The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This article discusses the People who created the Constitution, the liberties it originally grantedguarded, and the protections it continues to provide. Should we specify that "the People" were a small number of powerful white men, that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and that "protections" do not apply to colonized subjects?      — Freoh 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC); 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Yes, as the creator of this RfC, I think that we should specify. As I've argued at length in several sections above, this information is covered in several reliable sources and deserves due weight.      — Freoh 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify and summarize, here are the sources I've previously tried citing:

  • Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.
  • Collier, Christopher; Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1987. New York: Random House. p. 103. ISBN 978-0394-52346-0.
  • Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712. The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
  • Zuberi, Tukufu (July 2011). "Critical Race Theory of Society". Connecticut Law Review. 43 (5): 1575 – via HeinOnline.
  • Bell, Derrick (2008). And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7867-2269-3. OCLC 784885619.
  • Finkelman, Paul (2014-04-09). Slavery and the Founders (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. ix. doi:10.4324/9781315720869. ISBN 978-1-315-72086-9.
  • Immerwahr, Daniel (2019). How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-71512-0. OCLC 1086608761. The Constitution's references to 'the United States,' the argument continued, were meant in that narrow sense, to refer to the states alone. Territories thus had no right to constitutional protections, for the simple reason that the Constitution didn't apply to them. As one justice summarized the logic, the Constitution was 'the supreme law of the land,' but the territories were 'not part of the "land."'
  • Rolnick, Addie C. (June 2022). "Indigenous Subjects". Yale Law Journal. 131 (8): 2652–2758.

       — Freoh 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This statement of the issue does not strike me as being a neutral statement of the issue. I do think the article should include information about who was considered to be part of "the people" and how the concept of "the people" has changed over the course of the Constitution's long life as a foundational document. I think it should include discussions of what was meant by liberties and protections and, again, how those concepts have evolved over the last ~200 years. I do not, however, think the footnotes discussed in the several sections above are the proper way to discuss these topics. These discussions need more than a footnote that reads like the article is attempting to argue with itself. They need to be handled with context and nuance and sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Between this talk page, associated user talk pages, and the NPOV noticeboard, it seems Freoh has been attempting to implement these changes for months without being able to find any meaningful support for them. As others have pointed out, these edits are subjective and would effectively insert opinion/interpretation into the article. In line with what ONUnicorn said above, there are ways to provide encyclopedic coverage of the role the Constitution has played historically without turning the article into a referendum or a critique. I think Penlite's comments on this talk page back in December said pretty much everything that needed to be said. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this opinion/interpretation? I'm trying to limit this information to concrete facts with wide coverage in reliable sources.      — Freoh 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The wide coverage referred to includes some Fringe Theories but more importantly Freoh's roundup totally ignores sources that represent the prevailing view, specifically works by distinguished authors such as Ellis, Wood, Bernstein, Rakove, Ferling, Farrand, Maier, Jensen, Bowen, and Beeman. These works, which can be accessed through the Internet Archive via the article's bibliography, focus on the framing of the Constitution and generally concur on the concrete facts as well as their meaning. Allreet (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Constitution does not pretend to be perfect, and never did. Right from the very start, it recognised that limitation, which is why Article V was included, and this facility has been used no less than 27 times in the last 231 years. Indeed, the words "more perfect" are right there in the preamble - and not the words "completely perfect". The people who drafted the Constitution were (and the lawmakers still are) striving for a Utopia that they knew would not happen straightaway, but which, given the right decisions and policies, could be achievable some day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the People and liberty, I'm talking mostly about § History and § Original frame. Historically, the Constitution protected slavery, even if it later outlawed it. Also, Wikipedia policy forbids discussing policies just because they "could be achievable some day".      — Freoh 01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  100% agree that the constitution is not perfect. So we should mention the areas in which it was not perfect. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• the problem is due weight: this is an issue so much written about that it is possible to cite many many sources for almost any viewpoint; but overall, oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - liberties arn't granted by the constitution. A number of liberties are codified there mostly through the amendment process which produced the bill or rights etc. That aside yeah un due weight and neutrality issues with the wording of this proposal. Context can be shown in the article text that the founders were white, mostly wealthy, and accepting of slavery though. BogLogs (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed the wording from "granted" to "guarded."      — Freoh 12:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose although historical context somewhere should be discussed, but this specific version is substantially inaccurate. New Jersey, for example, stripped African Americans of the right to vote a few years after the constitution was written, meaning they could vote before that. New York similarly imposed burdensome property requirements on black voters, which again is a piece of racist history but also shows they did get that right in some circumstances. The nominator also states that it doesn't apply to US territories, but that again is not a full truth. Incorporated territories do fall under constitutional protection and the stop at that level is traditionally where territories move to before becoming states, it's refered to as incorporated. A territory can be organized or unorganized (referring to if it's been set up with a government) and incorporated or unincorporated (referring to if the constitution applies). There's an unorganized, incorporated territory existing today, and another territory that in any other period of US history would have moved to the organized, incorporated box by now, and a litany of historical examples of US incorporated territories. The proposal fails to adequately summarize the situation and historical context of this. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was focused on colonized subjects. The U.S. currently has no inhabited incorporated territory, so I thought this was a valid simplification, but I'm open to clarifying the distinction between the two.      — Freoh 12:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that the vast majority of US territories become states eventually, noting that whether the constitution applies to a territory or not depends on an arbitrary decision by a body not composed of a voting representative from that territory is something I would support somewhere in the text provided it's drafted by someone more skilled in encyclopedic language then I. Likewise, placing in proper context that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty leaves the fact that they also weren't seen as being required either as a plain consequence and I would support that sort of language. The reasons I opposed don't represent any sort of philosophical opposition and with a more fully developed proposal in a 2nd RfC that follows the suggestions above is very much something I wod support. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good, I'll take this feedback into account for a more fleshed-out and specific proposal. While I agree that restrictions of the franchise for certain groups like free blacks weren't seen by the courts as a violation of some sense of liberty, I'm not sure how much decisions made by the courts fall within the scope of this article; I was talking more about the apparent contradiction within the Constitution itself – that is, the fact that the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery in the name of securing "Liberty".      — Freoh 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a prior history of involvement in politics at a functional level, so that may be coloring my responses in that I tend to view the Constitution in terms of that- it's function and the interactions between people and government or branch of government and each other. That's also why my first comment highlighted what was the practical outcomes on those deficiencies you illustrated. I see now we were talking at something of crossed purposes and apologize for not picking that up sooner. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree the question is not neutral, but everyone should be able to sort out what is. Absolutely, the People, the enslaved, liberties and powerful white men should be discussed. Just as certainly, this exploration should reflect the prevailing view of the subject and address perspectives outside of this, all in accordance with WP:NPOV's guidelines regarding neutrality, balance, and due weight. However, the recent footnotes inserted into the article - scroll to the Preamble section - fail on every count, including their selective use of sources. While both edits raise legitimate issues, they also ignore what the vast majority of sources have to say, especially regarding the fact that limiting slavery would have doomed the Constitution and the Union. Based on the lengthy discussions above and on the NPOV Preamble Dispute page, I believe these edits and Freoh's "proposal" reflect his personal POV and thus violate WP:NPOV. Note: while the footnotes have been deleted, the related dispute template remains on the article, and it is my hope this RfC will result in its removal. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons already stated above. The context here is not so black and white, no pun intended. Scapulus^takk 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support in principle, in the form of footnotes, but not with the loaded terminology like "powerful white men" and political catchphrases like "colonized subjects". In Freoh's prior proposals there were problems with WP:WTW things like "asserted" which comes off as "claimed", "elite", etc. it just doesn't have an encyclopedic tone but more comes off as a politically charged college essay. In the foot notes we can attribute observations to a specific WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NPROF/WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:RS or phrase them neutrally. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – There is probably a place in the Wikipedia universe for articles on whether the words of the preamble allowed people to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, or whether, as some have it, those words (especially "we the people") facilitated later inclusion and democratization. Also, a discussion on how the demographic makeup of the convention may have caused others to be unfairly misrepresented could be had, but elsewhere, possibly linked to from this article. But these blunt and simplistic footnotes are not warranted where they've been placed, and are somewhat insulting (as though people don't know there was slavery on a racial basis), as well as vague (what constitutes "powerful white men" and how did they use their power?) and even racially fetishistic (why mention their race when race is supposed to be an artificial construct, and when religious, economic, and class differences probably were equally, if not more, important?). Dhtwiki (talk)
• Oppose as WP:NPOV fail. The topic is more complex than this. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree with @Fad Ariff. The topic is far more complex than this. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think it's important to give readers a sense of the scope at the time it was ratified. The sad fact is that early learners are not always aware of these caveats. Δπ (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my points in the Discussion below. I usually hope that everyone involved in RfC's which have discussion sections considers reading them. This one has interesting things being brought up that I didn't know. For instance, which major Founder should have been thrown into debtor's prison but wasn't (answer below)? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, the limited and selective proposed language carries undue weight, as the Framers could also be sourced as intelligent, trustworthy (by those who appointed them to serve in this endeavor), dedicated, patriotic, and many other descriptors. Use them all or use none. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, because those are facts backed up by RS. But something like "The rights and protections listed in the constitution were limited to white men, and did not extend to other groups such as ..." would be much better than "powerful white men oppressing colonized subjects. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support USA isn't a perfect democracy or a perfect liberty, and it never was. There are some Americans (especially those in jail for example) who don't have protections and liberties Some random serbian (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in these terms. The article should explain the constitutional provisions' effectivites without loaded terminology. Sennalen (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose-Per Sennalen. From the OP's post, it's a little unclear how specifically these changes are to be placed into the article. It seems that the article is already fairly clear to me about who the people were who created the Constitution, and it is difficult to determine what these changes will do other than add politically charged and non-neutral language to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in current form, primarily on NPOV grounds. The idea of mentioning such type of stuff has been politicized, and risks violating NPOV. If written in a manner such as "some scholars and many backers of the American Democratic Party believe this", while giving due weight to the opposite side (Republicans), I would likely support its inclusion, but the execution of such in its present form would be to politically jarring for the project. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but not in these terms. One of the most commonly commented on aspect in modern times is the distance between the 'universality' of the document's phrasing and its relatively narrow implementation (male, white, adult) but The article should explain the constitutional provisions … without loaded terminology per Sennalen. How to balance historical perspective and modern sensibility/reaction needs much more nuanced content than this proposal. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The term "powerful white men", given the scope of today's socio-political anti-male climate, obviously comes off divisive and that this is somehow unfair or unusual. As such the term would play on the sentiments of many (not all) women and Blacks. It's like saying the Chinese government was founded by "powerful Asian men", or that the Greek democracy was founded by "powerful Greek men". Also, many of the Framers were not necessarily "powerful", as if they were all rich and had the potential to be dictators. Many of the Founders had humble beginnings, and this sort of divisive phrase would also ignore that. .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The framers were disproportionately wealthy, politically powerful, and universally white men. My proposed wording doesn't say powerful white men specifically.      — Freoh 02:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the framers were intelligent and business minded. That was an asset, as structuring a government and making it a viable success incorporates the same worldly mindset. Some were wealthy, but not filthy and worldly rich, like the European kings and bankers lurking behind the scenes, who chartered most of the plantations, and whose output, i.e.cotton and tobacco, largely went to Europe, esp Britain and France, right up until the Civil War. i.e.Proportionately, little to do with the Founders. What sort of government would have been founded if all the framers were simple, naive and idealistic farmers and merchants? In any case, the phrase "powerful white men" is inaccurate, divisive and misleading for reasons mentioned above, and ignores much for any objective account of these people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - Like Pincrete, I support the principal but not the terms suggested. I think elaboration in the prose might be warranted, but not in the loaded way suggested. - Aoidh (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aoidh, did you see the proposed wording below? Could you explain what you think is loaded?      — Freoh 01:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did see them. They are unsuitible for that much emphasis, as my understanding of reliable sources as a whole is that this emphasis on this definition of who "the people" were is not consistently elaborated on to the point that it need be in the summary of the preamble in that way. Elaborated at some point perhaps, but the above and below proposals are not the best ways to handle that issue in my mind. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have to present information in the same way as all of our sources. I would argue that referring to the 2.5% of supporters as the people is a misleading euphemism, because it could reasonably be significantly misinterpreted to mean that most people supported the ratification. This eleven-word clarification is widely covered in reliable sources. How would you support the principle in different terms?      — Freoh 14:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SSF is about style and titling which isn't relevant here since this is about content, and WP:SSF certainly doesn't supersede WP:DUE. I have stated above what I would suggest. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I find Freoh's arguments on this point, here and in previous discussions, to be thoroughly unconvincing, and largely agree with Allreet's various posts on this page. We should use the most representative, reputable sources for this article, and this proposal would move us away from that, by failing to properly contextualise the relevant issues. DFlhb (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not as worded in the RFC and not through footnotes. Either the information is DUE inclusion or its not. Don't hide it in footnotes if it is. Additionally, Freoh should have done a better job at WP:RFCBEFORE and consulted with experienced editors on how to word and propose the RFC. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ixtal, did you see the proposed wording in the discussion below?      — Freoh 01:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Freoh, I don't believe it appropriate for me to vote on an option not presented at the top of an RFC. In any case, I would vote against the proposed wording as I believe mentioning the founding fathers as white men is best left for a second or third paragraph of the lead. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Ixtal. — At this point in time, unfortunately, the idea of "while male" is so often put out there as some derogatory sort of an entity, which ignores the idea that in any given country the inhabitants were largely homogeneous, be it Asian, Japan the Middle east, etc. "Powerful white males" in the colonies set up the most free nation in the history of the world, where many thousands of people, trying to escape religious and political persecution, came to the new world, and to also start a new life where, beforehand, kings, lords, and their bankers, had for several centuries oppressed or smited these people to one extent or another, usually to the greater. There was very little middle class in Europe and elsewhere. In America, the middle class comprised the greater portion of the population, by far, for the first time in human history, and with a Constitution they had a voice, with 'teeth' in it. It's unfortunate that enslaved Africans didn't come into the fold right off, but throughout history, racial and cultural barriers were overcome slowly, and today, here we are, still the most free nation on the planet. Okay, guess I'm on a soapbox here, but that's actually the glaring truth, imo, and this perspective needs to be better reflected in any proposal that attempts to put out the idea that "powerful white males", or any other such phrase, in a callous manner, authored the Constitution. Many Founders were mindful of these advents, which is well covered in the Founding fathers of America article, that several editors here, for quite some time, have been forging. A visit to the talk page there might give you a better idea of the debates, sometimes heated, but insightful, that occurred there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Aspects of this proposal are POV, particularly the "a small number of powerful" bit. While the Founders weren't particularly thinking about people of color or women, many of them clearly intended that most or all white men should take part in the republic.

