Talk:Bibliography of the United States Constitution/Archive 1

New article
Added sources welcomed. Please list any sources in the format (cite book) used in this bibliography. If you're not familiar with Template:Cite book then go ahead and make the listing your own way, and I'll tend to formatting issues sooner or later.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Continued discussion from Talk:Constitution of the United States
As said, correspondence between Madison and Jefferson re ratification/Constitution has been added to the Primary sources and James Madison sections in the new bibliography, with permalinks mostly from Founders online -- one from Encyclopedia Virginia. Since all sources are found on the web it would seem that a Web resources section is not really practical. Perhaps an External links section would be acceptable, just as long as we only include reputable well established web cites. A link to Founders Online, however, has now been added to See also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Great source !
— Looks like I hit the jackpot on this one.

Eleven pages filled with hundreds of sources about or directly relating to the Constitution. Published in 1936, most of the sources listed were published in the 1920s and 1930s, with a fair number of them published in the 19th century. Available for download. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Wondering if knows about this. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks--i have not seen it before. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * — So as not to flood our Bibliography with 1920s & 1930s sources, I'll only take a few of the more notable sources from Carter's bibliography and add them here. Not sure exactly how I'll make that determination as yet. See any familiar 'faces'? Any suggestions would help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Allreet (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced the url address with a simple jstor number in several templates. Just so you know. No biggie, but it's simpler this way. Nice additions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this. I'll follow suit - jstor instead of url. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What I don't like is that the titles no longer link to the papers, whereas most book titles do via their urls, a convenience readers get used to. In short, this is not intuitive—nobody would know by looking what the JSTOR number/link is or why they should click it. So the JSTOR number strikes me as solely a WP convention, since even JSTOR doesn't use it in their cites. It's also something of a mess when the simple JSTOR number is not available and then a long string of characters displays as a link. Sorry, but not a fan. Allreet (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Never noticed this before. I'll start using Jstor's stable links as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks, I appreciate it. I was just about to apologize for what amounts to a quibble. What I think is far more worthy of mention is the Bibliography itself. Many a history student (among other readers) is going to be thankful for the resource you've created. Allreet (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * i.e. We've created. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the article wouldn't be here if you hadn't started it. But for sure, we've all contributed. Allreet (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that we have produced the most extensive bibliography of the Constitution anywhere, online or text, and many of the latter have been searched, which typically only incorporate those works used in a given work.  From here on, if there are any other contentions about who The People are, or any other idea, we have plenty of extra resources at our disposal. (toot ! toot !)  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

URL's and JSTOR
— Just so you know, Trappist the monk came through and removed many URL addresses in the cite journal templates, evidently because they contain JSTOR numbers. See This edit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your remedy? For the JSTOR/URL changes, I'd copy the latest version for each "century" before the change and paste it over the changed version. If TTM's JSTOR/URL changes were legit, you could then go through each group and paste in the Subscription Required parameter for each JSTOR paper listed. I realize that's tedious, but I'd be willing to help.
 * I just added a couple books yesterday and today, so if you choose to copy/paste over the book sections to restore the separators, I don't mind if you end up deleting my book entries. I still have the citations and can restore whatever you might delete.
 * BTW, I noticed the markers had been removed and checked out TTM's rationale which struck me as moderately bogus in terms of guidelines and certainly unnecessary in other regards. I was going to drop you note but figured you'd see the changes soon enough. Allreet (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A more efficient point: let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Allreet (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I restored the hidden markers, as they aided in markup navigation and editing. I simply copy-pasted the markup for each section into a word processor and with 'search and modify' automatically added the hidden markers every time an asterik was found, then copied it back to the article. . Yes, Trappist's referral to MOS:LISTGAP was inappropriate, as the hidden markers don't affect the article's appearance.   If it's all the same to you, we can just go with the JSTOR numbers and leave the stable links out, though I did prefer that both the links and the JSTOR numbers were used. If the readers want to view or download a journal  I think we can assume they're smart, or curious, enough to click on the JSTOR number..  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice use of search/modify. Doesn't the JSTOR number act like a stable link (though it's not intuitive)? And do you think it would help to post a hidden message at the top of the Edit window asking editors to discuss major changes before making them while the article is still being developed? A similar message at the top of the Talk page might help too.
 * BTW, Happy Birthday! The page turned 1 month old today Allreet (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — First off, I just want to say thanks for cleaning up the train-wreck that BattyBot caused in one of the sections. I left a message on its talk page informing 'it' of the situation and to not edit the Bibliography again. If you have the time, keep watch and revert as necessary. Don't think we need a hidden message, but if you think we do, feel free to add one.
 * JSTOR's stable link has the bare JSTOR number in it. When you click on a JSTOR number you will see the stable link in the address window of your browser, so that should suffice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the first issue, you're wecome. I thought I was going "batty" because after I fixed one instance of this, I saw another and thought the first had been reverted. But no, there was more than one. No biggie except they looked awful.
 * On the second, I'm fine with the JSTOR link and letting researchers/editors figure it out. BTW, clicking the number links to the article; then you can see the stable link in the address window...is that what you meant? Allreet (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like BattyBot is an appropriate name. Yes. clicking the Jstor number invokes the stable link which  brings you to the publication. Iow, the Jstor number is stable., Btw, thanks for taking the time adding the authorlinks to the templates you entered.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Author masks for multiple listings?
Would it be alright if I "mask" the names of authors for their additional works? I noticed this has been done for a few authors and a) for consistency it should be done for all instances and b) I like the "look", probably because it tends to "break up" the listing. Allreet (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't checked if all of the sources on this page are included (time limits). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course, using author-mask=2, and editor-mask=2 is welcomed. If there are only two listings with the same last name I tend not to bother with masking, but for three or more listings with the same name then I mask. That's just me. If someone wants to mask two similar names in a row, that's fine. Just in case anyone doesn't know, masking is only done for consecutive listings with the same name. If, e.g., J. Smith occurs in one section, we don't mask J. Smith if it occurs in a different section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your preference (only if more than 2), but believe that would be subjective/inconsistent. So if you don't mind, I'll do a full sweep. If you don't like it, I won't object to a revert. Allreet (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * — The external link you posted above apparently is a dead link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . Darn, it was a good site and now I can't remember what it was and it's not listed in how my history works. If I recall I'll come back to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn & @Gwillhickers: It's archived here. GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Masking
The "masking" of the names of authors who have multiple works listed in a section is inconsistent. I favor using the device throughout since it tends to group authors within sections and makes the listings a bit easier to scan. As to who shall do the heavy lifting, Alphonse and Gaston come to mind: "You first, my dear Gaston." "After you, my dear Alphonse." Allreet (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. I believe any one author with multiple works in any given section are grouped together, and are masked after the first listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * — Concerning individual letters between Jefferson and Madison -- we should stay with the letter templates, because we are not dealing with books. Also, simply listing the names doesn't tell the reader who the recipient was, so I'll be switching these back. The three volume work containing their correspondence are indeed books. I also restored Hunt's publication of Madison's notes to the Primary sources section as it indeed contains primary source material. Yeah, I missed a whole lot of masking. Should have combed through the Bibliography - thanks for doing that and getting this resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to your comment on primary sources but more important for the moment: We're starting to "step" on each other. I need to correct a bad edit by using Undo and can't because of the subsequent edits. I'll fix the problem I caused without Undo and for the moment will hold off on further alphabetizing. (I'm working from a list I made and will resume these corrections in another hour or so.)
 * BTW, you did not miss "a whole lot of masking", a dozen or so at most. I did a full sweep so few if any instances remain. However, along the way I caught a couple dozen entries that were out of order alphabetically, hence my current quest.
 * And I was going to add in my reply regarding the masking and alphabetizing: The extent of the Bibliography goes beyond plaudits such as impressive and prodigious, as is the fact that there's so little "cleanup" to do. Thanks again for all you've done and are doing. Allreet (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — Okay, sounds good. I just caught a couple more sources that were not alpha-listed correctly -- now fixed. I'm gonna lay back for a couple of hours and let you have at it. Check in later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done with masking and alphabetizing, for now at least. Madison's works under Primary Sources still need masking, and I'm sure a few works are bound to be out of alphabetical order. Allreet (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary-sources
— Works by Smith, Montesquieu, Locke, etc, even though they were very influential to Madison, Franklin, et al, are not really primary sources as far as the Constitution is concerned, as they are simply treaties on various philosophical and political issues. e.g. Any of these works would indeed be considered primary sources if they were used as sources in their respective author's biographies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, though I have a few reservations. However we dice it, these are still primary sources. And if we can't use them as sources in the article because they're not directly relevant to the Constitution, why are we including them? Are we getting carried away, then, with listings of Blackstone's, Locke's, and other such works? Since the Bibliography is already quite long, I suggest we need to draw some lines by excluding works with no direct bearing on our subject, for example, books and articles on slavery, even though they all make references to the Constitution that actually could be cited. Allreet (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used to make general statements, general references, quotes, etc, but I maintain, these are just works by other authors who had no direct involvement with the Constitution's actual drafting and ratification. Yes, we should draw the line, but since these works had a major influence on Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, and others, (e.g.See Adair, 1957 and Morgan, 1986, for journals covering David Hume's influence on Madison when he wrote the Tenth Federalist) they should be included for background and context, for the sake of the serious student, and researcher, which I'm assuming we are writing for -- I doubt the casual reader will even come to this article.  See other  definitive examples. In any case, there seems to be enough of such sources for purposes of this Bibliography, so likely there are only a few more, if any, that should  be added. Many of these authors often appear in the text and/or bibliographies of works about the Constitution, which is how I located some of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , in response to your points:
 * Primary Sources cannot be used to "make general statements (and) references". This describes the function of Secondary Sources.
 * Your definitive examples only prove the above. Each statement uses a secondary source to refer to authors whose works influenced the framers. And if the primary sources written by these authors were mentioned, they'd also need secondary sources for verification.
 * We write for all audiences and don't assume a difference between serious readers and casual ones. This is an argument without any foundation.
 * We're far from needing "only a few more" sources. Besides other possible works for Blackstone, Hume, Locke, and Smith, we'd still need to cover Montesquieu, Coke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. And to see how far all this could go, refer to Lutz, pages 142-143.
 * There's no question these works should be under Primary Sources, if at all, and to say they are not really primary sources as you did at the outset amounts to double talk, an attempt to define them as something other than what they are.
 * Allreet (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are allowed, but again the sources in question are not primary. By your reasoning, any book about politics or philosophy read by Madison, Jefferson, Washington etc is a primary source. Again, since these works are by authors who had no direct involvement they are not primary sources. Their works were published years before the debates over the Constitution began, let alone the drafting and ratification. An explanation as to how any of the authors in question were directly involved with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution would be called for here.
 * Please see: WP: Primary Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * There has been no interpretation of the contents of any of these sources.The book titles are only listed for general reference. Any claims about their influence is cited by secondary reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth about my "reasoning". I said nothing even closely related to what you just attributed to me about Madison, Jefferson, et al, nor did I say anything about interpretation. I'm also not disputing your point about the influence of these writings on the Constitution. It's just that we have no use for them as general references.
 * To be clear, these books are primary sources because they represent original research by their authors who were directly involved in developing the philosophies contained therein. What they wrote, their first-hand accounts, is the stuff on which other works are based. In short, they are akin to creative works like poems and novels and similar to documentary material like letters and transcripts.
 * But don't take my word for it. Google the subject and you'll find this: In Philosophy, primary sources can include: Philosophical texts, treatises, meditations. Personal narratives, diaries, memoirs, correspondence, letters. — University of Alberta Library
 * So if we include these works, they should be classified as Primary Sources, not as 18th Century Publications, especially since they are not in any way parallel to books identified as 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Publications. The criteria for inclusion in those sections is that the works directly reference the Constitution. None of these do, of course, because as you've noted they were published years and in some cases decades and centuries beforehand. Allreet (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They may be considered primary sources where philosophy is concerned, but where the Constitution is concerned only those authors directly involved are primary sources. Again, if we follow your reasoning, any book about political philosophy heeded by Madison, et al, would be a primary source where the Constitution is concerned. You may have not said this verbatim, but your position certainly more than suggests this. WP policy was cited. The google reference about what is a primary source in philosophy, not the Constitution, doesn't really change that.  Only works by Madison, Franklin, Washington, and other Founding Fathers, involving the actual Constitution, and its drafting and ratification, can really be considered primary sources here. A primary source on one subject, philosophy, doesn't make it a universally primary source in any subject. Therefore our only remaining issue is in which section to list these sources. Since there has been no explanation as to how these authors were directly involved with the drafting and ratification, the sources in question should remain where they are.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making specious arguments. But I'll indulge you. These are philosophical works that influenced the framers, not works on constitutional history or law. No "reasoning" involved, just relatively common knowledge about what constitutes a primary source. My "questionable" reference is reliable, a major university. But if by WP Policy you mean the vague, incomplete definition found under Primary Sources, that's not going to hold up because of the number of sources available to improve on it. Besides, these are guidelines, not policies. As for the second half of your response, frankly, you're expounding on something you don't understand very well—primary sources—so little of what you're saying makes sense. Allreet (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of understanding, perhaps you need to square off with the number one criteria for a primary source. i.e.A work authored by someone who was directly involved, as was spelled out and linked to above. None of the authors in question were directly involved with the debating, drafting, signing and ratification of the Constitution. No way around that. Also, your notion that any book on philosophy is a primary source only applies to the subject of philosophy, if at all, as your source clearly says. Philosophical works are not universally a primary source on all subjects that touch on philosophy, any more than a work on science is a primary source to all subjects that touch on science. The Bibliography here contains many works that discuss the philosophical aspects of the Constitution.. Are they all primary sources to the Constitution?

