Talk:Constitution of the United States/Archive 6

Choppiness?

I've been noticing that the length of the sentences in this article are are uncharacteristically short compared to most other Wikipedia articles I've read, and I've seen a few incomplete sentences floating around. I'm not sure if this was intentional, or if this article is undergoing revision at the moment, but the overall effect is lack of fluidity, at least for me. Can anybody else comment? 67.182.140.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

10 of 13, or is it 11 of 14 -- still the same date.

The states had Article V power to alter the Constitution directly, regardless of the action or inaction of Congress, in session or out, an acknowledged weakness under the Articles of Confederation. No President could have the power to stop it. If there are 13 states in the Union, 13 x .75 = 9.75, Virginia’s ratification, making the tenth of them, puts the first ten amendments into effect.

Vermont entered the Union March 4, 1791, nine months before Virginia’s ratification. When the Union grew from thirteen states to fourteen states, 14 x .75 = 10.5, the ratification hurdle changed from ten to eleven. We can’t say that until we have a reliable resource among a preponderance of scholars to overrule the National Archives source for the “ten” requirement.

If it is fourteen states, Vermont is in the tenth to ratify as of November 3. It does not matter that Washington transmitted the news to Congress Wednesday Jan 18. Virginia’s ratification on December 15 gave the fourteen-state Union the eleventh state for three-quarters ratification “for all intents and purposes”. So the date remains in a thirteen-state Union or a fourteen-state Union, the first ten amendments are ratified on December 15, 1791. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

San Marino's constitution(s)

San Marino is certainly a republic. And attention must be paid to a place that Abraham Lincoln accepted honorary citizenship in 1861. (See the Lincoln bust in the Great Staircase of the Government Palace in the Public Plaza, San Marino, photogallery, page 5, lower left.) And it has great stamps, the sale of which provide a substantial portion of annual government funding.

However we may not consider its Constitution older than 1924-26. And it may not be a self-governing nation-state comparable to the United States. According to the U.S. State Department, San Marino, by the constitution of 1600, lower court judges were forbidden to be citizens. The reform legislation of 1924 allowed citizens to be judges, but “most lower court judges remained Italian citizens”.

According to The World Factbook, San Marino has ceded its right to allow broadcasting from its soil, the nation-state of Italy is responsible for its defense, and the “electoral law of 1926 serves some of the functions of a constitution”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an explicit source that calls San Marino's constitution the first in the world? I imagine that such a thing is the sort of trivia generally found near the beginning of many books on the American Constitution. NW (Talk) 18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

"...the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights."

Is it correct to call the Bill of Rights big ten amendments? I thought they were original parts of the document, and therefore not amendments.

Should they not be called articles? Modinyr (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was actually discussion in Congress as to whether to re-write the Constitution including the new phrases and re-promulgate it. The vote was for appending each amendment as it was ratified in its order, leaving the original intact. Then, if you had a "true" copy of the Constitution, it is like every other extant. As in so many other things, they fashioned themselves after the ancient Roman Republic, with which virtually every member was familiar. (that last prepositional phrase is English in the Latin grammar, now falling into disuse).

In this case, the Constitution is akin to the Roman Twelve Tables. "In 449 BC, the second decemvirate completed the last two codes, and after a secessio plebis to force the Senate to consider them, the Law of the Twelve Tables was formally promulgated.[3] The Twelve Tables were drawn up on twelve ivory tablets (Livy says bronze) which were posted in the Roman Forum so all Romans could read and know them."

The First Congress of the United States saw themselves in a stream of ongoing history with change made by those living. They would not impose on future generations in Jefferson's phrase, a tyranny of "the dead hand of the past". They anticipated that there would be more changes after them, but each change would be considered without reopening discusssion of each previous article in its entirety. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

None of which answers the question. The Bill of Rights was not an original part of the Constitution. It became clear during the ratifying conventions that it would be necessary to provide for one, so the 1st Congress sent 12 proposed articles of amendment (as amendments are formally known) to the states. Ten of those were ratified, becoming what we call the Bill of Rights. -Rrius (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New power allocations

Forrest McDonald treats the Constitution's new power allocations in chapter VIII, "Powers, principles and consequences" in his "Novus ordo seclorum: the intellectual origins of the Constitution", 1985. The Wikipedia article reports that "in 1987, the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) selected McDonald for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for achievement in the humanities." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Second Spanish Republic

Editor Xufanc correctly points out that the civil flag for the ships at sea merchant marine of the Second Spanish Republic never had a crest. I relied on the flag pictured in the article Second Spanish Republic for comparison purposes. But on reading the article Flag of the Second Spanish Republic and re-inspection of the one-peseta stamp, it strikes me that the Statue of Liberty blocks the entire view of the Spanish flag, just as it does for the American flag opposite.

If the Spanish flag extends just beyond the edge of Liberty’s side, it is the “military version of the flag with different, almost square, dimensions.” The military version, like the civil design, had no crest. If the Spanish flag has the same dimensions as that of the United States, it is the banner of earlier republican groups opposing the Bourbon monarchists. Or, it may simply be the variant pictured in the wikipedia flag article, dictated by economy measures in wartime flag production.

So, relative to information on the actual design and engraving for this stamp to make a definitive statement in our article, I guess we are left with, Where is a philatelist when you need one? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Material by Maier deleted

I removed with this edit [[1]] material that was not supported by the source. The source was speaking about the end of the slave trade rather than the end of slavery. There was a prediction by one delegate that slavery "was fated to die out" under the Constitution, but this does not support the broad claim made in the material I deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How about we tighten up the edit referring to converting the anti-slavery delegates to supporting the Constitution.

The offending passage is " but the Constitution would provide for its regulation and eventual extinction." The edit intended only that 'abolition of slave trade' means 'regulation' of one aspect of slavery, and for slavery to 'die out', there would be an 'extinction' of the institution under the Constitution.

The page 201 citation reads, "As for slavery, he ['Isaac Backus, the Baptist minister'] too hated slavery, but he noted that the Constitution had opened a door for the future abolition of the slave trade that was absent in the Articles of Confederation and affirmed an earlier prediction made by Dawes that slavery itself was fated to die out." We may disagree as to the emphasis or shading of 'affirm' (not I-can-go-with-that0 and 'fate' (not one-day-over-the-rainbow). So here's a re-write, something to the effect:

• Federalist anti-slavery delegate Isaac Backus confronted abolitionist Anti-Federalist Thomas Dawes, reasoning that the Constitution provided for abolition of the slave trade but the Articles did not". (Maier 2010, p.201) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Skibum415, 1 September 2011 - US Constitution Article II Section III

Please change "When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date." to "He shall from time to time give Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he believe proper." A significant portion of the context is lost in the current posting. Current news events are driving people here and they are claiming "the Constitution doesn't say that" because of the clean and modern way this was originally posted. Source: United States Constitution - United States Archives - http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Skibum415 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The article shows an analysis of the section, not direct quotes from the Constitution. If you have a reliable source that interprets the section differently, feel free to bring it up here on the talk page for discussion. For what it's worth, I think the line you want to remove seems to accurately describe what the section is saying about the time of adjournment. — Bility (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Bility. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ToC and article organization

The edit on the table of contents follows WP style and the editor consensus to follow chronology as an organizing principle for the article.

• Chronology: The major headings are now (1) History, (2) Original text, (3) Amendments, (4) Judicial review, (5) American “civic religion”, (6) Worldwide influence, (7) Commemoratives, and (8) Criticism. The chronology rule explains moving “judicial review” after “amendments”, “worldwide influence” after “American ‘civic religion’” “criticism” after “commemoratives”.

• Terminology: “Constitution” is removed from major headings because the reader knows that they are on the “Constitution” Wikipedia page. Likewise, repeated restatements of a heading is removed from its subheadings. Subheadings have been rewritten to reflect others in the article as written, not a list. In the newly named “original text” section, each of the first three articles describe a branch of the national government: composition, selection and powers. “Powers” alone is incomplete. It becomes unnecessary if each branch is named: legislature, executive, judiciary. Similarly throughout. “Calling and convening” was demoted into “Work of the Convention”.

Categories:

• The merged category required a split for “Sessions of the House”. In the source documents, the Convention Journal, Madison, et al, the delegates all refer to themselves collectively as the “House” as though sitting in a legislative body, indeed, as their rules implied, Mr. Wilson's protests notwithstanding.

• Historical influences over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nested under “Historical influences” because they are together considered the supreme law of the land. The influences on the Constitution bears expansion, probably from McDonald and Wood.

• The “Original text” is given new categories to assist international readers. All articles are not created equal. The first three Articles establish a national government. It is composed of three branches, dividing the central power as Montesquieu recommended, by service to the people. All true "republicans" agree, power in the hands of government must be divided to protect the people. This functional division of governmental power is not like others, where the division can be accomplished by society (British Parliament), geography (Articles of Confederation), or family (Venetian Republic). The outline now reflects this important division among the Articles, and uses an internationally understood term, "national" to refer to the national government established in the Constituton.

• The last four Articles define relationships among the “central government” and the “states’ governments”. In the same way that what is known worldwide as the "national central bank” is known by Americans as the “Federal Reserve Bank of the United States”, international readers will find the more internationally understood terminology “Central government” of help in the Table of Contents.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

</ref>Martin Luther (Md) insisted that he would rather live under a regional government than submit to a United States under the Randolph Plan.

</ref>Luther Martin (Md) insisted that he would rather live under a regional government than submit to a United States under the Randolph Plan. 74.14.29.249 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for improving Wikipedia! mabdul 17:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Op. Cit.

To the editors who have been working on this page recently: nice work. Still a lot more to go, but it's definitely looking a lot better than it was earlier. I noticed one thing though. The use of op.cit. has crept into the article quite extensively. The guidelines don't explicitly prohibit this, but they do recommend against it. It's generally preferred to use something of the style Lastname year, pp. #-# for short references. Would anyone mind if that were changed? NW (Talk) 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in references

Current reference 49, which I just picked as an example, current looks like this:

Bowen, op.cit., p.93. He was the son of a shoemaker, now a farmer and lawyer. Although awkward, vulgar and laughable to more polished colleagues, he was an honest political broker. The most frequent speakers on the Convention floor were Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, all nationalists. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a small-state ‘federal’ delegate, was fourth. His legislative philosophy was, “When you are a minority, talk. When you are a majority, vote.” Among the small-state advocates, he would make the most speeches throughout the Convention.

I assume the part after the page number is a quote? NW (Talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Material by Maier deleted

I removed with this edit [[2]] material that was not supported by the source. The source was speaking about the end of the slave trade rather than the end of slavery. There was a prediction by one delegate that slavery "was fated to die out" under the Constitution, but this does not support the broad claim made in the material I deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How about we tighten up the edit referring to converting the anti-slavery delegates to supporting the Constitution.

The offending passage is " but the Constitution would provide for its regulation and eventual extinction." The edit intended only that 'abolition of slave trade' means 'regulation' of one aspect of slavery, and for slavery to 'die out', there would be an 'extinction' of the institution under the Constitution.

The page 201 citation reads, "As for slavery, he ['Isaac Backus, the Baptist minister'] too hated slavery, but he noted that the Constitution had opened a door for the future abolition of the slave trade that was absent in the Articles of Confederation and affirmed an earlier prediction made by Dawes that slavery itself was fated to die out." We may disagree as to the emphasis or shading of 'affirm' (not I-can-go-with-that0 and 'fate' (not one-day-over-the-rainbow). So here's a re-write, something to the effect:

• Federalist anti-slavery delegate Isaac Backus confronted abolitionist Anti-Federalist Thomas Dawes, reasoning that the Constitution provided for abolition of the slave trade but the Articles did not". (Maier 2010, p.201) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Choppiness?

I've been noticing that the length of the sentences in this article are are uncharacteristically short compared to most other Wikipedia articles I've read, and I've seen a few incomplete sentences floating around. I'm not sure if this was intentional, or if this article is undergoing revision at the moment, but the overall effect is lack of fluidity, at least for me. Can anybody else comment? 67.182.140.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from Skibum415, 1 September 2011 - US Constitution Article II Section III

Please change "When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on the time of adjournment, the president may adjourn them to some future date." to "He shall from time to time give Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he believe proper." A significant portion of the context is lost in the current posting. Current news events are driving people here and they are claiming "the Constitution doesn't say that" because of the clean and modern way this was originally posted. Source: United States Constitution - United States Archives - http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Skibum415 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The article shows an analysis of the section, not direct quotes from the Constitution. If you have a reliable source that interprets the section differently, feel free to bring it up here on the talk page for discussion. For what it's worth, I think the line you want to remove seems to accurately describe what the section is saying about the time of adjournment. — Bility (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Bility. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ToC and article organization

The edit on the table of contents follows WP style and the editor consensus to follow chronology as an organizing principle for the article.

• Chronology: The major headings are now (1) History, (2) Original text, (3) Amendments, (4) Judicial review, (5) American “civic religion”, (6) Worldwide influence, (7) Commemoratives, and (8) Criticism. The chronology rule explains moving “judicial review” after “amendments”, “worldwide influence” after “American ‘civic religion’” “criticism” after “commemoratives”.

• Terminology: “Constitution” is removed from major headings because the reader knows that they are on the “Constitution” Wikipedia page. Likewise, repeated restatements of a heading is removed from its subheadings. Subheadings have been rewritten to reflect others in the article as written, not a list. In the newly named “original text” section, each of the first three articles describe a branch of the national government: composition, selection and powers. “Powers” alone is incomplete. It becomes unnecessary if each branch is named: legislature, executive, judiciary. Similarly throughout. “Calling and convening” was demoted into “Work of the Convention”.

Categories:

• The merged category required a split for “Sessions of the House”. In the source documents, the Convention Journal, Madison, et al, the delegates all refer to themselves collectively as the “House” as though sitting in a legislative body, indeed, as their rules implied, Mr. Wilson's protests notwithstanding.

• Historical influences over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nested under “Historical influences” because they are together considered the supreme law of the land. The influences on the Constitution bears expansion, probably from McDonald and Wood.

• The “Original text” is given new categories to assist international readers. All articles are not created equal. The first three Articles establish a national government. It is composed of three branches, dividing the central power as Montesquieu recommended, by service to the people. All true "republicans" agree, power in the hands of government must be divided to protect the people. This functional division of governmental power is not like others, where the division can be accomplished by society (British Parliament), geography (Articles of Confederation), or family (Venetian Republic). The outline now reflects this important division among the Articles, and uses an internationally understood term, "national" to refer to the national government established in the Constituton.

