20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)chime i would think it's obvious that "it" is the constitution, the subject of the previous sentence and the only reasonable antecedent mentioned in the paragraph to that point. The Anti-federalist movement did oppose the ratification of the constitution, as I think the sentence makes clear by lumping them with "other opponents of the constitution." I'm not attached to the current language but it's not apparent to me how these ideas could be made. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I think a great addition to the federalist Papers page would be ( p? Work_id93 ) which directs to TheFinalClub. Org a new site that among other things includes full texts of public domain texts with hypertext commentary on works ranging from Macbeth to the federalist Papers. The texts are cleanly formatted and the commentary is unique, interesting, and authoritative. Check out the site. Andrewmagliozzi ( talk ) 19:41, (UTC) Automatic addition of "classGA" edit a bot has added classGA to the wikiproject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article.
The federalist Papers - congress
But as the name "federalist" was already taken for a paper they had to choose another name. So this article makes me very confused regarding what this. Lord Metroid 16:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Frankly i'm confused regarding your comment, could you be clearer? Christopher Parham (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC) maybe after he anterolisthesis reads them he can correct himself. 01:30, (UTC) Links to text edit The External Links section has several links to copies of the papers, including a link to wikisource copies. Are any of the linked materials very different from the others? ( sewilco 02:53, (UTC) The following sentence is unclear. I would like to see someone knowledgable about this subject rewrite this sentence to include who "it" is and explain who the "opponents" of the constitution were. This statement begs the question of whether or not anti-federalists were opponents of the constitution. Immediately, it was the target of numerous articles and public letters written by Anti-federalists and other opponents of the constitution.
It also makes the citations shorter and easier to add and maintain. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:49, 30 november 2006 (UTC) In general, leads should not have footnotes; they should summarize article text, which should be sourced. However, since the (quite reasonable) claim that 10 and 51 are the most influential occurs only in the lead, it could use a source. Septentrionalis 06:22, 30 november 2006 (UTC) i the added a socsci tag. Should it be history instead? JoelleJ 19:46, (UTC) Portrayed false edit The federalist paper's with Hamilton was for a royalist governship. And the Anti-federalist paper as wacky as it seems was for a republican with sovereign people.
Histowi ( talk ) 22:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC) your request for ga status has passed edit i have passed your request for this article to be listed as one of wikipedia's good Articles. The article clearly explains its idea, and write purpose. The only thing I see wrong with it is its loose references system. In order to advance this above ga, i suggest you try to incorporate the references and notes sections into one (using the ref tag over one of the refrences so it is easier to find out what the related notes mean. There should also be more citations in the lead. lbmixPro sp e ak o nit! 19:34, 19 november 2006 (UTC) i added citations for some the fact tags you placed. However, the reference setup is fairly standard and I don't see any compelling reason to change.
Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, (UTC) four sets of numbers: jay's contributions, madison's contributions, which of them were claimed by hamilton, and Hamilton's consensus contributions. (I suppose the last is redundant.) Not a matter of deep import, but it is what I came looking for. Septentrionalis 04:50, (UTC) List of Federalist Papers has most of this information, except identifying the disputed papers, which I will add shortly. In any case, they are 49-58 and 62 and. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, (UTC) (This list is now updated to that effect) I believe that essays 18-20 can be fully attributed to madison. The source you site in note 1, The Encyclopedia of New York city, albeit on page 394, not 194, credits Madison with no mention of being in dispute. While i have not read the Adair essay you cite, in meyerson's Liberty's Blueprint, he says that "Adair reviewed the content of the essays and decided that Madison's list better reflected the different policy orientations of the two. Later, jacob cooke reviewed the reliability of the different lists and the people who claimed to have seen them. He came to the same conclusion as Adair, namely that Madison's list was correct." meyerson goes on to say that while others disagreed with Adair and cooke, numerous studies based on stylometry (the science of using statistics to measure literary style) indicate that Madison was.
The federalist Papers - wikipedia
Use keywords Federalist Papers in Farsi zameeni ( talk ) 22:46, (UTC) References edit personally, i strongly prefer the reference system ref / note, although it would be nice if this system too was hard-coded into wikimedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:34, (UTC) Influence on the ratification stroke Debate? Edit It would be nice to see and a discussion on the papers influence on the ratification debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk contribs ) 01:33, (UTC) has too many assertions of the purported importance of these papers without any credible authority. Perhaps the "received wisdom" and even probable, but if true there ought to be references to the papers in the ratification debates.