As for the primary source guideline, referring to it as "vague and incomplete" based on your speculation that it can always be improved can be a two way street. Whose to say any improvement will not support my position? I seriously doubt that the criteria of directly involved will ever change, as it's a straight forward basic idea that's accepted here at WP and in the literary and academic world. You'll need more than a supposition that this basic guideline might improve to support your position based on "sources available" you've yet to present. You should take that discussion to the proper forum rather than making conjecture about the guideline on this Talk page if you want that guideline to change.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A couple general observations:
 * The subject here is not the Constitution per se since not one of these sources addresses it. The subject is the philosophies on which the Constitution was based, and these treatises represent and document the origins of those ideas in the time periods in which they were developed.
 * The efforts of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, et al in developing these philosophies constitute original research. While these philosophers may have drawn on previous works or thoughts, their conclusions were original. The same can be said of Plato's Republic, Cicero's De Legibus, or for that matter, the King James Bible, all of which are primary sources relevant to the Constitution.
 * Some specific examples:
 * The National Constitution Center lists about 40 documents as "primary texts of moral and political philosophy that influenced the Founding generation—written by philosophers and political theorists from classical antiquity (like Aristotle and Cicero) through the Enlightenment (like John Locke and Montesquieu)". The center also specifically categorizes Locke as a Primary Source.
 * David Emory Shi's For the Record: A Documentary History of America (10th Edition, Norton, 2016) features "240 primary source documents", including excerpts from Locke's Second Treatise.
 * The Witherspoon Institute, a conservative "think tank" associated with the National Endowment for the Humanities, considers works by Blackstone,Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu as primary sources on subjects related to Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism.
 * My comment about Wikipedia's definition was accurate. The definition is incomplete and vague (lacks specificity) because it does not account for any of the above. The WP article on Primary Sources comes closer by providing the synonym original source at the outset, a term that aptly describes all of the works I've mentioned. Allreet (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleting my own response. See my comments below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

18th Century Publications section is disputed
I have applied a Multiple Issues template to this section: For more information, see the recent exchange between and myself over what constitutes a primary source. On that, more later. Allreet (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The section does not contain works that can serve as general references on the Constitution but rather it lists primary sources of a philosophical and legal nature that influenced its framers. Thus it is misleading to include these sources here because they were all written before the Constitution was drafted and therefore contain no information directly about the Constitution itself.
 * The section's introduction is too long, poorly written, and seems somewhat out of character, meaning much of it belongs in the main article on the Constitution, not in its Bibliography
 * Based on the first point above, the section's listings belong under the Primary Sources section. I plan to seek consensus on moving the material, probably to a new subsection, since these sources shouldn't be mixed with more direct primary sources.
 * I'm open to moving the sources in question to their own section which might read, Works that influenced the Framers. In that instance we can refer to them with whatever adjective we chose, so we can get back to pulling in the same direction again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I apologize for being acerbic at times. I greatly prefer being more considerate, as in your response.
 * Regarding said works, I did some research into what I mentioned earlier about "how far this might go" and would like to offer some specifics (please pardon the length):
 * The U.S. Constitution Center has a page on the Intellectual Foundations of the American Founding Documents that reaches back to Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero and continues through the 16th-17th centuries with Machiavelli, Grotious, Coke, and Hobbes. I'm not suggesting the Center as a source, but I'm mentioning this as a summary of sources that predate the 1700s.
 * Wood in The Creation of the American Republic asserts that the founders "borrowed promiscuously from almost every conceivable English writer". To the other early influentials, he adds Sandys, Bacon, Eliot, Hampden, Lilburne, Milton, and Shaftesbury.
 * Lutz makes the point in The Origins of American Constitutionalism that "assumptions of American constitutionalism were operative well before Locke" published his Second Treatise. Lutz is referring to the covenants, agreements, and constitutions that represented approaches to governance that were unique to the colonies in the 1600s (also see Lutz's Colonial Origins of the American Constitution).
 * To add to this, it should be noted Locke helped write Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1669 while working for the colony's proprietors, though it's not clear (according to the Wikipedia article) whether he actually drafted the document or wrote it up "as a lawyer would a will". While Lutz gives Locke (and an associate) more credit, he also emphasizes the contrast between the ideas in the Carolina constitution and those in Locke's later works.
 * All this is news to me, so I'm uncertain as to how we should approach this broad range of sources. But my first impression is that it would be misleading, as Lutz points out, to credit any "single author, let alone a single text...for even a major part of the core of American constitutionalism". Considering that, I believe the same would be true about limiting our listings to the products of the Enlightenment. Allreet (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — There's no denying the close association of the Founders with the ideas put forth by these political philosophers -- ideas that were often central to much of the thinking that went into the framing, so okay Allreet, in that sense they begin to take on primary qualities. In any case, as these sources  are works unto themselves,  contributing to the ideas that are reflected in a much of western political philosophy, beginning with English Common Law, they deserve to have their own main section, perhaps under the Primary sources section. Admittedly, I had some reservations about listing them in the 18th century section for said reasons, and esp since some of them were authored long before the founders began to absorb them into their own political philosophy. When the Stamp and Intolerable Acts hit the fan, however, the soon to be Founder's first appeal  was to the idea of The Rights of Englishmen, articulated by Locke, Montesquieu, etc --  ideas that are usually taken for granted until one's own rights are being neglected. If you think its a good idea also, I'll move the sources into their own section and perhaps shorten the explanatory paragraph preceding them. The only thing is, we will have an empty 18th century section, as all(?) works authored during that time are indeed primary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, works from this era can indeed reach broad proportions, which is why I've confined the selection to the few political philosophers currently listed, as they are frequently covered far more in reliable sources than the others are where early American history is concerned, and because Madison, Franklin. Jefferson and sometimes Washington specifically singled them out and brought their ideas into the fold of American political ideology. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to "in that respect", no, in this context (regarding the Constitution), these works are primary sources in every respect.
 * Yes, a sub-category (Early influences, for example) under Primary Sources would be one way of dealing with these sources, but if a lead-in is needed, a one-liner should do.
 * And yes, we wouldn't need an 18th Century section if there aren't any works to list.
 * As for your last point, all of the writers mentioned have connections with founders that can be supported by secondary sources. For example, several books and papers make note of John Adams's attraction to Machiavelli. Allreet (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can always add a few examples of pre 18th century political philosophers, but the focus should be on those currently listed. Here's a good example as to why:
 * Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, ... was his (Jefferson's) political Bible. That book, more than any other on the subject of human government, influenced American political thought in the eighteenth century. It was the primer of government to Washington, Madison and Hamilton. It aided Jefferson to give form to the grand ideas of the Declaration ...
 * The same sort of acclamation can be given to Hume, Locke, etc. Again, I'd have no objection of mentioning a few you've noted here, but we should keep the listings focused on the 18th century, as they had the greatest influence on American thought, perhaps with the exception of the Magna Carta. Also some of your writing here would do well in the explanatory paragraph. —. i.e. Wood asserts that the founders "borrowed promiscuously from almost every conceivable English writer",  and  Lutz makes the point in The Origins of American Constitutionalism that "assumptions of American constitutionalism were operative well before Locke" published his Second Treatise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If we're going to go beyond direct primary sources (e.g., those written by founders in relation to the Constitution), we need to be as thorough as possible. To emphasize the Enlightenment, for example, and limit other periods would be misleading, as Lutz indicated.
 * I also think we should keep introductory statements as short as possible. Similarly, I'm "not a fan" of explanatory notes for individual works, nor do I like the idea of listing every single volume of a work as a separate entry. For one, this list is getting exceedingly long; for another, explanations seem out of character for a Bibliography; and for yet another, the multiple listings strike me as both redundant and ugly. For example, I'd much prefer the simplicity of the following:
 * Vol. 1, 2, 3.
 * Allreet (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned with length, as no one is going to read this list as if it were a book, and there is a TOC they can use to jump to any given section,  while they can always scan the article for key words or phrases.We've been adding author-masks to multiple listings all along, typical of most bibliographies, and they look neat and uniform, with links already contained -- not at all "ugly" . This is not the only list that is of a comprehensive nature. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)



