Talk:James Madison/Archive 1

message: Does anyone thing that the Summary is a little lengthy? CP TTD 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page. Is Madison's rank in the honored Americans anywhere from 5 to 10?? 
66.245.115.51 00:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison's Honor Rank 

message: I am finding it difficult to figure out why the Liberalism Series box is in the Madison article. After first arguing for the retification of the Constitution, he was an ardent supporter of states rights. What rationale is there to include this box in this article?
Thoughts, comments?
--JRed 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Liberalism Series" box 

message: Please help me with this one. 
I opened the article page and the picture looks like some kid with a ninja mask. Why?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.102.245.31 (talk • contribs) 22:12, December 1, 2005.
:Random vandalism.  That sort of thing gets fixed pretty quickly around here.  Rklawton 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I never knew James Madison was a Ninja 

message: One of the most exasperating things about James Madison is that I've never really read anything about his personal role during his administration. The "Policies" section makes it clear that he started the War of 1812 and had some issues with internal improvements but otherwise has information that could probably be better found on the War of 1812 article. In fact, I'll delete some of it if there are no objections. The point is, though, we need some more info on his actual input in his presidency. The war was only three years long, what else did he do? Brutannica 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please don't delete info on war of 1812.  Madison was in charge and his role must be explained Rjensen 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More info!

message: Under Trivia:
"At 5 feet, 4 inches in height (163 cm) and 100 pounds (45 kg) in weight, Madison was the nation's shortest president". 
I thought it was John Adams, according to another book I read?
See:  List of heights of United States presidential candidates Rklawton 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison - The Shortest President? Wasn't it John Adams? 

message: hey i was wondering if anybody noticed that nothing was mentioned about how James Madison acted in the Constitutional Congress?  If there's anybody out there that could, well, comment back about what they know about James Madison's arguements, concedes, and attitude during the CC, i would appreciate that.  =)
Yeah, this is more full of fifth-grade bio facts and flowery praise than actual information. The Philadelphia Convention doesn't even get a full paragraph. I'm going to put some work into it, but it looks like it's been drawn up by pop history buffs--the sort more concerned with creating an American mythology than representing American history. Fearwig 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how most articles start.  They gain polish over time.  Rklawton 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Convention 

message: It is misleading to refer to Madison as the "primary author" of the Constitution.  He was no such thing.  Although he played an important role at the Philadelphia Convention -- arguably a preeminent role -- the draft was still the result of debate and negotiation amongst all of the delegates.  When one refers to him as the "author", the impression readers get is that much of the text of the Constitution was solely a result of his work.
As he himself protested when people later referred to him as the "Father of the Constitution", the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain", but "the work of many heads and many hands." 
The problem with giving people the impression that he was the "primary author" is that it causes them to give undue weight to his interpretation of the Constitution, as opposed to the interpretations of other delegates, and, more importantly, of the ratifying state legislatures.  To say the he was only "one of many delegates" is probably understating his role, but it is far less misleading than to say that he was the primary author.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callisthenes (talk • contribs) 08:05, June 11, 2006.
:He is pretty uniformly described as the "primary author."  This doesn't mean he was the only author. I don't see a problem.  Calling him "one of many delegates" is much more misleading than calling him the "primary author," although I'd be open to other descriptions that acknowledge his, as you describe it, "preeminent" role without using the words "primary author." john k 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, this article needs to elaborate on Madison's role in drafting the Constitution.  The current one or two sentences doesn't really give much detail.  --JW1805 (Talk) 16:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about something to the effect of "He played a leading role in the negotiation and drafting of the United States Constitution..."  Callisthenes 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he played THE leading role--he wrote it, Nobody comes close in importance. Rjensen 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! "He wrote it." I'm glad you're here to set us straight, Rjensen. Please cite your dog-eared pop history biography, so we can be reassured. To say that Madison "wrote" the constitution is to fall victim to the cherry-tree myth all over again. If you have ever read from the minutes of the convention you will realize that Madison, while a prominent figure for the Federalist perspective, was not the only one putting out ideas, not even close, and a lot of compromises were made. It doesn't really matter who put pen to paper (and I'm not sure he did)--this was a legislative (or pseudo-legislative) body, and Madison was one member of a large group. Have you ever really studied history? Do you know how to protect yourself from falling in love with every new presidential biography you read? I'm not out to pick on you, but this happens on every page you edit significantly--please filter yourself for silly POV so we don't have to. It's a hell of a lot of work fighting with you over stuff like this. Fearwig 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many good references to Madison's role at the National Archives site. He certainly was the person behind the whole convention and was the leader of those seeking a strong central government.  However, the original draft of the Constitution was written by "Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth" according to the article linked to.  So, I'd go with primary architect, leading role, etc., but the facts do not support the assertion that he actually wrote it. Steve p 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably inaccurate to characterize him as the leader of those seeking a strong central government (the "federalists", for the sake of simplicity, even if the term wasn't necessarily popularized by the time of ratification save in the paper of the same name). Madison was a moderate on the federalism/anti-federalism spectrum, especially compared to people like Hamilton, and while he held a lot of sway for his oratory he didn't have incredible sway in his faction. Think of him as a powerful rhetorical weapon, perhaps, but not a reliable one, from say Hamilton's perspective. :) Read up on the bill of rights inclusion debate for more, perhaps... he eventually came to support the modern BoR post-ratification, something most federalists wouldn't touch (as a BoR was considered a radically a-f addition--don't believe the classical "to ensure ratification" argument, either, as a lack of a BoR was the main obstacle to ratification in most states). Though some historians have put forth evidence that his post-ratification push for the BoR amendments had more to do with securing a congressional seat in VA than any authentic populist sentiments. I'll pull some sources together and see if I can't write up a full bill of rights debate section. Fearwig 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison as primary author 

message: Is it just me or does the following part sound wrong?
"His detailed notes on the Constitutional Convention were published after his death. By his request, these notes were not to be published until the death of the last signer of the Constitution. The implication is that Madison did not want the thoughts and debates of the founders to shape the nation's interpretation of what the Constitution meant. He strongly believed that the text, and only the text, should be consulted."
I thought the refusal to publish until after his death was so no one who took part in the Constitutional Convention would be questioned for certain opinions expressed (Hamilton's views on the British constitution comes to mind). Any thoughts? --Sparkhurst 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --after 50 years, when he was the last survivor he still kept the notes secret. That suggests he was not protecting anyone. Rjensen 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for the section in the paragraph I've highlighted? Perhaps a quote? --Sparkhurst 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Madison's Notes were not published until about 1840, perhaps to fulfill an early decision by the original convention forbidding disclosure of the proceedings, to which Madison may have felt himself bound while the other participants lived, and it was after all the rest of them had died that he did finally publish them." This website might reveal some more answers as it already has. --Sparkhurst 00:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sparkhurst has it right, the "shaping the nation's interpretation" stuff is nonsense, unless directly citable. Publishing something postmortem is what you do to escape possible shame or fault for yourself or another, it doesn't make sense to publish something postmortem if you don't want people to read it and draw conclusions--they'll do it anyway, after all, you'll just be dead. Though it does sound so much more romantic this way (*swoon*). Fearwig 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: for a thorough discussion of why he did not publish despite heavy pressure see   Madison rejected Jefferson's plea in 1799 to publish them, and never gave a good explanatyion of why he held out.  [he did not, it seems, make a duplicate copy for safety in case his house burned]  Rjensen 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading it, I can't say it's very thorough or very explicit about his reasons. As such it's not really responsible to state such explicit (and apparently presumptuous) reasons in the article. Fearwig 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later life - Convention notes 

message: I think it's time we started a discussion on this matter rather than revert edits back and forth.  Feel free to begin... Rklawton 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic-Republican

message: I placed this template on top of the page because James Madison's political activity, according to the article, contradicts itself. The article doesn't attempt to explain the actual political contradiction of Madison's party affiliations, (Federalist vs Democratic-Republican), but only further confuses the matter.
Here are some contradictory statements:
*Known as the "Father of the Constitution," he played a leading role in the creation of the United States Constitution in 1787 and, with Alexander Hamilton, was the chief expounder of its meaning in the Federalist Papers (1788). 
*Working closely with Thomas Jefferson he created the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1790s and built a system of grass roots political activism that was victorious in the "Revolution of 1800."
*The chief characteristic of Madison's time in Congress was his desire to limit the power of the federal government. 
*During this time, the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson led to the formation of the first political parties in U.S. history. 
*Members of the Federalist Party followed Hamilton and believed in a strong central government. KingWen€ŸØãç 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for pointing out the problems. I tried to clarify them--historians debate whether he reversed himself or was consistent. Wiki can't resolve that argument but we can point it out. Rjensen 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Rjenssen. It seems clear that he couldn't have been consistent, because two more opposing and contradictory factions, as the Federalists and the Jeffesonians, couldn't have ever happened. Some further delving into history may be in order. I'll attempt it if I can find the time. KingWen€ŸØãç 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: there were two different groups called Federalists. 1) 1787-88 Federalist = supporter of Constitution. Included both Hamilton and Madison. 2) 1793-onward Federalist = supporter of Washington Govt & Hamilton programs. Madison was OPPOSED. Rjensen 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is correct. Being an author of the Federalist Papers and helping to create the Republicans is not a contradiction. I can see how it may be viewed as such. I am not certain of a way to clarify it in the article however. Perhaps just a good explanation of the Federalist papers themselves. Welsh4ever76 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: contradict itself template

message: I found this bit of trivia questionable:  "Madison is currently the only sitting president to have taken fire from enemy combatants during war" questionable.  I'm pretty sure Lincoln took fire when visiting a fort during the Civil War.  If so, I'm thinking we should reword the entry.  It's interesting as far as trivia goes, if not entirely accurate in its present form.  Rklawton 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: James Madison  – Deist; Church of England; Episcopalian (VA)
* In 1779 the Virginia General Assembly deprived Church of England ministers of tax support, but in 1784 Patrick Henry sponsored a bill to again collect taxes to support churches in general. Madison's 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance was written in opposition to another bill to levy a general assessment for the support of religions. The assessment bill was tabled, and instead the legislature in 1786 passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, first submitted in 1779. Virginia thereby became the first state to disestablish religion — Rhode Island, Delaware, and Pennsylvania never having had an established religion.
* In 1813, President Madison signed a bill which cancelled the duty on some printing plates imported by the Philadelphia Bible Society to print copies of the Bible. In 1816 he signed a similar bill exempting the Baltimore Bible Society from paying import duty. During the War of 1812, Bible societies had begun donating Bibles to the troops. Congress later discontinued passing such exemptions.
* Madison vetoed two bills passed by Congress on the grounds that they violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
* During his terms in office, Congress passed resolutions that President Madison issue religious proclamations of thanksgiving, to which he assented. After retiring from public life, Madison composed his "detached memorandum" in which he denounced Congress's appointment of and payment of chaplains, both civilian and military, as inconsistent "with the pure principles of religious freedom." In the same memorandum, he also assailed "religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts.".
The Memorial and Remonstrance was in direct response to Henry's bill; Madison, as member of the legislature (with Henry in 1785, though Henry was elected governor by the time the religious freedom statute passed), asked for a delay in order to put the issue to the people.  Madison was also the chief agitator to get Jefferson's religious freedom bill passed (Jefferson had written it in 1779, as part of a package of about 150 laws that he proposed to change to make good, wise and more democratic government in Virginia).  This was not the law that disestablished religion in Virginia, however.  The Continental Congress in late 1775 told the 13 colonies to get their charters in order to function without resort to king or Parliament during a conflict, and Virginia's disestablishment was started, at least, with the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776; Hudsons Religion in America in various editions notes that all colonies had disestablished by 1778, with only four colonies holding on to any vestiges; the vestiges included a voluntary state collection of tithes, in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts (Connecticut eliminated even that in 1819; Massachusetts in 1833).  Madison's advocacy for religious freedom started as soon as he left college and the tutelage of John Witherspoon, who had urged Madison to pursue the "higher calling" of politics instead of being a minister; at the age of 23 he had gone to a neighboring county and was shocked to discover people jailed for their religious views, farmers who claimed to be Baptist and Presbyterian.  Madison was consistent on this issue throughout his life, I think -- see the Ketcham biography.  We should check the claims of his "assent" to thanksgiving proclamations.  Washington would "assent" to such proclamations, but would excise any references to specific faiths in the proclamations he issued, often contrary to Congress' resolutions.  Madison opposed the appointment of Congressional chaplains as a Member of Congress, too.  Edarrell 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison's religious beliefs 

message: I dont know why you keep removing the info as I feel that it is definitely something to note. What you posted above doesn't change anything. The first half just restates the removed trivia, and the second half is completely irrelevant. I read Madison's reasons on why he was against chaplains speaking to congress and them having any federal government salary. He wrote at length about this saying that he was opposed to having chaplains because they represented certain denominations, and by having the government pay them they would be forced to favor a certain denomination which was totally against the principles of church and state. While having congress recite a prayer that only refers to God or having them fund a bible society that doesn't represent a denomination is completely different because congress has been traditionally Christian as has the President, and refering to God doesnt mention any denomination and in a Christian society that is fine. They didn't think taking the presidential oath on the bible was unconstitutional. You didn't provide any reason on why the trivia should be removed. The triva is not against separation of church and state but merely provides an interesting fact for people to think about. 
71.131.183.10 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'trivia' you refer to would mislead people about Madison's views, which is contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia.  Continue to direct your friends and family to advocacy sites that attempt to distort history if you like, just don't expect to do it here. Skyemoor 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Madison wrote at length about religion and the separation of church and state and none of it appears on this website. If you want to add it feel free. Anyone who knows his viewpoints knows he supports separation of church and state as it is the foundation of the constitution. I just found it trivial that he supported the bible society with federal dollars and definitely noteable because that is not something you will read or hear in the mainstream media. 
71.131.230.175 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: user 71/131.xxx is the banned user:Jerry Jones, who is not permitted to edit this project. His edits should be reverted without further cause. -Will Beback 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Wae/ bible society

message: Even young John Quincy Adams used "aristocratic party" of the Federalist regulars of Massachusetts. As he wrote in his diary of Theophilus Parsons' support of the ratification of the Constitution, "If the Constitution be adopted, it will be a grand point in favor of the aristocratic party." Alexander Saxton, p. 34 and there are other sources with the quotation. This was one of the reasons why "democratic" or "republican" became terms for the opposition to Federalism. Septentrionalis 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: young Adams was talking not about the Fed party of the 1790s but about the supporters of the Constitution in 1787-98--which included Madison and his own father. Rjensen 03:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But his comment was not directed at his father, rather at the men, like Parsons, who became the High Federalists.  Septentrionalis 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aristocratic party

message: I've looked for your reference and have checked the following 11 August 1812 correspondence;
 - James Madison to Joel Barlow, August 11, 1812  No mention of "Democratic Party" nor "Democratic"
What other correspondence that day where you referring to?  66.225.251.176 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please check the reference cited. If the letter were on line, I would have linked to it; and I do not remember Madison's correspondent (Wirt?). Septentrionalis 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's customary to provide a couple of sentences, so that you can give the rest of us context about what was said.  Right now, according to the Library of Congress, there are no other letters written that day by Madison, so help us to verify your reference. Skyemoor 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic? 

message: Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is insisting on "Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the Democratic Republicans". This is untrue;
1. You can't create people
2. Madison and Jefferson both used the words/phrases "Republicans", "republicans", "Republican party", "republican party" when referring to their caucus, which is generally accepted as starting around 1792. It wasn't until much later that Madison very infrequently (after 1809) used the term "Democratic Republican" when writing to some local political groups who had come to adopt that name.
A more correct sentence would refer to Madison's and Jefferson's creation of a coalition of congressmen and supporters known as Republicans (or republicans).  Skyemoor 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created Democratic Republicans? 

message: Will some one please remove " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food." from this page? I cant figure out how to do it.
68.32.73.22 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please remove Chinese food? 

message: Thank you! (for removing " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food.") 68.32.73.22 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you! 

message: About halfway down "Later Life," there the statement "...revising of the Virginia state constitution. For one last moment, James Madison was back in his element." which seems to be opinionated.  This needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Carnemago (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions! 

message: Folks,
I changed 
:Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching social and political value system.
to
:Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in the new republic's need for checks and balances between competing interests.
because, based mostly on readings of Wood and Matthews, it seems to me that there were plenty of republicans among the founders of the American government. Madison was not exceptional in that regard. What made Madison stand out was his great concern, his worry, his pessimism, for what would happen to America decades later, when the frontier (the great safety valve of the common people) was exhausted, and his belief that neither human goodness (Jefferson's hope) nor centralized power (Hamilton's hope) could save the country from the selfish and short-sighted machinations of the powerful (or the many), but only a system in which some "factions" (what we now call "special interests") were pitted against others. 
TH 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a mixing of points above.  First, you refer to republicans in the context of republicanism, seeming to equate the two.  Madison repeated dozens of times that he was a staunch supporter of republicanism, the republican interest, the republican party, and so forth.  To strip that away would cloud the picture. If you are concerned that the word republicanism is a direct reference to the current U.S. Republican Party, note that the link states, "the two political philosophies have influenced but do not literally define their political party namesakes, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The republican ideal of civic duty was succinctly expressed in 1961 by John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  Skyemoor 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one definition of republicanism; to assert it was Madison's would require sources. Don't be anachronistic. Madison made perfectly clear that he was a "republican" as opposed to the "monarchy" of Hamilton and his friends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why I changed  

message: Given the nature of this stuff, I think it's important for each item to be sourced.  That's the least we can do for a dubious section.  Rklawton 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: 1. Follow the fundamental rule of Wikipedia -- verifiability -- do not change anything supported by citations unless you provide countervailing citations. 
2. Hamilton and Jay are so important as co-authors of FP that they deserve to be mentioned at the top of the article. 
3. If you look at a definition of Republicanism -- Wikipedia's, for example -- (and that word here has no connection whatsoever with the Republican versus the Democratic party) -- you'll see that Madison fits the definition only with some difficulty, and certainly fits it worse than most of his fellow founders of the republic. For example, he never expects civic virtue, and he sees liberty as being almost as dangerous as it is attractive. He gives more respect to property and authority than would most people who say they believe in Republicanism. 
4. Example: he opposes slavery, but even more does he oppose the idea of freeing the slaves without compensating the "owners". 
5. Read the new citations. 
6. Read the new footnotes. 
TH 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Madison was a leader of republicanism according to historians, (Banning, Rakove, Kernell, Ketcham, McCoy, Dunn, Elkins & McKitrick, etc etc ) Banning says: "Madison was also as committed a republican as any member of the great [1787] convention". (thisd is not a new idea: see Neal Riemer, "The Republicanism of James Madison," Pol Sci Q, LXIX (1954), 45-64) Original research into the matter is not allowed here. The opening section is a summary and is not the place for long quotes, even in footnotes. Rjensen 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching political value system, and a commitment to creating mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice.
however, aside from the meaningless phrase "overarching political value system". is that "undergirding" is purple prose. This is an encyclopedia, not  Fourth of July oratory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede has to make the points that 1) JM was strongly committed to republicanism and 2) that he worked to create mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice.  It is NOT acceptable to remove the key term "republicanism" and replace it with a very different term (republic). There are over 3000 articles in JSTOR on Madison & Republicanism, so it's hardly controversial. The original text had architectural allusions (forces, undergirding, mechanisms, overarching) that is not "purple" but reflects his reputation as political architect of the basic laws. Rjensen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undergirding with an overarch is a broken metaphor. Does anyone else like it?  This is an encyclopedia, not a prose poem.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I mixed the metaphors a bit--sorry. however serious attention to style style is a longterm goal of Wikipedia. We also strive to avoid errors like confusing "republic" and "republicanism" Rjensen 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Republicanism is support for a republic, and the behaviour suitable to one; "attachment or adherence to republican principles; republican government or institutions, etc." I would regret seeing any article say otherwise.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, republicanism is much more complex than that, Better read Banning for starters. Rjensen 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an ideology, and does not appear to be Banning's ideology; however, this encyclopedia should be written in English, without private definitions. The above definition is from the OED, which will do for our purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't use a general dictionary to handle concepts that are much better covered in depth by scholarly article.  JSTOR has over 3000 citations to "Republicaniam AND Madison"  -- an encyclkopeia has to work with these. Rjensen 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And which of those uses "republicanism" in any other sense than the common English meaning cited above? That is the assertion which is unsupported.  Serious editors don't use words with meanings they do not bear, and avoid using them in senses which will be misunderstood by the common reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madison's most fundamental political beliefs; etc. 

message: My objection to this sentence:
:Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching political value system, and a commitment to creating mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice.
however, aside from the meaningless phrase "overarching political value system". is that "undergirding" is purple prose. This is an encyclopedia, not  Fourth of July oratory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede has to make the points that 1) JM was strongly committed to republicanism and 2) that he worked to create mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice.  It is NOT acceptable to remove the key term "republicanism" and replace it with a very different term (republic). There are over 3000 articles in JSTOR on Madison & Republicanism, so it's hardly controversial. The original text had architectural allusions (forces, undergirding, mechanisms, overarching) that is not "purple" but reflects his reputation as political architect of the basic laws. Rjensen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undergirding with an overarch is a broken metaphor. Does anyone else like it?  This is an encyclopedia, not a prose poem.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I mixed the metaphors a bit--sorry. however serious attention to style style is a longterm goal of Wikipedia. We also strive to avoid errors like confusing "republic" and "republicanism" Rjensen 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Republicanism is support for a republic, and the behaviour suitable to one; "attachment or adherence to republican principles; republican government or institutions, etc." I would regret seeing any article say otherwise.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, republicanism is much more complex than that, Better read Banning for starters. Rjensen 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an ideology, and does not appear to be Banning's ideology; however, this encyclopedia should be written in English, without private definitions. The above definition is from the OED, which will do for our purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't use a general dictionary to handle concepts that are much better covered in depth by scholarly article.  JSTOR has over 3000 citations to "Republicaniam AND Madison"  -- an encyclkopeia has to work with these. Rjensen 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And which of those uses "republicanism" in any other sense than the common English meaning cited above? That is the assertion which is unsupported.  Serious editors don't use words with meanings they do not bear, and avoid using them in senses which will be misunderstood by the common reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purple prose

message: Flagged article as reading like an essay and in need of cleaning up.  Much of the article seems to me to be trying to paint a narrative picture of Madison as opposed to presenting facts... Nf utvol 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article meets all the Wiki rules. It is NOT a peersonal essay by anyone. Instead it reflects the consensus of many scholars, esperts and Wiki editors. It has weaknesses regarding ideas and presidential years and those will eventually be improved. Rjensen 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's both abominably written and tendentious. I hsve done something towards cleaning up the section on the Yazoo land frauds, but it could use much more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not so bad that removing it altogether is an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Yazoo bit was somebody's personal essay and I removed it. Rjensen 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads Like An Essay