Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 2 January 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Constitution of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 15, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted October 25, 2008 Featured article review Demoted August 24, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 17, 2004, September 17, 2005, September 17, 2006, September 17, 2008, September 17, 2009, and September 17, 2010. Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Constitution Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American / Libertarianism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. National Archives (inactive) This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WP1.0

Errors in the United States Constitution was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 June 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Constitution of the United States. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This original information is grossly incorrect. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution.

It should read correctly. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is an addendum (or whatever word you'd like tyo use) to the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first document which created on November 15, 1777, the PERPETUAL UNION known as "The United States of America."

Supporting evidence: Preamble of the United States Constitution.

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.

1. 1. in Order to form a more perfect Union. This wording plainly establishes that the union, known as "the United States of America," had already been established by the "Article of Confederation," and the constitution was an addendum to make that union, more perfect.
2. 2. do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This wording plainly establishes that the constitution was "FOR" The United States of America and the constitution did not create The United States of America, the Article of Confederation did. All the constitution did was to more definitively define the powers and especially the prohibition of the government of The United States of America.
3. 3. It superseded the Articles of Confederation. The Creation of a perpetual union, The United States of America can not be superseded. Allmightywest2022 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Just... no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Article V

In the last paragraph of this section, it is stated that certain clauses in the Constitution are shielded from amendment, one of these being the provision that taxation must be apportioned among the several states. It then goes on to say that that was changed by the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. But how? If a clause is shielded from amendment, then how is it changed by the adoption of an amendment? That makes no sense. This needs to be explained because as it stands now, the paragraph is self-contradictory. GnatFriend (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

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

Freoh (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

1. ^ 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."'
2. ^ Adler & Gorman 1975, p. 26, 80, 136. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAdlerGorman1975 (help)
3. ^ Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States, 1492-Present (New ed.). New York. p. 632. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 50622172.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
4. ^ Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
5. ^ 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.

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States Constitution articles
• Top-importance United States Constitution articles
• WikiProject United States Constitution things
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Top-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• B-Class United States History articles
• Top-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Top-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress things
• B-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• B-Class Libertarianism articles
• Mid-importance Libertarianism articles
• WikiProject Libertarianism articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• High-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English