New section
— Okay I've moved the sources from the 18th century section into a new section. I greatly reduced the explanatory paragraph, placing most of it in a foot note. I took the liberty of removing the Multiple issues tag, and have added a couple of links to the appropriate sections. I also made the new section a subsection to Primary sources for now. I still feel a primary source should be authored by someone directly involved with the framing, not just in an influential capacity, so we should get a third reliable opinion. I'd be perfectly willing to let, a credentialed historian and scholar, settle this for us, if he is of a mind to. In any case, this is just an academic debate, not a content dispute over something controversial. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of the above. And fine if you want to invite 's input on the subject (as we've both done now with our pings). Allreet (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow--that's a lot of careful work! I will decline your offer because I'm tied up with other projects. But I will make one suggestion: the opening section should be 21st century publications, followed by 20th/19th/18th. I think most readers will  want to see the most recent studies first. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in . Yes, I'm often reluctant to divided my efforts when involved with any given subject. The issue, however, is actually not that complicated. Primary sources, (e.g.like the Federalist Papers), as you know, are those written by those directly involved, in this case, the Founders, who indeed have read all sorts of works by eighteenth century political and social philosophers. But is their reading and assimilation of some of their ideas into the Constitution make the given works primary sources? WP:Primary says nothing to this effect. Actually, the important thing is, that we've listed them. I can live with whatever one wants to refer to them as, but the issue did come up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion: the philosophers as primary? yes. However the primary sources listed on US diplomatic history don't belong. Rjensen (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, then they'll remain in their own subsection under Primary sources. I'm still not in total agreement, however, as none of the authors in question were involved in the debates, decisions, drafting, signing and ratification. I'm striking the rest of my comments here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — After further consideration, even though the authors in question were not directly involved with the actual debates, drafting, etc, it's, become much easier to accept the idea that the sources in question are primary in their essence.  What appealed to me most was Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, not just read, but embraced by Madison, Jefferson and most of the other founders. According to many secondary sources, this work is without a doubt what was the primary influence in promoting the idea of Separation of Powers, which, as we know, is forefront in the Constitution i.e.the first three Articles. Yes, WP:PRIMARY could expand a bit more on the idea of Primary source. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem—what's confusing—is Wikipedia's limited definition. To be fair, while I found some definitions that filled in a bit more, I couldn't find any that accounted for everything. Further evidence, I guess, that tertiary sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias are less reliable than primary and secondary sources. Allreet (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's "definition" of primary sources includes a 150+ word footnote that mentions "original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings". Other examples in the footnote include "poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" (several of which are mentioned twice!) It seems to me these examples belong in the definition itself and that the definition should address them. I'm adding a comment on the Talk page requesting this. Allreet (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As said, the philosophical / political works in question were indeed instrumental in forging many of the ideas set forth in the Constitution, and as such, I'm perfectly willing to consider them as primary sources. Esp in regards to the idea of Separation of Powers. However, we could run into some objections. After reading the footnote you cited some of the ideas contained therein could come back to bite us. e.g.
 * The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing – "an inside view of a particular event They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries ..."
 * The University of California, Berkeley Libraries offers this definition:– "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs).
 * Duke University Libraries offers this definition: – "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event".
 * The only thing I see that might win some support is the idea of time period in question, but as you know, many of the works were authored long before the issue of rights and representation became a pressing matter in the colonies. I'm assuming, after years of experience with debating policies and guidelines, that these ideas will be rigidly adhered to, typically, just so you know what you may run into. We'll see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What we need to see is a more comprehensive listing of primary sources. It should correspond with the one published by the National Constitution Center and include similar sources identified by leading scholars as having influenced the founders. It should not be limited to any particular time period or set of works based on subjective criteria. Allreet (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hugo Grotius
Allreet, thanks for adding a couple of other political philosophers to the Influential works section. I found a couple of journals at Jstor, there are several others, which indeed place much significance on Hugo Grotius' influence on later day thinking in political science. However, none, as of yet, even mention him in relation to his influence on the founders, so we should try to locate some. In any case, as said above, there's no reason why anyone can't add other such works, so long as there are secondary sources that give such an author's work more than a passing influence on the founders.

Below are a few journals I've downloaded and looked into. None of them make any mention of America, American, Madison, Washington or the Constitution.

Gellinek, 1983, notes a remote association to Grotius through his association with John Wise, but nothing that would put Grotius on the map of influential works of the founders.
 * John Wise from Massachusetts is no less than the father of American Congregational democracy based on Grotian law of nature. Wise’s Vindication is an almost unknown forerunner of American democratic theory.


