Talk:Congressional Apportionment Amendment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed new title

Why twelvth? I thought that Articles 3 through 12 became the BOR, Article 1 became Amendment 27 and Article 2 was the unratified one?

This amendment was article 1. Article 2 became amendment 27 (see United States Bill of Rights#Origin). While this title isn't necessarily bad, it is weird and inaccurate, and it should probably be renamed. All of the other entries in Category:U.S. Constitution unratified amendments have titles that reflect the subject or context of the amendment. Maybe Article 1 of the Bill of Rights? -Plutor 17:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

435

Does anyone know why, for nearly one hundred years, we have had 435 members in the House? Why not 400, or 450, or 500? Is there some magic quality to the number 435 that I do not understand? Xyzzyva 21:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

see [1] -Cmprince 23:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (who's too lazy to update himself)

Missing citations

This article should have a table that lists the date of ratifications of this proposed amendment by various states along with a citation to the seminal reference, such as a legislature's official record. —optikos 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

This is the first article of the original 12 articles for amendment presented by the first congress to the state legislatures for their ratification. --The Trucker 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of this was copied from "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" . The new version of the page is being developed @ User:mikcob/Article. That new version will replace this one and eventually the "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" will redirect to Article the First as it should. Failing that then "Article the First" will be a redirect to The Congressional Apportionment Amendment which will be the exact wording of the new "Article the First" and "Article the First" will be a redirect. "Article the First" made not one stinkin change to apportionment and the entire reason for its existence was to prevent an oligarchical congress as we have today that is totally owned by the two major parties, That might be OK for the Senate and the Executive, but it was not and is not OK for the House. History is replete with the realization of this and with many many good references describing the _real_ reasons behind the drafting of this amendment. If you are in a hurry to find out all you want and more go to [| Thirty-Thousand.org ] and spend an hour actually engaging the mind.

Missing everything

This article should present at least a modicum of information concerning the TRUE purpose of this proposed amendment BEFORE it was sabotaged in a joint House Senate committee. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/QHA-04.pdf offers an in depth discussion of the material with appropriate references to the historical documents. Based on the material located at http://Thirty-Thousand.org I have endeavored to make a modest beginning on this very important wiki article. I have also taken the liberty of creating the "Article the First" page as a referent to this page. It is of seminal importance that people know that this amendment was the very first amendment and WHY it was the first. --The Trucker 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The First actual installment of Article the First

There are probably some minor hickies that need to be cleaned up on this, but let's let the wiki police screech and wail about POV and such before I invest any more of my time. In anticipation I will just say that my "point of view" is backed up by the facts. This Amendment was NOT about apportioning votes among the states.--The Trucker 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Unnecessary Deletion

If the unknown person identified only by an IP address wishes to expand the deleted section such that it is not "poorly written" then that person is invited to do so. However, I am not disposed to having someone delete my work because of his or her personal opinions. DO THE RESEARCH. I certainly did mine.--The Trucker 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see where the anonymous user was coming from. The section needs to be heavily copy edited, as the title of the section isn't even properly capitalized. But even more importantly, the section is simply just unnecessary speculative arithmetic for the purposes of mere trivia. It would be more useful to condense the entire section down to "Under the provisions of this amendment, the US House would currently have 1600 members, and the US Senate would have 800," and then insert the line into a relevant part of the article.

Let me rephrase your illustrious statement for you and correct it:

"Under the provisions of this amendment, the US House could currently have 1600 members, or 800 members depending on which of the versions (House or Senate respectively) one might want to interpret as an algorithm as opposed to a limit".

It should furthermore be observed that this entire article is suffering from massive POV and original research issues.

The article as it existed was a total lie and had no references at all. I gave you many, many, references that illustrate that the previous interpretation was just flat wrong and in addition to that it is impossible to actually study what was there and not see the obvious fallacy. The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED "purpose" claimed in the original article was smokeblowing bunk. My, so called, POV is supported by factual references and the previous garbage was not. Yet I see no screeching from you concerning missing references on the original.

I notice that you have been a major contributor to this article, and you yourself have practically dared other Wikipedians to attempt to apply Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR to your contributions.

I can understand the NOR and I will fix it, but the NPOV is a false claim. The purpose of the amendment was precisely as I have stated. And the original claim as to purpose was total crap. (unsupported idle crap at that). Your error is in your failure to enforce your rules on the previous author.

Perhaps you have "done the research," however, if you were a responsible wikipedian, you would know that original research is not kosher on this site.

So I should just leave the lie alone because it has been there long enough to become true? I think not. And the NOR stuff is addressed below.

For the best example of your violations of NPOV and NOR, I refer you to the "purpose" section of this article. This section is less for an encyclopedia, and more for an essay for a constitutional law class, especially the outrageously uncited line, "Article the First was not about apportionment of power among the states. It was about essential Liberty." According to who?