And the bit about "colonized subjects" -- see Insular area#Citizenship -- this is POV, and there seems to be a consensus to oppose the proposal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your speculation about the Founders' intentions, the small number of white men and the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects are facts,^[1][2] not points of view.      — Freoh 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is where it should be mentioned. In the NPOV noticeboard Freoh was asking for it to be in the lede of Preamble to the United States Constitution. I did some quick searches to see how the Preamble was discussed and even the ACLU's page, such as it was, made no mention of these issues - it was one of the top results but it just listed the text. The question is a matter of WP:DUE weight. For it to be in the lede it would have to be prevalent in surface level discussions of the topic. These topics are mentioned in the Criticisms section, is that not adequate to give DUE weight to them? The RFC seems somewhat malformed because the article does already mention this. Freoh, where else do you want it mentioned, the lede, the main body of the article? Can you be more specific about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: just because you had one too many tildes in your sig invocation and theres only a date showing. But for a substantive comment, I'd also like to see proposed text, which is usually standard in RfC's like this. The proposal as is suffers from the issue of being oversimplified to the point of just being wrong, as I point out in my contribution to the survey. That could very well just be an artifact of how its been summarized for the RfC. Placed in proper context and with accurate background I could see myself supporting it. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was ever asking for it to be in the lede. My main concern is that the People, liberty, and protections are fairly vague terms (and somewhat abused by propaganda), so ideally the "to whom" would be clarified as soon as these terms are discussed in the body of this article, but I'm not very particular. I've made a few proposals trying to get this information included, but they've been shot down as "fringe theories". I was trying to use this RfC to draw attention to the fact that this information is widely-covered and noncontroversial, and that the article could be significantly more specific, but I see now that I made my summary too concise. Here are my past proposals:

• I have a proposal for addressing the lack of protections for colonized subjects. Insular areas are already mentioned, but given all of the content in this article about "protections," I think that it would be helpful to discuss the lack of constitutional protections for colonized subjects specifically.
• For the People, I originally proposed an in-text mention. When this was reverted, I proposed a footnote instead, but this was also deleted.
• For Liberty, I again proposed a footnote, hoping that this would be less controversial than an in-text mention, but this was also deleted.

