Talk:James Madison/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Religion?

Inasmuch as you people absolutely love to list religious affiliations when there is one (and sometimes even when there isn't one) perhaps you should list one for this person too - namely that he had none and was in fact categorically against religion in all forms. It's only fair - his point of view is a valid one too (even in a warped country like the US).

Unfortunate quote of Hamilton

From a novice POV, and we are many, this quote by using the word "administration" would seem to imply that Hamilton was a president presiding over an administration. "As early as May 26, 1792, Hamilton complained, "Mr. Madison cooperating with Mr. Jefferson is at the head of a faction decidedly hostile to me and my administration."[39]"

Would some change for clarity's sake be warranted?

Then the question of Madison's view of the purpose of the Constitution, in a quote from Noam Chomsky article on Mainstream Media:

"Just like you don’t read what James Madison said during the constitutional convention about how the main goal of the new system has to be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and has to be designed so that it achieves that end.

Is Chomsky correct? If so, then it casts quite another light on the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; or does it not? http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm Idealist707 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

a) Hamilton was in full control of the English language and we should not try to rewrite his statement; b) Madison said quite a few interesting things (here he was talking about the Senate) read his actual statement Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Link GA

Could somebody add this template {{Link GA|fi}} to this article? The article of James Madison is a good article in Finnish Wikipedia, but I can't add that because I haven't an account here. 82.116.243.192 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Author of the Bill of Rights

The section uses facts selectively, contrary to WP:NPOV (also true of most of the recent edits). For example, George Mason is nowhere mentioned. TEDickey (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I was looking for basic info on James Madison, and of course searched for him on Wikipedia. Upon arriving, I found that the beginning of the article was, in my humble opinion, pretty poor. The fact that he was President is only mentioned for the first time in the third paragraph, and the Constitution mentioned immediately is not specified to be the US Constitution. Shouldn't an encyclopedia article start off with that sort of basic and highly relevant info? What's at the beginning now is relevant information, but it's of less importance than immediately informing the uninformed that James Madison was the President of the United States and is regarded as the Father of the US Constitution. DaleWatt (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. In response to your remarks, I made changes to the intro section which I hope have largely remedied the flaws you quite observantly pointed out.--JayJasper (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Opposition to Hamilton" section

This section seems mostly pretty inappropriate. It is written from a POV perspective, and judges the purported biases of sources rather than explaining what they say. It seems a pretty clear instance of OR, in that it seems to be drawing on various sources to create a new synthesis. One comes to Wikipedia to get a sense of what reliable sources say about a subject, not to read the musings of random wikipedia editors. I see that the current version of this section was mostly written about a month ago, after a pretty stable version that had been around for at least a couple of years was decried as a thinly veiled hit job. I find the previous version much preferable. The current section reads like an apologetic, not an even-handed assessment, and consists far too much of musings rather than straightforward information. I'd suggest going back to the older, shorter version. john k (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John K's criticisms of the section, but just about the only virtue of the older version is that it's shorter. WCCasey (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The older version wasn't very good, but at least it wasn't a wandering musing about how Madison was actually totally consistent about everything. john k (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a section titled 'Opposition to Hamilton' has any place in the article; in any form. Important interactions between Madison and Hamilton should, where relevant, be included in the chronological narrative of Madison's career. WCCasey (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the section was more or less supposed to be a chronological discussion of Madison's career between 1791 and 1801, but got taken over by the more thematic stuff. john k (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Madison as a Philosopher"

James Madison is cited as an influential thinker in other philosophical articles about liberalism and enlightenment philosophy. I think his status as a philosopher should be listed under his portrait as well as his basic political/biographical information as is done with other articles about philosophers. This includes things like his major influences, who he influenced, school of thought etc. Quizmoquanto (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a political theorist, not a philosopher. (Q: How often is he read in philosophy classes? A: Never) john k (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A) I recall spending over a month on the Federalist Papers when I took political philosophy. I don't know how you differentiate theory and philosophy, but Wikipedia doesn't; typing in political theory redirects to political philosophy. James Madison is listed as a political philosopher on that page. So what's the objection? Quizmoquanto (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I was basically just being a dick, for which I apologize. My sense, though, is that, in American universities at least, the Federalist Papers would be read in classes offered in history and political science departments rather than in classes offered in philosophy departments; that Madison's political philosophy would be written about largely by professors in history and political science departments, rather than by professors in philosophy departments, and so on. Political philosophy, as a whole, tends not to be dealt with as proper "philosophy." But you're right that this is just silly nitpicking on my part. john k (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The War of 1812 was against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not just England. The UK was a great power, not only England. Furthermore the introduction makes it sound as though the Americans won the war, whereas all historians agree it ended in stalemate for both sides. (92.7.5.239 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

England was considered a perfectly acceptable synecdoche for the United Kingdom until the 1950s or so. Perhaps we should be more careful, but I get sick of people acting as though it is "wrong" to use "England" for the whole British state after 1707 when this was overwhelmingly the most common usage for several centuries. I agree, though, that the discussion of the war in the introduction is embarrassingly jingoistic. john k (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: winning the war - if you agree that the object of the war was American independence, then you have to conclude that the Americans won. WCCasey (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The object of the War of 1812 was not American independence. It's not completely clear what the object was, but the US went to war for a variety of reasons that can only be tangentially related to "American Independence," and the British never made any serious (or even not so serious, really) effort to deprive the Americans of independence. john k (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the main objects of the war was to invade Canada, but this was completely defeated. Had Britain not been fighting a major war in Europe against Napoleon then there would have been a complete invasion of the US, rather than just a series of amphibious assaults. (92.10.139.105 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

Remarks about the constitution

In the introductory paragraph, much emphasis is give to how the US Constitution is the oldest constitution in the world. It even has many sources attached. There's just one problem-- it's not true. The constitution of San Marino is older, having been enacted in 1600. We could more appropriately say the US Constitution is the world's oldest non-European constitution still in effect.

The second part is an opinionated sentence that calls it the most important document in the history of freedom and that the constitutions of many other nations are remarkably like America's constitution. This sounds very unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Many might dispute the essence of "freedom." What does it mean to be free? Was the Magna Carta an example of freedom? What is free? And what is America? Is it a country or a group of continents? A more appropriate statement could be, Many professionals and experts believe the US Constitution is the most significant legal document in the development of western democracy and as served as a model for the constitutions of several nations.Yongbyong38 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

the San Marino story is a myth--or more exactly a publicity stunt by the tourist bureau. SM did not have a constitution until he 20th century. The terminoly is fine . Wikipedia style is to say "XYZ happened" rather than "Some historians say XYZ happened" Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jensen- Is it really the most important document in the history of "freedom?" That's a pretty big statement that would require near unanimous international agreement. It would also require a clear contextual definition of "freedom." Are we talking about national freedom? I doubt a Finnish veteran of the Winter War would credit our constitution with preserving Finnish freedom from Soviet domination. Are we talking about political freedom? The ideas of representative government and citizens' rights can be found in many earlier republics from Athens to Rome and even Iceland. I doubt the Icelanders would credit our constitution with creating the Althing, the longest surviving parliament in the world. Are we talking about personal freedom? Habeas Corpus was already codified in Great Britain and the idea of a three tiered government with separation of powers and checks and balances can be found in the writings of John Locke. What is this "freedom" we're speaking of Dr. Jensen? And why is a cartel of judges, politicians, professors, and authors who gave these sources allowed to define what is the most important document in the history of freedom? Do they speak for the entire world?Yongbyong38 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Racist introduction

The introduction is wrong, and racist. It should be rewritten. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Please elaborate. What particular sentences and/or passages are "wrong" and "racist", and what is your rationale for these claims?. The more specific you can be, the more helpful it is for fellow editors to address your address your concerns. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's claiming the Americans won the War of 1812. It also refers to the enemy as England. In reality the enemy was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There were tens of thousands of Scottish, Welsh and Irish troops and seamen fighting the Americans in that war, not only English. (92.7.31.244 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

I don't think the line about owning slaves needs to be in the introduction, it really is not a major historical part of the Madison biography.Basil rock (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The current lead does mention that Madison owned slaves. There is no mention on who won the War of 1812. I am not sure there was a "victor", more of a stand off, although the U.S. gained control of the American Interior. I believe that mentioning Madison owned slaves is appropriate since he grew up in a slave owning society and he did in fact own slaves. His lifestyle depended on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

What were his views on slavery? Did he own slaves? Richard75 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that needs to be expanded, in terms of his views on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure what the proper forum is, but this seems like the best place to me. I just wanted to thank the folks who worked on this article. A really great read! This little gem in particular made me LOL, Historian Douglas Adair called Madison’s [constitution research] work “probably the most fruitful piece of scholarly research ever carried out by an American.”[16] Kudos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.149.114 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Date on which Madison's parents married

The proposed sources are suspect, since there's a lot of poor-quality data for the genealogists webpages, some of those copy from each other without checking data, and most sources agree on 1743. TEDickey (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That would mean she was married at 12. I would hope to believe she would be married at 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meis2steph11 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In those days girls did get married at age 12, legally. See Age of consent. Richard75 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm finding sources with different dates for birth, marriage and death. this says she died in 1802, and this says she died in 1829. TEDickey (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one genealogy site is incorrect. I'm going to put the citation from the The National Society of Madison Family Descendants into the article, which says the parents were married in 1749. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Siblings

The article says he was the oldest of twelve, of whom nine survived. Then it says he had three brothers and three siblings. Well which is it? Richard75 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Will update with info from The National Society of Madison Family Descendants, which has a 164-page list of ancestors and descendants. That seems to be the best source. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

polemics - inappropriate term

The usual sense of the word "A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something." is probably not what's meant. TEDickey (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Location of link to "War of 1812"

Why does "Main article: War of 1812" come under heading James Madison#Presidency 1809–1817 rather than subheading "War of 1812" below, which I would have thought was the obvious place? AWhiteC (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. AWhiteC (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Land and slaves

The sentence "He inherited tobacco land and owned slaves although he spent his entire adult life as a career politician." was removed, but I restored it. I actually agree with the reasons for deleting it, but in its absence, there is no reference in the article anywhere to slave ownership by Madison. It is manifestly important that this fact be known. I would therefore suggest that some words be inserted elsewhere in the article covering this point, preferably by someone who knows the subject better than I. AWhiteC (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanded Presidency section

I believe the Presidency section needs to be expanded since he was a two term President. I believe the Presidency section needs to be divided into Domestic and Foreign policy. Also a section on American Indian policy would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree---his two terms were heavily dominated by foreign policy (including the Indian wars) Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the War of 1812 covers much of Madison's presidency there is difficulty in dividing his Presidency into the standard Domestic and Foreign policy segments. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded Madison's Presidency by adding segments; information regarding build up to the war; and the Wilkinson affair. I am not sure how the narration is, possibly, could be improved. Madison is difficult to pinpoint in terms of times and dates. Rutland seems to emphasize the War of 1812 and he jumps around in terms of time periods. At times Rutland is hard to follow, but I made the best of information presented. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Legacy Section expanded

I was impressed to read in today's papers direct quotations of Madison's writings in one of the most heated rights arguments of the day...gay marriage. I elected to not state in the article that it was this particular debate that caused his name to be cited in print. However, this is plenty powerful stuff as there are laws now in roughly 40 states which were voted upon by the majority and against the minority. I added this to the talk page as even though I made no mention..the concepts of Madison are controversial enough today that I anticipate what I wrote to be sabotaged.

