Talk:Federalist No. 1

Untitled

Wikipedia treats me like shit, bans me for no reason, institutes policies that are repugnant to any proper human, so Wikipedia will no longer have the benefit of my articles. Don't try to revert this. I have already reverted the article to what it was before I edited it. --Charlemagne the Hammer 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Article expanded from stub on Feb 24. 1st paragraph is the original stub --Charlemagne the Hammer 06:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Authors Declared Bias section

I think we should improve this section. Most of this article can be eliminated except for a few main points. Also, the "Bias" section needs to be moved before the antifederalist one to allow the reader to read both easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyboy1215 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the term bias from this page. It sounds like whoever wrote the piece is conducting their own research. If we can find a credible source online, then should mention it, but let's stay true to the Federalist Papers. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"right choice"

The second paragraph says that the "right choice" is subjective. We need to remove this type of editorializing, for the Federalist Papers believed that the right choice wasn't subjective, but a choice in favor of liberty. Tommyboy1215 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading this article, I am convinced that it needs major revisions, even a complete facelift. If anyone is reading this, please give me some feedback before I make some major changesTommyboy1215 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed/Delete

"This prediction has proven false, with hardly any discussion about the Papers (and the known Anti-Federalist Papers) continuing to this day."

This is unsupported. Discussions of the Federalist Papers continue to feature in recent political science and law scholarship. Search JStor or Westlaw for examples, or read current political theorists like Bruce Ackerman or James Fishkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.39.43 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think this sentence should be deleted or modified substantially. This sentence doesn't make sense to me and seems false. As I understand it, the prediction in the preceding quote has nothing to do with how much the Papers will be discussed. It concerns how proponents of big government will be portrayed. balljust (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you and have changed the line to talk about populist discourse. TheRevolutionaryProcrastinator (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)TRP

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federalist No. 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Any way the Wikisource link could be moved further up the page or maybe into the infobox? I don't think many people scroll that far down and it would be very useful to have the link to the source text more easily visible.
• "Hamilton expresses" Why say Hamilton instead of Publius here?
• "union to your political prosperity" and "to your own state": Shouldn't be "your", since it isn't about our readers but Publius'
• "of the present confederation" Again, said confederation is no longer present
• An alternative to the above two points would be making clear that you are explicitly quoting Publius here
• "and the anti-federalists" capitalise Anti-Federalist.
• The summary seems to accurately and appropriately cover the main points of the text.
• Spot-checks: All verify claims made. The article sometime strays a bit in language from Levinson in particular, but I don't think it introduces any new claims not in that text, so I feel it's fine.
  • "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History". Library of Congress.
  • Levinson, Sanford (November 24, 2015). An Argument Open to All: Reading "The Federalist" in the 21st Century. Yale University Press
  • Light, Paul C. (2011). "Federalist No. 1: How Would Publius Define Good Government Today?". Public Administration Review. 71: s7–s14.
• That's it really, nice work. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

AryKun, I've made all suggested changes. I wonder if there's an efficient/automated way to move the Wikisource link to the infobox for the other 84 articles in the series. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure; can you do something like that with AWB? I'm not great with the semi-automated tools, so I don't really have any idea. AryKun (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed