Talk:Federalist No. 10

message: Here are some relevant USSC cases that may be of interest but aren't mentioned yet:
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Parham (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: I am sure my comment here will be deleted, but this article is a great example of how wikipedia is all about the establishment POV. Wiki is stridently federalist and hence rightwing. This entire article is really just nonsense. Fed 10 and the other madison articles were about INCREASING THE NUMBER OF FACTIONS in each political district in order to prevent the MAJORITY faction from uniting to discover their common interest. Madison was all about increasing the factionalization of the voters by making the voting districts larger, and thus making it harder for the people to unite against rich aristocrats like Madison. Madison and his fellow rich founding fathers did not want us commoners using the power of the vote to increase taxes on the rich. Madison said at the constitutional convention that our present constittution was designed to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. OPulent here means rich. So the founding fathers created an undemocratic constitution that increased the numbers of factions in the nation and each state by increasing the size of the political districts that politician were elected from (the president and the senate are the prime examples here). So that way it was harder for the faction of the majority to unite against the propertied elite like Madison, Jefferson, et al. Madison wanted to make it hard for you and me to unite and use taxation to get our grubby little paws on his $$$.
of course the rightwing American instittutions like academia, GOP, Democrats, mass media etc will never talk about this directly. They just put a few words out there, cheery pick a few words, leave them out of context, rarely connect them. And Wikipedia follows right along. Otherwise, if they did explain what the Founding Fathers and Madison really did, they would not get media attention, and they could not "monetize" wikipedia in the future....
Look for this entry to be deleted by the wikipedians real soon.
If you want to verify want I say, just google up Dr Fresia's online book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION and online reviews of Dr Woody Holton's recent books. Or just read the federalist papers written by Madison and read Madison's notes from the COnstitutional convention. Read it all really slowly and carefully.
-cryofan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.205.74 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

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

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

message: Article mentions twelve states ("the constitution drafted by the convention needed ratification by at least nine of the twelve states").
Shouldn't that be thirteen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulf Hermjakob (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of original states

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federalist No. 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121515/http://www.eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us to http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following paragraph says "citation needed" at the end.
No. 10 addresses the question of how to reconcile citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or inimical to the interests of the community as a whole. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man – that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them and they will sometimes work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others. He thus questions how to guard against those dangers.[citation needed]
Not sure whether this could be used as a citation, but give it a look and if it's a valid citation, please feel free to add it. I would hate to incorrectly edit it just to have the edit removed.
https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbenton (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed