 drafting based on later amendments is exactly the recentism that I am trying to avoid.      — Freoh 22:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Time to wrap up?

This RFC was initiated over 30 days ago. Furthermore, it seems to me we're no longer discussing the original RFC but have veered into the consideration of proposals that are only somewhat related. Freoh, please see Ending RFCs for the procedure to follow for closing the RFC, provided you believe relevant discussion has run its course and consensus has been reached. If the steps for closing are not clear, I'm sure the WP:Help desk can provide the necessary advice. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot has already removed the {{rfc}} template, and I am willing to keep discussing until we reach a consensus. I am trying to discuss the original RfC; my proposals above are concrete attempts to clarify who the People were and who the liberties applied to.      — Freoh 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Once the template is removed, discussion related to the RfC should end. Of course you're welcome to begin new topics elsewhere though I'd recommend waiting to hear from the reviewing editors if what you plan to propose is an extension of the ground we just covered. Allreet (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Allreet and Freoh: — Am I missing something? The article is still tagged, while the RfC has not been closed, while another editor has just chimed in with an Oppose vote. As for consensus, there is an overwhelming consensus against Freoh's proposal, the other proposals notwithstanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

( Also pinging Randy Kryn and Rjensen )

• The Constitution was/is the law of the land and pertains to the American people, and while women couldn't vote they were still protected by Constitutional laws. I fail to see why the term We the People needs any "clarification". Are there reliable sources that say the term only applied to the signatories? This proposal seems like another attempt to keep this article in a continuous state of debate and controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There are still some unanswered questions in the discussion above, so I would not say that there is overwhelming consensus. There are reliable sources that say less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification. Also, the American people did not originally include racial minorities and does not include colonized subjects,, so I don't know why you put clarification in scare quotes.      — Freoh 23:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Clarification" is what you proposed, so the term is in quotes. If the quotes scare you, no one can help you with that. On top of the Original RfC, for which there is an overwhelming consensus opposing, you have made five other proposals, none of which have been resolved on a consensus basis, so I fail to see how you can say you have any sort of consensus anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Also, the people didn't actually vote on ratification, the delegates/representatives did, who represented the people, so to say only 3% of the American people favored the Constitution is nonsense and an obvious attempt to perpetuate what seems like a veiled attack on the Constitution. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ratification votes were held in many if not most states, though I haven't pinned down the exact number. I agree the 3% is nonsense, but I say that without exactly knowing what it represents. In any case, this is not directly tied to the RfC's questions, meaning that's not what we're here to resolve. Please see my new comment below regarding the closing of the RfC. Allreet (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh, Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor, and Dhtwiki:: According to the message from the bot that removed the RfC template, the discussion will be archived tomorrow, March 9. What happens then, I'm not sure, though I believe reviewing editors will chime in and further comment will be blocked. If that doesn't happen within two days, by March 11, I'll post a request on WP:Help desk. P.S. I've alerted those I consider to be the most active editors in the RfC, but if I've overlooked someone, I apologize. Allreet (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh, by my count, over 20 editors have responded, and without taking sides, I'd say sentiment is sufficient to indicate a consensus. As for "unanswered questions", you keep raising new ones that are not directly tied to what the RfC was created to decide. The 3%, for example, was introduced 19 days into the RfC, so for certain we're not here to resolve that assertion or any of your proposals. Allreet (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

​I think that you misunderstand what consensus means. If you want to argue that the 3% is nonsense, then you have to verify your information. Content that I have supported with five different reliable sources does not become undue simply because some editors just don't like it. Are you suggesting that I continue this discussion in a separate section instead? I feel like this talk page already has too many sections.      — Freoh 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:STICK —DIYeditor (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: Now you're going to argue about consensus. At what point does the merry-go-round stop? In short, I agree with DIYeditor.

As for the 2.5%, as I mentioned before, only one source, Larry Simon, calculated this number. The other four cited Simon. Thus you only have one historian behind your statement: historians estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Furthermore, if you look into Simon's sources, which I did, Brown says 18-19% of the population were adult males, that's 700,000 (3.9 million x .18). Then Brown says 80-85% of these were eligible to vote; using 80%, that's 560,000. Then, ignoring Brown completely, Simon quotes Hacker's unsourced 160,000, in addition to citing Beard who's explicitly refuted by Brown (page 238).

Brown points out that Beard and his sources were trying "to prove how restricted the franchise was", when that wasn't the case. Hacker and Beard do the same with the state ratification votes—they try to make them appear close. But if you tally the state votes, as I did, the margin was 971-575 delegates in favor of ratification. That's 62%-38% straight up, and if you account for the variations in the size of the state delegations (by averaging the margins), ratification won 70%-30%.

My point, again: if you want to make a significant assertion, you need a significant number of sources to back it up—on their own. So in this case, if you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown, and since no other source has calculated the 2.5%, what's this estimate worth? Allreet (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I do have a significant number of sources to back it up. This information has gotten lots of coverage in tier 1 sources. You do not get to minimize this coverage based on who these sources are citing. Your Brown source has fewer than 238 pages, and to tally the state votes yourself is original research.      — Freoh 14:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

For the third time, Simon's number is debatable and the other four sources didn't calculate anything despite your claim that it's the estimate of multiple historians. And if you will please pardon my mistake on Brown's page number; it's 69 not Hacker's 238, though my link to the page was correct, yes?

As for the state delegate totals, I used them simply to illustrate the attempt by Simon's sources to downplay the margin of victory for ratification. That's all. I wasn't seeking publication, only talking with you. I could have taken a lengthier route by quoting their misleading passages about the voting in individual states. Either way, seems to me Brown's point was well taken. As is mine: If you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown—and then I'll offer some of the vast research related to "We the People" from a few tier 1 historians, such as Amar (pp. 5-11), Bernstein (pp. 183, 199-205), Ellis (pp. 151, 185-186), Ferling (pp. 294-308), and Maier (pp. ix-xvi). Which is not to say your estimate is worthless. It's just not worth the weight you think it deserves. Allreet (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good leg work Allreet. Yes, many of the delegates of the Constitutional convention at first thought that they were there to modify and improve on the Articles of Confederation, which served as the Colonies, soon to be States, Constitution during the war, with its short comings notwithstanding, kept a semblance of organization among the colony/states, to provide for the war effort -- a document sharply criticized during that time, however, by General Washington after the arduous winter at Valley Forge, with troops in dire need of supplies, that was hoped the colonies would had better provide for. I haven't as yet checked all your references, but it seems Bernstein, 1987, p. 199, hits the nail on the head:

. The Convention had no authority to impose the result of its work on the American people; it could only recommend the charter it had drafted to the Confederation Congress. Although the people eventually did adopt the Constitution, this process was neither automatic nor unopposed. The campaign for and against the Constitution raged in state legislatures and ratifying conventions, in newspaper essays and pamphlets. (emphasis added).