• The last four Articles define relationships among the “central government” and the “states’ governments”. In the same way that what is known worldwide as the "national central bank” is known by Americans as the “Federal Reserve Bank of the United States”, international readers will find the more internationally understood terminology “Central government” of help in the Table of Contents.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

</ref>Martin Luther (Md) insisted that he would rather live under a regional government than submit to a United States under the Randolph Plan.

</ref>Luther Martin (Md) insisted that he would rather live under a regional government than submit to a United States under the Randolph Plan. 74.14.29.249 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for improving Wikipedia! mabdul 17:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

San Marino's constitution(s)

San Marino is certainly a republic. And attention must be paid to a place that Abraham Lincoln accepted honorary citizenship in 1861. (See the Lincoln bust in the Great Staircase of the Government Palace in the Public Plaza, San Marino, photogallery, page 5, lower left.) And it has great stamps, the sale of which provide a substantial portion of annual government funding.

However we may not consider its Constitution older than 1924-26. And it may not be a self-governing nation-state comparable to the United States. According to the U.S. State Department, San Marino, by the constitution of 1600, lower court judges were forbidden to be citizens. The reform legislation of 1924 allowed citizens to be judges, but “most lower court judges remained Italian citizens”.

According to The World Factbook, San Marino has ceded its right to allow broadcasting from its soil, the nation-state of Italy is responsible for its defense, and the “electoral law of 1926 serves some of the functions of a constitution”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an explicit source that calls San Marino's constitution the first in the world? I imagine that such a thing is the sort of trivia generally found near the beginning of many books on the American Constitution. NW (Talk) 18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Op. Cit.

To the editors who have been working on this page recently: nice work. Still a lot more to go, but it's definitely looking a lot better than it was earlier. I noticed one thing though. The use of op.cit. has crept into the article quite extensively. The guidelines don't explicitly prohibit this, but they do recommend against it. It's generally preferred to use something of the style Lastname year, pp. #-# for short references. Would anyone mind if that were changed? NW (Talk) 18:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are really neat conventions available to Wikipedia editors that save server space in aggregate over thousands of articles or aid in bot scanning and amending. Us newbies do not always have those arrows in our quiver, and some are just plain, old fashioned, back of the garage, elegant coding. Sweet.

Along a similar, but low-tech line, I would like to cut down on the numbers of footnotes by consolidating references by paragraph, listing multiple pages from the same source, or multiple sources supporting the same paragraph, perhaps with a phrase to relate a source to the sentence where the attribution is not readily apparent. This convention would follow the practice found in a scholarly book, rather than that of an academic paper. I believe that it would ease the visual flow, and that, at some graphic level, the clutter of blue boxes becomes obstructively pretentious to the general reader. Without objection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in references

Current reference 49, which I just picked as an example, current looks like this:

Bowen, op.cit., p.93. He was the son of a shoemaker, now a farmer and lawyer. Although awkward, vulgar and laughable to more polished colleagues, he was an honest political broker. The most frequent speakers on the Convention floor were Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, all nationalists. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a small-state ‘federal’ delegate, was fourth. His legislative philosophy was, “When you are a minority, talk. When you are a majority, vote.” Among the small-state advocates, he would make the most speeches throughout the Convention.

I assume the part after the page number is a quote? NW (Talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The passage after the page number is an editorial expansion of the narrative which would kill the flow of the main article for the general reader. It is taken from the referenced page, paraphrased. The material in the quotes is a quote from that page. I have also used the convention, "(Jones, page 74)" at the end of a note which is from another referenced source not called out at the beginning of the note, when "Jones" is fully cited elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, I tried to give an external link for reference in the note.

In trying to avoid endless listing, enumeration and tables, and to extend explanation of detail which is fascinating to someone like myself who is interested in the mechanics of the convention, but to none others, I have tried to use the Wikipedia footnote link like a scholarly "old school" text, with notes on the bottom of the page throughout, such as Wood's "Creation of the Republic". This once gave the reader immediate access to wonderful details, but at each reader's discretion as time and interest allowed. It has the same advantage for the general reader as the scholarly publishing innovation which puts all notes in an appendix at the text. But here in Wikipedia, an article footnote is accessible at a click. That is much better than turning to the back back of the book to some sort of ad hoc reader-devised system of color-coded paper clips at the top, side and bottom of ending pages.

Some of that which is of special interest is lost in Wikipedia when a following editor determines it does not meet his "significance" threshold by the criteria of HIS hobby horse, so he deletes it instead of demoting the judgement of the lesser editor to a referenced footnote (unreferenced passages deserve a different fate). If it is preserved in a footnote, however misguided at the moment, an editor at a yet subsequent reading might take the information driven down into "also-ran" footnote status, and make an new expanded section to the article, or initiate an altogether new article, for the advancement of the encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note extensions

I have added note extensions of commonplace observation, such as "Jones was a signer of the Declaration of Independence." which may be of help to a new reader or the international community. Background knowledge is essential to understanding, one must "bring knowledge to gain knowledge." So I have included informational lists of big population states then and those south of the Mason-Dixon Line, or relative city sizes then and the source of their commercial prominence. These lists relate to discussions which I believe are absolutely essential for understanding.

For multiplier effect and reader convenience, notes along with links inform encyclopedia reading in a way that no other media can convey the subject information. They do not impact the readability of the article. Each element of supplemental material noted can be supported by scholarly citation when challenged. I have followed the general WP guideline that the work does not have to be perfect before beginning our collaborative publication. Out of interests of collegiality and collaborative enterprise, a skeptical editor could well serve the project by tagging "citation needed" wherever unsure, or if policy requires, I will happily return to the scene of the crime and exhaustively document. With thanks in advance, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Material by Maier restored

per the discussion above, the passage has been rewritten:

Just as the abolitionist George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, in the ratification conventions of Massachusetts and Virginia, the anti-slavery delegates began as anti-ratification votes. Still, the Constitution "as written" was an improvement over the Articles from an abolitionist point of view. In the Massachusetts Ratification Convention, Federalist anti-slavery delegate Isaac Backus confronted abolitionist Anti-Federalist Thomas Dawes, trying to gain his support for adoption, reasoned that the Constitution provided for abolition of the slave trade but the Articles did not. Sometimes those opposed to slavery were persuaded that the evils of a broken Union would bring worse consequences than allowing the fate of slavery to be determined gradually over time....

Good eye. The source material is clearer with a more focused, unambiguous contribution in the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Preamble: propose change

from "Preamble: the purpose" to "Preamble: Authority and purpose" παράδοξος (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

done. thank you. wow. "the natural light of reason". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pics for “subsequent amendments”

Amendments to the Constitution are a decision recommended by two-thirds of Congress, both of state delegations in the House of Representatives, and two Senators per state. Amendments are enacted by three-fourths of the states in their legislatures, without any other agency. They do not depend on re-passage by either house of Congress, signature of the President, nor Supreme Court concurrence, all of which were considered during the Constitutional Convention.

To symbolize states and state legislatures, the pictures of state capitols are chosen to represent the diversity of the state legislatures. Visually, the architecture is intentionally variable. There is at least one state from each of the six major epochs of state admissions. One state for seven of nine major cultural-political regions of North America.

Of the “Nine Nations of North America”, the state capitols represent “New England” Massachusetts, “Dixie” Virginia, “Foundry” Ohio, “Bread Basket” Iowa, “Ecotopia” Oregon, “Empty Quarter” Colorado, “Mexamerica” New Mexico and “Ecotopia” island, Hawaii. (This omits Quebec and “Islands”-Miami). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Amendments and original text edits.

In edits this week, I am trying to minimizing lists by categorizing related elements, then writing paragraphed narratives with topic sentences. These are also meant to provide structure for future expansion from scholarly sources. Then editors can more readily elaborate each section with additional historical context and analysis. Thus, grouping voting related items together, or trial procedure items together, as those are categories found in the literature of several disciplines such as history, sociology, political science and law.

Avoiding characterizing historical development as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. “Liberals” want state gun control when they have no national majority. When “Conservatives” have no national majority, they want state health insurance. The focus of the article is Constitutional, federal relationships among national and state governments, not fruitless labeling.

Following modern usage, applying “commerce”, “trade” and “gender” to disambiguate from procreation and copulation implied for the modern reader by the words “sex” and “intercourse”.

Removal of time-sensitive narrative relating to political parties and legislative majorities. Removal of links to original text where links in adjacent sentence lead to same information, such as “First Amendment”. Removal of uniform list reference to (date) by an amendment where the date is called out in an adjacent sentence in the narrative; the date is available at the link. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Parsing the Preamble

The extended quote of the Preamble is broken into phrases to aid the new reader to understand a difficult compound sentence. At its root is the meaning, 'We do ordain and establish'. It remains controversial among grammarians whether,

(a) 'In order' is to form a union and to secure blessings (derived from liberty), then 'perfect union' is described by justice, tranquility, defense and general welfare, or

(b) the 'in order to' purpose is union, justice, tranquility, defense, general welfare and blessings.

Editors will note I chose (a), primarily because the Enlightenment cast of mind tended towards balance and symmetry, not laundry lists. If challenged, I propose a footnote explaining the controversy, and leaving it as edited for the reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent illustration

The rationale for illustrations in sections follows:

The Great Compromise: pic of "The Spirit of '76". The younger nationalists taunted the older as "men of '76", meaning old fashioned. Henry answered, As old as I am, I am still proud to be called a Rebel. (He used the word 'appellation'.) It also establishes context. At the time, no one knew the Constitution would work. There was nothing dishonorable in being true to the principles of the Revolution, Mr. Randolph's little rant about treason notwithstanding. Those opposing did not call themselves, "Anti-Federalists", by the way, so I have tried to minimize the term in these historical sections, but I caved to the overwhelming modern convention later in the article.

Slavery in debate: pic of "Escaped Slaves". Freedom in mankind is a force of nature. The couple are attacked by mastiff hunting dogs, a force of nature. No row of docile field hands hoeing, no picture of a permanently crippled man or woman maimed on a whipping post by an unhinged overseer who could not find a punishment to fit the crime, no picture of separating babes-in-arms from their mothers. The balance WP strives for related to a theme of interest addressed by the abolitionists both in the Convention and in the States. Abolitionists are represented since C. Pinkney was the only delegate to defend slavery, and he only once during the Convention. Most slave-holding state delegates spoke to getting ratification back home, or for abolition like Dickinson of Delaware and Mason of Virginia.

New power allocations: since I got my ears boxed in another article for another editor's hand drawn map, I made a point to find polished maps here. Marvelous pic in winter of a statue on the steps of the modern (1935) Supreme Court Building in the foreground, with the new (1865) Capitol dome in the background to symbolize the two new branches of national, centralizing government which are agreed by the people in the states to check state legislatures under the Constitution.

Ratification and inauguration: pic of "Washington taking the Oath of Office". As for Adams behind the pillar, I think he had it in mind that he might be able to make the Vice-presidency into a sort of coordinate office, like the pairs of dictators chosen in the ancient Roman Republic. Washington gave him no chance, although Adams had his turn at the presidency. Adams was the first to hang his laundry in the White House, among un-plastered rooms of a design that Washington had chosen.

Republics and fundamental law: a pic of "Cromwell dissolving the Long Parliament". Not to put too fine a point on it, Cromwell was a finally victorious general in a civil war, fabulously popular with the people, who ended the rule of a monarch and established a republic. Everyone in the Convention knew the history. Back in Virginia, when Patrick Henry held forth against the dangers of "some future Cromwell", he was talking about his political enemy, George Washington, and everybody there knew it.

By the end of Cromwell's Commonwealth, it may be remembered, English in their tyranny executed one another for the crime of dancing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans: pic of Pontiac "Giving a talk". Disputation to show culture clash without atrocities of either side. Delegates to the Convention were informed and had an interest in, developments on the frontier, and knowledge of Amerindians. With all the cultural differences, it is of profound interest to me how there remained, among those on both sides of the divide, those who sought to deal with one another in good faith. Neither side could restrain bad actors with the judicial governance each had in place.

-- For a European example, see Franklins famous editorial condemning Pennsylvania militia for slaughtering Christianized Amerindian farmers and their families in their fields instead of marching west to battle warriors of independent Amerindian nations at war. For an Amerindian example, see any number of nations where young men had not met the qualification for war chief (plan, prepare and lead three raids with booty returned and no loss of life in the war party). Europeans who could not successfully negotiate with the legitimate councils of the nation would arm the unqualified youths to begin making war on their European enemy. But still, there yet remained among both cultures elders, the impulse to peaceful coexistence. Puzzling. Worth a WP article one day.

Article One, Two, Three: pics of early 19th Century exterior and chambers for House, Senate, President, Supreme Court. Not the twentieth Century illustrations usually given. Revolutionary veteran John Marshall, a member of the Virginia Ratification Convention, was walking these paths of Capitol Hill as Supreme Court Chief Justice on his three-mile walk every day, and on them he saw these structures go up, and at work when he was in town and not out on the federal court riding, he saw the rooms furnished, expanded and relocated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Captions: Editors will note all members of Convention are tagged with their state, but for two. They are George Washington (American) from Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin (American) from Pennsylvania. These are the only two who are arguably "American" in the modern sense of the word, and recognized as such by their contemporaries in every part of the country. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

judicial review - expansion

The scholarly source for expanding 'judicial review' comes from C. Herman Pritchit's "The American Constitution", Chapter 9. "Judicial Review". He had a 30-year career in the political science department at University of Chicago, then an emeritus career at University of California, Santa Barbara. He authored the landmark publications, "The Roosevelt Court: a study in judicial politics and values, 1937-1947", and "Public law and judicial behavior", 1968. Pritchit was a groundbreaking scholar of enormous influence in studies to better understand how judges actually decide cases, and why. The American Political Science Association's "Law and Courts Section" award's an annual "C. Herman Pritchit Award", named in his honor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

BOX - "authors" amended

The article box had the authors of the Constitution as the "delegates of the Philadelphia Convention". The attribution is amended to "twelve state delegations in Philadelphia Convention". The document is signed, "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present". Of course, editors may personally view using a private source as more compelling. Wiley Washington wryly wrote in his diary that night, "signed by eleven states and Mr. Hamilton". But I prefer to use a style describing the authors as they did themselves for the public on the public document in the WP summary article box titled the "United States Constitution" (that document). Mr. Hamilton as an individual delegate might be duly ref-noted if an editor challenges, referencing General Washington's dairy. But I would rather not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

collapsed tables - members & Marshall

To avoid the clutter of tables which can contain interesting and informative detailed information, I have added two more collapsed tables to the previous Ratification by state, one concerning the members of Convention, the other members of the Marshall Court.

The first is members of the Convention. I have added to the signers table found elsewhere on WP to include those present and refusing (3), and those absent (13). Absentees are not distinguished between great advocates of the Constitution such as Wythe, and great opponents such as Lansing. That is the work of another day to footnote or otherwise tag each absentee, or color-code the font, or perhaps provide a second related table of the reasons of those not signing, and their eventual support in state ratification conventions, and subsequent national and state office.

The second new collapsed table is the Marshall Court. this is taken from a table of all U.S. Justices which is found elsewhere on WP. It includes the Justices on the bench at Marshall's appointment, two of whom are illustrated in our article, and those appointed throughout Marshall's service, including two illustrated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a list of constitutional scholars?

Wondering whether anybody knows this or should we have such an article. I'm trying to contact them on a related project here but I only know of a handful. Can be in the US, Britain or elsewhere actually.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Restore 'First government' pix

The “First government” text refers to events during the Articles government. The pictures illustrated paragraphs, per WP policy. Third paragraph described British forts on American soil, illustrated, and Barbary Pirates, illustrated. Fourth paragraph addressed domestic disorder, illustrated.

Nevertheless, the illustrations were crowding the text. The pix were out of text sequence, which might have lead a reader to miss their relevance.

The section is reformatted to conform with illustration elsewhere in the article. The two international pix are aligned in a gallery with appropriate captions, aligned with their paragraph. 'Disruption' pic is aligned with its text. Visual impact of the pix is no longer overwhelming.

An improvement, I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to the reader

Note to the reader box is added to invite the first timer to spend ten minutes to see the article through. It seems best for a lengthening article, though still WP "readable".

Table of contents might show the next level, but that pegs the first section off the top two screens. Can ToC be broken into columns to allow for expansion without visually disrupting the continuity of the article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The note to reader box makes no sense to me. "Icebergs"? "Illustration captions can be read in 10 minutes?" It needs to be edited or removed completely. If it was intended to invite a new reader or a Wikipedia novice with some meaningful instruction, it failed miserably. -143.43.203.89 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it made no sense -- I removed it for now. TheVirginiaHistorian -- I've noticed your work over the past few months and it's fantastic and much appreciated. However, I think special notes are necessary in the encyclopedia article; they can figure out on their own to skim the article if they like. --CapitalR (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thrashing around a little here. But on a related matter, is the logo in the Wikisource box really so small that it is unrecognizable? I find it strikingly beautiful graphics. Can we enlarge it a bit so that the "tip of the iceberg" image is apparent to the casual reader scanning down a page? Maybe half as large as the Great Seal logo on the project box? And, point of personal privilege, if you read only the captions, the entire article is read in ten minutes. I timed it. In the meantime, thanks for expanding the TOC limit. That addresses my expressed concern. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

Although the U.S. Constitution is regularly mistaken to be "The Supreme Law" of the Untied States, it is in fact not. It is only how the government should be run, and it protects the rights that a U.S. Citizen has.

The constitution is not the laws, it only sets it up so that we can have laws and rights, and a government that functions the way that our founding fathers envisioned it running.

Lightsignal (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the substance of your comment. The understanding that there can be no "Supreme Law" is a noble philosophical tradition. There are still threads of it throughout American jurisprudence, as when a jury finds a defendant guilty, then awards no penalty for a law it does not believe to bring justice in the case, as a matter of equity. For instance, In Tennessee, Scopes was fined one-dollar for teaching evolution. This was the same rationale used by a judge to declare the Union dissolved before the South Carolina legislature did. (There was no referendum to the people among those persuaded that states are sovereign, not people.)

Nevertheless, this article's subject is the U.S. Constitution, which allows itself, to be the "Supreme law of the land" prima facie. The phrase is from the days of Magna Carta, and a time of customary law ruling most of English courts. The topic in most libraries, history of the English Constitution, will lead you to fascinating variety. Without a will, Common Law holds 1/3 goes to the widow, 2/3 to the children, however many they may be. In some shires, it was all to the widow, in others, all to the children.

The article fails you in not discussing the evolution of "fundamental law" and its adoption by the people in the states of the newly created Union, at a minimum of nine, begun with eleven, then thirteen ... whatever may have been the England of Edward Coke in 1616. And again, we preserve for ourselves, from the work of Coke and many threads from many sources, the right to silence in a court of law.

And again from Coke, his compelling maxim, "A man's home is his castle", with all the rights to privacy only the nobility enjoyed at the time for every man, and now, for us, for every man and woman and child. We are not asea and adrift, we are grounded, even rooted in the best of the past. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: in the literature, "modern English history" means after 1066. Before William the Conqueror, under Anlgo-Saxon customary law was, if one of my kin is killed by one of yours, justice is served if one of my kin kills one of yours. see Hatfield–McCoy feud for a 20th C. American example. Early in Norman rule, murder became a crime against the Crown, not the deceased family. The accused went before a King's court. The jury was empaneled by twelve peers. Thus if you were an accused baron with ten men-at-arms, the jury had 120 at their command. The king needed no standing army to enforce the jury's decision, the sheriff had immediate resort to an armed posse, and the Normans won the affection of the great mass of the people, who otherwise lived under a feudal order where the lord could literally get away with murder. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Constitution needs to be expanded. Researched development of a subsection on "no supreme law" would surely be welcome by WP editors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Judicial review: intro pix and new category

A gallery illustration for the ‘Judicial review’ section is added. Chase Court and Taft Court are pictured in the intro section. The titles, ‘Chase Court’ and ‘Taft Court’ are referenced to discussion of the Court significance found in their respective Chief Justice WP biographies. The ‘interpreted Reconstruction’ and ‘incorporated Amendments’ are referenced to the WP list of court cases in each Court, along with a link to explain ‘incorporation’.

In the introductory section, a detailed sentence on the Marshall Court is deleted as it was included in the ‘Establishment’ section.

A balanced way to treat judicial review would be to address accomplishments made by innovative courts as this doctrine was developed. The earlier section ‘civil rights’ is deleted. The new section ‘Subsequent Courts’ follows the ‘Establishment’ section discussing the Marshall Court in judicial review. Other courts to be considered in the context of judicial review are the Chase Court, the Taft Court, the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dead-end"

The phrase "dead-end" is used 3 times in the article, but is it clearly defined? It seems to be used as if the meaning is generally understood, but "dead-end" may be a term of art that requires a sentence of explanation. It is unclear to me what dead-ends are. Neufer (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, too colloquial for an encyclopedia article. Nullified sounds like a historical crisis, voided sounds judicial. So, 'abandoned' is the next try. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Re-allocate power" revision

Careful readers could not connect the dots in the "Re-allocate power" section as written. Illustrations seemed unconnected to densely written text which too closely tracked a single academic author. I have added two additional sources, reordered some of the sentences, tightened up the narrative, provided transitions, supplied sub-headers, restored two deleted illustrations, added a third, and extended the narrative to better explain the difficulties that the Convention faced in sorting out the new "sovereignty of the people" in new federal allocations of power. I think it is improved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

TOC revision, continued

Edit headers throughout to 1-3 words per WP style, simplify and rewrite intro and transitions for “Work of the Convention” into “Sessions” into “Convening”. Under Convention “sessions” is now clustered ‘convening’, ‘agenda’, and ‘slavery in debate’.