1. The amendment (for those who care to read it) has NOTHING to do with apportionment of the representatives seats among the states. That needs no references. It is a fact of objective reality. Like saying water is wet. Such a point does not require any "original research". one only need to be able to read what is right there in the words of the amendment itself.

2. If the claimed purpose of the amendment is false (which it was) then what is was the purpose? -- And now you may have a leg to stand on because I did not sight the original research that was done before I wrote the article. I instead sited the historical references I found in the "original research" as discussed with the author of that research and I left his HUGE pdf document out of it in accordance with HIS request. (He must pay for the bandwidth of downloading that hog each time it is referenced) According to all the historical references I cited, the purpose of the amendment was to insure a MINIMUM representation for the PEOPLE. And the states had NOTHING to do with it. I didn't write or re-write that history. Did you even bother to read the references?

You?

Not according to me. I gave you the references. And I would suggest that you trot on over to the original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" and see if you can find some source for the ridiculous claim as to purpose in that article. My version illustrates very clearly that the previous claim is erroneous on its face. And any reference that you might find for the original (and there are none) would also be erroneous for the same reason. There are no references for the previous claim because only a very careless person (and looking around the net there are alot of them) could interpret the apportionment clause in the Constitution and the Amendment in such a way as to come to such a conclusion regarding "purpose". That point is valid even without the FACTUAL history. The original went on to blather about how if the amendment would have been ratified that the House might get as large as 6000 reps (oh trauma). The unamended Constitution will allow 10,000 reps as it stands. I see this same screwup all over the place and I wonder if that original wiki article is the source.

Please, do not make claims on Wikipedia - cite other people who do.

Ok, fine: "Article the first of the bill of rights", Bryan W. Bricker ISBN 978-1-84728-951-3

Or perhaps http://Thirty-Thousand.org/GHA-04.pdf all of section 7.

I will add the first one to the refs. But the second one is too expensive to do that with. You will find thirty-thousand.org in the "See Also" section.

Either way, I suggest you read through NPOV and NOR before further contributing to this and other articles. Brash 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV sticker removed

I have removed the offending stuff from the article. And I therefore remove the sticker. --The Trucker (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

please update the static miminum and algorithm numbers

I had edited it after the 2010 census numbers but i am unable to compute the static minimum or algorithm.THose numbers are from 2000 census

182.68.35.75 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis added?

Can anyone explain why there is emphasis added to the word "more" in the last sentence? I don't think it belongs and would like to strike it. —  X  S  G  05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the emphasis helpful. The previous clause refers includes "nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons," and I probably would have read this "more" as "less" were it not emphasized. Admittedly, that would be my own fault for not reading carefully, but if the emphasis helps, why not leave it in? I can't imagine that I'm alone in this.35.10.248.122 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the reason for the emphasis is to help prevent making any common mistakes in the (confusing) text's reading. with historical text, I'm not sure that doing this is as appropriate as possibly documenting common mistakes and misunderstandings in a subsequent paragraph. I'll take a look at other famous historical quotes in Wikipedia to see how they're handled. We'll strive for consistency in light of any actual policy. —  X  S  G  14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis is important because it appears to have resulted in an error in what actually passed Congress and was sent to the states. In the next week or so I will be posting a new section to this article explaining this and linking to independent research on the subject, but the bottom line is someone in the First Congress screwed up with this, and the amendment as written would have set a ceiling for the House of 200 members instead of a floor as was probably intended. The word should have been "less" to have meant what the article says it meant. AlanK (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the amendment as stated would have set a floor of 200, and a ceiling of "population/50,000". Replacing the "more" by "less" would have resulted in a higher floor of "population/50,000", and no ceiling at all, which may or may not have been the intention. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical Contradictions

There are a few places in this article where someone has inserted parenthetical addenda to the text which directly contradict preceding statements (e.g. "the previous statement is false"). I do not think this is a proper way to discuss multiple points of view, is it? TricksterWolf (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. The editors should correct the text so it appears as an article, not as a discussion. I just corrected one such instance, but there are more left in the text. Have a go at correcting it if you wish. Teemu Leisti (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

on section Analysis

I just rewrote section Analysis because I thought it could be clearer. Someone had labelled the table at the end of that section as "original research". I clarified the table a bit, too, and removed the "original research" template, because it was a simple summary of what the preceding analysis said, which is all derivable from the text of the proposed amendment.

Further need for editing: the Analysis section mentions someone called Beckley, who isn't introduced nor referred to anywhere else in the article. Perhaps someone would like to clarify that aspect of the "scrivener's error" material. Teemu Leisti (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Today, I noticed some errors in the changes I wrote yesterday. I corrected those, and attempted to rewrite the text to be as clear as possible. Also, I noticed that had the "more" that that was actually changed to "less" remained unchanged -- which it should have, according to what others previously wrote in this article -- then that would also have resulted in an impossible situation, this time at a population of 4 million. I made two more tables, for a total of three, one for the draft of the amendment, one for the version that was actually approved by Congress, and a third one, a hypothetical sane version that would not have resulted in an impossible situation.