I've read a lot of those (e.g. Elliot's 5 volumes and remember no reference to them at all - by proponents or opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 15:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Authorship edit It would be helpful if the two authorship lists were covered here. Septentrionalis 23:09, (UTC) is intended to cover taht issue. What in particular would you like to see added?
Mattweiss ( talk ) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Proposed Expansion edit i would like to see this article expanded significantly, with excerpts and analysis of each of the federalist Papers, and how they have been cited over the years (e.g., in Supreme court decisions). Or, a separate article could be created for each one, linked together with a template (like the one for the constitution ). Anyone else think this is a good idea?- jw1805 20:00, (UTC) i actually have an article on Federalist. 10 that I started working on but took a break from, looking at Publius's arguments, the Anti-federalist arguments it was responding to, etc. If someone else is interested in working on this stuff I'll upload it tonight in its semi-finished state, i just have to get it off my other comp. Overall, i like the idea of having more detailed commentary on this stuff; I'm not sure that organizing by the federalist Papers is the best way.
Ultimately, we may want an article on each of the major issues of contention (e.g. Debates over the ideal size of the union, debates over the structure of the judiciary) that can present the fed. But the federalist Papers are a good place to start. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 2005 August 13 (UTC) Analysis edit Are there any online works that discuss and/or analyze the federalist Papers? Is there any way they could be added as links to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk contribs ) 21:23, (UTC) I have been translating the federalist Papers to farsi and posting them on.
The federalist: a commentary on the constitution of the
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk contribs ) 00:38, (UTC) Actually Philo-publius was a different guy ( William duer ) who wrote in support of the federalist (the name is intended to mean "Friend of Publius. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:08, (UTC) Table of Contents edit There is a large table in the middle of this article: in the external links section there are two links to a similar table but also with links to each paper. I would suggest that this table takes up a lot of space, maybe should be made it's own article with each line formign a link to a stub. What do you think?- 03:04, (UTC) The toc for this was listed under VfD. I moved it here in case essay anyone wants to do anything with it (such as link it to a series of articles) in the future. This is a listing of the federalist Papers. 1 General Introduction 2-7 Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence 8 The consequences of Hostilities Between the States 9-10 The Union as a safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection 11 The Utility of the Union in Respect to commercial Relations and a navy. If the toc is moved, the image of the inside cover which currently resides on the right side of the page should either stay in its place or be lowered if the text looks too cramped.
KeoniPhoenix 15:05, (UTC) Im looking to add a brief summary of each essay, i can start contributing on 28 soon. If anyone else is in the process of reading them please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk contribs ) 03:26, (UTC) Hi; I'm not registered with wikipedia, but I noticed that the picture of the cover of the federalist Papers seems to say that the author is "Philo-publis" not "Publis." I do know a bit. publis" is used in words like publicity and public.) so philo-publis korean would mean "lover of the people which would make sense, since obviously the authors of the federalist Papers (whether one agrees with them or not) were putting forth their opinions because they thought that. If the pseudonym was simply "Publis" that would mean "people" and sort of imply that they thought they were speaking for all Americans in the federalist Papers. Its pretty clear to me that the federalist Papers are not some testiment of what all or most Americans necessarily believed; rather they were meant to convince Americans that the constitution should be adopted and the Articles of Confederation should be left to the historians. In summation; I think the pseudonym is "Philo-publis not Publis, and that the article should be changed to reflect that when/if you agree with.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikiproject United States History to-do: Contents Miscellaneous questions edit this article needs to emphasize that these men wrote the federalist papers under a pseudonym. Also, please explain why they were written under a pseudonym, and how they chose the false name. Also, the story needs to be told about how these men designed it so their names would be revealed after their deaths. Kingturtle 16:48, (UTC) does anyone else find it odd that the german version of this article is about twice as long as the english one?- 17:04, (UTC) I'm rather curious to know why there is no mention to the Anti-federalist Papers, not even a wikipedia. These papers were written in response to the federalists Papers (along with other pro-ratification speeches) and were just as important to the adoption of the constitution for the United States of America and the bill of Rights. Org has some of the Anti-federalist Papers for reference.
Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. The federalist Papers is included in the, wikipedia cd selection, see, the federalist Papers at Schools wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used. This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on wikipedia. Low, this article has been rated.review
Federalist Papers Summary
This article is of interest to bill the following. Wikiprojects : This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Ga, this article has been rated. Ga-class on the project's quality scale. Mid, this article has been rated.