Again, I'm not picky about where this content is mentioned. But I reject the notion that this information is a "fringe theory" – I haven't seen anything that contradicts it, just different historians who focus on different aspects of the history. I'm also open to re-wording this information in a more neutral way, though I'd like to point out that my wording doesn't fit the description of "editorializing" in Wikipedia's guidelines, and I'd argue that the labels of "protections", "liberty", and "the people" are at least somewhat value-laden.      — Freoh 13:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh: Oh I apologize, I had not paid close enough attention in the noticeboard discussion and thought it was about the lede. I think it would be reasonable to include footnotes discussing these issues. I would say be careful on the phrasing not to load the discussion with things like asserted that the elite delegates to the convention represented the general American populace - this word choice does seem to be editorializing. Asserted there is getting awfully close to "claimed" which is the quintessential example in WP:NPOV of WP:WTW. That the word asserted was already there does not change this. We could attribute such characterizations to certain writers, or phrase things completely neutrally without trying to inject that kind of tone and insinuation. Similarly so constitutional protections do not extend to colonized subjects uses a certain loaded and shall we say specialized terminology and we should avoid any such phrasing. Aside from the phrasing I support what you are aiming for. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh and DIYeditor: Footnotes are intended to provide additional information—they can't introduce large issues or offer sweeping conclusions on their own. Freoh is correct that mainstream sources don't contradict the facts of his sources. What he's missing is that the body of scholarship offers a more complete picture and then a different view of those facts. The subject of powerful white men and 18th century politics, for example, has been explored by dozens of sources over the course of hundreds of pages. And that's a far smaller matter than the issues the other footnote raises: liberty, protections, slavery. I agree these topics should be addressed, just not this way. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So where should they be addressed and should the primary mention of the topics which Freoh is concerned with make no reference to these other issues? I have seen varying types of information in footnotes over the years, including some that offered contradictory information that wasn't included in the main body of the text. I'm not familiar with manuals of style or standard practices on it. As far as Wikipedia:

Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:

references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,

explanatory information, or

source information for tables and other elements.

Footnotes or shortened footnotes may be used at the editor's discretion in accordance with the guideline on Variation in citation methods.

And I don't such more more explicit direction than that about what information can be conveyed there (but I may have missed it). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor and Freoh: These issues should be addressed in relevant sections, and given their importance and complexity, with greater depth. Footnotes are clearly not the way to do that. Allreet (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, keeping in mind what I have said about phrasing and tone. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor, how would you prefer that we refer to colonized subjects? I'm just using the terminology in the sources I'm using; is there another term that you think is more standard or neutral? What about it is "loaded"?      — Freoh 20:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any particular one of these phrasings that you used, and perhaps that one is fine, but why is it not "colonial subjects" instead of "colonized subjects"? The people weren't colonized, the land was, and it was probably done before many of them were even alive. Could as easily be "conquered persons" or "noncitizens" or "alien residents" or something - not that these are used in sources, just saying there are many possible ways to phrase it. Do all sources on the early history of the US use "colonized subjects" or is it sources taking a particular approach? Is this a new way of phrasing things or long standing? Even "colonial subjects" sounds to me like how persons subject to the British Empire were described, not noncitizen inhabitants of the United States and its territories.

Since we are putting it in Wikipedia's voice we should use the most standard terminology and I don't remember histories I read in the past using the term "colonized subjects", FWIW. It would be fine to attribute (or quote) precisely what your sources have said as what they have said, but Wikipedia's voice should be free of quasi-neologisms and "engineered" terms of recent design, particularly keeping in mind that we are paraphrasing, not quoting (except when it's a quote). I see now that Dhtwiki had exactly the same concerns as I about your phrasings, and I had not seen what they had written. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with colonial subjects. As I previously stated in an earlier discussion, I'm not talking about the early history of the US. The US didn't have unincorporated territories in its early history, but it does today.      — Freoh 11:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonial subjects" would be fine, if we were talking about the British Empire and its colonies, and I believe would actually be the standard phrasing. The people in question were not in colonies of the United States, but in its home territory. I will look into this more but my impression right now is that "noncitizens" would be a good choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US government doesn't refer to its empire as colonies of the United States because colonialism is unpopular, but independent academics do refer to these as colonies. I don't think that "noncitizens" would be appropriate because some of these colonized subjects have been officially granted citizenship by Congress.      — Freoh 12:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be equivocating here. You just above said you were referring to a time when the US didn't have unincorporated territories and to the very early history of the US (the time of the writing of the Constitution), and now you seem to be referring to a time when it did ("American imperialism"). Also you were specific about "unincorporated" territories in your reply, but I had said only "territories", so I'm not sure what you were correcting.

If someone was granted citizenship they would have rights under the Constitution, wouldn't they? And are you again equivocating about time period?

That some sources may take a critical view of the US does not mean that is the prevailing view (or terminology) in the sources we are relying on for most of the article. We can attribute these views ("So-and-so has characterized such-and-such as being this-and-that") but to state it in Wikipedia's voice we need to use the prevailing terminology and viewpoint expressed by the majority of sources, or a neutral paraphrasing along those lines if we aren't using their exact terms. We might not even be able to attribute "colonized subjects" without quotes because it is not a literal expression, the persons were not colonized. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic strikes me as being outside this conversation, even though it's referenced in the RfC's opening question. At best the points raised might warrant mention in a subparagraph, but for what reason I can't fathom in terms of WP:N and the Constitution's development. Is there another article, for example, on constitutional law, where it would be more relevant? Allreet (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that this was too much for a single RfC. These are really three separate issues:

• The fact that the People were all powerful white men is most relevant to the 1787 constitutional convention.
• The fact that liberty did not extend to enslaved Africans is most relevant to the first 20 years of the Constitution, when the legality of the slave trade was constitutionally enforced.
• The fact that protections do not extend to colonial subjects is most relevant after the Insular Cases of 1901, when the Supreme Court formally ruled that Constitutional protections do not apply to residents of the recently conquered colonies (regardless of whether these residents were citizens). This is still true today.

I'm not sure what the prevailing terminology is for colonial subjects. I'm basing my terminology off of the sources that I'm using, which probably differs from the official U.S. government terminology.      — Freoh 11:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two facts are widely accepted and have been explored extensively by scholars, particularly the second, slavery. Just before you filed the RfC, I pointed out that slavery isn't even mentioned in the article until half way through. You agreed and suggested that addressing this would require a lot of time reading a lot of sources. I'm doing that and taking copious notes as I go. I'm hoping others will do the same.

The other fact, powerful white men, is more problematic since it's a pejorative characterization and the view expressed in your footnote is inaccurate. The convention and the Constitution's ratification were part of a political process in which the the People were represented.

Of course, the convention's outcome was most unfavorable for the fifth of the population not spoken for, namely enslaved and indigenous peoples. We need to address that. The larger question is, given the politics and the times could we have expected more? The prevailing view is probably not. In any case, all we can do is try to provide a balanced account of what most sources say occurred. Allreet (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to do, add balance to an article that makes simplistic generalizations. The opinion that the People were represented is controversial and should be attributed if mentioned. I don't see how powerful white men is pejorative; lots of sources comment on the fact that all of these delegates were white, male, and powerful, but I'm open to wording it differently.      — Freoh 14:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because choosing just one aspect and not-easily-defined descriptor, "powerful", seems undue. They were also intelligent, civic-minded, literate (not a universal trait in the late 18th century), influential, revolutionary, brave, white men. "Powerful" really doesn't describe anything outside of each reader's perception of the word, it does not contain enough specificity. As for some of your other concerns, please realize that the constitution was written to be self-correcting. The amendment process eventually corrected the slavery issue. It is understood in the literature that the Framers could not have ended slavery in 1787 because the constitution would not have been approved, the attempt to write a new constitution would have ended there in Independence Hall, and even if written the document would not have been ratified by the required states. The new nation was not ready to address the issue but, as mentioned, did leave within the document a way to eventually do so (after a war 73 years later, where hundreds of thousands of men died keeping the founder's and nation's promise of a perpetual union). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing them as intelligent is an opinion, but there's plenty of objective evidence (and coverage in reliable sources) that these men were disproportionately wealthy and held powerful political offices. And again, when I'm talking about the People, I'm talking about the 1787 political convention, and the sections § History and § Original frame, so I don't see how later political activity is relevant.      — Freoh 14:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being selected by their fellow state leaders to attend the convention can also be described as trustworthiness. That they crafted a document and a government the likes of which the world had never seen before, a government which stopped the import of slaves in 17 years, historically ended legally accepted slavery in 78, and has stood up to time and distress for a quarter of a millennium to, for example, accomplish 182 years later what would have been considered a miracle at the time, men walking on the Moon, makes their intelligence as a volunteer crowd source obvious. So yes, intelligence as a descriptor also fits, as do many others. Add a few of those and you've got a good sentence. The "later political activity", a step-by-step refining of the union, was built into the document as inevitable given time, because the Constitution provided for its own self-correction. That seems to have everything to do with relevancy. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh, your footnotes are hardly scholarly observations. As another editor pointed out about the slavery footnote, it's as if readers didn't know slavery existed back then and it needed to be brought to their attention. The same would go for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and company. People need to be told they were not only powerful but white and male. Uh, your point? Allreet (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facts...should take priority if there's some point to be made, as well as an effort to tell the whole truth. The related facts: Most of these guys made substantial financial sacrifices to do what they did, and a fair number of them—particularly Washington and Jefferson—were land (and slave) rich but cash poor. Only a few founders were extremely wealthy, your opinion, and none in the sense that we use the term. Robert Morris (the so-called financier of the Revolution) would be the closest example of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but the other side is that he ended up in debtor's prison and died a pauper. Jefferson? He had to sell his extensive library to make ends meet and also died deeply in debt. He should have been in debtor's prison, too, except nobody had the chutzpah to foreclose on one of the foundingest of fathers. Allreet (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm talking about their status at the time of the 1787 convention, so I don't see how their later financial troubles are relevant here. Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly contradict these?

As we shall see in more detail later, the United States was a "deferential" society, in which a small elite of the wealthy and wellborn expected to lead, and in fact were expected by the people to do so. To a considerable extent, the very people to whom the poor farmers owed money were also the judges who convicted them and the colonels who called out the militia to enforce the decrees.
— ^[3]

Edmund Morgan sums up the class nature of the Revolution this way: "The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established." Looking at the situation after the Revolution, Richard Morris comments: "Everywhere one finds inequality." He finds "the people" of "We the people of the United States" (a phrase coined by the very rich Gouverneur Morris) did not mean Indians or blacks or women or white servants. In fact, there were more indentured servants than ever, and the Revolution "did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage."
— Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States (New ed.). New York. p. 84. ISBN 0-06-052842-7. OCLC 1150994955.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The new rhetoric of citizenship was a white, masculine language. The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution (and its 1791 bill of rights) that, amidst all its discussion of representative government and individual liberties, implicitly excluded African-Americans from that government and explicitly protected the institution of slavery. The racial inferiority of African-Americans was judged to make them mentally and emotionally unfit for citizenship.
— Westerkamp, Marilyn J. (2002). "Taming the Spirit: Female Leadership Roles in the American Awakenings, 1730–1830". In Lovegrove, Deryck W. (ed.). The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge. p. 106. ISBN 0-203-16650-7. OCLC 54492712.

     — Freoh 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even necessarily a matter of contradicting them. As far as stating in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing, we need to go by WP:DUE which is going to require the analysis of how a broad range of sources characterize things. WP:CHERRY picking a few sources that you agree with doesn't work. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that this is a fringe theory? These are five reputable historians and highly reliable sources. Most of the facts in this article are supported by only one source. If you are arguing that I'm "cherry picking", then please provide evidence.      — Freoh 17:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If 20 prominent sources take a less critical view of an issue that would outweigh 3-5 of a more critical nature. The Colliers are more or less in agreement with the prevailing view; Zinn and Westerkamp are not. Call the latter what you want, but their perspectives are not exactly mainstream and hardly justify your stand-alone one-liner. So the question is, what do you propose doing with this alternative viewpoint? Allreet (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh: You asserted that the people were not represented, yet Collier contradicts this and says the small elite of the wealthy and wellborn was expected to lead...by the people. So what are you saying? Westerkamp talks about the new rhetoric of citizenship...a white, masculine language. What was so new in 1787 about either the language of the founders or a male-dominated society? Of course other sources don't contradict this; they report it but without editorializing in the directions you favor.

And no kidding blacks and indigenous were excluded. They still are, but that's not our axe to grind. Oddly enough, for all the inequality back then, there was less poverty in the Americas than in England and Europe as a whole. And despite property requirements, four-fifths of white males could vote for whom they wanted as representatives.

As for contradicting Zinn, many scholars do. WP's article on his People's History cites a round-up of sources who contend his is a black-and-white story of elite villains and oppressed victims. Matter of fact, sounds very much like your own approach.

DIYeditor hit the nail on the head. The views you've emphasized—with the same three sources over and over—need to be addressed in accordance with WP:DUE. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Morris's "We the People of the United States" essay: The sentence Everywhere one finds inequality is used out of context. The meaning Zinn is trying to convey is different from what Morris says leading up to and following the quote (pages 5-6). Zinn's view is also contradicted by Morris's general premise (page 2): Public sentiment clearly dictated the replacement of an unresponsive and corrupt monarchical system by a republic founded on public morality and, through the elective system and representative institutions, recognizing the sovereignty of the people.
• Morgan's "Conflict and Consensus in the American Revolution" essay: Immediately before the passage Zinn quotes, Morgan wrote (page 292): The Revolution probably increased social mobility temporarily both upward and downward, ruining the fortunes of many established families and opening opportunities for speedy ascent by daring upstarts. This very mobility engendered, as it always has, political disputes, but seldom along class lines. As for the passage itself, Morgan clearly says the dispute was between members of an upper class: the new against the established, not between upper and lower classes (benefitting one to the detriment of the other).

As for another refutation, in the book that includes Morgan's essay is an essay by Bernard Bailyn on "The Central Themes of the American Revolution". Bailyn's premise is at distinct odds with Zinn's view and yours (page 28):

Everywhere in America the principle prevailed that in a free community the purpose of institutions is to liberate men, not to confine them, and to give them the substance and the spirit to stand firm before the forces that would restrict them. To see in the Founders' failure to destroy chattel slavery the opposite belief, or some self-delusive hypocrisy that somehow condemns as false the liberal character of the Revolution—to see in the Declaration of Independence a statement of principles that was meant to apply only to whites and that was ignored even by its author in its application to slavery, and to believe that the purpose of the Constitution was to sustain aristocracy and perpetuate black bondage—is, I believe, to fundamentally misread the history of the time.

Allreet (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should be prioritizing facts over opinions. These broad and vague questions—whether the People were represented and whether the Constitution was actually liberating—are ultimately opinions on which there is disagreement. Polling favorable versus critical sources is beside the point. The fact that the Framers were largely wealthy and powerful elites is an uncontroversial fact with lots of coverage. I'll work on a new proposal that addresses some of the issues people have raised here.      — Freoh 11:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do the preponderance of sources from across the years say "wealthy and powerful elites" or "upper class" or "landowning" or even "gentry" or something else? I mean all the sources on the topic, not just the ones you are preferring to draw from. I'm still getting a sense of trying to force the use of a certain terminology rather than mere facts. If we could separate the facts from the potentially loaded phrasing, as was discussed above, I think there would be less room for disagreement on the inclusion of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do multiple sources emphasize "wealthy and powerful elites"? No. I've searched dozens of sources from the bibliography, and the words are all but absent as a phrase, and the subject, rarely mentioned as a factor in the outcome. True, all of this has had lots of coverage, but so far, Freoh has referenced just three sources, one of which doesn't have much to say about this small elite of the wealthy and wellborn and two of which indulge primarily in polemics, that is, opinion over fact.

Based on the numerous sources I've reviewed, the people as a whole were well represented. While significant groups were excluded, a greater portion of the population had a say in the end result than in other revolution up to that time. Similarly, the Constitution did a better job in liberating people than any previous document of its kind. As for polling favorable versus critical sources being beside the point. I disagree, since that's how we determine "the prevailing view" and with that our editorial directions. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to rewording; do you have suggestions? The criterion for inclusion is not that the information has to be addressed in the preponderance of sources. DIYeditor, are you suggesting that we should delete any facts in this article backed by fewer than three sources? Allreet, are you saying that it is just an opinion that the Framers controlled disproportionate wealth and power?      — Freoh 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, even a single WP:RS can be fine. The question is WP:DUE and if the view or phrasing is contradicted or not held by other WP:RSs on the same topic. If, just for illustration I'm not saying this is the case, 20 of the best RSs refer only to the democracy of the Constitution and 1 source refers to it as a tool of "powerful white men" or "elites" then that view will probably need to be attributed rather that stated as a simple fact. Omission of the characterizations found in a minority of sources may be as good as contradiction. I think you have consistently skirted around the issues of WP:DUE (and possibly WP:NPOV as a whole). Why do you object to the use of attribution to secure the inclusion of the sources and POVs you want to see represented? Seems better than not having them included at all.

As to the wording it will take some research on my part. I believe I've usually seen it phrased as something like "white landowning males" or "white male landowners" broadly speaking (as to whom the Constitution initially protected the rights and interests of). —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep this neutral, and I'm not opposed to mentioning that the Constitution laid out a democratic republic. I was thinking that was already clear enough from statements like with the people voting for representatives. The Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, and I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the Framers were powerful white men.      — Freoh 16:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh and DIYeditor: I've said several times that I don't regard these issues as matters of opinion; the disagreement is over how the facts should be addressed. As for sources, a single source is okay in some instances, but with fringe views, even multiple sources can be given short shrift or simply ignored, depending on other factors. This happens to be the case with Zinn and Westerkamp, who are not just reporting the founders' wealthy status but are editorializing about it. The prevailing view is closer to Collier and Collier's thought: the people expected those of high standing to lead.