In ‘original text’, repeating “Article” for seven subsection titles is against WP policy. The enumeration of seven items as a list confers no meaningful information in a list so short. The titles of the articles of the Constitution are named and linked by official titles “Article One”, etc. at each subsection. A table of contents is not a list of official titles. The same edit is repeated for the word “amendments” throughout the ‘Amendments’ section for same reason, as was done for “Constitution” throughout in an earlier edit for the same reason.

Demote ‘slavery in debate’ into ‘sessions’ because it was not resolved in convention. Demote “time ran out” as one of the ‘abandoned’ amendments clustered with ‘quit by practice’ and ‘quit by policy’. Demote “separation of powers” under “judicial review”, a practice which developed as it became “established”.

There are now seven major divisions. Each major division has 2-4 sections. Each section has 0, 1, 2 or 3 sub-sections ... a more conceptually rigorous outline, I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pegging TOC left, floating 2-column galleries, allows for illustrating the Table of Contents with two ,representative pix from each of the first six major divisions, excluding "criticism" only. All INFOBOX text remains unchanged, though earlier parchment dimension is lessened 20px to align spacing. For a browser narrower than outlook, the INFOBOX will narrow the first pair to one illustration, then the sixth division, "worldwide" pops below the TOC holding its gallery=2 without a break in the article continuity. Works for expansion of screen out to MacBook dimensions. Continued header cleanup per WP:STYLE manual. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Demote all one-item subcategories for article structure/outline rigor and clarity. Allow gallery title to denote particular topics in text, so dropping four fourth-level headers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New Constitution for United States

Many have asked and I shall here confirm that Citizens of These United States are drafting a new Constitution. The authority for a new Constitution emanates from the Founding Fathers of These United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776, in that Great City of Philadelphia.

To wit: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

We, the People of These United States, call upon The States of the United States, jointly and severally, to enact Article V of the United States Constitution and to revise, refine, and restore to the People of These United States the penumbral Constitutional “Right of the People and to alter or abolish” the United States government and “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

We the Citizens of These United States call upon all Citizens and Residents of These United States to join this petition and declare the United States Congress in Contempt of the People for its Betrayal of Public Will and Conscience. The United States Congress has become synonymous with Tyranny and Injustice, its members salaciously putting first their selfish fiscal welfare and to the detriment of the Rights of the People. Throughout These United States and, indeed, the World, the government of the United States of America has become synonymous with Corruption, Illegitimate Secrecy, and Betrayal of Public Confidence. Against the Will and Interests of the People in Peace, Justice, and Prosperity, the United States government has forsaken its primary duties to Safety and Happiness, usurping the Privilege of Office for personal greed and a standard of living alien to those they have sworn to represent, even divesting themselves of the Responsibility to adhere to the laws they pass.

Therefore, We the People of these United States declare the United States Congress in Contempt of the People and call upon the States of These United States to convene a convention as authorized in Article V of the United States constitution. We call upon the Leaders of those several movements now known as the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, and all People of These United States and, indeed, the World to join this Declaration of Contempt of the United States Congress. We call for the States of These United States to invoke Article V of the United States constitution to restore to the People of the United States a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE, representing Justice and Equality for all in a form, “as to them shall seem most likely to effect” the Safety and Happiness of the People of These Fifty United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Math5577 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As a Manifesto, please note that the Declaration is in the traditional form of an Indictment which includes a Bill of particulars. This has none. There is an interesting WP article on calling a new Convention, at convention to propose amendments. All states but Hawaii have called for one, and seriously, 32 of the required 34 were concerted together in the 80s for a balanced budget requirement. The previously enacted law requiring a Balanced Budget co-sponsored by Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin and Sen. Harry F. Byrd, Jr. of Virginia, in the 70s did fail. No Congress can bind a succeeding Congress by law, since the people are sovereign, not the legislature. Hence current interest in an Amendment, that is, a fundamental law directly from the people to bind Members of Congress.

This, like the proposal by an editor above to include a thesis in the body of the article that "there is no fundamental law", is properly an aspect of the Criticism of the Constitution, which if properly researched, would be welcome by WP editors as an expansion of the "Criticism" section. Additionally, I think that there has been a national convention of third-tier parties such as those for Libertarians and Native Americans for self-governance which have more recently met more than one year, and so may meet the encyclopedia "significance" threshold (?) to be included.

As the overly long manifesto now reads here, an unkind WP editor may unceremoniously delete it without explanation for being overlong, or worse, WP:SOAPBOX, if it is not to lead to some sort of actual contribution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirates text = Pirates pix

Broadcast101 has returned to delete the same illustrations as before, and more, as "unrelated" to the text. For instance, the first section speaks of the international situation in the first government including (a) British Forts and (b) Barbary Pirates. Deleted pix include (a) a contemporary British Fort on U.S. soil with descriptive caption, and (b) a contemporary Barbary Pirate attack on a French flagged vessel with descriptive narrative.

Caption includes the observation that the French paid the extortion (a word attributed to the pirate activity by source Pauline Maier). The comparison of U.S. and French experience and policy concerning the Barbary Pirates is made by source scholar Pauline Maier, cited in the text with an inline reference.

• The Articles government had difficulties in their international relations as a sovereign nation, as seen by nationalist contemporaries, and similarly assessed by modern political science scholars of nation-states. They were unsatisfactory in many dimensions. British Forts on U.S. soil trading with Amerindians within the boundaries ceded by Britain was a problem. Barbary Pirates seizing U.S. shipping in international waters, demanding extortion, taking possession of ships, cargoes, and enslaving U.S. citizens was a problem. They should be illustrated with the subject images as significant, of interest and relevant.
• Wikimedia Commons has illustrations immediately available for use in the article. There may be better illustrations extant. Editors are invited to download them following WP policy and substitute the better illustrations. Lacking that, they should be illustrated with the subject images.

Is there any sourced discussion as to the inclusion of British Forts and Barbary Pirates in the text? Is there any sourced discussion as to the veracity of the illustrations as characterized in the illustrations as found on Wikimedia Commons? Both referenced text and referenced illustrations concern the same subject matter, at the same place, in the same time.

In what way is "Barbary Pirates" text not related to "Barbary Pirates" illustration? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

too many little pictures ?

These faces are not vanity cameos. They represent substantially different points of view. Those who suggest that the Constitutional Convention was a conspiracy against the pure revolutionaries of 1776 insist that the secrecy in Convention was covering a monolithic cabal. To picture only one point of view for each topic is to conform to their “hubris”. The nationalist of 1787 were not “borderline sacrosanct” but neither were the “Old Patriots” of ’76, nor the Secessionists of 1860, for that matter.