To say, in an isolated stand alone statement, out of context, that only 3% of the American People voted for the Constitution implies that 97% were forced with a Constitution, with all its checks and balances and liberties, they would rather do without. All things considered, I again say that's nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how my proposal implies that 97% of Americans would rather do without the Constitution, only that those 97% did not vote in favor of it. It is significantly more misleading to refer to only 3% of the population as the People. Allreet, could you quote the sentences that explicitly refute the 3% estimation? I read through your Brown source from 1956 and the numbers seem to match up with Simon's.      — Freoh 13:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The best reply would be a detailed one. So rather than burden the RfC. I'm starting a new section below on "Beard v. Brown". Allreet (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh — You claimed that only 3% were in favor, which more than suggests that 97% were not, which is why we should always make statements in context. I've yet to see any source that explicitly says We the People refers to only 3%, or any other such ultra-low figure. The Constitution, a set of laws for all the People, was speaking on behalf of those people, regardless how anyone may have voted or not voted. The Constitution does not say, We the Delegates, nor does it say, We the Eligible Voters. Any sources that tries to assert such a narrow idea, trying to reinvent the word People, citing the numbers of those who voted, which albeit was a small percentage of the national population, is advancing a highly debatable speculation at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that only 3% were in favor. I said that only 3% voted in favor. The opposite of "voting in favor" is "not voting in favor" rather than "voting against".      — Freoh 14:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a request on the WP:Help desk, under March 11, for help on closing the RfC to further comment and inviting reviewers to offer feedback regarding consensus/discussion on the RfC's questions. Freoh has indicated the 3% voting question has not been settled. While this is somewhat related to determining who "We the People" are, the issue wasn't introduced until two weeks into the RfC, plus it wasn't what editors were asked to vote on. The same applies to the additional proposals that have been posted. We participated in the RfC to answer the original questions, not a succession of new ones.

I should also point out that Freoh has changed the original questions again (on March 3) which I'm fairly certain is not allowed. Since most editors voted before these changes, I'd suggest the questions be reverted to their original state, which is what I'm going to ask of the reviewing editors as soon we learn who they are. Allreet (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References
References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beard v. Brown...or 160,000 v. 560,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

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

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

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

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

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

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy, though historians such as Forrest McDonald estimate that less than 5% of Americans voted for delegates to the ratifying conventions. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

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

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

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

The question is also a matter of where...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have tried to explain several times before [7] [8] [9], this article is already too long, and I think that we should limit ourselves to undisputed facts and omit contested opinions. We do not have to present information in the same wording as your preferred sources, especially when plenty of other reliable sources have taken issue with this presentation style. Are you arguing that it is not misleading to describe 3% of the population as the people? I agree with you that 3% is a lot more buy-in than contemporary European legal codes and that the ratification process was unusually democratic for white people at the time, but we should be presenting a global perspective, and the United States was not the first democracy in America.      — Freoh 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (edited 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC))

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

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

How's this for an introductory summary…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your edit included this sentence:

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Slavery: priority issue

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

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

Some ideas that need to be covered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length: possible “cuts”

Some suggestions for reducing the article's size:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Freoh:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brief survey of the available scholarship

Freoh continues to argue that what I've written in the Constitution's Preamble section is vague, misleading, and controversial. I beg to differ. The material I've added is explicit, is faithful to the sources I've cited, and is challenged by a some sources but too few and in such minor respects as to make little difference, most certainly nothing that would justify replacing it with text aimed at discrediting the Constitution and demeaning its framers.

Following is a representative sample of what leading historians have had to say about the Preamble and its meaning. I can provide more along the same lines if necessary, but I will not, given the breadth and weight of the available evidence, compromise on what we as editors for Wikipedia are obligated to do: provide readers with an accurate summation of what scholars have written on a subject. Can we say more? No doubt, but whatever that might be should also be treated relative to the available scholarship in terms of its prominence, that is, as asides and afterthoughts.

• Joseph Morton, p. 225: The one part of the Constitution that was written solely by Morris was the Preamble, which made it clear that it was "We the people of the United States," not the states, that established "this Constitution for the United States of America."
• Richard R. Beeman, p. 348: The preamble in the Committee of Detail report suggested that it was the people, acting through the agency of their respective states, who possessed sovereign power.
• Akhil Reed Amar, p. 308: Article VII, the Philadelphia Constitution’s closing sentence, elaborated its opening words by specifying how "We the People of the United States" would in actual fact ordain and establish the Constitution—namely, via the ratifications of nine or more state "Conventions."
• Calvin C. Jillson, p. 45: The Preamble declares the Constitution to be an act of the sovereign people of the United States to secure the public purposes that they held most dear. The Articles of Confederation had been an agreement among the states, whereas the Constitution was an act of the people.
• Pauline Maier, p. 107: Whitehill also objected to the Constitution's opening words, "We the People," which he said showed that the Constitution destroyed "the old foundation of the Union"—a confederation of states—and built on its ruins "a new unwieldy system of consolidated empire" that was "designed to abolish the independence and sovereignty of the states."
• Mortimore Jerome Adler, p. 74: Edmund Pendleton, for ratification, answered him (Patrick Henry): "But an objection is made to the form: the expression 'We, the people' is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman who made this objection, who but the people can delegate powers? Who but the people have a right to form government? The expression is a common one, and a favorite one with me....If the objection be that the Union ought to be not of the people but of the state governments, then I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have the state governments to do with it? Were they to determine, the people would not in that case be the judges upon what terms it was adopted."

Now use the link in my opening sentence to read what I've written. Is my text vague? Have I misled? In what way are these thoughts controversial? Frankly, what would be controversial would be to assert, as Freoh has suggested, that the Constitution was not representative of the will of the people or that the men who wrote it were rich white people focused on furthering their own interests. Allreet (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Great research. Yes, if not by The People, then by whom? The States, which come back down to the people, who elected state representatives and delegates? Anyone can dig up a differing account of this matter, but clearly the overwhelming majority of primary reliable sources have well articulated the idea that ultimately governmental authority is answerable to The People. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these sources establish an academic consensus. I am not arguing in favor of replacing it with text aimed at discrediting the Constitution and demeaning its framers, and I agree with you that it would be controversial ... to assert ... that the Constitution was not representative of the will of the people or that the men who wrote it were rich white people focused on furthering their own interests. Both the source of the government's legitimacy and the extent to which the Constitution reflected the will of the people as a whole are ultimately subjective questions, ones on which the opinions of professional historians differ. We should not present the view promoting the federal government unless we balance it with opposing viewpoints. Partially because of the length of this article, my current preference is to include neither, as in this version.  — Freoh 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure those are "leading historians". Only two of those (Morton and Jillson) are academic. I'm not sure "new thought" is supported by the sources... "new" compared to the Articles but not actually a new thought in the world or even in governments. I'm concerned the preamble section doesn't give enough of the critical point of view and thus doesn't meet NPOV. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, did you actually research this: Only two of those (Morton and Jillson) are academic? Akhil Reed Amar teaches at Yale and is one of the top 20 experts on Constitutional law (over 10,000 opinions cited). Pauline Maier earned her doctorate at Harvard and taught at MIT for over 30 years. I could also cite Bernard Bailyn (Harvard), Gordon S. Wood (Brown), Richard Hofstadter (Columbia), and a host of other leading scholars. My chief concern is that the Preamble section doesn't go far enough. I intend to see that it does, and that means balancing what's said with other POVs. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant the publishers not the authors. Also fwiw con law is not the same as history. Those aren't bad sources, but they're not the best, and I don't agree they're a representative sample of leading historians. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy. Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states. In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.