 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Madison principle author?
Allreet, since Madison is roundly credited for being The Father of the Constitution I have always figured that he was its principle author. As he worked with Edmund Randolph and George Mason, in incorporating the Virginia Plan, which outlined three separate branches of government, this would seem to be the case, but admittedly, this is something I've taken for granted and haven't bothered to present sources that nail this idea down in no uncertain terms, or say otherwise. Until such time we can substitute Father of the Constitution for principle author. Meanwhile we should locate such sources. Thanks for you scrutiny. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The drafting of the Constitution was charged to the Committee of Style. Morris, who chaired the committee, wrote the Preamble and possibly the entire first draft, though he may have had help from Wilson, one of the days' top legal minds. I believe there were 20-some provisions originally, which were boiled down to seven. But then the committee re-worked his draft and the Convention amended theirs, so it seems no individual gets credit.
 * As for your suggestion, the best way to put it, I think, would be "Madison is widely credited as Father of the Constitution". Anyway, I much prefer that to "Many historians consider...", "According to many historians..." or "Madison is considered..." Allreet (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, mention of Madison in Preliminary notes as of yesterday, says, that Madison is "often considered the Father of the Constitution", rather than principle author. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Influences section
Allreet, as the works in this section don't directly tie in to the Constitution itself I returned the preliminary and explanatory paragraph to the section, along with its footnote. I'm willing to keep the condensed listing, per your edits, but added the term Volume so the otherwise lone volume numbers have better viewability. This sort of listing style should not be done to author-masks that contain different publication dates, publisher's names, etc -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I must say, I'm surprised, but that's your call. I will add I like the look of the condensed version as well as the idea of saving space. I like "Volume", too. I've never questioned masks, and in fact I'm an advocate because the mini-sections they create make it easier to scan the listing. And I'm all for complete citation information. Footnotes and comments, not so much, because most works could be explained; why just some?
 * The intro, particularly the first sentence, needs to be reworked. It's jammed with way too much, so it should be broken in two at the very least. I also think it puts too much emphasis on "Scottish Enlightenment", which may be misleading. How about "the 18th century Enlightenment led by English and Scottish philosophers" or something like that since there's more Brits than Scots, or so I think. Allreet (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * According to Tanaka, 2010, p. 16, Blackstone, Hume, Locke and Montesquieu were among the political philosophers most frequently referred to. Blackstone and Locke were English, Hume was Scottish and Montesquieu was French. (Adam Smith was Scottish.) Locke and Montesquieu are considered significant components in the Scottish Enlightenment.
 * To quote Tanaka, 2010, ". . . the Americans had already read Scottish books, such as those written by Hutcheson, Hume, Kames, Montesquieu, Locke, Cato . . .".
 * Lutz, 1988, p. 149 asserts that, "Members of the founding generation had a large dose of the Scottish Enlightenment in their education, but Continental theorists such as Montesquieu also loomed large".
 * Lutz, 1988, p. 56, reads, "Given the acceptance of Adam Smith’s and David Hume'’s view of politics, it is not accidental that writings by the middle colonies’ leaders reveal the strong influence of the Scottish Enlightenment.".
 * Allan's 1964 work, Virtue, learning, and the Scottish Enlightenment : ideas of scholarship in early modern history is specific to the Scottish Enlightenment.
 * Commager, 1977, also attributes much influence on the Scottish movement over the English, e.g."To be sure, after mid-century all the philosophers seemed to be Scottish — Hume and Ferguson and Hutcheson and Adam Smith and the fantastic Monboddo who was the most original of them all. Perhaps that was because the English had concluded that they had no need of philosophers.", p. 4
 * Though the opening sentence in the Influences section mentions the Scottish Enlightenment first, I don't think that by itself places too much weight over the English.  We should also consider that there is a separate article for the Scottish Enlightenment, while the English Enlightenment is only a small subsection in the Age of Enlightenment article.  However, this doesn't really close the issue. Anything you can bring to the table is welcomed. I'll keep digging too. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Placing Scottish first gives it more attention; placing British second renders it an afterthought. In any case, there is nothing to suggest one is more notable than the other so we should do our best to present them on the same plane. The Age of Enlightenment article provides a round-up of philosophers. In relation to the Constitution, I've seen references to Bacon, Rousseau, Hume, Voltaire, Smith, Grotius, and Kant, but all except Hume and Smith would require more research. I haven't seen any related to Diderot, Descartes, Hutcheson, etc. though the more astute founders would probably been familiar with all of them. As you've suggested, it would be best if the "ties" were direct/significant. (BTW, this discussion doesn't belong under Madison. Allreet (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, wrong section -- I moved the discussion here. — We mention both the Scottish and the English in the opening sentence, so they're both up front. I'm not seeing how first mention of the Scottish overshadows the English. The English mindset overall was not that concerned with Enlightenment ideals, being a world power trying to hold on to that power, so it's appropriate that the Scottish Enlightenment be mentioned first. I haven't come across any source that emphasizes the English enlightenment, such that it was, and since the colonists were increasingly distancing themselves from British hereditary rule, an idea contrary to Enlightenment thinking, and embracing natural law and unalienable rights, it's not surprising that many sources credit the Scottish Enlightenment with the idea of influence on the Americans more than they do the English, while there is no dedicated WP article for the English Enlightenment. In any case, the paragraph in question says nothing about who was more influential, which is fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your changes are an improvement, and because the Scottish and English are now mentioned together, they are on the same plane, though I don't know why you differentiated between "members of the Scottish Enlightenment and various English Philosophers", since the Scots are philosophers too and everyone was part of the Enlightenment. My original point about who's on first is basic communications. The most important item should always be mentioned first, as in the lede of a news article. What's mentioned second or later is regarded as less important.
 * I have no idea what work you're referring to by Commager (Witness to History, 1997?), but your reasoning strikes me as OR. We need to adhere strictly to what sources say, not base anything on assumptions or what makes sense. But for sure, Madison, Jefferson, and so forth were not distancing themselves from any of these philosophers or favoring the Scots over the English per se, in any case, not based on what I've read. Allreet (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Commager, 1977, as listed in the first instance. (also listed in our Bibliography). We mention Scottish Enlightenment as this was an entire movement, whose influence manifested itself in Colonial Universities, in debates and ultimately in founding documents, whereas, the English, while they had their Blackstone, and Locke and a few others, they were not as a whole inclined to subscribe and appeal to enlightenment ideals as was Scotland, Ireland and America who were often oppressed by British hereditary rulers (Kings,. nepotism in the House of Lords, etc),. Again, this is the reasoning behind listing the Scottish Enlightenment and English philosophers. The article doesn't get into the background, it just makes the general statement, per the opening sentence. And we are not saying outright Madison or Jefferson favored the Scottish over the English, even though there are sources that say Madison was greatly inspired by the Scottish Enlightenment in particular. Below are just a few of the sources that support this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Others greatly influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment include Scottish born James Wilson who played a  pivotal role at the Convention, studied various philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, including Francis Hutcheson, David Hume and Adam Smith., and is often referred to as * the "principal architect of the executive branch".



Multiple issues in the Bibliography
I've applied a multiple issues template to the article based on the following: On the positive side, the article's entries are comprehensive, contain links to the works, and include full citation information. The issues above tend to mar what is otherwise a first-rate listing. Allreet (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing the accuracy of text in the following: the article's lede, 18th Century Publications section, and introduction to the Works Influential to the Founders section. All tend to be misleading and include errors of fact. Examples: Dates in the lede are incorrect, as are the assertions about delegates/controversy/secrecy. Works of the 18th century were not the only published influences, and these aren't typically primary sources but are all primary. Except for Montesquieu, "all" of the works listed as "influential" are by English/Scottish writers (not "many"); however, this also leads readers to believe only these writers and only writers of this period influenced the founders.
 * The lede needs to be re-written. It probably should not recount the history of the Constitution; instead, it should objectively describe the Bibliography and refer readers to the main article for the history. That may be arguable. What's not is that the section's statements and style are sub-par. The same is true of the intro to the Works Influential to the Founders section; e.g., its first sentence is a run-on and most if not all that's included in this section suffers on POV grounds.
 * Length: The Bibliography is approaching 300,000 bytes. The Madison section does not belong in this article; its listings should be in Madison's bibliography (many alreadyare) and if we need to single him out (we do not), we should refer readers to his listing. Also, every single volume of every multi-volume work is listed as a separate entry. No other bibliography I've seen in Wikipedia or elsewhere does this. Dozens of extra entries are included unnecessarily that could be condensed.
 * The Works Influential to the Founders section is being limited to certain authors and a particular time period on subjective grounds. The fact that four of the five authors currently listed were cited more than other authors is supported by a single source. The source's statement is not in dispute but basing the section's selections on one source is subjective. Singling out Madison is also subjective. His title of "Father" is not disputed, but using this assertion as the basis for a lengthy section is the result of a subjective decision.

Response

 * The lede needs to be re-written. It probably should not recount the history of the Constitution; instead, it should objectively describe the Bibliography and refer readers to the main article for the history. That may be arguable. What's not is that the section's statements and style are sub-par. The same is true of the intro to the Works Influential to the Founders section; e.g., its first sentence is a run-on and most if not all that's included in this section suffers on POV grounds.

The very short lede, composed of three sentences,  does not "recount" the history of the Constitution. Sentence one starts out with an opening statement about the contents of the Bibliography. Sentence two follows with a statement about the secrecy of the convention, creating much controversy, which then feeds into and provides the context for the third and final statement, i.e." Since then, many historians and political scientists have written about the Constitution. "


 * * Length: The Bibliography is approaching 300,000 bytes. The Madison section does not belong in this article; its listings should be in Madison's bibliography (many alreadyare) and if we need to single him out (we do not), we should refer readers to his listing.

Length has already been addressed. The Bibliography is not a book -- no one is going to start at the beginning and wade through the entries as if they were a narrative. It's like complaining that a dictionary or phone book has too many entries in it. The idea of this bibliography, like other such bibliographies, like those of Washington, Jefferson, etc, is to place the works about a given subject under one heading. If we were to constantly refer the readers to other articles with these listings, this Bibliography would be gutted of most of its entries and contain dozens of links to other articles.

Madison was the primary author of the Constitution and many works written about him pertain to his involvement with the constitution, and listed in this bibliography. As it says in the Preliminary notes statement: " Many general biographies of James Madison exist,. . . Such works can be found in the Bibliography of James Madison article and are not included in this bibliography. "  – removing these works simply because they may exist elsewhere ignores the idea that these works are about the Constitution. The Madison section is hardly "lengthy", and is the shortest section, by far, in the Bibliography, with the exception of the Works influential to the Founders section. -No doubt there are many other works that exist elsewhere. This is not a viable or pressing reason to remove them from this bibliography.


 * Also, every single volume of every multi-volume work is listed as a separate entry.

Most of the works with author-masks have different titles, publication dates, ISBN's and publisher names, like those of James Viscount Bryce,   Gordon S. Wood,   Edward S. Corwin, and Ernest A. Young, whose entries should have their own listing. The few multiple works with similar titles, dates and publishers listed shouldn't even be an issue in terms of length.


 * No other bibliography I've seen in Wikipedia or elsewhere does this. Dozens of extra entries are included unnecessarily that could be condensed.

Author masks are used throughout WP Bibliographies. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc) Removing them for the sake of length and reducing them to a bare URL address would wipe out a lot of information from this bibliography. This is hardly a reason, esp since the greater bulk of the bibliography is composed of single entries.


 * The Works Influential to the Founders section is being limited to certain authors and a particular time period on subjective grounds. The fact that four of the five authors currently listed were cited more than other authors is supported by a single source. The source's statement is not in dispute but basing the section's selections on one source is subjective.

The bibliography is still being worked on. There's nothing stopping anyone from adding works authored by other political philosophers, including yourself who has been making contributions for some two months now and have had every opportunity to address this idea and add such other works. If you can find a source that supports the idea that others besides Montesquieu, Locke, etc were just as influential and written about as much I'll be happy to modify any statement in question accordingly.


 * Singling out Madison is also subjective. His title of "Father" is not disputed, but using this assertion as the basis for a lengthy section is the result of a subjective decision.

If we were to ignore anyone who also contributed to the authoring of the Constitution as much as Madison then we would be "singling" him out. Many sources recognize Madison as the Father of the Constitution, and/or give him credit for acting in this capacity, so he has already been singled out on his own accord. There is nothing "subjective" about that, as if this was just some sort of questionable opinion, or original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of what you've asserted is questionable.
 * If you're going to summarize the history of the Constitution in the lede, you should get it right. Very little of what you've written here is accurate, plus little of it has anything to to do with the subject, the Bibliography and the works it includes.
 * The length of the bibliography is concerning. The Bibliography of the American Civil War is about 100,000 bytes smaller yet far more books have been written on that event than the Constitution. Its editors judiciously included references to other bibliographies rather than balloon their listing unnecessarily.
 * To provide an example of how this could be handled without such excesses, I replaced the entries in the "Influential" section and I added a few new works. Nothing per se was lost in the bibliography; that is, the links to all the relevant volumes were retained. The end result: a listing with more entries taking half as much space.
 * The introduction to the Influentials section was unnecessary and it was burdened with your POV about 18th century writers (btw, Locke wrote in the 17th and). What's subjective is your rationale for limiting the section to writers that suit your POV (e.g., see what you've posted about Montesquieu and Blackstone here on the Talk page and then your introduction.
 * Author masks are not at issue. Their use is legit throughout. Please stick with the specific issues I've raised.
 * I see no justification for including Madison as a separate section. What you're ignoring or may not know is that much of what Madison wanted did not find its way into the Constitution. Pinckney, for example, probably garnered more provisions in his favor than Madison did in his. In any case, it's incorrect to deem Madison the primary author, which is different from referring to him as the "Father".
 * I'll stop there. I agree we need consensus. Let's see how we can get input from some other editors on these issues. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * : If you're going to summarize the history of the Constitution in the lede, you should get it right. Very little of what you've written here is accurate, plus little of it has anything to to do with the subject, the Bibliography and the works it includes.
 * There is only one sentence in the lede that pertains to the history of the Constitution, and I've gotten it right. The convention was held in secrecy, and caused much controversy.
 * The length of the bibliography is concerning. The Bibliography of the American Civil War is about 100,000 bytes smaller yet far more books have been written on that event than the Constitution. Its editors judiciously included references to other bibliographies rather than balloon their listing unnecessarily.
 * This should have been discussed before you embarked on your reverts. i'm done trying to appeal to you, esp since this is not the first time you've resorted to un-discussed edit warring on matters of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, most of what's included is incorrect. There was no controversy "amid" the proceedings regarding secrecy. Almost nobody objected to it (I can't think of anyone who did). It is also not true that "many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to replace the Articles". Only a few had this in mind when the proceedings opened, so the idea came as "news" to the vast majority, though all but a few delegates out of the 55 ended up opposing it. As for other errors, ratification occurred in 1788, not 1787, and the signing by the delegates on September 17, 1787 did not establish the new government; ratification did. There's also an error in the first sentence: the Bibliography includes books and "journal articles", not "journals". Allreet (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most? There's only one statement about the history, i.e.the secrecy and the controversy, and as you should know, this didn't sit well with many of the delegates who arrived thinking they were just going to revise the Articles of Confederation. As for the idea that editors "judiciously included references to other bibliographies", yes, sometimes Further information to other bibliographies, or Main article links, to articles,  were added. If you wanted to do something similar you should have discussed which types of sources would go into any new proposed bibliography. All you did was make an issue about the length of a list and resorted to reverts to make your point. If  you feel there are enough of one type of source that would warrant their own Bibliography you failed to expand on that idea at all. Also, article size pertains to readable prose, which does not include lists and charts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're correct: there is only one "historical statement", a long sentence that contains four significant errors, as I just pointed out. Yet you can't admit to any of them, not even the obviously incorrect dates.
 * As for the rest, please confine your complaints to the ANI you filed. Allreet (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * {{u|Gwillhickers)), actually, the first two sentences of the lede contain historical information. We both need to learn to count. See my most recent comments below. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Response2
If there are any "errors" you typically failed to point them out. This is what it says in the Constitution article: Also:
 * Constitution of the United States : – The signing of the United States Constitution occurred on September 17, 1787, when 39 delegates endorsed the constitution created during the convention.
 * The Conventions secrecy provoked only mild criticism while the Convention sat, but it became a controversial issue during the year-long debate over the ratification of the Convention’s proposed Constitution.
 * Jefferson wrote to the U.S. Minister to Great Britain John Adams, saying that he “was sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members.
 * Although they had gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation, by mid-June they had decided to completely redesign the government. There was little agreement about what form it would take.
 * Gerry announced his inability to accept the new constitution in the form which it had taken, and he soon became openly hostile to it. . . . While this might have been in accord with the ethics of the time, in justice to Gerry it ought to be said that the charge was made anonymously in the controversy that later raged over the adoption of the constitution.
 * It was obvious that the supposed secrecy of the convention had not stopped the press from offering extensive commentary and speculation on the convention and issues related to it.
 * The initial reaction to its handiwork, when the Constitution emerged from its cloak of secrecy on September 18, was a great blaze of controversy. For nine months its adoption remained in doubt while able writers defended and attacked it.

The one historical statement in the lede is not in error. Sept. 17th 1787 is the correct date of the signing, while the idea of "amid much controversy during the summer of 1787" is well documented.









-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your citations actually prove my point, as noted in the following responses. Each of these points addresses the individual errors in the two opening sentences of the Bibliography's lede:
 * 1st sentence refers to the Constitution's ratification in 1787, which is incorrect. It was ratified in 1788.
 * 2nd sentence states many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to replace the Articles of Confederation. No, nearly all delegates began with the intention of amending the Articles, very few intended to replace them. As indicated by your 3rd source (National Archives), it was in mid-June they had decided to completely redesign the government. That means it took 2-3 weeks for the possibility of a more extensive re-write to become clear. But for certain almost no one had an inkling in late May.
 * 2nd sentence states rather than improve on this document as was originally assumed, the Constitution was deemed necessary to be debated and drafted in secret. The decision to meet in secrecy was made before any discussions, when nobody knew the Articles were going to be replaced. Furthermore, secrecy was a standard practice in 18th century legislatures and conventions. As for the second source you cited in the lede: Robert Yates is a primary source who is expressing his regrets about secrecy years after the Convention, not his opposition at the time. As for your 2nd citation, Jefferson was writing about his concerns regarding the secrecy months later, in July, and privately at that.
 * 2nd sentence states the Constitution was drafted in secret, amid much controversy during the summer of 1787. What's misleading in that it was not drafted amid any controversy. The controversy came after the convention, as is noted by your 1st, 4th and 6th citations. The 5th citation about the newspapers relates only to general speculation since no news of what was specifically going on inside the Convention made its way out during the summer.
 * 2nd sentence states by September 17, 1787, (the Constitution was signed by the delegates, establishing the government of the United States. The signing did not establish the government. Ratification by the states and then approval by the Congress on September 17, 1788 established the government.
 * You've provided one other source in the lede, Pauline Maier, who refers to the secrecy but says almost nothing to support your account.
 * I know you mean well, but I'm fairly certain you won't accept any of this. Thus far, I've mentioned the erroneous dates at least three times, and you've left them stand anyway, so it seems unlikely you'll be able to acknowledge what I've had to say about more detailed matters. Your opening sentence above is evidence of your resistance to facts: If there are any "errors" you typically failed to point them out. I have pointed these errors out, in detail, but it seems to serve your purposes (about being right) to pretend I didn't. Along with that, I also don't appreciate your snide remark about what I typically do. With that you're marginalizing what I'm saying and slipping into bad behavior as well. Please try a little AGF. Allreet (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, September 17, 1787 is the correct date of the signing. But the signing did not establish a new government. The signing merely referred the issue to the Congress with the expectation that nothing would happen without ratification by the states. A full year passed, to the day, before the Congress did anything to actually establish a new government. How is it something so simple escapes your comprehension? Allreet (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - Corrections to this effect have been made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. This is much better. I'll recommend a tweak, but won't change anything without agreement. I'll provide some additional input on other matters related to the Multiple Issues template, which I hope can be removed asap. Allreet (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen, I don't want you walking on eggshells. I don't mind tweaks, or other improvements. Discussions are only warranted when major changes are proposed. Also, we should find a secondary source for Grotius, and any others, that supports the idea that they were among those par with Locke and Montesquieu who were influential to the Founders. For now we can let it ride. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Allreet (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

A proposal
I made a minor correction to the 1st sentence. Taking a closer look at the 2nd sentence, I think we're still off course in terms of accuracy, but also in regard to editorial approach.