Captions are written to reflect the diversity of positions represented of the text in a clear, graphically related four-pane-matrix, each related to the others. Editors will recognize this systematic approach from philosophy, social science and business school textbooks. In the case of the Great Compromise illustration, there are two examples of unicameral legislature proposals, two examples of bicameral. One state-only apportionment, one people directly only. Two pictured are mixed people and state apportionment: one is apportioned by two ratios of population only, one (adopted) was mixed apportionment with population variations and state equality. Where sources allowed, I chose a diverse regional representation so that all opinions were not pictured as coming from one section, ancestry worship being a problem in history bias as editors and in judicial ruling as interpreters of the Constitution (a critical scholarly insight reflected in the 'judicial review' section as written.)

In an effort to minimize the graphic impact of the illustrations, 2-row galleries are used, trying to maintain the editorial discipline of limiting each to 1-2-or-3 lines of captions, minimizing the lettering further by using full sized font for the first line title. The result is the WP:style balance of illustrations, spaced through the text. One does not bleed into the adjacent section's text. There is no wall of pictures as in a list or a wikimedia commons feature. the illustrations do not dodge left and right to cram oversized pictures into too-little-text. We can review the illustrations for these kinds of WP guidelines, resizing, deleting or extending text as we discuss the article together.

Since inclusion of every illustration is substantiated by scholarship cited in the accompanying text, any deletion as "unrelated" to the cited text needs to be substantiated with a preponderance of scholarship to the contrary, that the illustration is not majority or influencial at the time. The article may be better served by including the adverse point of view in the text which takes exception to the expressed point of view pictured, rather than asserting in hubris that any picture of a point of view disagreed to by a challenging editor needs to be redacted.

It may be that an editor does not like direct election of president, so picturing its advocate in Convention, James Wilson, as equal in importance to Madison is objected to. Nevertheless, there were those even in Virginia who were persuaded to the idea,

One place where substantial minority views needs attending to as the article is now written, is in the "Judicial review" section, since dissenters in one Court have written so compellingly that there is a later majority holding in a subsequent court ruling that their interpretation applies.

• Rather than delete illustrations, please tag them with a “needs citation” along with a comment in the discussion about what is found lacking, and a source disputing the subject’s inclusion in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures, mentoring, article improvement

(note: I copied this from my talk page, which had the title Mentoring an editor request, since it relates to this article.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your mentoring me in a situation so that it does not degenerate into an editing war. I've been working on U.S. Constitution for a few months. Trying to build a better encyclopedia article. Most of my edits are correcting and improving my own contributions. My only serious push-back came early on when an editor did not want pictures of Asians or the full-blooded Indio Mexican President Benito Juarez, something about this was an article about America, and these faces were not American. I did the research to source U.S. Constitutional influence on each pictured individuals, in the case of Sun Yat-sen, both a Taiwanese scholar and a mainland Chinese scholar. The editor relented in his criticism of foreign faces as "not relevant.". Virtually every other editorial contribution has improved the article, including the one that blanked my "Note to the Reader" box ... long story.

When I see something sketchy, I try to enlarge on it. So, a while back someone tried to blank out "translations" on the grounds, they said, Everybody knows it got translated drop it, or words to that effect. The original listing of translations seemed to be related to Broadcaster101. It still can be found on his Talk Page. So, anyhow, I did research, opened up the scope, expanded the section with sources, improved the presentation format, and did not change a thing in the original contribution, preserving it, then protecting from future assault by placing it in a larger context of the article structure, which is my favorite thing to do with worthy stubs which are unreasonably attacked with the intent of blanking. I would think that Broadcaster101 would see me as a colleague.

Well, a few months have passed and Broadcaster101 has recently deleted pics in the article. I amended formats, enlarged sources, added transitions, tightened up narrative. He has returned to delete the same illustrations and more as "unrelated" to the text. For instance, the first section speaks of the international situation in the first government including (a) British Forts and (b) Barbary Pirates. Newly deleted pix include (a) a contemporary British Fort on U.S. soil with descriptive caption, and (b) a contemporary Barbary Pirate attack on a French flagged vessel with descriptive narrative. It includes the observation that the French paid the extortion (a word attributed to the pirate activity with comparison of U.S. and French experience and policy by source scholar Pauline Maier, cited in the text with an inline reference).

If there is a common element among most of the Broadcast101 deleted illustration, it is those with international context! I understand that edit wars hurt an article's status in the eyes of WP senior editors. On the article itself, there is still lots of work still to do, like research and extend the place-holder text in "fundamental law" section, and writing the 'original text' bullets into a narrative, and footnote cleanup, and citing footnote sources in references, etc., etc. But one of the article notices had it that the piece may be under consideration for "featured article" status in the near future. Any suggestions on how to proceed to restore the text illustrations and avoid an edit war? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring an editor request? ??? Since you're a rather experienced contributor here at Wikipedia, what I'm sensing is that you're wanting me to side with you in a dispute about pictures on the article United States Constitution. Generally I do not like to get entangled in disputes, but at the same time, skimming the article, and noting that it is a highly read article (8000 readers/day sometimes) then it may be worth it for me working on it in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From my experience here at Wikipedia, one of the most difficult -- but rewarding -- challenges for contributing is to work with other sharp people here, and there are many, including yourself and Broadcaster101, and learning to respect Broadcaster's judgment about things too. Simply put: we don't know everything. None of us are experts here (even the so-called "experts"). We need to take into account the views of others. They bring a different perspective, sometimes contrary to our own, yet it is important to listen to their suggestions and try to value their views, and work out what is best. Sometimes they're right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My sense is the article is (Nov 22 2011) nowhere near Featured Article status. My rough sense is there are too many small pictures -- mugs of players -- and too much focus on the history of the Constitution (there is a separate well-read article on that more specific topic). And the article is not really impartial since it somewhat reflects (in my view) a hubris that the US constitution is borderline sacrosanct. The criticism is buried at the bottom. A big question in contemporary politics today is: is the 1787 Constitution to be interpreted literally, what some scholars call original intent meaning what the Framers intended back then? Or is it a living document which morphs based on new developments particularly what Supreme Court justices say it is? (or some kind of balance?) This issue should have more ink, in my view. Further, I would like to see more discussion about the architecture of government -- choices, analysis of how the parts work together, and such. And the way to improve it is for us to keep learning, to study constitutional scholars more seriously who write about the US constitution, and more viewpoints perhaps from college textbooks analyzing the constitution. Finding good secondary resources invariably improves an article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why I like working against you, even though I do not remember your ever agreeing with me. Every exchange we have is like a splash of cold water to wake me up. I was not fishing for support. You have been around the block, and I wondered if you could share a strategy with me that you have used to avoid an editing war, even though you and I do not agree on most things. I take it that the short answer is no, you have no suggestion to avoid an editing war to assist in the U.S. Constitution article.

I am not an experienced editor. I have never been in an edit war, for instance. I do not even know best practices footnote code which the experienced editor brings to the table. I am still stumbling around in op.cit., for instance. One editor here gave me a suggestion, and I intend to systematically go through the notes updating the notation. I may be striving for excellence, but I am neither delusional nor a straw man.

I want to illustrate important points embarrassing to the Articles government which might explain why anyone in their right mind might consider something else in 1787. 1783-1788 was not the golden age of the American republic. There are other sources on the origins and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution besides Jefferson Davis’ “Rise and Fall of the Confederacy”. Considering how much we all have to learn, do I understand from your discussion that until Broadcaster101 shows some sourcing on the subject, his undocumented deletions without discussion should simply be hit with the (undo)? Please read the rationale offered above on Pirates text = Pirates pix.