Madison's writings still receive attention and shape the debate over human rights among different classes of citizens in the 21st century. Madison appears to have anticipated a strong majority that would demand to impose it's will upon a weaker minority by popular vote. Madison in The Federalist Papers, No. 51, wrote:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part… In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.

Pbmaise (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Madison grew up in a slave society and had over 100 slaves at Montpelier plantation in 1820. He never freed any of his slaves in his will. Madison was not an abolitionist. Madison was refering to the "human rights" of white citizens who could vote. Only whites could be citizens of the U.S. up until 1868. There is no record of Madison adopting or advocating gay marriage at the Constitutional Convention. One could argue the Madison was more humane master concerning his own slaves. I believe he may have personally viewed his own slaves as humans rather then property and he advocated that masters free one of their slaves during the American Revolutionary War to keep in step with the values of liberty and justice. To jump from Madison advocating other slave owners to free a slave to mean that Madison was a proponent of gay marriage is a bit drastic in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed....this is why I specifically didn't state the specific cause celeb that has drawn his name into modern debate, nor is this page a forum to debate that topic. I did some checking and found on Google over 7.2 million pages now contain the two exact terms "James Madison" "civil rights". It is a far greater legacy to continue to have your words quoted in modern debate then to simply have a river named after you. Therefore, I believe the man's own words that have inspired so many to use his name and quote his words deserves to be in his legacy section. Pbmaise (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I have also found some of the references on the internet are quoting Madison in this fashion. James Madison, a founding father of the Constitution, said in his Federalist Paper No. 10 that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. Perhaps this is a better statement. Comments?Pbmaise (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. The way the article currently reads is appropriate. The modication is appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Madison was a political philosopher who wrote his ideas for all time, and it worked--we still operate a government under Madisonian principles. For example, his (& Hamilton's) Federalist Papers remain the #1 source of citations to Supreme Court decisions. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however, the Presidencial power has increased due to the advances in military technology, including nuclear weapons and an airforce. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

I believe mentioning that his father owned and ran a slave plantation would be appropriate. There is no mention of slavery in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

In the current section on Madison's involvement with the Bill of Rights, he is first described as being opposed to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, and then recounted as proposing a Bill of Rights. This is inconsistent, and someone should correct it. Did he just change his mind? Whoistheroach (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

he never wanted one but the supporters of the new Constitution promised in 1788 to put one in to mollify the antis. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Terms

Montpelier was a working plantation, even if financially unsuccessful at the end of Madison's life, and should be referred to that way. It was not an "estate".Parkwells (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Full sourcing is lacking for Chernow, Alexander Hamilton and Chambers (2005). Parkwells (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN?

Why does a ISBN number make it easier to find a book? Why does this nerdy template exist at all? Use LOC] and you will find anything you need. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

it does not help and it hurts when there are multiple editions each with a different isbn. Rjensen (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Age correction in "Father of the Constitution"

The article states that President James Madison was 26 at the time of the convention in Philadelphia in 1787. He would've been 36 not 26, having been born in 1751. Can someone more reputable than a new user like myself correct this please? Thanks. Coolhandluq (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Coolhandluq has a sharp eye and deserves to make the change. go ahead. Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to but it's semi-protected and I just created my account an hour ago. I don't think I can make the edit without waiting for 4 days. Coolhandluq (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians love new editors with a keen eye. we'll wait :) Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Word selection

I recommend changing "primary advisor, confident, and policy planner" to "primary advisor, confidant, and policy planner" Cdwilliamson (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

Please add citations to footnotes 15, 16, 17, and 18 to the "religion" category at the top of the article (next to "deism"). All of these articles are probably more reliable than the citation to footnote 1, and furthermore, are cited within the discussion on religion below; they have just been overlooked in the summary boxes. Neynja65 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Old Style birthdate

May I edit the page, because his old style birthdate was on March 5, 1751.72.211.239.152 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

see Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates - 1752 is the cutoff date TEDickey (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Please correct the misspelled word 'alternation' to 'alteration' in the line: "an alteration the Articles of Confederation"--Brineydeep (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Brineydeep (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting the error.--JayJasper (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908102756/http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/5/42/159 to http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/5/42/159

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

External Links section: Document: "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) at the Religious Movements Homepage Project, University of Virginia" Suggested changes: 1. Change title of above document to "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) at the National Archives" 2. change URL to above document (currently broken) from: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html to http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163 Kmenden (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done --Stabila711 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

New book may be of interest

Madison's Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention by Mary Sarah Bilder, 2015, Harvard University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

James Madison

He was the 4th president of the U.S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.93.62 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Information on the British Entering Washington D.C.

Why isn't there any information on this event in the article? The British burning down the white house is the reason why Madison's approval ratings were abismal at the end of his second term. People saw him as a coward for what the public perceived as him abandoning Dolley there. She had planned a dinenr for about 40 guests and right before the food was served, they all fled. This is the reason that the house wasn't burned right away since the british, upon their arrival, treated themselves to a warm dinner and alcohol. I'm not a historian or anything, in fact, I'm the worst person to ask about historical things, but this seems like semi-common knowledge? Was this ever included at some point? Is it a myth? Is it true? Any insight would be great. Thanks! Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is inheritance in the introduction?

The 2nd opening paragraph starts with "Madison inherited his plantation Montpelier in Virginia and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime." This would seem to be a minor detail fit for the body of the article (where it appears), but out of place in the introductory paragraphs. I suggest deleting this sentence. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say this is important because it establishes Madison as a man of the times, that is, a slave owner, which some politicians, however few, were not.Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

In the paragrapgh dealing with the War of 1812, there is a discrepancy in the sentence with the facts published in the Battle of Lake Erie entry in Wikipedia.

"The U.S. fleet on Lake Erie went up against a superior British force there and destroyed or captured the entire British Fleet on the lake..."

From the wikipedia entry regarding the Battle of Lake Erie, Perry's squadron comprised of nine American vessels (288 lb shot from long guns and 1,248 lb shot from carronades) versus Barclay's Royal Navy squadron of six vessels, firing 330 lb shot from long guns and 474 lb shot from carronades. U.S. broadside weight of 1,536 pounds versus Royal Navy's 804 lb. From this entry, the one on Madison's page is erroneous.

Please change "The U.S. fleet on Lake Erie went up against a superior British force there and destroyed or captured the entire British Fleet on the lake..." to "The U.S. naval squadron on Lake Erie successfully defended itself and captured its smaller opponents of the Royal Navy. All six British vessels were captured by the nine American vessels. This victory crippled the supply and reinforcement of British military forces in the west theatre of the war, forcing the British troops and their Native allies to retreat."

162.53.28.67 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Everything I read yields a different accounting. It does appear to be established that the Americans had more ships; however, some accounts give different crew numbers and gun numbers, lengths and weights, and so on. There was also probably a bit of luck involved as the British thought at one point that the Americans would retreat, but they did not retreat and, instead, attacked. Luck and maneuvering were a large part of this battle no matter which force was technically "superior". In any case, the change was made to, "The U.S. naval squadron on Lake Erie (actual link is to "Battle of Lake Erie") successfully defended itself and captured its opponents of the Royal Navy. All six British vessels were captured by the American forces. This victory crippled the supply and reinforcement of British military forces in the western theatre of the war, which forced the British troops and their Native allies to retreat."  Rules of engagement Paine  21:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Rules of engagement Paine  21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Founding Father

The paragraph dealing with his death claims he was the last of the founding fathers, but at least a couple of others listed in the Founding Fathers page outlived him. Most notably Aaron Burr. The citation for the claim goes to a web page that has nothing to say on the matter one way or the other. Perhaps "...among the last of the founding fathers..." would be suitable. 192.189.234.20 (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

On the most recent change- Added content - distribution of authorship of the Federalist Papers. That's the lyrics from Hamilton, the musical. 208.119.81.90 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done--The edit request is unclear.Please be more specific and definite w.r.t the sought additions/changes.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Only President to lead troops in battle while in office?

This arguably is only true if "leading troops in battle" is qualified to mean leading them *against a foreign army*. Washington personally led troops into PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. I grant that these two are not quite the same thing, but maybe a clarification(perhaps in a parenthetical) is warranted? Jeffreynye (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Major Edit of References/Sources Done

I have completed comprehensive work on References and Sources in order to provide consistency and compliance with established formatting per WP:Citing Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo in Secretary of State Section

"Along with Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, Madison became of the two major influences in Jefferson's cabinet." This needs another word. It is likely supposed to say "... Madison became ONE of the two..." Supremelorderik (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2017

[4] In these years, the southern colonies were becoming a slave society, in which slave labor powered the economy and slaveholders formed the political elite. About this time is when James Madison Sr. brought Mandy a slave from Ghana. Manday was to help Nelly raise their children. About this time is when Mandy became pregent with a child name Coreen and James Madison Sr was the father. (We are unsure how many other chidren Mandy had durning this time). This would make Coreen Madison a half-sister of James Madison Jr durning this time period no Slave would have been known as a relationship to the Master. When James Madison Jr. got older his father James Madison Sr. gave him a slave name Coreen. James Madison Jr. married Dorothea Payne they had children and he also had a child with Coreen name Jim Madison. Coreen and son Jim where still Slaves to the family and worked as laborers to the Madison family even when he became the 4th President. Are We Related 2008 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of relevant information

The first line on James Madison foregrounds his possession of slaves, an ordering of facts that erroneously presupposes the impact of this fact over others from his life's work on American History. This remark should be removed to a later section: "owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime" Josephine Kelso (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Date correction needed

A reader (ticket:2017101110015207) pointed out that the birth and death dates should read:

(March 16 [O.S. March 5, 1750], 1751 – June 28, 1836)

or maybe (March 16, 1751 [O.S. March 5, 1750] – June 28, 1836)

Because the new year started on 25 March, and this was 20 days prior.

I think the reader is correct but would like to someone very familiar with Old Style and New Style dates to confirm and make the change.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Madison. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ucpress.edu/op.php?isbn=9780520009967
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013211454/http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/description1.htm to http://www.virginia.edu/pjm/description1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Places named after James Madison

Fort Madison (1808-1813) was named in honor of James Madison. It's sister forts are Fort Osage and Bellevue. Anttex (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Madison,_Iowa citation. Anttex (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Referring to Princeton or the College of New Jersey

A discussion of the recent edits by HudsonValleyHistorian (talk · contribs) on this page, and on other Princeton alumni pages, is ongoing at Talk:Woodrow Wilson#Princeton. Interested editors may wish to join the discussion there. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

cause of death?