I was about to post the above, when Freoh issued his latest assertion, that the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy. Here, finally, is what the dispute over wealthy elites is actually about. For everyone's edification, Charles Beard introduced this idea, about the Constitution benefiting the 1%, in 1913 with An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The concept was later adopted by Howard Zinn and other ideologues intent on lambasting the Constitution as a conspiracy benefiting the rich. Beard has since been debunked by leading scholars, starting with Bernard Bailyn of Harvard and more recently by Amar Akhil Reed of Yale. Allreet (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Zinn and Westerkamp have opinions does not make their facts unreliable.      — Freoh 23:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say their facts were unreliable. The opinions they offer based on those facts are not because both have political axes to grind. What we're getting, then, is not history but polemics. My question is what are your sources for the Constitution was designed to achieve a balance between democracy and aristocracy, because that also sounds more like political theory than fact? Allreet (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting history. That the facts are presented alongside relevant opinions does not make the facts any less historical.      — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These terms (democracy and republic) are etymologically and historically synonymous and gained this nuance you assert primarily through the views of Madison which were not even widely accepted in his time, or since then. Clearly the US government is both democratic and a democracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the U.S. Constitution, which uses the words 'republican form of government". I'm not using nuance, these are the words of the document. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no difference in meaning between the words. I suggest you read this Britannica article thoroughly. Being a republic is not exclusive of being a democracy, in fact, they are interchangeable words to most people. The distinction you're making is often cited by some people and I'm not quite sure why, but I don't think holds much weight linguistically or in real world use of the word "democracy". —DIYeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've using the definition of "representative democracy" for "democracy". I'm citing the Constitution. This is a tangential non-argument anyway, as the RfC is not about what is or isn't labeled a 'democracy' in form or function. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh, I get what you're saying about the facts, except the opinions are not relevant if they're not true or accurate. So if you said in a sentence, "Nearly all of the delegates were wealthy", fine, because it's accurate. If you said what Westerkamp does, The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution, that's only her opinion and it's not accurate since most mainstream sources would disagree. As for Zinn, who expresses something similar by quoting others, he is misrepresenting what those sources say, as I've already pointed out. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have finally convinced some people that this deserves due weight. I'll make the wording of my proposal more explicit:

How's this? I'm avoiding footnotes and sticking to mainstream facts. Is this neutral enough?      — Freoh 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what ties the characterization of the demographics of the (purported) representatives and "the people" in that sentence to the "We the People" in the prior? Shouldn't we say that they were acting as representatives? Would you mind quoting the material from the sources you are relying on for the new sentence? Also, the scare quotes or whatever the intended purpose of the quotes around "the people" seems contrary to MOS. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think we should use the word aristocratic to describe them. They specifically rejected the concept of nobility in sections 9 and 10. Yes, many of them were members of noble families under British rule, and accepting a broader definition of aristocracy, they could be described as such, but using that word in this context inaccurately implies that the concept of a hereditary ruling class was one that was to continue under the goverment the constitution established. Despite the fact that these were wealthy white men who would have been part of the ruling class regardless, they were attempting to create a government that rejected the concept of a "ruling class" or distinctions based on heredity. Yes, for all their talk of equality, they weren't there as regards women or non-white persons, and even made distinctions among white men who owned land vs. those who didn't, but using the word "aristocratic" to describe them in the context of attempting to define who "the people" were implies a continuation of a type of social stratification they were attempting to eliminate. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreover, I don't think this discussion is well integrated in your proposed text. The individuals who attended the convention considered themselves the people's representatives - they did not think "the people" were limited to those who attended the convention. I think we need to try to define who "the people" when the constitution refers to "the people", and that is different than who the persons were that attended the convention and drafted the document. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is We the People left out and de-linked, which link redirects to Preamble to the United States Constitution? That is a fairly comprehensive article but almost exclusively relies on official court judgments, not academic scholarship, to interpret those words, which is probably how we should be limiting our commentary at this article. It's an especially glaring omission given that "the people" are referenced later on in the text. Scholarly interpretations belong in other articles, ones dealing with, say, the nature of 18th century American society. And "aristocratic" is just as bad, if not worse, than "powerful". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 02:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) and 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  I now see that the Preamble article is linked by sectional hatnote, but "We the People" should be restored, but without being linked. Also, Founding Fathers of the United States has considerable information on the demographics of the founders. This article should mirror/summarize it. Many of the same editors here edit at that article. So, they would probably voice at least some of the same objections there to what is proposed here, and suggestions should be made at the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, before I'm going to agree to any wording I am going to have to look more into what is really out there. As I have said, my recollection is that the sources I have seen cover this describe the people fully protected by the Constitution as "white male landowners". I think it would be ok to include some mention of the fact that there was some assumption about who "the people" were, assuming we can find good sources that make that observation in relation to the time the Constitution was ratified. I wish that Freoh would take a deeper dive into this and provide some varied sources (and direct quotes of them for discussion), since Freoh seems to be highly interested in some change to how this is presented. It seems like in this case the onus is on them to make a case for it. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither neutral, nor encyclopedic. The portrayal of the framers as aristocrats is biased as well as outside the mainstream. Two of the sources, Zinn and Westerkamp, have political aims and are editorializing. Zinn says It is pretended..."we the people" wrote that document. But the Preamble doesn't say this. It says the people do ordain what follows, which they did during the ratification process, directly in some states and through representatives in others. As for Westerkamp, no mainstream scholar concurs with this: The social and economic needs of the white moneyed classes, north and south, resulted in a 1787 constitution. ONUnicorn is correct, then, in his analysis that the framers represented "the people" and rejected concepts of "nobility", "aristocracy", and the like. Allreet (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aristocracy is afaik a synonym for nobility. I thought otherwise and made a category for people without noble titles and called it aristocracy but really that is not accurate. They mean the same thing. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand they're the same. Freoh's POV, in any case, is to present the framers as aristocrats who wrote the Constitution to benefit their economic interests. That's Zinn's and Westerkamp's view and it's being imposed on the Preamble, even though most scholars disagree. For more on the subject, start with Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution, which devotes its first 50 pages to the Preamble. But if you want a quick synopsis (and awakening), read the opening page (page 5 which electronically could show up as 20) and then the first paragraph on page 472. Allreet (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (how did this RfC get hijacked into, what, a new RfC?), as the proposed wording comes off as snarly, as a major change in Wikipedia's voice, and unless you miscopied something it reads as if you want to remove the words and link We the People in the lead sentence. The finely crafted lead paragraph needs no change towards opinion unless much more is added to balance out such undue wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The sentence you propose to insert is, with respect, blatant POV, and not really accurate. It suggests that the Framers were basically a cabal of property owners making their own rules, rather than representatives of a democratic (if stratified and unequal -- but Athens and Rome were much more so) process. But thanks for making a more specific proposal! RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed We the People to eliminate redundancy: it is already linked and quoted in § Preamble, both in the text and in the image caption. I think ONUnicorn brings up a good point, that there are a few different notions of "representation" that sometimes get blurred: whether the demographics of the convention corresponded to the general American population, whether the delegates were legitimately representing their people, and whether the government itself is sufficiently democratic. I am having some trouble differentiating this concisely, so it seems to me that the best solution here is to keep the politics of the convention in § 1787 drafting, and limit this section to describing the results, so that it can mostly be in present tense, like the other sections in § Original frame. Given that this article is already too long (as Jim.henderson previously mentioned), I think some trimming could be helpful. How's this?

I originally used the word aristocratic because that was the wording used in my source, but I think it's only appropriate if we're focusing on the convention itself.      — Freoh 16:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just tack on "...although only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators", with suitable citations, to the end of "that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy" in the original, without further rearrangement, and you might come close to something that's acceptable. And I don't know why we need to reference Howard Zinn on this. He's not a consensus historian, even if reading him will knock you on your ass. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this works better than the original, and the RfC seems a snow close to not use the suggested wording. Continuing to change words and putting up new proposals within this RfC itself seems to indicate that the nominator knows the change has not passed and is now doing a form of forum-shopping, interestingly, within the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this proposal not "acceptable"? Given that this article is too long, we should be working to shorten it, not lengthen it.      — Freoh 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed text is unacceptable. My counter-proposal would cause the article to be lengthened. I have to agree with Randy Kryn, and there is, generally, so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — The proposed phrase—only propertied white men could originally vote for legislators—is not acceptable because it's intended as a criticism and no mainstream historian would start a discussion of the Preamble this way. There are other problems. Graeber's The Democracy Project doesn't mention the Preamble. Zinn's A People's History does (pp. 632, 684) but he's addressing convention delegates and other issues. For the most part, all three sources seem to be focused on class warfare, a fringe theme, though all I can access on Westerkamp is the quote previously provided. Finally, the phrase is misleading: three states had already dropped property requirements by 1787, while New York did so specifically for a direct vote on ratification. Allreet (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point about the misleading wording, though I don't see how the existence of property qualifications is a fringe opinion. Allreet, I'll reword it to account for the few states that did allow poor white men to vote for legislators and limit it to sources focused on "We the People". Dhtwiki and Randy Kryn, I'll drop my length and link duplication concerns from this RfC and cover it later in another talk section. How's this?

  The opening words, "We the People", represented a new thought: the idea that the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy,^[4][5] though historians estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification.^[16][17][18] Coined by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who chaired the convention's Committee of Style, the phrase is considered an improvement on the section's original draft which followed the word we with a list of the 13 states.^[6][7] In addition, in place of the names of the states, Morris provided a summary of the Constitution's six goals, none of which were mentioned originally.^[19][12]

Is this better?      — Freoh 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, in comparison with the original, it's better. However, it's still too negative for what should be a neutral, straightforward introduction. It's akin to starting with, "The Constitution, while it created a frame of government that's survived two centuries, really didn't represent the views of the people." Later on you could explore this, but not in the first sentence. It's still pushing a political POV that seeks to shine a dark light on most everything. As for what's fringe, I couldn't have been more explicit. Zinn and Graeber are focused on class warfare—the rich versus the poor—as a theme, which is far afield from the prevailing view.

None of this strikes me as being in the interests of readers. What would serve those interests IMO would be to document what's missing in the first half of the article, the number one issue in 1787 and one that more than any other determined both the short and long-term outcomes: slavery. Here's where we need to be critical of the founders, not condemnatory but not forgiving either. As for additional issues of relevance, the congress.gov source you provided parallels the editorial direction of most sources. One example: Patrick Henry questioned who authorized the framers to speak for the people. His point and the response should be addressed because it's highly notable, which is why it's part of the consensus approach to the Constitution's story. Allreet (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "though less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification" is either particularly negative or against the interests of the reader, assuming it is properly cited and accurate. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor, the phrase may not be negative per se but its placement in the lede is. Of all the things to write about the Preamble, is this among the most notable, one of the 3-4 things readers should know immediately? Does any other historian begin their discussion of the Preamble on such a note? What's not in the interests of readers is Freoh's consistently negative approach, for example, the phrasing "the people were the source of the government's legitimacy, but not really".

A straightforward treatment, the one followed by most historians, is to describe the Preamble in neutral terms and then provide details that flesh out the story. I cannot access the source so I have no idea what it says about the 3% but on its own it's misleading because it omits a crucial detail: that the people were represented in the Constitution's adoption through legislators they elected. Hence, many people didn't get to vote directly, but that doesn't negate the fact initially stated. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if this is based partly on the number of legislators who voted to ratify it and excludes people who voted for them, that could be quite misleading and that paints it in another light. So the actual enfranchised population was much higher than 3%. At this point I am growing a bit tired of Freoh's approach to this article but I will wait to see their response. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 3% figure is including the people who voted for legislators. About 100 thousand people voted in favor of ratification out of a population of about 4 million.      — Freoh 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of that, Allstreet made addressed the heart of the problem about as convincingly as anyone can. This is not one of the top few things with which nearly any academic historian would begin a discussion of the Constitution or any part of it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to present this information in the same style as our sources. On Wikipedia, facts precede opinions, so we should prioritize the fact that less than 3% of the country was represented over the opinion that the People legitimate the Constitution.      — Freoh 13:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah we do. We give weight to certain facts over others based on how they are presented in reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Well, I guess in light of the policy, I should rephrase. Does it have to be in the same style in the sense that it should look the same and read the same way? No, not necessarily. But the substance has to be the same. So while the tone of our article here might be different than that of sources, we could not, for example, treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do simply because we feel like it. That violates one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to treat a certain subject as being of substantially higher importance than the sources do, and I'm not doing it simply because I feel like it. Are you saying that the legitimacy of the Constitution and the People who voted for it are outside the scope of this article? Which of Wikipedia's most basic principles am I violating, and how?      — Freoh 23:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh You are giving substantially more weight to certain details than most sources do. Based on much of what you've said so far, your motivation in all of this appears to be less than neutral. In your previous proposal, you also misused sources by synthesizing material to come up with a unique phrase not supported by any single source. These would be the primary basic principles of concern. As for your current sources, since I can't access them, I would appreciate if you would provide a quote or passage that indicates only 3% of the population voted to ratify the Constitution or voted for legislators who supported ratification. Allreet (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., Larry G. Simon, The Authority of the Framers of the Constitution: Can Originalist Interpretation Be Justified?, 73 CALIF. L. REV. 1482, 1498 n.44, 1499-1500 & n.48 (1985) (estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution).
— Strauss, David A. (2012–2013). "We the People, They the People, and the Puzzle of Democratic Constitutionalism". Texas Law Review. 91: 1969.

     — Freoh 01:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By 1787, property requirements were being relaxed, so in some states (I'm tied up at the moment and will enumerate them later, with sources) you only needed to be a taxpayer. But in NY state, the requirement was dropped entirely for this occasion. The source also doesn't address legislators who were elected, and most voting was at the state conventions. Meanwhile, the issue was as hot as the presidential election of 2016. Now consider that males would be about half of the population and 4/5 of them were white. Do you have another source, meaning this is fairly weak? Allreet (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:

• "roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification"^[18]
• "See ... Simon, ... estimating that, because only property-holding adult white males were enfranchised, and not all of them supported ratification, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution"^[16]
• "Professor Larry Simon calculates that only about 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the ratification of the Constitution."^[17]
• "According to estimations, only 2.5% of the population of the United States at the time voted in favour of ratifying the Constitution (since only property-holding adult white males were empowered, and not all of them supported ratification)."^[1]
• "See Larry G. Simon, ... (collecting sources and estimating that 'roughly 2.5% of the population voted in favor of the Constitution's ratification')"^[20]

What do you think is weak here? Do your sources give different estimates, or are you arguing based on your own original research?      — Freoh 21:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the weaknesses:

• The five cites provided amount to little more than one source, Larry Simon, since the others all refer to him but say nothing in terms of confirming his "estimate" vis a vis their own research. (This presumes Roznai is also citing Simon.)
• Unable to access the sources provided, I can't determine the validity of the 2.5%, but I do question it in several respects. For one, it's absurdly low, and it's also not clear whether the percentage accounts for states where ratification elections were held versus those where convention delegates were appointed by popularly-elected legislatures.*^[21][22] To get a sense of the numbers, 971 delegates voted for ratification versus 575 against, a 2-1 margin if you average the results in each state (my math is based on Warren's state-by-state results).^[23]
• Related to this, "property qualifications" were not as exclusionary as your sources seem to indicate. It's estimated 60-65% of white males were qualified to vote under state constitutions as either taxpayers or property owners.^[24][25][21]
• Since the framers wanted the people's consent, several states relaxed or eliminated the requirements specifically for the ratification vote.^[26][27][21]
• The greatest weakness here is that you're trying to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Constitution with a handful of sources versus the possibly hundreds of books and papers that accept the document's authority as resting with "We the People".^{[28][29][26][27]}

* One of the complexities in assessing the voting, as Spaulding indicates on page 130: More Anti-Federalists were elected in New York than Federalists, yet the state's convention voted in favor of ratification. Did the Anti-Federalist delegates who "defected" ignore the wishes of voters? You could say that, except by the time of the convention, the required nine states had ratified already, so the decision in New York, as in Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, was also a matter of electing to remain in the Union.Allreet (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allreet, the document's authority as resting with "We the People" is your opinion. As I've previously explained, facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, so we should not exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on your opinions.      — Freoh 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh: My statement about "We the People" is not an opinion, but is based on three of the sources I cited:

• Richard Beeman, page 412: (The Constitution) did recognize "we the people" of the nation as the ultimate source of political authority.
• Murray Dry, page 281: the Constitution was but a proposal until ratified by the people, through specially chosen conventions.
• Akhil Reed Amar, page 5: the Preamble laid the foundation for all that followed. "We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

And contrary to your accusation that I'm trying to exclude facts from Wikipedia simply because they cast doubt on (my) opinions, what I oppose are the statements you're injecting out of context to create false impressions about the Constitution's legitimacy, particularly your footnotes, which I should remind you are the subject of this RfC. The same objection applies to your phrase about the 3%, though what you've proposed is not relevant to the RfC. Allreet (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were opposed to footnotes, so I am trying to incorporate your feedback into my proposal and reach a compromise. Why do you believe that the phrase about the 3% is out of context? I would argue that your partial quote about the ultimate source of political authority is more out of context.      — Freoh 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the 3% should to be attributed per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. As with most of what you have wanted to include, attributing it is the path to getting included which avoids the major problems. Also may be getting into WP:STICK territory here because as far as I can tell you don't have consensus even for the lesser footnote or attribution options, yet keep plowing ahead with bold statements in Wikipedia's voice in somewhat WP:IDHT fashion —DIYeditor (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have edited the proposal to include an attribution. I am aware that I do not have consensus, which is why I am discussing here on the talk page. What specifically do you feel like I am not hearing?      — Freoh 14:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just said this discussion has nothing to do with the RfC. That needs to be heard.