Regarding accuracy: While some delegates obviously had more fundamental changes in mind than others, I haven't seen any evidence Madison, Hamilton, and company had plans for a new Constitution. They had some definite ideas, perhaps more radical than those of others, but no concrete plans since everything was up for debate. Furthermore, the way this is expressed—"unbeknownst to the other delegates"—it's as if there was something unseemly about the founders' intent. The source cited (Lutz, p. 139) says nothing of the kind.

I'd like to suggest something simpler: a completely objective introduction that focuses on the most notable details and avoids issues and characterizations entirely. Just for example: "The U.S. Constitution was drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 by delegates from 12 of the nation's 13 states. After a summer of debates, the delegates signed the Constitution, on September 17, 1787, submitting their draft to the Congress which in turn forwarded it the states for their approval. Following ratification, the Congress adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1788, thereby establishing a new form of government." Not exactly this, but an approach like it. And just to be clear, we'd retain the current opening and close.

The idea is to introduce readers to the basics and leave the controversies, origins, drama, and so forth to the Bibliography. Whereas getting into side matters requires favoring the viewpoints of certain works over others, thereby prejudicing the subject. Allreet (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add some of what you've proposed, but I'd like to keep mention of the secrecy rule, as its contextual to this Bibliography in that no works to speak of were written about the Convention until after 1819 because its records weren't released until then, as noted in the footnote, and it must have been some time before these records were assimilated and definitively written about by historians of the 19th century. Also, many delegates initially assumed that they were there to simply improve on the Articles, which became an issue, when they discovered "various founders" had other plans -- nothing specific on that note, staying clear of further details, keeping the account simple and objective. Re: ...submitting their draft to the Congress which in turn forwarded it the states for their approval. Following ratification, the Congress adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1788, thereby establishing a new form of government." Perhaps it would be best simply to mention that the delegates signed, which soon established the US gov, while we can add the idea of ratification. .  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC).


 * , have at it, but based on what you're saying and what's written so far, I think you're treading into difficult waters for no great purpose. Allreet (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the heads up, but I'm just citing sources and examples. It's generally understood that at first the intention was to simply improve on the Articles of Confederation, and in little time the delegates were mostly on board with the idea of creating a strong federal constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Slavery section
Thanks for beginning the Slavery and the Constitution section. As there is a Bibliography in the Slavery in the United States article, I'll only be adding sources to this Bibliography that are not used in that article, along with any that are used as cites in the Slavery'  section here if the given source lends itself to the Constitution enough to warrant its listing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , in creating this section, I had no intention of starting a separate listing here. Hence the reference at the top of the section to the Slavery in the United States article's Bibliography. Please move the sources you've added to that bibliography, allowing us to maintain a complete listing in one location.
 * I also object to your having moved and renamed the Slavery and the Constitution section. Accordingly I am restoring the original location as well as the title I posted originally. Please discuss before reverting again. Allreet (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this is the Bibliography of the US Constitution all that need be done is to list Slavery -- Constitution is understood. This is consistent with the other sections. e.g.We don't say James Madison and the Constitution, or 18th century publications and the Constitution, etc. Also, you have the Slavery section before the Madison section, the father of the Constitution, and the primary sources section, so that creates a due weight issue.
 * Where articles are concerned, only those sources used in the citations belong in a given bibliography. Editors often remove any source not used as in a citation in bibliographies for articles. In the Bibliography in the Slavery in the United States article there is a Slavery and the Constitution subsection, whose sources are not used as citation in the article, which is also inappropriate. I object to compounding that situation by dumping sources form this stand alone bibliography into a bibliography for an article, which won't be used in its citations.
 * If you would like to create a dedicated Bibliography of slavery and the U.S. Constitution page we can move the few sources listed here, along with the others, to such a location, but removing all the sources from that article would require a discussion on the Slavery talk page, as that would be a major change.


 * Last, your example of the Civil War Bibliography involves listing sources in other dedicated bibliographies – not scattered about in bibliographies for articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the new section was to serve as a reference to the Main article's Bibliography. There is no justification for maintaining two separate lists. I have copied over your sources to the subject's main article, in keeping with the standard established on other bibliography articles, most notably the Bibliography of the American Civil War, as we previously discussed. The purpose of this approach is to save space and serve readers by providing a complete listing in a single location.
 * As for your opinion that bibliographies are only for cited works, most bibliographies I've seen include additional sections, such as Further Reading, Primary Sources, and so forth, and the Slavery in the United States article's bibliography is no different.
 * You have now changed the section as I set it up, and you made five other changes affecting my entries, including the removal of the Main template, changing the section's location, changing its title, relocating a reference I entered, and editing the text based on your interpretation of what's encyclopedic. All within a 24-hour period. Allreet (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You would do well to familiarize yourself with the Civil War Bibliography. It includes references to dedicated bibliographies, as you noted, as well as to bibliographies in articles on specific subjects. You missed this latter practice. Allreet (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the new section was to serve as a reference to the Main article's Bibliography.
 * The purpose of the new section was to serve as a reference to the Main article's Bibliography.

No one editor gets to dictate in rigid terms what the purpose of a section is only intended for.


 * You have now changed the section as I set it up, and you made five other changes affecting my entries, including the removal of the Main template, changing the section's location, changing its title, relocating a reference I entered, and editing the text based on your interpretation of what's encyclopedic. All within a 24-hour period.

My last edit left the Main template where it was. Changing the title was explained for you, which you didn't respond to, and subsequently you seem to be objecting only because the change involved your edit. The section title as it exists is redundant and not needed as its understood that all sources in this bibliography pertain to the Constitution, something else you didn't bother to respond to. Changing the adjective bloody to costly is less dramatic and as such is more encyclopedic. That you even objected with that seems to indicate that you are not about to make any compromises at all.


 * You would do well to familiarize yourself with the Civil War Bibliography. It includes references to dedicated bibliographies, as you noted, as well as to bibliographies in articles on specific subjects. You missed this latter practice.

There are eight instances where links to a dedicated Bibliography are made – not to mention a special section containing other Bibliographies. There is only one section where the bibliography of an article is linked to, and that section contains 21 source listings, more than what the Slavery section here contains. All you've done is provided us with an example where a section can link to another bibliography while listing sources in of itself.

All the sections are based on general categories, like time periods, names, primary sources, etc, not specific issues, like the Slavery section, which is stuck in the middle of all the sections, and even before the Madison section. The major concern was over the federal government overriding what was considered state's rights, which had other implications other than determining the fate of slavery. You did well to mention in so many words that they acquiesced on slavery so as to ensure a quorum and passage of the Constitution. In so doing they were also averting a civil war which very likely could have resulted in the 18th century, that unfortunately finely resulted in the 19th. In any case, there were other major issues during the debates, like Separation of Powers, and proportional representation among the large and small states. These issues do not have their own major section.

Madison, while noting that slavery was among the major issues, did not actually  say it was the "greatest" issue, and neither of the two sources you've provided (Rakove, 1996 and Wiecek, 1977)  actually say this in explicit terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Moved Madison section
Since Madison is the central architect behind the Constitution, the Bill of rights, and Separation of powers, the basic frame of the Constitution, sources that focus on covering Madison's involvement should be listed first in a Bibliography about that Constitution, per due weight. I left the Slavery section where it was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And you have consensus for this? A major change without any discussion, just some dubious reasoning. Imagine, in the U.S. Constitution's Bibilography James Madison holds more weight than the Constitution itself. All I can see here is that you're intent on being disruptive for no other purpose than to get your own way. Allreet (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No more "disruptive" than you adding a new section and placing it over the Madison section, with no consensus, let alone your exclamatory remark "what gives you the right", your accusation that I removed the main template, not to mention your rather base and narrow accusation just now, for openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that your change has little chance of surviving since it has no legitimate justification. This is the Bibliography of the Constitution, not the Bibliography of James Madison. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well your last statement is correct at least. We lend due weight appropriately.  Madison is one section. Even the sources in the other sections often lend themselves to Madison more than any other specific individual. If you can find other sources about the Constitution that focus on anyone else, by all means, list them.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Offer declined. To avoid an edit war, I'm considering a RfC. The question would be "Should the Bibliography of the United States Constitution begin with a section on James Madison?" Reword that however you want, but my follow-up statement will explain the absurdity of your move including what led to it. You can save us all a lot of time by reverting. At which point, you can place Madison above Slavery if you want, though I strongly suggest moving Primary Sources above Madison where it should have been in the first place. Allreet (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm moving Slavery down to the end...where it belongs, though Madison should either immediately precede or follow. Allreet (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ with that 's proposed structure gives undue weight to Madison. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . We've resolved our differences in Wikipedean style with a compromise amenable to both. Good to hear from you. Allreet (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — Okay, in the spirit of compromise, and since you moved the Slavery section, I'm about to move the Madison section, even though the idea of undue weight is absurd. Madison may not have actually penned every word, but it was his Virginia Plan, that provided the basic structure, and his influence that shaped most of the final draft, esp where separation of powers and religious freedom are concerned, remembering also his authorship of the Bill of Rights and a good number of the Federalist Papers which also greatly influenced matters. There are simply too many sources, new and old, that give him qualified credit for these things.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sure James will fare well with or without us, as he has for 270 years or so. The good news for us is being able to move on with what comparatively few years we have left. Allreet (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of conciliation, and a heeded perspective on life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Father of the Constitution" not universally shared
Among the many, many sources that take exception, here's a quick round-up:


 * Gordon Wood, Revolutionary Characters, Page 127
 * Madison, the so-called father of the Constitution, who believed at the end of the convention that the final document differed so much from his original plan that it would inevitably fail.