There's nothing in the topic which provides a source for this; a quick check finds nothing related to recent edits - see this for example TEDickey (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar in Prelude to War section

I tripped over the wording of a sentence that reads "In particular, with hostilities against Britain appearing increasingly likely, factions in favor and against war with Britain formed in Congress." It should read "...factions in favor of and against war" Daniel Nairn (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. FallingGravity (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Citation In Section 1 (Early life and education)

Last sentence in the third paragraph
"He became especially proficient in Latin. Madison said that he owed his bent for learning "largely to that man (Robertson)."

Citations:
James Madison University: http://www.jmu.edu/montpelier/2003Spring/MoldingAFoundingFather.shtml
The Montpelier Foundation: http://www.montpelier.org/james-and-dolley-madison/james-madison/bio
Thanks.--Ratha K (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It was John Leland, not Elijah Craig whom Madison meet with in Virginia about supporting the ratification of the Constitution. . This link is to the memorial in Orange County, Va about their meeting. Madison thought the Constitution should be a stand alone document, however Leland said Baptist in VA would not support him unless their religious liberty was protected.

References

````dorahistory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorahistory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

<Israel> ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.140.166 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

False statement in Religion section

The author cites Ketchem for the statement: "young Madison was an avid reader of English deist tracts." Page 56 of Ketchem contains no such assertion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portergr (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of Bill of Rights authorship.

The article says "For his role in drafting the first ten amendments to the Constitution during the 1st Congress, Madison is known as the 'Father of the Bill of Rights.'" There is no citation for this, probably because its not true and based on myth.

The first ten amendments of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are direct derivatives of the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Petition of Right. The Framers of North of the Mason–Dixon line, such as John Dickinson of Philadelphia, had been involved in these constitutional precedents and their enforcement North of Mason-Dixon prior to the founding of the US and Dickinson's framing of the first Articles of Confederation and a first draft of the First Amendment (see Jane Calvert's historical compilation). 71.229.155.68 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Madison's alma mater

Just in case anyone actually wants to look at the past discussion and consensus referred to in this recent edit comment:

There was a lengthy discussion several months ago (May 2018) about how to refer to Princeton in articles about alumni who graduated before 1896, in their infoboxes and in the article body. That discussion is now archived at Talk:Woodrow Wilson/Archive 3#Princeton (uncollapse by clicking "show"). At the time of that discussion, notices were posted on several talk pages, to invite participation from editors of other articles about notable alumni of that era. The notice that was posted here, on this talk page, has been archived at Talk:James Madison/Archive 3#Referring to Princeton or the College of New Jersey. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

change "He co-wrote The Federalist Papers" to "He co-wrote The Federalist" (see explanation below)

change "... he joined with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing The Federalist Papers, a series of pro-ratification essays that is widely considered to be one of the most influential works of political science in American history." to "... he joined with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing The Federalist, a series of pro-ratification essays that is widely considered to be one of the most influential works of political science in American history. (The original title of the collected essays was The Federalist, and that title persisted in subsequent editions until an edition was published by Clinton Rossiter in 1961 under the title of The Federalist Papers, the more common title used since then, although occasional recent editions [e.g., editor Robert Ferguson, Barnes & Noble, 2006] are still correctly and traditionally titled The Federalist.)

The parenthetical explanation at the end should be included in the article. Dccmd1947 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

negative. this belongs on the The Federalist Papers page since Madison was not responsible for the title change. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

File:MADISON, James-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:MADISON, James-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 16, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day

James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, lawyer, diplomat and philosopher who served as the fourth president of the United States from 1809 to 1817. He is widely considered to be one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States, and historians have generally ranked him as an above-average president.

This picture is a line engraving of Madison, produced around 1902 by the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) as part of a BEP presentation album of the first 26 presidents, which was reportedly given to Treasury Secretary Lyman J. Gage.Engraving credit: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restored by Andrew Shiva

James Madison was not a lawyer.

Please remove this from the first line of the article. See, e.g., https://www.jstor.org/stable/25712520 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.96.57 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the term "lawyer" from the introduction. Apparently, Madison never derived a living from being a lawyer, never practiced law, or went before a court. In other words Madison was not known to be by profession a lawyer. Apparently, Madison was never an advocate for someone in legal trouble before a court. That by definition is what an American lawyer would do. Here is an article: Lawyers in American Society 1750-1966 James Willard Hurst (June 4, 1967) Marquette Law Review Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

there is a very good article here: Mary Sarah Bilder. "James Madison, Law Student and Demi-Lawyer." Law and History Review 28#2 (2010): 389-449 online. Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I added a subsection in the article "Studied law". I thought the matter deserved a subsection. Seems there is some controvery over Madison studying law or not being a lawyer. The subsection could be expanded. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think this article is getting close enough to be nominated for good article. Any objections, ideas, or suggestions ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Taking Office and Cabinet

Under the section for "Taking Office and Cabinet", it reports that "Madison finally replaced Smith with Monroe in April 2011." I'm fairly certain that Madison, Smith, and Monroe were all dead by 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man774 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Birth year: New Style v Old Style

The opening sentence has Madison's date of birth as 16 March 1751 NS/5 March 1751 OS; the Early Life section has it as 16 March 1751/5 March 1750. The Early Life dates actually do represent the same day, so I'm assuming that they're correct. The dates in the lede (with 1751 for the year on both dates) would be two separate dates a year apart from each other, because Old Style used 25 March as New Year's Day. I'm guessing that the lede used to be correct, but someone saw what they thought was a discrepancy and "fixed" it by making both years the same, and no one caught it. Therefore I'm changing the Old Style date to 1751. Unless there's some other thing going on that I'm not aware of, and it's something else that needs to be changed. Binabik80 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