References
References

To expand on my answer above, here is the paragraph right now; it could be improved, starting with the selection of sources to be summarized (see the article for the citations). Morton 2006 is published by an academic publisher; I can't find anything about the author; but it's a biographical dictionary of the people at the convention, which is a good source for our biography articles about those people, but this isn't a biography article, and that's not really a book about the Constitution; it's about the delegates. Richard Beeman was a historian, but Beeman 2009 is not an academic book, it's by a mainstream publisher for a mainstream audience, no footnotes, etc. It's fine as a source but there are better sources out there. Bowen 1966, Bernstein 1987, and Warren 1928, are too old. CRS's annoated constitution is also not the best source for this, as it's written by the US gov't, so there's an inherent bias. Recent historical scholarship will say a lot more about those words in the preamble than what we have in our article currently. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"will say a lot more about those words in the preamble than what we have in our article currently." Coverage of the preamble and its contradictory interpretations should probably be covered in the article on the Preamble to the United States Constitution, which has seen few edits since 2021. Dimadick (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In detail, yes, in that article, which also is missing this aspect of it. Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States was published over 100 years ago, and Forrest McDonald's rebuttal, aptly-named We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, was published over 60 years ago. The idea that "the People" didn't mean all the people is not in any way new. Every year, people publish scholarly articles debating what "We the People" means. This debate shouldn't be omitted from our article about the Constitution. We are in an odd situation where the lead seems to say more about the impact of slavery on the Constitution than the body. This article should have an NPOV tag on it. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The idea—that the people were the source of the government's sovereignty—was new in 1787, novel enough to Patrick Henry that he chose to attack the framers for having the chutzpah to invoke their name. As for working other POVs into the article, I have no objection, but Freoh would like to give this one more prominence than it deserves by inserting it into a short section on the Preamble, whereas elsewhere we'd be able to flesh out Beard v. Brown, as well as other points. For example, the idea to replace the states with the People was practical—what if two states failed to ratify? It was also strategic—the framers needed all the support they could get for ratification. However, all such things (for which I have ample sources) would be better addressed in the Preamble article, as Dimadick indicated.

And I agree wholeheartedly on what you said about the Constitution article's inattention to slavery. In fact, I started two separate talk sections above on this very point. I've spent a couple weeks researching the subject, but I'm disinclined to start improvements until we can get these disputes out of the way. I also believe POV tags are the least editors can do. People tend assign to them, and then do nothing, because usually it takes an immense amount of work to resolve the issues raised. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, my "survey" was not referring to the section's current references. I was only addressing Freoh's assertion regarding the statement the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy represented a non-neutral opinion. All the material I just quoted relates to this, not to other parts of the current text which for the most part are not in dispute. Read the quotes—they all relate to "We the People" as the foundation for the framers' proposed government. However, you've now raised other disputes so I'll respond:

1. Yes, what I've written and cited in the text is representative of mainstream sources. It so happens that's also true of Wikipedia in general. For more, please refer to the Some Types of Sources section of WP:RS, which emphasizes this.
2. Freoh's proposed edits represent neither the mainstream view nor a prevailing academic view. All of the changes he wants are critical of the Constitution and its framers, and those criticisms as I wrote above are too few and in such minor respects as to make little difference.
3. An introductory overview does not need to address a subject's critical aspects unless controversy is related to the subject's notability. As I've said to Freoh numerous times, we usually raise these issues, asides and afterthoughts, in critical analysis sections, whereas Freoh was trying to interject them in defining sentences. Few if any major academic works and no mainstream sources I've seem begin their discussions of the Preamble on such notes.
4. I understand the "age" of sources can be an issue, but that's not the case with the section's current sources. The works of these earlier writers (academic and mainstream) offer statements that have gone unrefuted by later scholarship, such as giving Morris credit for his authorship or the removal of the names of the states. It doesn't matter, then, that there are better sources out there.
5. Ironically, all of the sources Freoh has cited are relying on Charles Beard's 1913 An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. And only one of these, Forrest McDonald, defended Beard with his own analysis, and that was in 1962. The scholarship since then has all but buried Beard. Amar, for example, has flat out declared "Beard is bunk"—in a book published this year.
6. As I was writing this you were publishing your comment above noting the need for citing Beard and McDonald. You even emphasized the ages of their writings—100 years and 60 years—as if age was a plus. So which is it?

In closing, I agree with Dimadick that what Freoh and now you believe should be added belongs elsewhere. Freoh agreed with this when I suggested that his proposed edits would be better placed under the section on ratification. However, as a condition he wanted my text on the Preamble either removed or replaced. I have no intention of agreeing to such a compromise. I do intend to expand the Preamble article, as Dimadick suggested, and improve the Constitution article's Preamble section. At this point, I don't know exactly what that means, though I am fairly certain I can muster community support for the changes I have in mind. Allreet (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Allreet. — It seems some of us are missing something a little obvious here. The opening statement in the Preamble reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare ...

The Common defence and the General welfare indeed. While ratification was in the hands of property owners, not all of whom were "rich", the idea of "Common" and "General" mean just that. To even think this somehow means to promote the defense and welfare of rich white guys only is absurd, and if that was what the Framers in question were all about they would never have been elected by their respective states in the first place, as there was strong sentiment against elitism of any sort among the colonies/states, having dealt with this sort of thing at the hand of the British before and during the Revolution. While we're mulling through the sources let's not lose sight of common sense. If we are going to cite any source that claims the Constitution did not promote the common defense and general welfare of all Americans it should explain how this is so in factual and no uncertain terms. i.e.No empty opinions and lengthy conjecture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Here is a good essay, written by Yale professor Akhil Amar, and Linda R. Monk, Constitutional scholar, explaining why the Constitution has endured for so long and has influenced other democracies around the world... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll read the paper. Frankly, most of what's been proposed would be laughed out of a high school American Government class. Freoh's latest assertion is that Wikipedia shouldn't be supporting the legitimacy of the government. Okay, we do have some obligation to acknowledge minority views, but this perspective—that the U.S. government has been bogus from the start—is as fringe as one could get. As for Amar, he's ranked 18th among the most cited legal scholars of all-time. The video I recommended earlier, on Amar's view on the true Father of the Constitution is both highly informative and entertaining. Allreet (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  The main problem with the people is that it is vague. Your consolidated empire quote does not support the people, and your quote about who but the people suggests to me that the definition of the people is practically meaningless, effectively tautological puffery. The opposition to your opinions is not fringe. Howard Zinn is a highly-cited historian, and he contradicts your text. I have already given you six tier 1 sources supporting the idea that less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification. Please listen when I tell you: the reliable sources opposing yours are neither minor nor few. You have not gotten consensus for your changes, and the {{POV section}} should remain until this discussion is resolved.  — Freoh 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC); added page numbers 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  In whose opinion is "We the People" vague, other than yours? You do need to get out a bit and read the wealth of sources that have a great deal to say about these three little words. For example, Amar's America's Constitution spends 50 pages on the Preamble, including about a dozen on "the People".

