Talk:Federalism

message: In the first section of the article, it is said that Canada a true confederation. Although we use this expression a lot and that provinces actually own stronger autonomy than other subnational juridiction I would not say that canadian provinces have been federated on voluntary basis.
The voluntary basis would mean they were independant before. The provinces as they are were either a British colony or a Canadian federal territories before its accession to the federation. Also the concept of voluntary means that they have a self-right to withdraw from the federation. The actual constitution and recent Supreme court of Canada judgemnts on these issue states clearly that the rightful way for a province to seceed would be anegociated constitutional amendment.
I proposed to use the replace the following sentense by the later:
"Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because membership in the federation is voluntary."
"Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because members are formally part of the constitution and could influence its amendment."
Any comments ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrimart (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Canada a confederation? 

message: Why the heck is there no mention of anarchism and its advocacy of free federations at every level of social organization?
:Mikhail Bakunin#Federalism, if this can be expanded into a whole article of Federalism in anarchist thought (or similar), go for it. Nagelfar 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalism and the Anarchist Tradition 

message: This part of the introduction strikes me as "Federalism in Christian Theology".  Surely there are other religious points of view about federalism as a whole, whether it is in terms of theology or politics directly.  For example, the Baha'i Faith is a religion that has a political concept of federalism and outright calls for worldwide federated government as one of it's central themes. 
-- djKianoosh, 13 February 2006
:*Well, the difference is that it is theological federalism, not just federalism in Christian theology.  It is federalism in a theological matter, not a call for political federalism from a religious body, as you're describing the Baha'i faith.  It is not surprising that Christianity has a theological federalism, where others may not.  It is largely a restatement of the covenantal soteriology of the Apostle Paul found in the New Testament, and recovered in the Reformation.  If you know of another theological federalism, we can put it in that section, or if you want to talk about the call of the Baha'i that you describe, you can do so in the political federalism section (though I wonder how central a tenet it is to Baha'i).   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I guess this paragraph refers to the Subsidiarity principle, which is stated in the Catholic social teaching. I think the topic of Subsidiarity is very closely related to this article, and i'll add it in the "See also". --Napishtim (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalism in Theology 

message: "Under a federal system a Constitution is the supreme force from which the state is derived. An independent judiciary is necessary to treat as void every act which is inconsistent with the Constitution. Because of this, federalism is precluded by legalism. The Constitution must necessarily be "rigid" and "inexpansive". Its law must be either legally immutable, or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies. The difficulty of altering the constitution tends to produce conservative sentiment"
this paragaraph seems broad, unsubstantiated and contray to some of what i know.  these are all trends in a federal system but they are not reqirments.  Beckboyanch
:Agreed. A cleaned-up version of this paragraph might be appropriate in an article discussing the US system of government, but not federalism in general. ThePedanticPrick 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments about the constitution in relationship to federalism   

message: What's the difference? Hackwrench 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to explain this question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be kidding. Seriously, you must be trying to make some strange point by being sarcastic, or something. Imperialism is clearly NOT defined as you state it.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither Imperialism nor Federalism are clearly defined to any great degree of resolution. Under one concept under the umbrella of imperialism, Japan is the only imperialist country as it alone has an emperor. If I understand correctly the United Kingdom's Queen is also an Empress, but searching for Empress at United Kingdom...Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom seems to indicate that while she is what might be considered a de facto Empress, Empress is not in any of her titles. Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities. An entity is a body. That which controls is a governing representitive head. Hackwrench 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together with a governing representative head" IS a good definition of Federalism. I don't know the definition of Imperialism, but at least two things distinguish them: (1) empires are typically extroverted and wanting to expand, and (2) empires often use coersive forces or techniques (military, economic, etc.) to expand their boundaries.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalism vs. Imperialism 

message: Is theological federalsm an aspect of Covenant Theology or as the article currently says "a synonym for basic Covenant Theology" Hackwrench 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, federalism is a synonym for basic Covenant Theology. In many other languages (and often in English), including the original 17th century Dutch and German treatises, it is called federal theology or federalism. My revision in progress of the Covenant Theology article will make this more clear.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covenant Theology 

message: Federalism is not just a U.S. phenomenon, for that subject see Federalism (United States).  A template on Christian Democracy (placed in the European federalism section; CD politicians were the foundation of federalism in Europe) was removed, and three (count 'em THREE) U.S. law templates have been added.  I'm nuking one of them and adding the CD template again.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current section on European federalism makes no mention of the connection between Christian Democracy and the subject. Consider adding some info on this if you want to keep that big template. - Randwicked Alex B 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalism is not just a U.S. phenomenon 