British-America

When did British-America end over the 13 colonies, 1765 or 1776 ? In the narration I stopped saying British-America after 1776. Or should the colonies just be called the American colonies in the narration ? Does it matter ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think either "British America" (no hyphen) or "American colonies" is fine, but "British American colonies" is awkward. In the paragraph in question I would recommend "American colonies". British is already used several times in the text, so "British American" is not only repetitive but also unnecessary; it's already clear from context that the American colonies being discussed are the British ones, because no reasonable reader is going to think that the problem was British efforts to tax other countries' American colonies (like Argentina or Saint-Domingue). I'm going to take a quick crack at copyediting the paragraph now. Binabik80 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Political and religious views

*I'll warn ahead of time that this suggestion is a lengthy summary (I know). I tried to shorten it, but I could not find an authentic way to do so without compromizing on my suggestion as a whole.

The sub-section Religion should concern itself as much with James Madison's stance on the rights of conscience. The text as it appears now need no alteration, for it gives a good explanation of the information we have on his personal relation with religion; but I strongly feel it needs to be supported with an additional text essentially exploring his proactive fight to legislate the protection of the rights of conscience. For, consider...

As early as 1 April 1774, James Madison showed concerns about the infringement on the right of conscience in a letter to William Bradford; the well-known "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" that was presented to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785 was a document composed by James Madison anonymously, where he stipulated 15 arguments against the coelision of church and state; and in drafting the United States Bill of Rights, James Madison explicitly included wording in the early drafts of the First Amendment protecting the rights of conscience specifically. These may seem, on the surface, like issues concerning freedom of religion alone, but in fact they seem to be deeply rooted in James Madison's philosophical understanding of conscience as related to the human condition, and the sources mentioned below suggest the same.

James Madison's Montpelier, a modern museum of his villa whose professional dedication is to preserve and present an accurate account of his achieves, has an online-article (found at https://www.montpelier.org/learn/religious-freedom) that goes right into this point. They write as following: "Madison would have seen morality as part of the individual, protected conscience. It’s not that he didn’t have his own opinions of rights and wrongs or justice and injustice, but he would insist that those opinions were his own. And, by extension, the state has no right to try to legislate or otherwise stifle your own morality. Madison, who was intensely private about his own religious convictions, pushed the boundaries of how his countrymen thought about the matters of conscience. It was partly due to his work on the subject that minority voices were protected from having the government control perhaps their most fundamental right—what they believe."

This position, taken by the archivists of James Madison's Montpelier, seems to be expressed in the document "Memorial and Remonstrance" itself, where James Madison wrote: "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true, that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."

Proposed drafts of the First Amendment, either written primarily by him or by others with his help, reads as follows:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

"Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed."

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or to infringe the rights of conscience."

(sources: In God We Trust: How the Supreme Court's First Amendment Decisions Affect Organized Religion, written by Kathryn Page Camp (published 2015), p. 31-32.)

During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience." 1 Annals of Cong. 730 (Aug. 15, 1789). (source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/1_1_1/)

Notice how all the drafts of the First Amendment, as well as his personal interpretation of its final draft, make both separation of church and state as well as freedom of religion SUBJECT to the rights of conscience, as the two former stipulations are only there to defend the ladder. All these drafts make the rights of conscience their final remark.

Even after federal and state legislations were passed protecting freedom of religion and safeguarding separation of church and state, Madison still wrote with passion about the importance of society in general, and states as well as sovereignties in particular, to properly protect and defend the right of conscience. Proactively writing for the National Gazette newspaper, he published an article on 29 March 1792 titled "Property" where this is firmly expressed:

"Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact." (source: Bryan-Paul Frost and Jeffrey Sikkenga, History of American political thought (2003) p. 152)

It is almost as if though the separation of church and state, even the freedom of religion, in James Madison's view, are legal securities merely supporting and securing the individual's right of conscience. These statutes in place defend a person's conscience much more than his right to criticize (though, obviously, the laws defend both rights). He seems to give religion as an institution no respect or concern in much of his arguments for freedom of religion, really apart from when it becomes a legal establishment outside the realm of the individual (or even outside the realm of metaphysics; for, again, in a news-article published on The National Gazette September 26, 1792, James Madison presents a dialectic between a Republican and Anti-Republican whereby he makes the point "[M]ysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery, unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps of the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation").

His defense of the rights of conscience seemed to be such an importance to him that he supported theistic as well as anti-theistic prosperous enjoyments people could partake in its activity: "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it." (Letter to Rev. Frederick Beasley, 20 November 1825)

In contrast to Jefferson, who appeared much more focused on the right to be self-critical and free-thinking in religious matters, Madison seems to take the other side of the coin of this issue where many, many sources of his encounters express him as concerned with maintaining religious consent while combating religious coercion in all of society; nonetheless, as they both are the primary champions in American history to fight for true religious freedom in all areas, they still seemed to agree with one thing that Jefferson and Madison alike thought freedom of religion, above all, should be all about: as expressed by Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated 22 January 1786, "I flatter myself [that we] have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."