  Meanwhile, what else did Zinn write besides The People's History? Most scholars of note have a "Selected Works" section. Zinn's WP article and his NY Times obit mention little that had any impact other than his widely-discredited History.

  To be sure, I've heard you, loud and clear, as you've repeated these same arguments endlessly. Please listen carefully, then, to the warning that's just been issued, the RfC that rejected your proposed edits, and the "rough consensus" (4-0) against your tag. Allreet (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Howard Zinn, your first choice, was a member of Communist Party of the United States, was a committed Socialist, criticized Richard Morris for being a rich man and for his "exploitation of the masses", and described himself as an anarchist, so it's nothing amazing that that he would have opinions which you apparently cherry picked for purposes of this discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I attended BU when Zinn taught Political Science there. His writings against the Vietnam War made him our hero. I also thought his People's History was ground-breaking but now understand how flawed it is. So the idea that he was a leading historian of the 20th century is simply not so. As for Charles Beard, he does qualify, though his 1913 work is no longer regarded as one of the century's most influential books (see last paragraph). Allreet (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is that Beard wrote over 100 years ago, and Zinn over 40 years ago. No historian's work lasts 40 years, or a century, without being debated, revised, discredited, revived, superseded, and so on. Zinn and Beard aren't unique in this; they're unique in their impact, they are dividing lines in historiography, but their works are too old to be cited in a Wikipedia article. Except in the articles about their works. :-) Levivich (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Good. Then generally we agree. I should note a couple other exceptions on using older works; for example, I see nothing wrong with citing anyone who concurs with the current consensus on a particular matter. But why use an older source if a more recent one will do? Some answers: if the older work sums up an issue more concisely, identifies a point others don't bother to mention but are likely to accept, or reflects long-standing agreement among scholars. Allreet (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Continuing the same arguments

• Pinging editors involved in the RfC, per WP: Appropriate notification

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, Thebiguglyalien, Redrose64, 127(point)0(point)0(point)1, Scapulus, DIYeditor, Fad Ariff, Display name 99, InvadingInvader, Aoidh, RadioactiveBoulevardier, and Levivich:

Freoh — None of your references have page numbers. You just stated your opinion, once again, and listed a bunch of sources with the assumption that they think The People is a "vague" idea. Once again saying that less than 3% of the American people did not vote for the Constitution is what's vague, and misleading, and ignores the idea that some 50% of the population were women who did not vote, with a huge portion being under 21 who also did not vote. If we are going to use numbers, they should be comprehensive and show how many delegates, who represent The People, voted for ratification, which had to be a majority for ratification to occur. Imo, you're trying to suggest that the Constitution was forced on 97% of the American people, which is total nonsense, and I believe you know this. We already have consensus as several editors have reverted your attempts to POV tag the section. We have discussed this at length in an RfC you initiated and which failed in the face of overwhelming consensus against it. You have already been warned about belaboring the discussion.and ignoring consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

some 50% of the population were women who did not vote Yeah, that's a big part of the point, they weren't part of "we the people". Levivich (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The Constitution was/is the law of the land and pertains to everyone, whether they voted or not. This is why we should make any reference to the voting in terms of the numbers of delegates who voted for or against ratification. Again, saying only 3% of the American people voted for the Constitution more than suggests that it was forced on 97% of the people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Idk about the exact percentage, but the only people who voted for the Constitution were white male landowners, which I'm sure was less than 50% of the population. The rest, yes, had it "forced" upon them. Which doesn't mean they didn't support it, or they didn't support it over King George's monarchy, but they didn't vote for it, and they didn't enjoy all of its rights and privileges. As pretty much any mainstream modern history book makes this point when discussing the Constitution, so should our article. And indeed, it does, somewhat, in the lead, but the section on the Preamble would be improved by being expanded to mention the inequity, if not hypocrisy, of "We the People". Levivich (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The delegates who voted, represented the People, all of them. And of course they were white, as the nation was founded by white settlers. Any "hypocrisy" suggests that the constitution was forced, and this sort of POV needs to be kept out of the article. If there was any hypocrisy involved the People would not have stood for it. It's understood that some delegates opposed ratification -- most supported it. It's also understood that women had no say, as was a common theme around the world, so this isn't anything amazing for the period in question, and, Loyalists aside, they certainly didn't want to remain under the rule of the tyrannical King George III.. Again, we need to show the percentage of delegates who voted for and against. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers and User:Levivich seem to make valid points. Complete citation data is the least one might expect. BusterD (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown University Law Center (2015), "The Constitution and the Philosophy of Language: Entailment, Implicature, and Implied Powers", Virginia Law Review [10] (PDF), footnotes omitted, emphasis and links mine:

  In the domain of historical scholarship, one of the watershed events occurred just over a century ago, when Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. In a nutshell, Beard argued that economic interest, not political theory, was the dominant factor that explained how the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Far from being theoretical visionaries, the Framers of the Constitution were more akin to self-interested businessmen. By means of such ingenious devices as the Contracts Clause, the Sweeping Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and above all, powerful courts, they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda. Beard supported these and other provocative claims by pointing to evidence that other scholars had often ignored, such as the holdings of land, slaves, and, most importantly, public debt, which each of the Framers held at the time, and by relating these findings to particular features of the constitutional text and of the drafting and ratification history. The cumulative effect of these ideas on American political theory was profound. In the postwar era, a number of historians mounted detailed challenges to Beard's thesis, but the new paradigm he ushered in has largely endured. Since then, several generations of "neo-Beardian" scholars have continued to enhance our understanding of the economic and political factors that led to the formation and adoption of the Constitution.

In the footnotes, Mikhail gives about 10 examples of such works between 1937 and 2007 (including McDonald). None of this is new or controversial. Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years, despite some authors challenging it. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Much of this comes off a bit naive, and seems as something fostered by socialist political theory, and overlooks much. For example...

