Talk:The Federalist Papers

I move that since the TRUE title of the work is "The Federalist" and NOT "The Federalist Papers" the title of this article should be changed to "The Federalist" with searches for "(The) Federalist Papers" redirected to it. "The Federalist Papers" is a later title: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay very specifically wanted the work to be called "The Federalist" because a federalist was the type of man whose virtues they wanted to promote, a man like Publius--The title "The Federalist" refers to a type of PERSON, not a collection of papers. Calling them "The Federalist Papers" very much changes the authors' intent. --70.30.91.76 (talk • contribs) 11:48, December 26, 2010‎ (UTC)

I agree with with the anom author of the section above entitled "Title" - the title of this page, if Wikipedia is to be historically correct, should be The Federalist papers (or The Federalist Papers if capitalizing Papers makes it more familiar). The authors of the papers called the overall project The Federalist, indicating that they were articles being written by one man but actually going under a shared alias of three of America's Founding Fathers - Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. This change feels appropriate to me, and might to readers and historians, so I'm seconding anom's idea, above, in favor of a name change. If so, we can set off fireworks and sign this change with a virtual pen from the Syng inkstand (I really like that page and artifact!) Randy Kryn 21:08 19 September, 2014 (UTC)

As we know, papers in opposition to the Constitution were written and published by many people. Did anyone other than Publius write in support of the Constitution? J S Ayer (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hi Tonymetz. You probably know more about this than I do, so I'll pick your brain. I hope you don't mind. You obviously believe this book is important as a source for this article, at least as Further reading:

• Fischer, David Hackett (1965). The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy . Harper & Row.

The book is listed in the Bibliography at the Federalist Party article, where it is obviously on-topic. What justifies it being listed here? The Federalist Party isn't mentioned a single time in this article. Shouldn't such content be developed first?

BTW, my most valuable source of knowledge about The Federalist Papers was gained while doing a lot of work at Wikisource. It's a pretty amazing work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me ) 15:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

The book covers The Federalist Party and Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Paper's primary author. The Party was a major if not primary means of influence for the ideas that Hamilton championed in this book . For those and other reasons it seems to be relevant for "Further Reading" where it's found. Tonymetz 💬 18:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for that explanation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me ) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

The article is currently listed in a series of "Conservatism in the United States" but this inflates the actual conservatism of The Federalist Papers. Websters defines "conservatism" as

a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change specifically : such a philosophy calling for reduced taxation, for limited government regulation of business, industry and finance, for restriction of immigration, for a strong national defense, and for individual financial responsibility for personal needs.^[1]

Nothing about the Federalist Papers nor their authors fits with this definition. Hamilton and the papers both argued that the President should be akin to a king and that the federal government needed to be strong. ^{[2] [3] [4]} If I had to guess it got added because many conservative judges use the Founders' intentions to argue for their preferred constitutional interpretation and the Federalist Society has taken on the name of the Papers and silhouette of Hamilton as their logo, but this isn't enough evidence to support lumping the Federalist Papers together with Barry Goldwater and JD Vance's books which more align with the views of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Perhaps these should instead be grouped with the series "Constitution of the United States" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy100001 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

You may have a point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

The article as a whole, and the lead in particular, assumes a great deal of prior knowledge. It delves into details before explaining the context. For example, why would states hesitate to ratify the constitution in the first place? How is the concept of a federation defined in the U.S. constitution, and what does it mean for states? To improve the article, it may be helpful to envision a reader who didn't grow up in the U.S. education system. --Josef Horáček (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Reply