The final Wikipedia-article should not, by any means, take a personal position on James Madison's views on religion, nor even on his own position on morality itself; but it would be foolish and half-arse for the article to avoid the subject altogether when there are sources available to give us clear understandings as to what motivated James Madison throughout the American Enlightenment and also in his personal life. Therefore, I would suggest an additional text, to the sub-section on Religion that now persists, that summarizes his defense of the rights of conscience, and I thus suggest renaming the sub-section to Religion and the Rights of Conscience in a similar fashion to how the Wikipedia-article on George Washington has a sub-section titled Religion and Freemasonry — Preceding unsigned comment added by David P. H. L. (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of the founders were clergy, priests, or rectors of any churches. Madison did not have any professional trade. What did the founders exactly mean by "Freedom of Religion" ? That might go beyond the scope of this article. The Anglican Church could no longer be affiliated with the King of England. So in that sense religion mixed with politics. There was no freedom to be part of the Church of England under King or Queen. I believe Catholics were allowed to be under the Pope, a "non political" figure. Native American religions were banded, primarily because it was believed there religion was war like or anti-American. Was Masonry a religion ? It had religious or pagan aspects to it, but highly secretive. Washington was a Masonic priest. There apparently is no distinction between a cult and a religion with the Founders. But this speculation goes beyond the scope of this article. I really don't know what Madison's religious faith was. That would be important for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Also the Founders only allowed whites to be citizens of the United States. So that would rule out Hinduism, Budah, and Muslim religions. There may have been a few whites who practiced those religions but highly doubtful. So the freedom of religion, most likely meant, freedom of religion only for Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish peoples. Very limited in scope. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of Religion may have helped Jewish people and immigrants the most. The Spanish Inquisition lasted until 15 July 1834. Jewish people, would have found America, to be a santuary from European oppression. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deanre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On when to call it a colony and when do we call it a state

Clarification in these discussions would be helpful, since it seems to mattered in this Madison page, I'll go ahead and ask here. Did the states declare themselves states before the Dec of Ind? Did they call themselves commonwealths, colonies, or states, or did they act as self-governing states before declaring themselves such? Or was that de facto, that they were essentially states before conceiving themselves defiantly independent states in a sense of being nations in there own right? Would this be a spectrum of situations that did not codify until the Constitution? Who validated in the British government that colonies can be states, having their own legistlatures and houses of burgesses, or was these legistlative inventions the true declaration of independence, formed one state at a time?

Good question. Each colony had a well established name such as Province of New York. Congress took the initiative in 1776 and asked each to draw up a new constitution --they all did so and dropped terms like 'colony' or 'province' in favor of 'state' or 'commonwealth.' Virginia passed its new state constitution on June 29th, 1776, followed by New Jersey (July 2nd), Delaware (September 21st), Pennsylvania (September 28th--A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA), Maryland (November 11th) and North Carolina (December 18th). Georgia followed suit on February 5th 1777, followed by New York on April 20th, 1777. etc. Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A few comments GA article

I read through the article. It seems balanced. I like that there is criticism in the reputation section. The slavery section is covered well. It spends time on slavery, not just a small paragraph. There is one part that says Madison was opposed to slavery "intellectually". I am not sure what that would mean to the reader. That could use possibly further explanation. Either Madison was for slavery or against it. He owned slaves, so I would say he was pro-slavery. I was informed this article could be nominated for GA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would add one more sentence on slavery in the introduction section. Maybe just one more sentence is needed. He seemed to be an average slave owner. The slavery section covers slavery thoroughly. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Like fellow Virginians Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, Madison was a Virginia slave owner." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Why should the state be emphasized instead of his wealth and social status? Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Madison, Jefferson, and Washington were Presidents from Virginia who owned slaves. Jefferson and Washington were contemporaries of Madison. They considered themselves Virginians or were popularly known to be from Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I took out any references to Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification issues

"Several counties and communities have been named for Madison, including Madison County, Alabama, and Madison, Wisconsin. Other things named for Madison include Madison Square, James Madison University, and the USS James Madison" You added a source but both of them just mention USS James Madison, none of them cover the other things mentioned in these two sentences. Additionally, neither of the sources say that the USS James Madison was named after the president (may seem obvious, but without a source it's WP:OR). Failed verification issues are likely to sink a FAC. (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Several cites added. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

FAC suggestions

Since you plan to nominate this article at FAC, ErnestKrause, I suggest that some trimming/cutting/splitting is needed to meet FACR #2 and #4. At 78 kB (12311 words) the article is well over the recommended length per Article size. Personally I think the optimal length for a FA on a broad topic is around 7000 words; much longer than that and you're likely to get opposes based on length and summary style. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh If you have any suggestions on good places that you could begin to simplify, then I can try to support you. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on US history, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt as I'm not really sure what the weight of various topics should be.

One thing to look at is the splits in the Winston Churchill article, according to Template:Winston Churchill there are seven (!) splits by time period. That seems like overkill here, but you might consider an article on Madison's role in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, maybe a split based on Madison's time in Congress? Then the relevant sections in this article could be shortened. The presidency section doesn't look too bad, but some of the sections seem like they might contain too much detail. I wonder if the General Wilkinson misconduct is WP:DUE to mention in this article at all? was it significant for Madison's legacy? If not cut entirely, it might be covered in just a sentence or two.

Personally, the prose looks fine to me. I often copyedit articles by non-native English speakers, but I'm not so good at improving prose that is already good. One thing I noticed is the referencing, it is almost entirely sfn but there are occasional exceptions. To be more consistent, you could change all references to sfn (with the possible exception of websites). Also, is montpelier.org a "high-quality reliable source" per FACR#1c? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Is "philosopher" something that should be mentioned in the first sentence? The article doesn't seem to justify the prominence for this label. Also, "expansionist" is not sourced anywhere in the article, I would support removing that too. (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

buidhe, That should be both article splits for Madison as Father of the Constitution, and, Madison on slavery, now covered at the main article for Founding Fathers in the Slavery section there. I'd noticed that only Washington and Jefferson were covered there and it appeared useful to add Madison to be there among them. Also I added cites for the citation requests which you added into the text, and the text should be all caught up. If I've overlooked anything then let me know. Any thoughts about FAC and related upgrades? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ErnestKrause What the article would really benefit from is a peer review in which hopefully some knowledgeable editors would look it over and suggest improvements. I'd also suggest standardizing the citations, which is definitely a must before a FAC. (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are looking to simplify the article, I'll echo whatever buidhe said above. Additionally, I'd suggest the following changes:

• The article is currently 66,700 characters. Although we do have long president FAs like James K. Polk, the current criteria would require summarizing it to around 55,000 characters.
• "Congressman and party leader (1789–1801)" section is bit long. Details like "In 1799, after Henry announced that he would return to politics as a member of the Federalist Party", "ending a long friendship" [emphasis added], the entire 1800 election para, etc. could be summarized.
• I'd also pay attention that we already have long articles on his presidency and War of 1812. The sections devoted to these topics should just be a summary of important points related to Madison. The "Military action" in the War of 1812 section should be more concise.
• Rest, I see that other sections are almost fine.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, While at GAN there was the possibility of doing a co-nommination of this article for FAC. I can go ahead with some of the upgrades being discussed here and possibly you can join in for an eventual co-nomination. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently I'm busy IRL. I can, but cannot promise. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh June has come around and the James Madison article is now under GOCE review for completion in the upcoming week; any thoughts for possibly going ahead with a FAC co-nomination for the article at this time (I recall you mentioned a busy schedule last April). The present GOCE copy edits look quite good at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is looking much better. I'll take a look in a few hours and make some changes, and see how it goes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Have taken a look, here are a few suggestions:

• There is a citation needed tag
• The image captions needs to be bit more informative. Ex: "Madison's Birthplace" could have another line or so.
• Length (66,000 characters) is not an issue for me, but recently in FAC, we have had nomination not being promoted due to length issues. Many editors consider articles above, say 55k-60k characters too long to read and not meeting the conciseness criteria. You might want to confirm with buidhe whether the article seems concise.
• More to come. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Kavyansh.Singh I'll try to get to your listed items today and tomorrow. Buidhe has not looked at the article since April and if you feel some sections might be trimmed further, then just let know and I'll shorten them. After looking at the FA for John Adams, then the article for James Madison is shorter by a significant margin; Madison's article is shorter than the FA for Adams. If you have more items for me to edit or update in the James Madison article, then add them in below; the above comments you just added all look useful for putting into the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Kavyansh.Singh All of your edit comments should be in the article now. Any thoughts for next set of edits or your own new edits for nom? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong place of death.

His mansion and property were called Montpelier. He died at his mansion in Orange County. Montpelier, Virginia is located in Hanover County near Richmond. 2601:5C7:C100:FAE0:B55A:28E2:35FB:D5EA (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Montpelier (Orange, Virginia) is what English Wikipedia states as: "Madison family — James Madison's Montpelier, located in Orange County, Virginia, was the plantation house of the Madison family, including fourth president...". Which Madison biography are you following with which page numbers. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC) ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Informal review

In response to a request for a review made on my talk page, I'd like to offer the following comments based on reading several sections of the article:

• "that was one of the most influential works of political science " - the tense seems a bit off here

• Rewrite wording to avoid puffery; it was among the influential works of the era. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• " in which the colonists split into two factions" - this implies that everyone took a side in the war, which I don't think is correct

• Correct usage is that the Loyalist and Patriot factions had to deal with the third faction of Neutral residents who did not with to take sides. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Madison believed that an established religion was detrimental not only to freedom of religion but also because it encouraged excessive deference to the authority of the state" - the grammar is off here

• Madison's position on the separation of state and religion is well-established; I've altered the wording to state his position explicitly. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• More broadly, given how he championed this cause it would be helpful to describe his views in more detail at this point in the article rather than at its end

• Madison's position should be stated explicitly and I've removed the ambiguity. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• "that the United States acquiesce claims to the river for 25 years" - I suspect that 'acquiesce' isn't the right word here, and this is difficult to understand.

• It was a concession, and Madison objected to it; it is now in the next explicitly. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• " the Federalists created a standing army" - was this army raised by the political party (as this text says), or the government? (which is what I suspect is meant).

• Formal and informal convention at that time were under the control of the various state delegates who were not always reliable in terms of financial commitments to standing armies. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• "vast pockets of American land remained vacant" - maybe things are different in the US than Australia, but this surely can't be accurate.

• After Lewis and Clark it was clear that the demographics of the far West in Madison's time were significantly behind demographics in the Eastern states. This was an issue which both Jefferson and Madison felt needed to be amended. Adjust text accordingly. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• There's a bit of repetition throughout the text (4 uses of " attacks on American shipping" across the article, and some paragraphs using 'British' frequently for instance). Tweaking this would help readability. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've changed the wording to indicate "seizure" rather than unalloyed attacks in 2 of the 4 places. There is little question that Britain had the stronger Navy and could exert its influence against the weaker American fleet. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nick-D Your comments are really on point. I've added text to remove the ambiguities and to try to strengthen the text. With you background in Military articles at Wikipedia, I thought you might also be interested in the Wikipedia article for the War of 1812. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Restored Mansion at James Madison's Montpelier.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)