message: It's begging to be split, unless someone can prove that theological and political federalism are really two aspects of the same thing and that we'd lose a lot of continuity by making this a dab. --Smack (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move all content on theological federalism to Federalism (theism), and retain this page for the federalism that everyone knows and loves - or has at least heard of :).--cj | talk 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with cj. —Nightstallion (?) 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro section on theological federalism says it is a synonym for covenant theology, so presumably all that is required is a dablink directed there. The federalism discussed at the end of the article seems to be the same as discussed in the rest of the article, only referring to church rather than state structures. JPD (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * I don't think we should split, as this paragraph is giving an example of political hierarchy within christian church. It makes no mention of religious belief or explanation of such structure. The title is however relevant, as this structure is based on the Subsidiarity principle, which is stated in the Catholic social teaching. So, it's still about a human hierarchy, organizing authority and decision process. --Napishtim (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article? 

message: It may be an idea to divide the page down into the ideological aspects (federalism) and the structural or legal aspects (federation), as per P. King (1982), Federalism and Federation, Croom Helm: London. Although this may be too academic. --Mccreacr 05:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as a lot of the content here is about federation in practice rather than the philosophy/ideology. In fact there is already a Federation article, which is where such material belongs. Grant | Talk 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  federation/federalism division 

message: This line:
Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle, and he wrote in Mein Kampf as follows: "National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states."
Is a bit misleading. As the word translated as "federal" is "bundes", wherein if you look at the link on this article page to the German wikipedia, the word is Föderalismus, the German word for Federalism as we use it here is "Föderative", "Bundes" meaning something more akin to a republic system (though often translated as 'federal' as in the federal level of government.) The Reichs-administration in Nazi Germany, partitioning power between gauleiters was very much a federalized type system, the "state-within-a-state" of the bicameral legal rights under SS jurisdiction also had federal characteristics. Nagelfar 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gau-system was not federal, the third Reich was totaly centralised to Hitler, the fact that there were regional entities doesn't make it a federal system
and Bund means in this case Federation (words can mean differnt things in different sitiuations)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.241.36 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler quote misleading. 

message: Rather that just providing example of Federalism, it may be helpful to include information about the different types of federalism, such as duel-federalism or marble-cake federalism.  The differences between these type of federalism are significant enough to be included in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.220.8 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Types of Federalism 

message: Shouldnt Proudhon be considered as one of the theorics of Federalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.225.219 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proudhon 

message: ... are, following me the Regions and not the Communities. An evidence of that: the representatives of the Parmliament of the Regions and the Communities, are elected on the base of the territories of the Regions... I think it is difficult to say which are the Major Federate Units. For Flanders evidently, the Community but not for Wallonia and Brussels. José Fontaine (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Major Federating Units in Belgium... 

message: Since the South African constitution guarantees exclusive provincial authority over certain areas (Schedule 5), does this not make the South African system a federal one? The constitution may only be amended with the consent of a super-majority of provinces (6 of 9). How is this different to the United States, albeit that the listed powers of its States are greater and changes to its constitution require a larger super-majority (75%)? See also talk:Unitary state. --Uxejn (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: The introduction states that "Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because membership in the federation is voluntary."  
Canada is a federation, not a confederation.  According to Ronald Watts' Comparing Federal Systems (3rd ed.), confederations "occur where several pre-existing polities join together to form a common government for certain limited purposes ... but the common government is dependent upon the constitutent governments, being composed of delegates from the constitutent governments, and therefore having only an indirect electoral and fiscal base" (p 8).  From its federation in 1867 Canada's federal government has had direct taxation powers.
Does anyone have a citation to support the idea espoused in the intro that confederation is defined by voluntary membership?
Please forgive any bungled format in this edit 
EveryonelovesMP (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly Misleading Information in Article Header 

message: There was a very interesting editorial published in the Wall Stree Journal on Thursday, April 23, 2009, entitled: "The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention."  The (currently ungated) link is here: .  The story appears to have rather quickly gone viral and their is already an revised draft proposal with ten amendments (versus five in the WSJ editorial) here: .  I'm not certain, but I'm guessing this will be sufficiently noteworthy to be worked into the WP Federalism article in the near future. N2e (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Federalism Amendment and movement -- 2009  

message: Removed this text:
Similar power-sharing arrangements between two communities can be found in Fiji, Saint Kitts and Nevis, in Northern Ireland (the Belfast Agreement) and in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.
The arrangements described above belong in Consociationalism, Fiji and Northern Ireland in particular.
Andrewgdotcom (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consociationalism, a quick study of the literature will surmise, is oft considered as a subtype of the umbrella beneath which federalism shows variegated functional types. i.e. is a kind of federalism. A mnenomic one can use for the essence of government types which can be called "federalism" generally, contrasts 'federalism' to 'libertarianism' in that the former is governance via regulated destandardization while the latter is by standardized deregulation. Nagelfar (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consociationalism is not federalism 

message: It was first conceived by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1918 as a way to avoid communism, but was then refined by President Taft into what it is now.
^ I've never edited wiki before, but this statement is clearly bullshit. (from the page on federalism)
^Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.132.196 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson quote... 

message: Federalism as the Anarchist Mode of Political Organization
"Federalism" if I'm right, used to mean what the anarchists advocated. Can we diversify sources, citations and add more general content?
As it stands, it makes the article uglier.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on, people, this part needs some major TLC. 

message: I think not. 98.227.88.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA under Russia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federalism. 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/20120611020440/http://www.trust.org:80/alertnet/news/libyan-leader-says-autonomy-call-a-foreign-plot to http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/libyan-leader-says-autonomy-call-a-foreign-plot/
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) 12:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is actually my first foray into wikipedia editing. I was reading this article and saw something that looked off, so I thought I would start simple and merely point out for whoever is watching this article that the In Literature Section reads like blurb for a fiction book, and that the link appears to direct through to a clickbait/advertising link. On top of that, the relevance of the section to the actual article is not very clear to me, and I would suggest that it be considered for removal as a section unless other content can be found to fill its place. If you want to do me a favor, I'd appreciate your citing what rationales/policy you would use to defend or remove the section, so that I can get a better first-hand feel for it before I go around editing.
Insignus (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Decided to experiment and bore myself to death - spent 10 minutes, did a manual search, located the section addition to this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalism&oldid=408309774 from 17 January 2011. I am suitably impressed with myself, and now eagerly await a cunning explanation of how I could have done it in 30 seconds or less. Insignus (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, Insignus, welcome to Wikipedia! I just removed the section. You are correct that it seemed like spam and the link definitely doesn't lead to more information about the book. As you can see from my edit summary, I cited WP:BOOKSPAM, which is a subsection of the Wikipedia page on how to deal with spam. The section also was unsourced. It is the responsiblity of the editor that adds material to cite it. Any material that lacks a reliable source can be removed by anyone, like I just did. However, I can't help you with finding revisions, as I have no idea how to find them faster. Overall, I'd recommend for you to be bold and edit when you see something like this. Good luck! Greatedits1 (I hope so | If not, let me know) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I appreciate it! I'll definitely be a bit bolder! Insignus (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Literature Section - Resembles Book Plug, Advert Links 