 * David Stewart, Summer of 1787, Page 105
 * ...the traditional view of Madison as "Father of the Constitution" does not reflect the reality of the Convention...In truth, the Virginian more often came out on the short end of contests at the Convention. By one scholar's count, "of seventy-one specific proposals that Madison moved, seconded, or spoke unequivocally in regard to, he was on the losing side forty times."


 * Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, Pages 205-206
 * The myth that he was the Father of the Constitution is a deeply rooted one...Madison (unlike Pinckney) did not submit to the convention any detailed plan for a constitution, which makes it difficult to know precisely what he had in mind. Nonetheless, by starting with the Virginia Plan and by working carefully through all the particular proposals that Madison offered or spoke strongly in favor of, we can reconstruct a Madisonian constitution. It bears limited resemblance to the document that was drafted by the convention.


 * Kevin Gutzman, James Madison, Page 136
 * Far from being the "father of the Constitution," then, Madison was an unhappy witness at its C-section birth. Perhaps he might be more appropriately called an attending nurse. He certainly did not think of it as his own offspring.

I understand many sources also disagree with these assessments, but to say Madison was the "primary architect" or is "virtually universally recognized" is to have a POV problem stemming from limited research. Even he denied fatherhood, referring to the Constitution, correctly, as the product of many minds. Allreet (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mind you, these are mostly opinions based on circumstances, which are easily debated, to say the least, as the facts remain, as noted above. e.g.Having doubts about the outcome at the convention, per Wood and Gutzman, doesn't refute the idea of Madison's central role during the Convention, regardless if he was not always on the "winning side" during the debates. In any case I'll let the opening paragraph reflect this perspective, staying clear of the many details behind both perspectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're misreading both Wood and Gutzman. Neither says anything about uncertainty regarding Madison's contributions. And nobody, myself included, disputes Madison's central role. The problem is that the title, regardless of what the evidence suggests, is always going to be a matter of opinion. Which leaves us with "Most historians say this...but many others say that". The result is the doubts tend to win out, and in this case, not for the better.
 * If I may suggest another approach: Pauline Maier, in Ratification wrote: [Madison] would later be called "the father of the Constitution," a title he had the grace to decline since it was, as he said, the work of "many heads & many hands." Based on this, it would be accurate to write:
 * James Madison is widely recognized as "Father of the Constitution" for his central roles in framing the Constitution and authoring the Bill of Rights. Madison, however, gracefully declined the honor, calling the document the product of "many heads & many hands". — citation Maier, p. 36
 * This takes no credit away by coloring the issue with skepticism. Instead, it elevates Madison in the eyes of readers for his modesty and good manners, giving them even more reason to accept him as "the father". BTW, I think this is more subtle than the "footnote approach", as well as way simpler. Plus it resolves the verification issue (Wood/Gutzman). Allreet (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A footnote containing Madison's quote reflecting his reluctance in accepting the praises he received has been added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe a footnote is more appropriate as the paragraph in question, about the sources, is staying away from the details, even though one was added about the uncertainty among some historians over what Madison contributed. I will, however, add the quote you offer here. I went ahead and struck the comment about "uncertainty", at least until such time where I can find out if that's so or not. Yes, graciousness and modesty where characteristic of most of the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Progress
Aye, haven't seen you around much this past week. Hope all is well. My last additions to the bibliography include works about the Iroquois Confederacy and how it was a source of inspiration to Franklin (mostly) and others and how it may have significantly influenced the formation of the Constitution. While there are almost no scholars that deny that their confederacy was inspirational to some, there is, however, much controversy as to what extant, which is understandable, since more sources than I care to count attribute significant influence to the Enlightenment philosophers, Magna Carta, Plato, et al. In any case, thought you might find the topic at least intriguing. As we know, Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, etc were frequently referred to before and during the Convention, while, as of yet anyway, I've found no sources that claim that the Iroquois Confederacy was ever mentioned during the debates and drafting. Still digging. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Arrh, matey. Believe it or not, there is life beyond Wikipedia. And there, things are well. Thanks for asking. With all that was on their plate, it's doubtful the FFs looked to their other co-habitants of the Americas for direction. The exceptions would be those who actually lived closer to them—hunters, trappers, and the like, but few who took up the pen to document their learnings. Also, I suppose as well educated as they were, the FFs left few philosophical stones unturned. To what degree and with what relevance are the questions. Happy hunting. I'll be picking up on where I left off, that is, excavating the literature on slavery. Later. Allreet (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you're alive! Yes, there is life elsewhere. My computer stays on all day, and as I come and go, I'll pop in and continue researching, hunting and checking on other matters, which is why my time stamp might appear at various times during the day. Works on Slavery and the Constitution are of course welcomed, so long as a given work does more than mention the Constitution in passing and lends itself primarily as to how the issue of slavery actually factored into the debates, decisions, drafting, ratification, etc. No doubt any work on slavery in America will mention the Constitution, so hopefully, discretion in that regard will be employed if a given work is being considered for inclusion here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm researching the subject for the Constitution and Founding Fathers articles, which is a bit of a bear, but I'm getting there. Occasionally, I come across a source that relates to the two subjects—Slavery and the Constitution—in which case I will add it to the Constitution's Bibliography. Otherwise, I've been adding and updating quite a few sources for Slavery in the United States. Meanwhile, I'll review the listing here to make sure I'm staying within the bounds you've mentioned, because you're correct—most books on slavery touch on the Constitution. Allreet (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Other suggestions for improvement
A couple suggestions of a "cleanup" nature: Allreet (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the books listed under 20th century and 21st century qualify as primary works; for example, Bailyn's Debates/Speeches, Tocqueville's 1840 book, and Haesly's Constitutional Convention. Some effort should be made to look for works that focus on original documents, letters, etc. and move them to the Primary Sources section. BTW, Tocqueville's book could be a primary or secondary source, depending on its use, but most certainly, it shouldn't be listed under 21st century.
 * Works that were published in the 21st century but were originally published earlier belong in the earlier sections. Examples: Hendry's Treaties (originally published 1955) is not a 21st book, and neither is Boardman's Roger Sherman (1938).
 * Agree in part. Yes, letters, speeches and such belong in the Primary sources section -- you should have just moved any such works there-- same with Hendry, 1955 and Broadman, 1938. However, if a later scholarly  work goes into depth about such works, as do hundreds of such works, and unless the primary items constitute the bulk of the text, the work should remain in another section. Lede: I'm assuming you're taking exception to the mention of the secrecy rule. Again, this is mentioned as a pretext to the idea that works didn't begin to appear about the Convention until after 1840. As such, that one item of historical content is appropriate in a Bibliography containing such works. If it was never deemed necessary, why would they have a secrecy rule? Yes, the lede should mention the details, but since this is a bibliography, a list, the details of which can't be covered in the lede in the capacity that you seem to be suggesting. As for style, unless there are errors, lengthy  and/or poor grammar and such, matters of opinion over style aren't something that should be anything of an issue.   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I would have made the moves myself, but I had reason to believe you'd have some qualms. Which you do. Of course, if a work focuses on commentaries about primary materials, the work is secondary. But if the focus is on the primary material, the work is a primary source. That's the case with the works I'm referring to. Just as a rule of thumb, or for the sake of argument, if 75% of a book amounts to primary source material and 25% is introductions, the work would have to be considered a primary source. That's not for our benefit, but to avoid confusion amongst readers. (Also to be clear, the commentaries/discussions remain secondary materials, but it's the overall work that's at issue here.)
 * Less debatable is the second issue, which involves "categorizing" works by their reprint dates, rather than their original dates. But I didn't make those moves either, offering the benefit of the doubt in case you had some definite reason for placing them where you did.
 * Regarding the lede, please respond separately to my comments. I'll provide my reply above just to keep the issues separate. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern over any qualms I may have.Yes, a 25% to 75% ratio regarding works about scholarly coverage and the actual primary items, respectively, seems to be a good way of determining what belongs in a primary source section.


 * Regarding this lede statement:
 * Many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to improve on the Articles of Confederation, not initially realizing that plans for a new Constitution were being made by various founders.
 * Admittedly I can't seem to find the source that prompted my statement, (i.e. " not initially realizing")  so I'll render it to read as follows (changes in bold, below)


 * Many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to improve on the deficient Articles of Confederation, but soon decided that a stronger federal government was necessary.


 * If for some pressing reason you find this not accurate go ahead and revert. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Over time, others are likely to peck away at the paragraph, so to put everything to rest for now, I'm removing the template. Apologies for anything too abrupt. Clearly you're trying your best in, what I indicated above, is a difficult undertaking. Allreet (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what – granted the statement is simple and straightforward, and supported by the abundance of sources listed below it, but if another editor comes along and feels it should be removed, then okay, we can let it go. Meanwhile I'll try to think of something unique to add to it to give the statement more 'life'. In any case, thanks for your help, for removing the tag, and for your major and tireless contributions to this Bibliography. Between the two of us, if I dare say so, we've provided the largest and most thorough collection of sources on the U.S. Constitution out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead needs improvement
I've removed the Multiple Issues template since some of the issues noted a) aren't worth fretting about and b) don't have anything to do with the nature of the article. As it stands, the bibliography is excellent, and I don't want to take anything away from that.