• they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda

How is it that the ordinary citizens were compromised if they were protected by the same laws as anyone else? To think that the people then, who were very politically aware, and strongly opposed to any form of elitism, esp after the Revolution, were simply fooled by "Federalist propaganda", more than suggests that the American populous was sort of naive and not very aware of the looming realities of that time. Sometimes "propaganda" can be the advocation of sound ideas, which no doubt won a lot of delegates over, and were chosen as such because they were widely considered the brightest men from their respective states

• Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years ...

That's actually an opinion which would demand many considerations of views held by 100's, perhaps 1000's of sources, so it's best to keep one sided claims out of the discussion and concentrate on facts. e.g. How many delegates voted for or against ratification. It's understood that at first the Constitution was met with much reservation, since many had assumed that the Constitutional Convention was simply going to improve on the inadequate Articles of Confederation, but slowly most were won over by the realization that a strong central government binding the states was necessary for the survival of the nation. Without national security, economic interests would always be in jeopardy. By necessity, any concern for economic interest would have to embrace the idea of national safety, based in sound political principles. which would be to the benefit of everyone.

• Beard argued that economic interest, not political theory, was the dominant factor that explained how the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

This sounds a bit simplistic also, because to preserve economic interest by way of law, any such law would have to be rooted in political theory. With concern for economic interest, the livelihood of the people was safeguarded from taxation without representation and other forms of tyranny, and would allow them to engage in the free enterprise system with the same protections as anyone else. So while we're mulling through all the varied sources, we should never lose sight of these basic considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the Georgetown Law endowed professor over the Wikipedian on this one. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's just ignore common sense. Above, according to user Rjensen, a credentialed historian, Historians agree that Brown's deeply researched study is much better than Beard's thinly-based speculation, and Allreet, Beard is passe. Even the Charles A. Beard article asserts, the consensus historian Richard Hofstadter concluded in 1968, "Today Beard's reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. That Beard referred to the Founders as those who feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda more than tipped his hand and sort of puts Beard on the same shelf as Howard Zinn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Beard and Zinn are two of the most prominent historians of the 20th century. Those two books -- Economic Interpretation and People's History -- are among the most influential books about American History written in the 20th century, like top 10, probably top 5. Levivich (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Prominent" no doubt among chronic critics of the Constitution and the free enterprise system, which flies in the face of socialist ideology, where a centralist government, with no representation, reigns over the people, and the ways and means of production and economy. Thanks Levivich. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Anytime? Levivich (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This was the time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What history readers think of Zinn: excerpt from the article by JENNIFER SCHUESSLER "And the Worst Book of History Is …" in New York Times July 16, 2012 see online full text here quote: "The political direction of the country may be up for grabs until November, but the right has scored an interim victory — if that’s the word — in a weeklong contest to determine “the least credible history book in print” just concluded by the History News Network. After a week of voting by readers, David Barton’s “The Jefferson Lies” won with some 650 votes, narrowly edging the left-wing historian Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States,” which received 641 votes. . . . But Mr. Zinn’s Marxist-inflected account of American history provoked the most impassioned debate in the site’s comments section, with some commenters dismissing it as “absolutely atrocious agit-prop” and others praising it as a flawed but necessary corrective to the overly heroic stories that prevail in many classrooms. David Kaiser, a professor of military history at the Naval War College, charged “A People’s History” — which has sold more than two million copies since its initial publication in 1980 — with damaging the country, “By convincing several generations of Americans that leadership does not matter and that all beneficial change comes from the bottom,” he wrote, “it has played a significant role in the destruction of American liberalism.” Others, however, said Mr. Zinn’s faults were dwarfed by those of the other finalists. “I don’t really enjoy defending Zinn, but the other four are clearly on another level of awful,” wrote another commenter. “Zinn is tendentious and strident and polemical and oversimplifies everything, the others are obviously all worse.” [etc] [end of excerpt from NY TIMES] Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A culture reporter writing in the NYTimes arts blog... is what you're bringing to the table here? If you want NYT criticism of Zinn, at least pull from something respectable like the The New York Times Book Review [11] :-P Levivich (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I quoted a professional journalist in a major story in a leading newspaper--she is not giving her own opinions on Zinn--instead she is summarizing what hundreds of history readers told HNN in 2012 about Zinn's book. (Are you willing to tell us sources are you using????) Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A poll on a website asking people to rate "the least credible history book in print" from among 5 choices selected by the website, History News Network. Zinn is a controversial historian, perhaps the most controversial historian of his day, and it's really easy to find criticisms of Zinn. One need look no further than our article Howard Zinn. But you insult me with this blog and web poll. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Beard and Zinn are two of the most prominent historians of the 20th century.

and

Beard's view is the mainstream view and has been for 100 years.

Beard's analysis has been roundly refuted by a host of scholars over the past 75 years, beginning more or less in the 1950s up through the present. Zinn fares even worse. To quote Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, the views of both Beard and Zinn can be summed up with one word: bunk. Allreet (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A quote from Amar's most recent volume, The Words That Made Us:

Almost everything that Charles Beard and his modern-day debunking followers have said about the Constitution’s launch is either dead wrong or more wrong than right.

— Review, Los Angeles Review of Books, August 3, 2021 Allreet (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Still discussing if "We the People" means "We the People"? I think Gwillhickers points above about the wording "We the People...in Order to...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare ..." closed the case on this a long time ago (in Wikipedia years). Of course the Founders wrote the Constitution and their other documents for everyone in the United States, including women. They just didn't give women a vote, but did leave a direct route within the Constitution to change the documents and thus obtain that vote, end slavery, prohibit alcohol, publish Lady Chatterley's Lover, and bring back alcohol. And, by the way, build a civilization which was able to reach the Moon within less than 200 years. "We the People" means all the people, this is well-sourced. As for who wrote the words, voted or didn't vote, that has nothing to do with the ongoing civilization-shaping effect of the words and subsequent laws and actions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and Amar's view is not the mainstream view. Let's quote that book review of Amar's latest book fully:

As his postscript, acknowledgments, and notes to his new book, The Words That Made Us, record, Amar has read virtually every major author — and there are many leading authors on the Constitution — and is a man of strong views, "a product of law school culture […] and here is my bottom line: Almost everything that Charles Beard and his modern-day debunking followers have said about the Constitution’s launch is either dead wrong or more wrong than right." Beard should not feel too bad. Throughout The Words That Made Us, Amar criticizes Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun, and Jackson, among other leading politicians, and stakes out a distinctive position among the Constitution's many interpreters. This alone justifies the book.

Italics in the original, bold is mine. Amar's book is putting forth a new theory, a distinctive position among the Consitution's many interpreters. Not restating the mainstream view.

And what's the review say about the people?

Amar plans to more systematically address slavery, women’s rights, and the rights of Native in subsequent volumes of his potential trilogy. So let's wait until Amar finishes the trilogy before we cite his latest work, and let's not pretend Amar's latest distinctive theories are the mainstream view when Amar's recent book argues to change the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What Amar has to say about his own book, The Words That Made Us. All of these quotes are from the postscript (it's an ebook, so no page numbers):

The claims made in this book may well elicit sharp responses and rejoinders from other scholars. I hope so! As I shall explain below, the preceding chapters tell a fresh story of America—a story that, in ways both large and small, breaks with reigning academic orthodoxies ... Just as I seek to correct my predecessors, mentors, and role models, so I expect that scholars of the next generation will push back against some of what I say here. In other words, dear reader, the book that you have just read is nothing if not ambitious ... a book that seeks to take its place alongside, and indeed to synthesize and (dare I say it?) succeed, [Bancroft 1882], Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), [McLaughlin 1935, Wood 1969, Wood 2006].

He is explicit that his book presents new theories that break with "reigning academic orthodoxies". So no, his new book is not the mainstream view, it's arguing against the mainstream view. He spends an entire page in the postscript arguing against "neo-Beardian" views (as well as the views of Wood, Maier, and others). He also concedes that The truth on all this did not generally come to light until 2005, in the opening pages and endnotes of my book, America’s Constitution: A Biography. So Amar cites himself as debunking Beard.

Here is Stanford Law endowed professor Gregory Ablavsky reviewing Amar's The Words That Made Us. From the abstract:

This essay reviews Akhil Amar's recent constitutional history of the early United States, The Words That Made Us. In this volume, Amar seeks to offer a "fresh story of America" that provides a "usable past." I argue that the book fails on both fronts. On the contrary, much of what Amar peddles is very old, ignoring generations’ worth of scholarship while parroting a centuries-old nationalist constitutional hagiography. In particular, he believes that constitutional history must be, at core, a referendum on the handful of powerful men dubbed the Founders. His effort to defend them and the Constitution from critics paints him into difficult corners, including endorsing some dubious exculpatory narratives around the exclusion of women, Black people, and Native nations in early America.

The actual review (free PDF if you click the link above) is even harsher. It begins on page 1:

Akhil Amar’s doorstop of a constitutional history, The Words That Made Us, appeared this past spring to both scholarly and popular acclaim. Amar’s “love letter to America,” the first of a projected three volumes, offers a sweeping narrative of the creation of the United States and the U.S. Constitution from the beginning of the American Revolution through the Jacksonian era. At a moment when Americans are sharply divided over how to narrate the nation’s history, Amar seeks to offer a “common core” by returning to “constitutional basics.” The book hopes to meet the needs of a stormy present by providing the “usable past” that historians have been unable to give us.

It fails. Likely few books could restore a common historical narrative amidst the current moment’s fractiousness. But Amar’s account provides a surprisingly unusable past, in large part because he misreads the challenge ... . As a result, Amar’s defense of the Constitution’s legitimacy by repackaging some very old, shopworn arguments and evidence will do little to settle our ongoing fights over the past.

On page 21:

Saying something new, especially about the Constitution, is hard. Amar explicitly hopes that his volume will stand alongside the canonical reinterpretations of the Constitution by scholars like Charles Beard and Gordon Wood. But their volumes became classics because they offered novel understandings of the Constitution based on an incisive understanding of the then-current literature. Beard, for instance, argued for the primacy of the drafters’ economic interests in shaping the Constitution, while Wood highlighted the significance of the state legislative threat in prompting the constitution’s creation. Regardless whether they were right (Amar thinks they weren’t), they made it impossible to consider constitutional history without grappling with their interpretation.

I'm going to emphasize that last line: impossible to consider constitutional history without grappling with their interpretation. This is why our article on the US Constitution cannot avoid neo-Beardianism: it's impossible to consider the history of the constitution without grappling with neo-Beardianism.

Beard's views have been debated for 100 years, and are still debated today, and Amar is probably one of the most vocal critics of Beard. There are plenty of positive reviews of Amar's 2021 book, as Ablavsky acknowledges in the quote above, but it's not really accurate to present Amar's novel 2021 thesis as if it was the mainstream view, particularly since his book is only a couple of years old, probably too recent to shift the dominant paradigm. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Beard's interpretation is not regarded as mainstream. See the sources and quotes below (emphasis mine):

• Until World War II Beard, though often contested, reigned. Since World War II, however, historians have launched strong challenges at Beard's interpretation. Although they often disagreed in their interpretations of the Constitution, they all agreed that Beard's study did not offer a satisfactory explanation of the document.

  Couvares, Francis G.; Saxton, Martha (2000) Interpretations of American History Vol. I (p. 180)

• Thus, the current historical consensus is that Beard's thrust -his focus on the framers as creating a capitalist order primarily to protect their own interests- is incorrect.

  Feldman, Stephen M. (2014) The Interpretation of Constitutional History, or Charles Beard Becomes a Fortuneteller (with an Emphasis on Free Expression) (p. 325)

• Although there are exceptions to such generalizations, historians argue that throughout the years following the war, American intellectuals rejected Karl Marx, Charles Beard, the far left, and progressive historiography. Instead, the post-war years witnessed the rise of "consensus" intellectual scholarship [...] As post-war intellectuals moved away from Marx and the left, American historians, in general, dismissed Charles Beard and progressive historiography.

  Fogo, Bradley J. (1996) William Appleman Williams: Progressive, consensus, New Left historian (p. 32 & 36)

• Beard’s specific claims concerning the reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation have been largely discredited, because further research has shown that the economic divisions between Federalists and Antifederalists and the reasons for their disagreements were considerably more complicated than Beard allowed.

  Kloppenberg, James T. (2004) Pragmatism and the Practice of History: From Turner and Du Bois to Today

• Beard’s interpretation of the writing of the federal Constitution, for example, has been convincingly debunked, and Williams’s conspiratorial foreign policy theories are eccentric. Hofstadter and others successfully argued that there was much more consensus in American politics than Beard and his followers could brook.

  Lauck, Jon (2010) The "Interior Tradition" in American History: A Review Essay (p. 91)

Although Beard might've been very influential, but very few continue to support him and they contradict the historical consensus, as noted above. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these sources.

Couvares et al. are the editors, not the authors, of what you're quoting. The chapter, "The Constitution: Conflict or Consensus", was written by Gordon S. Wood and John Howe. It's "Wood 2000".

Wood 2000, p. 180:

Beard's book was perhaps the most influential work in American history of all time ... Although adversaries sprang up quickly, Beard remained convincing. Textbooks in history and poltical science repeated Beard's thesis verbatim. Even today's constitutional scholars content with Beard's ghost. Almost all interpretations of the Constitution written since Beard's book have been forced into a pro- or anti-Beard position. Until World War II Beard, though often constested, reigned.

Since World War II, however, historians have launched strong challenges to Beard's interpretation ...

The next nine pages describe the challenges to Beard's interpretation during the 20th century.

Page 189:

By the end of the 1980s, most scholars found the debate over economic interests and the Constitution along Beardian lines unrewarding ...