I was hoping it would not come to that, since I have avoided it in three other disagreements in other articles. Broadcaster101 has not, twice now, shown any judgment that you so glowingly attribute to Wikipedia editor exchanges, only capricious fiat. I thought there might be a technique you use to elicit points of view other than your own. I take it that the short answer is no, you have no reconciling strategy to share with me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to look above, into your comments, to search for any hints that perhaps you might be somewhat open-minded about the views of others such as Broadcaster101 or myself. Rather, you seem dismissive (eg "Broadcaster101 has not, twice now, shown any judgment..."). And so if you're asking me for a strategy to avoid an edit war, it's this: please try to become more tolerant, more open-minded; please try to listen to others; Broadcaster101 was trying to tell you something by deleting the pictures. Why not listen? And please try to be civil. Does this answer your question?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your courtesy of reply. My views are openly expressed and meet WP standards:

(a) article illustrations relate directly to the text, (b) text is sourced and adjacent as spacing allows, (c) illustrations are evenly spaced in the text, (d) illustrations are limited to three, usually two illustrations per Outlook screen, (e) illustrations do not interrupt the flow of text crossing the 20% width mark on an Outlook browser or wider, (f) they are aligned right to avoid zigzag across the page, (g) they are not bleeding into the section below, (h) captions are titled in full font, subsidiary information in < small >, (i) captions link the reader to additional WP articles or extended notes in the article for background. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

For a delightful treatise/memoir/instruction guide for folks "trying to tell" something to dogs, see Jennifer Arnold's "Through a Dog's Eyes", ISBN 978-1-4000-6888-3. It seems that when we swat a dog across the snout without any instruction, all it does is instill fear without understanding. wow. self-revelation at wikipedia. clarifying. regrets to all. see sections below on style and images for use in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

it is what it is

The underlying premise of the article is only that its adherents, the Federal and State officers, elected and appointed, operate on the assumption that it is “supreme law of the land.” Editors may object that there is nothing to swear to, and that there nothing compelling about an oath. Nevertheless, regardless of these interesting and important questions, I humbly suggest that it is enough to examine the nature of the Constitution as fundamental law in a democratic republic used to administer a modern nation-state.

For the purposes of the article, it is what it is. In several places, at the end of a section, there is a paragraph devoted to critics specifically addressing the topic of the sub-seciton. ‘’’Criticism’’’ of the Constitution as a whole should be expanded at the end of the descriptive narrative. Researched sub-sections should address at least these points,

(a) There is no fundamental law, so the Constitution cannot be an example of it.

(b) Moves in the past for an Article V petition to initiate a modern Constitutional Convention addressing its widely understood flaws in structure and operation. The last was 1980s that got 32 of the required 34 on the issue of balanced budget amendment (see discussion above).

(c) Current moves to build an Article V coalition for calling a convention by state legislatures among disparate third-party movements, from Libertarians to Amerindian self-governance advocates. These address the shortcomings which do not provide for permanent minorities.

(d) Non-amendment, state-sponsored, systemic change in selecting the president. Double-digit state legislation has enacted it (2011). When a majority of the popular vote is cast for a candidate, all electoral votes in the endorsing states, are thrown to the majority in the popular vote. This ensures popular vote majority winner apart from state voters or the undemocratic Electoral College.

(e) a cluster of academic critiques relative to the operation of the Constitution and its operation for its failure to provide a wider participating democracy, addressing shortcomings in state registration, voting procedures, and counting practice.

(f) a cluster of academic critiques relative to the operation of the Constitution and it’s operation for its failure to provide for coherent, authentic political communities of underlying social and economic reality, addressing state Congressional gerrymandering in particular. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also add Tom's Topic: the "original intent" critique versus the "living document" of judicial review, or, just maybe, under judicial review below 'separation of powers', becoming 4.2.3? Tomwsulcer, what say you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Image guide – add, subtract and substitute

These article guidelines have been taken from WP style sheets, WP:ACCESS and WP essays. They should be followed until a consensus substitutes other WP manual elements. “Generally” denotes my contribution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Add an image

Selection. Article images (a) relate directly to the text, (b) the text is referenced to a reliable source.

Sizing. Minimize the graphic impact of the images on text. (a) Do not allow images to interrupt the flow of text. (b) Do not cross the 40% width on an Outlook browser. Generally that translates to a 2-row width gallery.

Image Captions. (a) Concisely describe the meaning of the image in a caption. (b) Link the reader to additional WP articles or extended notes in the article for background. (c) Use a full-size title, generally one < small > font reduction for descriptors as space requires. Generally limit captions to 1-2-or-3 lines. (d) Detailed descriptions can be supplied by either (1) the image description, or (2) more generally, a footnote in the article.

Include an alt attribute for the image. (a) Even an empty one is a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. (b) If additional alt text, refer to the caption or adjacent text.

Placement. Images are adjacent to text as spacing allows. (a) Images are within the respective sub-section or the section introduction, after the heading and other articles links. (b) They are not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section. (c) Images are spaced evenly in the text of each section, align images right to meet access standards.

Overall view. Follow WP:ACCESS. Generally, as an editor begins an edit to a section, the effect of these guidelines should be reviewed and exceptions posted to the Talk page. Adjacent images can be resized or deleted if they have become redundant with the new image, or text can be extended.

Galleries

A gallery section illustrates aspects of a topic that cannot be easily described by text or individual images. (a) Collectively they must have encyclopedic value, adding to topic understanding. (b) The gallery is to be clear, precise and engaging. While 1750–1795 in fashion is the WP example of a “good use of galleries”, the arrangements violate accessibility guidelines. It is disruptive of the text continuity. Generally, there is not enough text to support the numbers of images.

The gallery caption connects the image to the text and to the gallery theme. (a) The gallery is titled unless the context is clear from the adjacent text. (b) Generally, if properly done, this can eliminate the clutter of level-5 Table of Contents categories.

All tables are collapsed to give accessibility to the text. (a) Title description enables those unable to see the image to gain some understanding of the concept. Charts or diagrams have (a) text equivalent, or (b) title description. See WP:ACCESS.

Substitution

Generally, editors are encouraged to find better images (a) in Wikimedia commons, or (b) download additional resources into Wikimedia commons and apply them to existing image galleries in the article.

Removal

Since proper inclusion of every image is substantiated by scholarship cited in the accompanying text, any deletion needs to be substantiated with a preponderance of scholarship to justify its omission. The sources must demonstrate that the subject is not either (a) a substantial element of the topic at the time or (b) it never becomes influential in the future.

Editors who object to the inclusion of an image as being incomplete or partial can better serve the article by including the adverse point of view in the text, and either (a) provide a footnote in the caption with extended remarks with an WP article or external link, or (b) as space allows, directly add an exception in the caption with a link to another WP article.

Collegiality

When an image issue is raised, (a) Tag an image at issue with a “needs citation”. (b) Add a comment in the Talk section about what is found lacking, along with at least one source disputing the subject’s prominence or influence. (c) If possible, contact the editor who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns. You may be able to resolve the issue at this point. (d) If a copyright violation is found, use WP guidelines for contact, notice and tag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)