Talk:The Federalist Papers

Title

I move that since the TRUE title of the work is "The Federalist" and NOT "The Federalist Papers" the title of this article should be changed to "The Federalist" with searches for "(The) Federalist Papers" redirected to it. "The Federalist Papers" is a later title: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay very specifically wanted the work to be called "The Federalist" because a federalist was the type of man whose virtues they wanted to promote, a man like Publius--The title "The Federalist" refers to a type of PERSON, not a collection of papers. Calling them "The Federalist Papers" very much changes the authors' intent. --70.30.91.76 (talk • contribs) 11:48, December 26, 2010‎ (UTC)

Change of title to The Federalist Papers

I agree with with the anom author of the section above entitled "Title" - the title of this page, if Wikipedia is to be historically correct, should be The Federalist papers (or The Federalist Papers if capitalizing Papers makes it more familiar). The authors of the papers called the overall project The Federalist, indicating that they were articles being written by one man but actually going under a shared alias of three of America's Founding Fathers - Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. This change feels appropriate to me, and might to readers and historians, so I'm seconding anom's idea, above, in favor of a name change. If so, we can set off fireworks and sign this change with a virtual pen from the Syng inkstand (I really like that page and artifact!) Randy Kryn 21:08 19 September, 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Federalist Papers

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous uncited sentences, a bloated lede and missing information in the "Judicial use" and "Popular culture" sections. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreement with Z1720 above on the poor condition of the main article for this important book of papers. The article appears to have suffered significantly from over-edits over the past 15-20 years, when previously it did achieve peer reviewed status. At present, without significant effort from editors, then the article looks like it should be de-listed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Missing end number for "The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government"

It states 37 as the first of the essays covering this topic, but the end No. is missing. the next item lists 85, the final essay, it seems likely that the missing number is 84. looking for confirmation. RarinRictus (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Other authors in support

As we know, papers in opposition to the Constitution were written and published by many people. Did anyone other than Publius write in support of the Constitution? J S Ayer (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fischer book about the Federalist Party

Hi Tonymetz. You probably know more about this than I do, so I'll pick your brain. I hope you don't mind. You obviously believe this book is important as a source for this article, at least as Further reading:

• Fischer, David Hackett (1965). The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy. Harper & Row.

The book is listed in the Bibliography at the Federalist Party article, where it is obviously on-topic. What justifies it being listed here? The Federalist Party isn't mentioned a single time in this article. Shouldn't such content be developed first?

BTW, my most valuable source of knowledge about The Federalist Papers was gained while doing a lot of work at Wikisource. It's a pretty amazing work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The book covers The Federalist Party and Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Paper's primary author. The Party was a major if not primary means of influence for the ideas that Hamilton championed in this book . For those and other reasons it seems to be relevant for "Further Reading" where it's found. Tonymetz 💬 18:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove from "Conservatism in the United States"?

The article is currently listed in a series of "Conservatism in the United States" but this inflates the actual conservatism of The Federalist Papers. Websters defines "conservatism" as

a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for reduced taxation, for limited government regulation of business, industry and finance, for restriction of immigration, for a strong national defense, and for individual financial responsibility for personal needs.

Nothing about the Federalist Papers nor their authors fits with this definition. Hamilton and the papers both argued that the President should be akin to a king and that the federal government needed to be strong. If I had to guess it got added because many conservative judges use the Founders' intentions to argue for their preferred constitutional interpretation and the Federalist Society has taken on the name of the Papers and silhouette of Hamilton as their logo, but this isn't enough evidence to support lumping the Federalist Papers together with Barry Goldwater and JD Vance's books which more align with the views of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Perhaps these should instead be grouped with the series "Constitution of the United States" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy100001 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You may have a point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References