So forgetting what I just said about the RfC and in answer to your question about context, the lead of an article or section is not the appropriate place for introducing novel ideas. The point is, if something is not widely accepted, it doesn't belong in the lead, not as a footnote, not as a phrase. However, assuming the 3% has sufficient support, it would be appropriate to address the assertion later on in a deeper examination of We the People and ratification.

For an idea of what the lead and later discussions should address, primarily, please take a look at the opening chapter of Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography. Besides an overview of the Preamble and the ratification process, you'll find a retort to the phrase rich white men, which Amar points out is used to "mock" the founders. Per WP:LEAD, a mock is something that doesn't belong in a lead either. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh: What's said in the proposal about voting and privilege had little to do with ratification. Those restrictions were either relaxed or dropped in most states for the popular vote. You really do need to read the chapter I recommended. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Freoh: — Agree with Allreet, and with Randy Kryn further above, that we are getting away from the original RfC. It would be foolish to try and define The People and the Signatories with one term or idea, as, wealthy or not, their views, motivations and ideals were significantly diverse. Various historians have expounded on these differences at considerable length. The highly influential Charles A. Beard held that the Founders were largely motivated by economic interests and whose view is well articulated in his work, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Contrasting this view are the essays of Frederick Jackson Turner, also very influential, who outlined in his work, The frontier in American history, that the influence of the frontier, (during the founding era the "frontier" was considered to be the lands stretching west of the eastern seaboard. e.g.upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, western Virginia, etc) and the challenges they presented, were a strong factor in shaping American ideals and the colonial rejection of royalty and hereditary class ruling.

Forrest McDonald, in his 1958 work, p. v, We the people : the economic origins of the Constitution, explains that both Beard and Turner had a remarkable capacity to break away from the dogmatic conventions that often shaped historical interpretations in the early 20th century and were highly influential in shaping later interpretations regarding the Founders, and The People, however, he warned that, as these two men helped to get historians out of one rut, they created another between the two, maintaining that most historians eventually fell somewhere in between the two schools of though held by Turner and Beard. The backgrounds and views of the founders, even if they were all wealthy, vary considerably, and are well documented at this late date, and are embodied in the term We the People. It would be a self defeating endeavor for anyone to attempt to define the founders, and We the People, in terms of race and wealth, or as aristocrats. As such, we should resolve the existing RfC before were further deliberate the merits of other proposals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As ONUnicorn pointed out earler in this conversation, I was admittedly blurring the lines a bit between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who the Framers believed they represented, and the people who actually voted in favor of ratification. In the interest of moving toward a consensus, I have struck through the word "powerful" in the original RfC wording to make this clearer.      — Freoh 16:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be clearer about what I am proposing in regards to liberties. Again, I am not particular about wording, as long as it is clarified that the liberties originally enshrined by the Constitution did not extend to African Americans. Given that people have been opposed to the use of explanatory notes, I am proposing the following more concretely:

I also think that § Article I should mention the constitutional protection of the Atlantic slave trade in some form.      — Freoh 01:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you seem determined to detract attention away from the RfC, and to keep everything in proper context , any such statement should also include that Jefferson, a key Founding Father, went on to outlaw the Atlantic slave trade, which African tribal chiefs were a central part of. You seem to be, imo, more interested in focusing on slaves, than you are over the idea that the Revolution, and ultimately, the Constitution, which opened the door to freedom of religion, speech, the press, etc, inspired other revolutions around the world, starting with the French Revolution, and which also laid the groundwork for national abolition over the states. Unfortunately it took a civil war to effect this. Any such statement, if it actually makes it to the article, will be contextualized with a brief statement in this regard, and I'm sure there will be an overwhelming consensus on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not determined to detract attention away from the RfC. The RfC asks whether this article should specify that the "liberties" did not extend to enslaved Africans, and some editors have objected to a previous attempt to convey this information through explanatory notes, so I am trying to compromise and demonstrate another way that this information can be clarified. I am focusing on slaves at the moment only because this article is not giving slavery the due weight that it deserves. Your synthesis connecting the Constitution to later politics seems outside the scope of this article to me.      — Freoh 15:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really a matter of opinion.  Some sorts of SYNTH are perfectly acceptable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh: My impression is: here we go again. Neither statement is supported by sources, and all we're getting is another attempt at proving your "white" thesis. You just wrongly accused me on my personal Talk page of being disruptive, yet you don't see how counter-productive your three-month crusade of disputes has been. In February, for example, virtually no progress was made on the Constitution article, aside from two paragraphs I added to the lead, and the same is true of the James Madison article.

As Dhtwiki told you earlier, "so much time spent on your proposals for so little gained in enhancing articles". And as DIYeditor just indicated, it's nigh time to put down the stick. We're going nowhere with the POV you're trying to advance, in circles. Accordingly, I am asking the RfC's reviewing editors to address this because it's clear you're intent on continuing despite the consensus of the community. Allreet (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that white men were in power is a fact,^[1] not a thesis. If we are going nowhere, it has more to do with your failure to listen.      — Freoh 12:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a fact that Asian men are in power in China. Your words have been read by all, with your obvious fixation on race. Not agreeing with where you're going with this is not the same as not listening. At this point it seems like you simply want to make some sort of negative gesture about white men being in power. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is negative here? I am trying to keep my wording neutral. Why are you opposed to mentioning the racial issues relevant to the Constitution? Why do you want to discuss liberties without clarifying that they did not extend to African Americans?      — Freoh 01:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposed"? These questions are inappropriate and your issues have been addressed. Saying that the Constitution only pertained to white men, is a misnomer. Slavery had not been abolished at the time of ratification, while the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was based on the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say "whites only", or anything to that effect. If you wish to say the Constitution only pertained to powerful white males, or white men in power, or any other such statement that attempts to infer this idea, out of context, it will come off racially charged and play on the racial sentiments of everyone, and not being entirely naive, I'm sure you know this. Advancing Federal legislation over the states abolishing slavery was put on hold because the entire issue of abolition would have divided the yet to be Union, ruined any chance of ratification, and a civil war would have occurred long before 1860. Many of the founders wanted to do away with slavery as was done in the northern states, but they were not so idealistic as to push the issue on the Federal level at that time. If we're going to include this sort of racial issue it should be presented in this context, as has been already explained for you.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My proposals are for § 1787 drafting and § Influences on the Bill of Rights, so I do not see how the 13th Amendment is relevant here. We should not omit important elements of legal history just because the Constitution was later changed.      — Freoh 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of amendments, including the first ten - the Bill of Rights - occurred because the Constitution was written as a self-correcting document. The only difference between the relevance and legality of the first ten amendments and the thirteenth is the amount of time it took to actively correct and improve the document. All amendments seek to attain a "more perfect union", and the thirteenth, continuing the Constitution's drafting process, did so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that in § 1787 drafting we should present the current (amended) Constitution as if all of the amendments were originally part of the Virginia Plan?      — Freoh 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase rich white men is intentionally derogatory, not a "fact" but an expression of contempt. It's also offered through the lens of Recentism, which focuses on current views to the exclusion of the broader historical context:

"America's Founding gave the world more democracy than the planet had thus far witnessed. Yet many modern Americans, both lawyers and laity, have missed this basic fact. Some mock the Founding Fathers as rich white men who staged a reactionary coup, while others laud the framers as dedicated traditionalists rather than democratic revolutionaries. A prominent modern canard is that the very word 'democracy' was anathema to the Founding generation." — Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography (page 14)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allreet (talk • contribs)