However, little has been done to improve on the lead. It is not accurate that plans for a new Constitution were being made by various founders, something I pointed out two months ago. And while the sentence on the decision to meet in secret has been improved from what was written initially, it's still not quite "on the money"; for example, nothing was deemed necessary nor did they discuss speculation from the public and newspapers—that's what "we" surmise based on practices at the time. My other concerns involve style. For example, one of the sentences, By September 17, 1787, the new Constitution... is missing some words, and the last sentence is trite.

Since the lead is bound to be read more than anything else in the article and the people reading it are bound to be of a "more serious sort", I believe it's important to clean up these issues. Allreet (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The lede is often the most and only thing read by casual readers in an article. However, simply reading the lede in a list of works isn't going to relate much in terms of the actual works. Those coming to a bibliography are more than likely searching for sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * re this sentence in the lede:
 * By September 17, 1787, the new Constitution was signed by the delegates, and ratified the following year, which established the government of the United States in March 1789.
 * Yes, an item of grammar was called for, which I added. (bolded above)


 * The last sentence is a general and closing statement that touches on historians and political scientists, of which some were critical. "Trite" means boring. The statement in question wasn't meant to be eye opening or entertaining, but is certainly not boring imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No delegates showed up in May/June 1787 with plans to either replace the Articles or write a new constitution. And there's no source that says anyone had such plans or intentions. As for the sentence's style, "unbeknownst" is a poor choice of words, and this plus the juxtaposition of the sentence's two parts implies some kind of chicanery. In any case, that's not what occurred. Yes, the Virginia Plan included fundamental changes and no doubt some delegates hadn't anticipated this, but the plan was a set of proposals intended for debate and revision, which is what happened.
 * My second comment, regarding secrecy, also relates to substance and style. The substance is that the framers voted on secrecy, but there's no official record regarding their reasoning. So we can't say anything was "deemed necessary". They simply voted on the measure. The reasons you've given, while true, were surmised by historians based on legislative practices at the time. A more careful rewrite, meaning a more appropriate choice and ordering of words, is needed.
 * Strictly a style issue: They didn't sign the Constitution "by" but rather "on" September 17. And regarding "ratified", by whom is important. If we're going to point out who signed, we should also point out who ratified and probably how: by states through ratification votes involving the people and through conventions involving their elected representatives. Those details are not only important and interesting, but can be laid out very simply.
 * The last sentence: What's trite is that just about every book or paper here amounts to a critical examination, which can and should run both positive and negative (though by critical you meant the latter). The triteness is that this goes without saying...it doesn't need to be said. As for "historians and political scientists", that doesn't need to be pointed out either, and neither does "many". IMO, the sentence is filler: it has no purpose since it says so little. Yes, I guess that is boring, but it's not what I meant. What I meant by trite was the sentence lacks substance. Allreet (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Matters of opinion
— No delegates showed up in May/June 1787 with plans to either replace the Articles or write a new constitution. And there's no source that says anyone had such plans or intentions.

Nothing is said in the lede about plans for a Constitution This is the current statement. Many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to improve on the deficient Articles of Confederation, but soon decided that a stronger federal government was necessary.

— The substance is that the framers voted on secrecy, but there's no official record regarding their reasoning. So we can't say anything was "deemed necessary".


 * We can say as much if the sources say so, esp since this idea is nothing extraordinary.


 * Washington, who was concerned about secrecy, esp in regards to newspapers, said, Gentlemen, I am sorry to find that some one Member of this Body, has been so neglectful of the secrets of the Convention as to drop in the State House a copy of their proceedings ... I must entreat Gentlemen to be more careful, least our transactions get into the News Papers, and disturb the public repose by premature speculations.
 * ... in a letter to his son, Mason defended the secrecy rule as “a proper precaution to prevent mistakes and misrepresentation until the business shall have been completed".
 * Madison in a letter to Jefferson said: In furnishing you with this list of names, I have exhausted all the means which I can make use of for gratifying your curiosity. It was thought expedient in order to secure unbiassed discussion within doors, and to prevent misconceptions and misconstructions without, to establish some rules of caution which will for no short time restrain even a confidential communication of our proceedings.
 * Madison in a letter of June 10, 1787 to James Monroe, explaining the secrecy rule said. "One of the earliest rules established by the Convention restrained the members from any disclosure whatever of its proceedings, a restraint which will not probably be removed for some time. I think the rule was a prudent one not only as it will effectually secure the requisite freedom of discussion, but as it will save both the Convention and the Community from a thousand erroneous and perhaps mischievous reports.
 * Newspapers carried notices of the adjournment; there was a flurry of letter-writing by delegates and interested bystanders. A member from North Carolina apologized to the governor of his state for not being able to give out more information. Secrecy was very necessary, he said. “Many crude matters,” daily uttered on the floor, “might make an undue impression on the too credulous and unthinking mobility.”

— Many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention set out to improve on the deficient Articles of Confederation, but soon decided that a stronger federal government was necessary.

Are you saying there are no sources that cover the initial idea of improving on the Articles before the delegates decided to draft a new Constitution?

— What's trite is that just about every book or paper here amounts to a critical examination, which can and should run both positive and negative (though by critical you meant the latter}

In the context that "critical" is used it means criticize.

— IMO the sentence is filler ... lacks substance.

This gets argumentative. That can be said about a lot of general statements. The sentence is definitively factual and consists of substance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the re-write. I still have qualms, but I'm not going to argue them. Condensing a subject this complex into a single paragraph is a difficult undertaking. That concerns "facts". As for style, it's touchy on a personal level doing this long distance and without the "standing" an editor usually has in helping writers.
 * One suggestion: drop the last sentence. The paragraph ends nicely without it. Allreet (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See comment below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Reworded phrase
As a compromise, I substituted "the delegates decided" for "deemed necessary". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources::









Journal article
— regarding the journal article, by Ablavsky, 2014, The Savage Constitution — excellent find. This work is also located at Jstor. If there's no objection, I'll substitute the Jstor listing, with its stable link, for the existing one. Here's the markup if you'd like the honors.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea of how much influence the Iroquois Confederacy had on the formation of the founding has been widely contested among a good number of scholars, and Ablavsky does a rather thorough job of refuting such claims . This idea, commonly referred to as the Iroquois Thesis, was largely thrust on the historical scene in the mid 1990s by several works authored by Donald A. Grinde Jr. and Bruce E. Johansen. Among the critics are Elizabeth Tooker, a professor of anthropology, who regards the idea as myth., Philip Levy and William Starna and Donald Lutz This is not to say the Iroquois Confederacy was not inspirational, esp to Franklin and Jefferson. More later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll post it, though you don't need to ask regarding any edits in line with what we've been doing (e.g., stable links). Along with Ablavsky, I posted a couple of the sources he mentions—Elizabeth Tooker (who you removed as a dupe), Gregory Schaaf, and Erik Jensen's response to Schaaf. And there are more in his paper I haven't gotten to yet. Before doing so, I'll check the history to make sure you haven't beaten me to it. Meaning if you're so inclined, feel free. Allreet (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see you've gone ahead and added the jstor listing.  Re: The Harvard Law Review, the publisher's name is very similar, but its full title is The Harvard Law Review Association, so I went ahead and added it to several listings that were missing the publisher's name, including Ackerman. Yes, it seems a bit redundant, but not entirely.

Iroquois Thesis

 * The Iroquois Thesis. Some other things to consider. The idea of Separation of powers goes back to the Magna Carta, long before the colonies were settled. While the Iroquois Confederacy was bound by an understanding, their laws were not written down and were passed on in an oral capacity, and any understanding of their ways required translation. Also, their understanding varied from tribe to tribe, sometimes resulting in conflicts of interest. The Iroquois Confederacy was never mentioned at the Constitutional Convention, unlike Montesquieu, Locke and the others. It's been asserted that some of the precepts embraced by the Confederacy were either borrowed from or coincidental to Western/English sources, which seems consistent with the idea that the Indian peoples borrowed many ideas and inventions from the settlers. While the Iroquois Confederacy was admired by Franklin and Jefferson, mostly because they had established a system of laws and understanding for themselves that sometimes resembled Western political philosophy, the idea that they had shaped the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution anymore than is worth mentioning has never been established in terms of established and indisputable facts. [Add :] According to historian and archaeologist Philip Levy, claims over any evidence which suggests there is notable influence behind the similarities of thought between the Iroquois and the Founders is largely coincidental and circumstantial. As such, I have reservations about including related sources, pro or con, to the Bibliography here, even though I have added several. In any case, we should tread lightly here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * To be fair to the argument, the Iroquois in 1754 urged the colonies to better unite with one another, an idea that so inspired Franklin and his Albany Plan of Union. There is historical debate, however, as to the extent the Iroquois had influenced Franklin's Albany plan, which was rejected. The colonies, each with their own, sometimes conflicting political and religious interests, were not at war with each other, as were the various tribes, which is what compelled these Indians to Confederate. Colonial issues were more indifferent to distant British rule, rather than with one another, who all existed in the new world, which was a strong and unifying common denominator amongst them. It would be naive to think that the Iroquois Confederacy had zero influence on Franklin and other founding fathers, as they were indeed admired and were a source of inspiration. However, to what extent this inspiration factored into the actual drafting and structure of the Articles and Constitution remains an unsettled and ongoing debate, esp since the necessity for colonial unity served as its own major influence for establishing a Union in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)