Talk:Federalist No. 10

Untitled
Here are some relevant USSC cases that may be of interest but aren't mentioned yet:

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Parham (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I would edit your cool links in but sadly I can't because some vandal locked the article against editing.

Anyway, I'll just stick your links underneath my post till we need them to plug up a leak or poultice a wound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Phen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

the company line
"The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy was not without merit."

how does an article become featured at wikipedia with such blatant POV? it's doubly heinous because it comes from the usual, popular position that the federalists sit at the right hand of god, and that apologies must be made for the anti-federalists. the beneficent wikipedia voice allows that the anti-federalist position was not without merit. thanks. this is unattributed analysis and put-down of the worst sort. i would have removed it immediately were the article not locked. popular does not equal NPOV. most wikipedia articles about the founding of the united states (or of popular U.S. politicians) are biased by inborn reverence &mdash; a point of view. Wbfl 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it was a rather good way to say that they had a point since the Civil War DID happen. Euknemarchon 17:08 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * oh my. Wbfl 01:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

this article needs unlocking
unwarranted protection of an article linked from Main Page can be discouraging for new users. --81.154.236.221 15:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Kat fletchers smug face 17:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

faking NPOV
are editors of this page actually fooled by simulated NPOV such as, "The Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy was not without merit. Many today attribute the American Civil War most fundamentally to this disparity."?

translated out of its weasel-worded, apologetic morass, it reads, "The American Civil War proved correct the Anti-Federalist belief that the wide disparity in the economic interests of the various states would lead to controversy."

have the nerve to write that straight out, or strike this weasely POV. "many today"? "not without merit"? have the authors and acceptors of this type of material actually read the wikipedia guidelines and policies? do links need to be provided? those two abominable phrases in a single paragraph are simply attempts to disguise POV. that they persist, to the point where there's a fight between "partly" and "most fundamentally" (i.e., "of the fundamental causes many believe this was the greatest. disagree or not, it can be said that many believe so"), is a bummer. it's just uncited opinion. therefore, it's prohibited. this article should not have been approved for FA status. anybody actually read the peer review archive? one guy with an initial sweep, however dutiful. that's it? embarrassing. wikipedia is broken, and tripping over its own hype. FA status means nothing if this is where it leads. Wbfl 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So be bold and fix it! —Cleared as filed. 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * nothing to do with boldness. obviously i'm talking about a much bigger problem than just a couple of sentences. however, in this case, trying to NPOV that one little section will probably require extensive research for sources, a task i'm not interested in performing for this article. so i point it out here for the attention of whoever added it or approved it, and then maybe i could remove that part. let's say i remove the part (through the "civil war" bit, which term itself also has POV problems), which is what needs to happen right now. then the usual "i thought it was rather good" user comes along, who thinks wikipedia articles are magazine pieces or debate. so it's a revert war, or you can take a chance and try to spend 4 days educating the culprit in dulcet tones. nah. this is as far as i go. it's obviously incorrect, and there it sits. i haven't even read the rest of the article.


 * be bold? remove the FA status; that would be bold. the rest might follow. the real problem here is that it received FA status, and that's what will probably not be addressed. instead, it's "be bold!" right. there is no accountability at wikipedia, except with regard to heavy-handed enforcement of limp-wristed-good-citizenship. thus, a never-ending turd-polishing fest. that was good for getting it popular. it's not good for getting it good. Wbfl 00:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've somewhat modified the sentence in question and sourced the information; if I get a chance later on I'll get a print source instead. If you could identify other aspects you believe are not NPOV, that would be great. ("Civil war" is however the term used at Wikipedia and it wouldn't be appropriate to change that simply in this context; you may want to bring up the issue at American Civil War, considering the presentation at Naming the American Civil War.) Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is NPOV possible? I think not, except in the most trivial cases, where consensus on wording is soon reached. In cases that provoke passionate opinions, we have seen that reversion wars almost always ensue. (What happened in the early 20th century between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians? What is a "war crime", and who has committed one? What is terrorism? What is the nature of the Mormon scriptures; revelation or hoax? What should we call the war that occupied the North and South during Lincoln's presidency? Etc.) Why not, in these cases, have both sides write parallel articles and allow the reader to see arguments on both sides of the controversy, these being notable in their own right. Too Old 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * i could yap about this for hours, but it's starting to get far afield for this page. multiple articles on the same subject is a much better idea than most will grant; it's what essentially exists if one uses wikipedia correctly and reads the discussion pages as well as the articles. the core problem, now that wikipedia has succeeded in being noticed, is that everybody has the power to screw an article and drive away good editors (not referring to standard vandalism, which isn't a big deal). no group of excellent collaborators likes to see its creation destroyed by inches. incentive &mdash; killed. wikipedia must limit entry or always be taken lightly. however, the group to do that is not the vile and predominately stupid admin crew. Wbfl 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikinfo. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV has nothing to do with presenting single, coherent prose but that all POVs are presented equally, with due weight, and no particular POV being endorsed. Cburnett 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource
This page is the #2 google result for "Federalist No. 10". It seems quite likely that people coming to this page will be looking for the actual text of the document, either to read the text itself or to supplement their reading of this page. Placing a link to the text near the top of the article adds convenience for these readers, and so makes this page more useful for our readers. I am a bit confused as to why it breaks your browser at the top of the page but not at the bottom, but presumably we can fix that somehow. What exactly is the problem it causes? P.S. apologies for marking as minor, was an accident Christopher Parham (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having edited 11,000 distinct pages and viewing a great deal many more, this is the first I have never seen a wiki box at the top. From a style perspective, it breaks consistency with every page I can recall.  Just because it's highly listed on google doesn't make it special in reference to breaking our style.  United States Bill of Rights is #1 on google and the links are &mdash; appropriately &mdash; at the bottom.  Presuming people come here for the paper itself instead of an encyclopedic overview of the paper is too presumptuous.  However, I would, ironically, put forth that it is more likely that the people looking for the bill of rights are looking for the actual text vs. the people looking for FP #10. Cburnett 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it appropriate to put the link at the bottom? The added convenience for readers appears to me to be high while the costs appear to be non-existent. Nor is this an exceptional practice; the same is used on Article One of the United States Constitution, and a similar practice on United States Constitution, both featured articles. Links to Wikinews are also often found alongside relevant text. I find this a reasonable practice in articles about documents. In the same way an article on The Last Supper benefits greatly from an image of the thing itself at top right, a convenient link to the actual document enhances the reader experience of these articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also vehemently disagree on their use on the article pages. As for the USC page, the link is next to the relevant text.  This article is about one text.