How is this is relevant to the question of whether constitutional liberties extended to African Americans? Randy Kryn's suggestion to write § 1787 drafting based on later amendments is exactly the recentism that I am trying to avoid.      — Freoh 22:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC was initiated over 30 days ago. Furthermore, it seems to me we're no longer discussing the original RFC but have veered into the consideration of proposals that are only somewhat related. Freoh, please see Ending RFCs for the procedure to follow for closing the RFC, provided you believe relevant discussion has run its course and consensus has been reached. If the steps for closing are not clear, I'm sure the WP:Help desk can provide the necessary advice. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has already removed the ((rfc)) template, and I am willing to keep discussing until we reach a consensus. I am trying to discuss the original RfC; my proposals above are concrete attempts to clarify who the People were and who the liberties applied to.      — Freoh 22:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Once the template is removed, discussion related to the RfC should end. Of course you're welcome to begin new topics elsewhere though I'd recommend waiting to hear from the reviewing editors if what you plan to propose is an extension of the ground we just covered. Allreet (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Allreet and Freoh: — Am I missing something? The article is still tagged, while the RfC has not been closed, while another editor has just chimed in with an Oppose vote. As for consensus, there is an overwhelming consensus against Freoh's proposal, the other proposals notwithstanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

( Also pinging Randy Kryn and Rjensen )

• The Constitution was/is the law of the land and pertains to the American people, and while women couldn't vote they were still protected by Constitutional laws. I fail to see why the term We the People needs any "clarification". Are there reliable sources that say the term only applied to the signatories? This proposal seems like another attempt to keep this article in a continuous state of debate and controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some unanswered questions in the discussion above, so I would not say that there is overwhelming consensus. There are reliable sources that say less than 3% of the American population voted in favor of ratification.^[1] Also, the American people did not originally include racial minorities and does not include colonized subjects,^[2], so I don't know why you put clarification in scare quotes.      — Freoh 23:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Clarification" is what you proposed, so the term is in quotes. If the quotes scare you, no one can help you with that. On top of the Original RfC, for which there is an overwhelming consensus opposing, you have made five other proposals, none of which have been resolved on a consensus basis, so I fail to see how you can say you have any sort of consensus anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the people didn't actually vote on ratification, the delegates/representatives did, who represented the people, so to say only 3% of the American people favored the Constitution is nonsense and an obvious attempt to perpetuate what seems like a veiled attack on the Constitution. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ratification votes were held in many if not most states, though I haven't pinned down the exact number. I agree the 3% is nonsense, but I say that without exactly knowing what it represents. In any case, this is not directly tied to the RfC's questions, meaning that's not what we're here to resolve. Please see my new comment below regarding the closing of the RfC. Allreet (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh, Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor, and Dhtwiki:: According to the message from the bot that removed the RfC template, the discussion will be archived tomorrow, March 9. What happens then, I'm not sure, though I believe reviewing editors will chime in and further comment will be blocked. If that doesn't happen within two days, by March 11, I'll post a request on WP:Help desk. P.S. I've alerted those I consider to be the most active editors in the RfC, but if I've overlooked someone, I apologize. Allreet (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh, by my count, over 20 editors have responded, and without taking sides, I'd say sentiment is sufficient to indicate a consensus. As for "unanswered questions", you keep raising new ones that are not directly tied to what the RfC was created to decide. The 3%, for example, was introduced 19 days into the RfC, so for certain we're not here to resolve that assertion or any of your proposals. Allreet (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

​I think that you misunderstand what consensus means. If you want to argue that the 3% is nonsense, then you have to verify your information. Content that I have supported with five different reliable sources does not become undue simply because some editors just don't like it. Are you suggesting that I continue this discussion in a separate section instead? I feel like this talk page already has too many sections.      — Freoh 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STICK —DIYeditor (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh: Now you're going to argue about consensus. At what point does the merry-go-round stop? In short, I agree with DIYeditor.

As for the 2.5%, as I mentioned before, only one source, Larry Simon, calculated this number. The other four cited Simon. Thus you only have one historian behind your statement: historians estimate that less than 3% of Americans voted in favor of ratification. Furthermore, if you look into Simon's sources, which I did, Brown says 18-19% of the population were adult males, that's 700,000 (3.9 million x .18). Then Brown says 80-85% of these were eligible to vote; using 80%, that's 560,000. Then, ignoring Brown completely, Simon quotes Hacker's unsourced 160,000, in addition to citing Beard who's explicitly refuted by Brown (page 238).

Brown points out that Beard and his sources were trying "to prove how restricted the franchise was", when that wasn't the case. Hacker and Beard do the same with the state ratification votes—they try to make them appear close. But if you tally the state votes, as I did, the margin was 971-575 delegates in favor of ratification. That's 62%-38% straight up, and if you account for the variations in the size of the state delegations (by averaging the margins), ratification won 70%-30%.

My point, again: if you want to make a significant assertion, you need a significant number of sources to back it up—on their own. So in this case, if you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown, and since no other source has calculated the 2.5%, what's this estimate worth? Allreet (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a significant number of sources to back it up. This information has gotten lots of coverage in tier 1 sources. You do not get to minimize this coverage based on who these sources are citing. Your Brown source has fewer than 238 pages, and to tally the state votes yourself is original research.      — Freoh 14:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, Simon's number is debatable and the other four sources didn't calculate anything despite your claim that it's the estimate of multiple historians. And if you will please pardon my mistake on Brown's page number; it's 69 not Hacker's 238, though my link to the page was correct, yes?

As for the state delegate totals, I used them simply to illustrate the attempt by Simon's sources to downplay the margin of victory for ratification. That's all. I wasn't seeking publication, only talking with you. I could have taken a lengthier route by quoting their misleading passages about the voting in individual states. Either way, seems to me Brown's point was well taken. As is mine: If you cite Simon, I'll cite Brown—and then I'll offer some of the vast research related to "We the People" from a few tier 1 historians, such as Amar (pp. 5-11), Bernstein (pp. 183, 199-205), Ellis (pp. 151, 185-186), Ferling (pp. 294-308), and Maier (pp. ix-xvi). Which is not to say your estimate is worthless. It's just not worth the weight you think it deserves. Allreet (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good leg work Allreet. Yes, many of the delegates of the Constitutional convention at first thought that they were there to modify and improve on the Articles of Confederation, which served as the Colonies, soon to be States, Constitution during the war, with its short comings notwithstanding, kept a semblance of organization among the colony/states, to provide for the war effort -- a document sharply criticized during that time, however, by General Washington after the arduous winter at Valley Forge, with troops in dire need of supplies, that was hoped the colonies would had better provide for. I haven't as yet checked all your references, but it seems Bernstein, 1987, p. 199, hits the nail on the head:

. The Convention had no authority to impose the result of its work on the American people; it could only recommend the charter it had drafted to the Confederation Congress. Although the people eventually did adopt the Constitution, this process was neither automatic nor unopposed. The campaign for and against the Constitution raged in state legislatures and ratifying conventions, in newspaper essays and pamphlets. (emphasis added).

To say, in an isolated stand alone statement, out of context, that only 3% of the American People voted for the Constitution implies that 97% were forced with a Constitution, with all its checks and balances and liberties, they would rather do without. All things considered, I again say that's nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how my proposal implies that 97% of Americans would rather do without the Constitution, only that those 97% did not vote in favor of it. It is significantly more misleading to refer to only 3% of the population as the People. Allreet, could you quote the sentences that explicitly refute the 3% estimation? I read through your Brown source from 1956 and the numbers seem to match up with Simon's.      — Freoh 13:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best reply would be a detailed one. So rather than burden the RfC. I'm starting a new section below on "Beard v. Brown". Allreet (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh — You claimed that only 3% were in favor, which more than suggests that 97% were not, which is why we should always make statements in context. I've yet to see any source that explicitly says We the People refers to only 3%, or any other such ultra-low figure. The Constitution, a set of laws for all the People, was speaking on behalf of those people, regardless how anyone may have voted or not voted. The Constitution does not say, We the Delegates, nor does it say, We the Eligible Voters. Any sources that tries to assert such a narrow idea, trying to reinvent the word People, citing the numbers of those who voted, which albeit was a small percentage of the national population, is advancing a highly debatable speculation at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that only 3% were in favor. I said that only 3% voted in favor. The opposite of "voting in favor" is "not voting in favor" rather than "voting against".      — Freoh 14:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request on the WP:Help desk, under March 11, for help on closing the RfC to further comment and inviting reviewers to offer feedback regarding consensus/discussion on the RfC's questions. Freoh has indicated the 3% voting question has not been settled. While this is somewhat related to determining who "We the People" are, the issue wasn't introduced until two weeks into the RfC, plus it wasn't what editors were asked to vote on. The same applies to the additional proposals that have been posted. We participated in the RfC to answer the original questions, not a succession of new ones.

I should also point out that Freoh has changed the original questions again (on March 3) which I'm fairly certain is not allowed. Since most editors voted before these changes, I'd suggest the questions be reverted to their original state, which is what I'm going to ask of the reviewing editors as soon we learn who they are. Allreet (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]