message: I removed this recently added material from the overview. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? clpo13(talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was recently added and I don't believe it belongs in the overview section. Why is this author being chosen? Why is his opinion notable? I would include this material further into the article under an academic review or view point. --Malerooster (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  The only reason this user is removing this is out of spite. He/She had never been on this page before the day that I begun to edit it. The content that the user is removing is a brief literature review on the emergence of federal systems from an award-winning book (Co-Winner of the 2007 Best Book Award, European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association, Winner of the 2004 Gabriel Almond Award for Best Dissertation in Comparative Politics, American Political Science Association Winner of the 2003 Ernst B. Haas Prize for Best Dissertation in European Politics, American Political Science Association) by a Harvard political scientist and published by one of the top academic presses, as I made the user aware of a few days ago here. The user never responded, but came back here to revert the content again. Can you please restore the content? This user is threatening to sanction me, and I'm therefore wary of crossing any lines such as the 3RR (or any other obscure rules I'm unaware of) even if the editor's reverts are meritless and not made in good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Snooganssnoogans, I don't edit out of spite, you have been watching to much Seinfeld. Also, I am a he, if you couldn't tell from my handle. I would just move this out of the overview into a critical reception review, ect. and not have it in the 1st paragraph, thats all. Also, I would seek consensus. If other edits think this material belongs in the overview, then I will not remove it. Please read WP:BRD. We are now in the discussion stage, and the material should stay out, or moved down, as I suggested, until clear consensus forms here. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  (i) You're here on a page that you've never edited before; (ii) you're on an academic page and you've never in your recent history edited academic pages; (iii) you deleted one thing in this article and it happens to be the thing added that day by someone that you periodically name-call and follow around; (iv) the thing that you removed happened to be the only thing in the overview section that was sourced to a top-tier political science publication and wasn't original research; (v) you have shown no interest in editing any other content in this article despite the obvious flaws of other parts of the article; (vi) you make up a BS excuse for reverting the content, claiming that the content is non-notable despite not knowing anything about the author, the publication or the academic field in question; (vii) info about the author and the publication was all made clear to you, yet you did not opt to discuss and chose instead to revert twice again; (viii) you made no effort to tweak the content or place the content in a more appropriate part of the article, because that would actually demand an interest in improving the article and the Wikipedia project as opposed to harassing someone that you dislike; and (ix) the content in question was never in the "1st paragraph" of either the article or the "overview" sub-section, which shows that you either have no idea what you're editing or feel the need to lie about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  Also, a "critical reception review"? This is not some commentator's opinion or criticism of federalism, these are the explanations in the academic literature on why federal systems emerge (these are not Ziblatt's explanations but his summary - the literature review - of the existing literature), and as such, definitely belong in the overview. The source is also among the most reliable sources you can find on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  You should actually read BRD, as you're not following it at all. You indiscriminately remove content that you admit to not understanding ("When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort" + "BRD is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion"). You don't try to tweak the content per BRD's suggestions ("Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement.") You invoke BRD to revert the edits of an editor whom you dislike on a page that you've never been on before and on a topic that you do not understand (the author is well-known to anyone working in this field), which should therefore obviously invoke suspicion and be seen as provocative ("Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting. Posting an edit that others may (strongly) disagree with, especially in a controversial area, has the potential to be seen as an act of provocation, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve"). You did not opt to discuss the content when it was made clear to you who the author was, what the publication was and why the content was notable ("BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I've restored this content, but to the body of the article rather than to the lead section, because both editors here have expressed support for including this content somewhere in the article. Malerooster, your edits here don't reflect creditably on you. If you objected to the material in the lead, the proper response would be to move down the content, rather than eliminating it entirely without citing any actual, substantive, policy-based reason for it. It is not reasonable to remove very well-sourced text (influential, recent, award-winning academic work published by top university press) with dismissive summaries like "still not notable" (which, by the way, is not the test, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article), followed up by threats against Snooganssnoogans. We should be better than that. Neutralitytalk 01:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Ziblatt's ''Structuring the State'' in overview 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federalism. 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/20130120153312/http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Kelemen%20Memo.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/de6c00f0-8c25-11de-b14f-00144feabdc0.html
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) 06:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *It would be nice if someone could put together a subsection on the history of federalism. For example, there was Johannes Althusius known as a Calvinist political philosopher who's reputation now includes being the Father of Federalism. The history of federalism is important to the American federal republic. The US was the first nation of it's size in the history of the world to apply a concept of federalism. The Swiss Confederation came into existence in the year 1291 but the Swiss never called themselves a confederacy until four hundred years later. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background needed 

message: *Define the difference between "Division of Powers" versus "Separation of Powers" and explain how to identify the difference.
*Be careful to practice a Neutral Point of View. Federalism is a topic of world wide interest and the current article is heavily biased towards the US federal republic. It should be fair to the US, Canada, Argentina, Germany, Ethiopia, Australia, and India as the major federations in today's world.
*Some suggested references are:
# "Comparative Federalism: theory and practice" by Michael Burgess (2006)
# "Federalism: an introduction" by George Anderson (2008)
# "Exploring Federalism" by Daniel Elazar (1987)
# "Federal Government" by K.C.Wheare (1964)
# "Theories of Federalism: a reader" edited by D.Karmis and W.Norman (2006)
# "The Robust Federation: principles of design" by Jenna Bednar (2009)
# 
*All the texts address a major issue with the concept of federalism that is not addressed in this article. The problem; there is not a single well accepted definition of federalism and the word is "polymorphic", is "intractable", and "no one model is appropriate in all circumstances". Every academic text tackles this problem and I think this article should make clear what this issue is about.
-- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: Because federalism was (and still is rarely) spelled with an oe or ligature œ in British English, I think the article should start with, “Federalism (also spelled foederalism or fœderalism)…”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiBrown1204 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Foe(œ)deralism” 

message: Intro says first example of federation is the Old Swiss confederation, and the  proceeds to say that federation is not a confederation, but the article on the Swiss confederacy says it was a federation. 1)are we sure it was Swiss confederacy the fiest federation ever? what makes it the first?2)It's a strange way to phrase it.Barjimoa (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Swiss confederacy