Six more pages of post-Cold War historiography. This book was published in 2000, so it doesn't tell us anything about 21st-century historiography. But here is how Wood concluded:

Page 193:

History students continue to come to grips with the problem of evaluating the Constitution and the developments that led to its writing and ratification ... Was the Constitution, as Beard and some neo-Progressive historians argued, an undemocratic document--the work of a political and propertied minority who drafted it as an instrument to suit their own purposes? Were the Antifederalists tradition-minded classical republicans or enterprising protoliberals who glimpsed the future of America as Wood suggested? Only by raising such questions can the student decide whether the Constitution was a document that reflected conflict or consensus.

I'll note at this point that Akhil Reed Amar, in the postscript of his 2021 book The Words That Made Us (cited/discussed/quoted above), posits himself as a "third way" in contrast to Charled Beard and Gordon Wood. From the postscript to his book, italics in the original:

...My view, by contrast, is simple and straightforward: The Constitution of 1787 was a direct, logical, and proportionate response to the basic failures of the Articles. Period.

Indeed, that is one of my key claims in Chapter Five. In order to explain the emergence of the United States Constitution, we need not posit self-interested moneymen aiming to enrich themselves, à la Charles Beard. Nor was the Constitution a Madisonian project centrally addressed to solving the perceived internal governance flaws of individual state constitutions, as Gordon Wood has cleverly—too cleverly—argued in a truly brilliant lifetime body of work.

Feldman 2014 appears to be self-published.

Fogo 1996 appears to be a graduate student thesis.

James T. Kloppenberg's 2004 article saying Beard’s specific claims concerning the reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation have been largely discredited isn't the same as saying Beard's entire thesis has been largely discredited. The rest of that quote, on page 206:

Beard claimed that the U.S. Constitution reflects the interests and aspirations of the wealthy individuals who wrote it, not the high ideals and noble aspirations usually read into it by Americans. Beard’s specific claims concerning the reasons for replacing the Articles of Confederation have been largely discredited, because further research has shown that the economic divisions between Federalists and Antifederalists--and the reasons for their disagreements--were considerably more complicated than Beard allowed. But in its day, both as a signal announcing the new historians’ challenge to the nation’s sacred cows and as an illustration of the ways in which economic analysis could illuminate historical interpretation, Beard’s argument was immensely important. He brought to the musty study of constitutional history a new method of historical analysis and a self-consciously pragmatist sensibility. He believed that historical scholarship should illuminate the past in order to fuel democratic reformist politics in the present.

At p. 207, he describes Beard's interpretation as "revisited" and "revised":

Beard was a long way from our own postmodernist moment, and he remained committed to the proposition that historical inquiry, although conceived with an eye to its contemporary significance, remains an empirical project and must be grounded in careful archival research. But he insisted that such claims must be revisited by each generation--as indeed historians have revisited--and revised--his own economic interpretation of the Constitution.

Kloppenberg presents a more nuanced explanation of neo-Beardianism as "Beyond Beard" at pp. 214-15:

Outside the field of intellectual history, interest in pragmatism has been less prominent among American historians recently than it was in the middle of the twentieth century. When an explicitly New Left historiography and a more multifaceted new social history both emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s, dissatisfaction with the so-called consensus history of the 1950s did prompt renewed and often respectful attention to the ‘‘new history’’ of the progressive and interwar eras. But most historians aimed to move ‘‘Beyond Beard,’’ to use the title of Staughton Lynd’s chapter in the most widely read manifesto of New Left historical writing, Towards a New Past.

Beard's influence is mentioned at p. 216:

Once American historians, following Robinson, the Beards, Du Bois, and Dewey, discovered worlds of experience that had been lost or ignored, they endeavored to understand the experience of those who inhabited those worlds, people formerly unknown or invisible to historians. Achieving that understanding requires commitments to perspectivalism, fallibilism, and instrumentalism, sensibilities long associated with pragmatism.

And, finally, he gives a middle-of-the-road view similar to Wood 2000, at p. 219:

In practice, however, most historians have adhered neither to the strict objectivist credo nor to the wilder versions of relativism incorrectly attributed to Beard and Becker by their critics. Working historians instead have occupied a middle ground discovered first by James and Dewey, surveyed with great precision and clarity by Bernstein and Hilary Putnam, and analyzed historically by Haskell and Hollinger.

Like Wood 2000, Kloppenberg 2004 was written 20 years ago and can't tell us much about 21st-century historiography, e.g., what the modern view is.

Jon K. Lauck is an adjunct professor at the University of South Dakota, writing a book review of David S. Brown's 2009 book. The book review is published in The Annals of Iowa. It's true, he says Beard's interpretation has been "convincingy debunked". He takes Hofstader's side in it... but the other historians quoted above say something rather different: that Hofstader challenged Beard's interpretation, but not that he "debunked" them. Lauck takes the anti-Beard position. But I don't see Lauck as really being in the same league as the other people we're quoting (e.g. Wood, Amar, Mikhail, Ablavsky).

We have legal history scholars, in the past 10 years, taking more of a pro-Beard position, or at least saying Beard endures: Stanford prof Ablavsky 2022 and Georgetown prof Mikhail 2015. We also have Yale prof Amar 2021 taking an anti-Beardian position. (All three quoted in this thread.)

This literature review we're doing has persuaded me that I may have overstated things when claiming there is one mainstream view. "Neo-Beardianism" may be one of several, but I'd like to see more recent scholarship that addresses this, from the past 10 years, like Mikhail 2015, Amar 2021, adn Ablavsky 2022. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Levivich: — Your last comment here is more than fair. It seems, however, that we already have a wide selection of the latest scholarship, mostly from the 21st century. We should be mindful about holding up the year of publication as the primary way of attributing credit to a given source, as there are many older sources that are just as credible, sometimes more so, than the latest scholarship. When it comes to science related topics of course the latest sources are desirable because they often introduce new break throughs and such, but where it concerns history, very often a source close to the time in question can be very informative, esp in terms of public sentiment towards people and events, shedding additional light on a subject . Every now and then someone will discover a new document, letter or diary, yet at this late date I've yet to see anything that has gone so far as to reinvent the historical wheel in terms of established facts. Often times the latest scholarship only offers new opinion, not new facts. At one time Beard and Zinn were considered among the "latest scholarship", but look where they are today. Iow, the "latest" is no guarantee that a source is all the way around credible, and will remain so. We should consider sources on a per source basis, with only some regard for its date of publication. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS : — "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.
Sources of any age may be prone to Recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A historiography section?

It seems if some editors want to include major coverage of the historiography involving the Constitution. We can mention briefly the views of some historians but to elevate anyone to iconic status e.g. "Beardianism" would be POVish and invoke due weight issues. (btw, the proper term would be Beardian) We can include a statement regarding Beard's views, along with other prominent historians, but nothing more, as the Constitution article should, and does, lend itself primarily to the established facts, e.g.who signed, date of ratification, etc. Beard has been debated much because his opinion reeks with lop-sided anti-constitutional bias and has been widely refuted by a good number of more objective historians such as Brown. He is no longer in the running among objective historians. e.g. This statement sort of puts beard in his proper perspective. they feathered their own nests at the expense of ordinary citizens, who in turn were led to ratify the Constitution only under an avalanche of Federalist propaganda One would have to ask, what part of the Constitution would allow the founders to "feather their nests" at the expense of the "ordinary citizen"? Answer: No part. — In any case, showcasing someone like Beard, widely refuted, would be giving more weight and attention than this individual deserves.

Levivich, re: this statement: Beard's views have been debated for 100 years The more accurate statement would be that Beard's views have been criticized and refuted for 100 years.

Here are yet even more views from historians about Beard's grandstanding.

• Historian Charles A. Beard, in ... in 1913 asserted, incorrectly, that Benjamin Franklin “at the time of the Convention was so advanced in years as to be of little real weight in the formation of the Constitution.", Morton, 2006, p. 106
• [Beard's 1913 work] ... has been largely refuted by subsequent scholarship. --Morton, 2006, p. 355
• Robert Brown asserts that many of Beard’s conclusions were based on faulty or non-existent sources. This is a plausible indictment of the controversial Beard interpretation. -- Morton, 2006, p. 335
• ... though Beard elsewhere lavished attention on the issue of property qualifications for representatives, he omitted all mention of the topic in analyzing the ratification process, focusing instead only on property qualifications for voters. i.e.many states waived the property ownership qualification for the ratification delegates. Amar, 2006, p. 505
• Macmillan, 1913, Beard's argument that the framing of the Constitution was engineered by a group of men whose assets were disproportionately invested in "personalty" — especially public securities and commercial pursuits — has been widely attacked and, for the most part, proven to be erroneous., Beeman, 2009, p. 458

Saying anything more than a brief statement about Beard, who has been widely refuted by numerous scholars, would be giving this character more credit than is due, regardless of the controversies that exposed him. It's a bit troubling that some editors have to reach for sources like Beard and Zinn to make any point. --. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• He is explicit that his book presents new theories that break with "reigning academic orthodoxies". -- Levivich

Unfortunately it's the squeaky wheel that gets most of the grease. The "reigning academic orthodoxies" remain so because they concentrate on fact, are objective, widely substantiated, and have stood the test of time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe Gwillhickers is correct on most counts. Two clarifications (for Levivich):

• The quote I provided was only intended to debunk Beard, not elevate Amar, though for certain he's a member of a long line of scholars whose works have contributed to the present day view of the Constitution.
• Stephen Feldman's essay was not self-published. It appeared in Vol. 29, No. 3, of the journal Constitutional Commentary, which is replete with thoughts on Beard.

And finally, can we please get back to improving the article (enough for now on Historiography)? I've proposed adding more on slavery in two sections above. Anyone else have a suggestion? Allreet (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening me out about Feldman 2014; I was going off the "suggested citation" in the original link and didn't notice the header on the PDF. That Beard centennial issue in ConComm has an excellent variety of views on Beard. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

" include major coverage of the historiography involving the Constitution" Are there enough sources for a spin-off article concerning this historiography? Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes--LOTS of good material for a historiography section. 1) Start by looking at Landis, Mark. "Recent Scholarship on the Origins of the US Constitution: A Guide for Teachers of American History." (1990). online at this link; (2) Then for more advanced approaches look at Onuf, Peter S. "Reflections on the Founding: Constitutional Historiography in Bicentennial Perspective." William and Mary Quarterly (1989): 341-375. online for free at this link. (3) You can followup by browsing Gibson, Alan. Interpreting the Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debates over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic (Revised and Expanded. University Press of Kansas, 2010) online book at google Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC).

I've been sharing this with other editors, a roundup of books and papers on the Revolutionary Era that I maintain as a personal Research Page. Many if not most of these link to the works on the Internet Archive and JSTOR. Also, nearly all of the book sources are set up as full cites, so that should save others time as well. Rjensen, I intend use the links you've just provided as sources for finding additional sources. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes an extensive Bibliography and a Further reading section, not to mention a References section containing many reliable sources. It would seem that also including a Historiography section might be a bit redundant on that note. We can create a Bibliography of the United States Constitution (  Done ) and add it with a Further information link at the top of the Bibliography here, as well as to other appropriate articles. If a Historiography section is added perhaps it would be best to simply give a general overview of the many sources that have emerged since Ratification, noting that this subject has received praise, neutral objectivity, and criticism by many historians over the years. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work. Allreet (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet, Rjensen, and Randy Kryn: — Searching for sources for the new Bibliography has been something of an adventure. Along with the various publications a good number of letters between Madison and Jefferson have also been included in the Primary sources and James Madison sections. Through correspondence Madison kept Jefferson, who was in Paris prior to and during the ratification, informed of the developments, while Jefferson lent his advice. Oddly, at least to myself, there doesn't seem to be much of any publications about the Constitution in the late and early 18th and 19th centuries respectively. The earliest publication found thus far is from Robert Yates (1738-1801), whose work about the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention wasn't published until 1821.Subsequently, the 19th century publications section contains only three sources (now contains five). I'm still mulling through the various bibliographies of the various sources hoping to find other publications for the said time period, but so far nothing has surfaced. Any help along this line would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Founders Online provides access to the correspondence of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Suggestion: rather than try to duplicate this in some form, it may be better to start a Web Resources section and list Founders Online with a description.

Meanwhile, I'll search for other sources to add to the 19th, 20th and 21st century listings. Allreet (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Good work on the new page. Articles present in the Journal of the American Revolution and American Heritage magazine would be good sources for readers interested in the period, and may already be on the page. To give credit to Allreet, he authored the very good and topic notable Wikipedia page Founders Online. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Discussion continued on Talk:Bibliography of the United States Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to clarify that I am not saying that everything Beard wrote is accurate or that his perspective is the mainstream. My point is that reliable sources disagree about whether the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy and that there is no one scholarly consensus on this topic. To answer Allreet's earlier question about the vagueness of the people, I will quote Judith Butler:

  Of course, it is never really the case that all of the possible people who are represented by "the people" show up to claim that they are the people! So "we, the people" always has its constitutive outside, as we know. It is thus surely not the fact that the "we" fairly and fully represents all the people; it cannot, even though it can strive for more inclusive aims. Indeed, those who assemble as the "we" who are "the people" are not representing the people but providing the legitimating ground for those who do come to represent the people through elections. The people who are the "we" do something other than represent themselves; they constitute themselves as the people, and this act of self-making or self-constitution is not the same as any form of representation. ... The phrase does not tell us who the people are, but it marks the form of self-constitution in which that debate over who they are and should be begins to take place.

  Given the scholarly disagreement and vague terminology, I still do not think that this article should prioritize a nationalist perspective.  — Freoh 03:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)  — Freoh 03:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)