 * Anyway, you're up to, what?, 10 articles out of 1.5 million? It's perfectly fine on the bottom of the other 84 FPs.  Cburnett 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You had never seen this practice and I thought perhaps those articles would be enlightening; but if you oppose the practice in general, I don't see how another million similar articles would change your judgment. I am more interested in the utility to readers than being consistent with the rest of Wikipedia; if you want this article to be consistent with its 2 million fellows I suggest turning it into an unreferenced stub. Thinking about utility, perhaps you could explain why, as an internet user, you would prefer valuable links to appear at the bottom of pages rather than the top? The other 84 FPs are less of a problem; on a middling or large resolution those entire articles fit on the screen, at least pending the actual articles being written. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I am sure my comment here will be deleted, but this article is a great example of how wikipedia is all about the establishment POV. Wiki is stridently federalist and hence rightwing. This entire article is really just nonsense. Fed 10 and the other madison articles were about INCREASING THE NUMBER OF FACTIONS in each political district in order to prevent the MAJORITY faction from uniting to discover their common interest. Madison was all about increasing the factionalization of the voters by making the voting districts larger, and thus making it harder for the people to unite against rich aristocrats like Madison. Madison and his fellow rich founding fathers did not want us commoners using the power of the vote to increase taxes on the rich. Madison said at the constitutional convention that our present constittution was designed to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. OPulent here means rich. So the founding fathers created an undemocratic constitution that increased the numbers of factions in the nation and each state by increasing the size of the political districts that politician were elected from (the president and the senate are the prime examples here). So that way it was harder for the faction of the majority to unite against the propertied elite like Madison, Jefferson, et al. Madison wanted to make it hard for you and me to unite and use taxation to get our grubby little paws on his $$$.

of course the rightwing American instittutions like academia, GOP, Democrats, mass media etc will never talk about this directly. They just put a few words out there, cheery pick a few words, leave them out of context, rarely connect them. And Wikipedia follows right along. Otherwise, if they did explain what the Founding Fathers and Madison really did, they would not get media attention, and they could not "monetize" wikipedia in the future....

Look for this entry to be deleted by the wikipedians real soon.

If you want to verify want I say, just google up Dr Fresia's online book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION and online reviews of Dr Woody Holton's recent books. Or just read the federalist papers written by Madison and read Madison's notes from the COnstitutional convention. Read it all really slowly and carefully.

-cryofan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.205.74 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Madison's Arguments
This is truly an interesting article, and I have enjoyed reading it. I must say, however, that the section Madison's arguments could use a re-write for sentence structure and style. I'd love to be bold and dive in, but an author with more knowledge on the essay would be a better choice. A specific note: Madison "contends that there are two ways to remove the causes that provoke the development of factions". The text of the article never explicitly identifies the first... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.97.116 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Federalist Paper no.10
Someone seems to be censoring an actual link to the Federalist Paper No.10, which leaves only links to the Brutus and Cato papers, which are Anti-Federalist. This look politically motivated to me. People seem to want readers to read Brutus no.1 think it is Federalist Paper no.10 and be convinced that Madison held the Anti-Federalist views contained within. Highly recommend someone intervene to create a link to the text of Federalist Paper No.10 rather than allow this to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.163.127 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FA concerns
This article could use some improvements to meet the current Featured article criteria. I would be willing to identify some of these deficiencies. However, if they aren't addressed here it should be addressed in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. Brad (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of original states
Article mentions twelve states ("the constitution drafted by the convention needed ratification by at least nine of the twelve states").

Shouldn't that be thirteen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulf Hermjakob (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Made that change in main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulf Hermjakob (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Federalist No. 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121515/http://www.eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us to http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed
The following paragraph says "citation needed" at the end.

No. 10 addresses the question of how to reconcile citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or inimical to the interests of the community as a whole. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man – that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them and they will sometimes work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others. He thus questions how to guard against those dangers.[citation needed]

Not sure whether this could be used as a citation, but give it a look and if it's a valid citation, please feel free to add it. I would hate to incorrectly edit it just to have the edit removed.

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)