I do hope I interpreted correctly what was written in this article earlier, and that all that is accurate, as my analysis depends on that being correct: one "more" changed to "less", but the wrong one. For a sane version, both "more"s would have had to be changed to "less"es. I'd appreciate if someone could go over my logic, and possibly follow up whether the description of the drafting process is correct, and of course add further explanations on who this Beckley was, who drafted what when, who instructed whom to do what, who messed up, etc. Teemu Leisti (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No Clerical Error

This Wikipedia entry on Article the First and its explanation of the "more" change rendering it dysfunctional is primarily LaVergne's "clerical error" argument and specious.

The working copy of Article the First used by Conference Committee was the August 24th, 1789 Bill of Rights Broadside passed by the House of Representatives -- http://www.articlethefirst.net. The broadside clearly indicates that the less was changed to more according to the conference committee's recommendation "to amend the first Article, by striking out the word "less" in the last line but one, and inserting in its place, the word "more." . Article the First, in its current form, was then passed by the Senate, House, and ratified by 11 states.

It should also be noted that academics, do not believe, as the page maintains that the language from “Ellsworth’s Report” should read as follows:

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every forty thousand persons (sets a minimum of 100 Representatives thereafter, and creates a floor of 40,000 persons per District), until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.(sets a minimum of 200 Representatives thereafter, and creates a ceiling of 50,000 persons per District) (emphasis added & parenthesized text inserted for interpretation purposes only)

In fact Dr. Kenneth Bowling, Editor and others of the the First Federal Congress Project disagree with the above LaVergne statement:

'From: Kenneth Bowling Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:06 PM To: Stan Klos Subject: 1st Amendment

We have been unable to convince Lavergne that he is wrong about a clerk's error.

Creation of the B of R should make this clear if you pay careful attention to the legislative history. My memory was that the change was made in the conference committee and then approved by the two houses.

At first I thought there had been an error too but this is not the case.

Ken'

What is known :

1. On September 24th, 1789 the Conference Committee recommended changing the less to more in the second to the last line of the House August 24th, 1789 printing of Article the First with this language: The Committees were also of Opinion that it would be proper for both Houses to agree to amend the first Article, by striking out the word "less" in the last line but one, and inserting in its place, the word "more," and accordingly recommend that the said Article be reconsidered for that purpose. 2. This recommendation was reworded to That the first article be amended by striking out the word " less,” in the last place of the said first article, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "more" which would apply to any printings of the Article provided to the members for their consideration. 3. The new Article the First language amended by striking out the word " less,” in the last place of the said first article, and inserting in lieu thereof the word "more" was considered and passed by the House and Senate rendering the Amendment dysfunctional. 4. Article the First, in this dysfunctional form, was engrossed and transmitted to the States for ratification. 5. 12 States ratified Article the First in this Dysfunctional form.

Why the Conference Committee made this clearly dysfunctional change to Article the First is unknown. Why this dysfunctional change was not challenged on the House/Senate floor is unknown.

This page needs to be edited to, at the very least, introduce the reader to this Article the First account that contradicts the less to more change occurred as the result of an "incorrect interpretation of a joint House/Senate conference committee" report. Stas.klos (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Litigation references

I removed unsourced references to litigation by Eugene LaVergne. It appears that Mr. LaVergne is currently facing charges for theft of clients in New Jersey and is also notable for some lawsuits against the program "Jersey Shore." It's impossible to judge how serious these unsourced claims are and they should be removed. But furthermore, his lawsuit was summarily dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I see no merit to his litigation having any mention in this article. I would also note that there is a web page devoted to Mr. LaVergne's litigation, but the page appears to be maintained by a relative of his. MDuchek (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added it as it is now under mainstream news http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/7/12/182151/883 http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14223-article-the-first-is-congress-ignoring-an-amendment-ratified-by-the-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.35.116 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Article the First → Congressional Apportionment Amendment – The common descriptive name should be used, rather than a generic name that could refer to a whole host of things. It is worth noting that the history of this article under the target name extends from February 2002 through May 2007, while the history under the current name begins in June 2007; in August 2007, the two were merged under the present name. --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Xoloz (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC) BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Histmerge the two. It appears that Mikcob (talk · contribs) rewrote it but forgot to redirect the article to the new name for a few months. As there are no edits during that period, there is no overlapping history. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support both the move and the histmerge. The current title is much too ambiguous, and brings to mind Article I more than anything else. bd2412 T 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• NO -- I am NOT inclined to go along with returning this article to its previous name. The name "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" inferred exactly what the content had to say. But that title and that content were a total abdication of truth. The current title and the current content proffer actual facts and, in my opinion, both should be left as is. If, at first glance, some individuals might believe the article to be about something other than the first proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, then perhaps a new title might be considered. Changing back to the old title, however, does not seem to be a proper course of action. The Trucker (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When you say "proffer actual facts," do you mean just the fact that it was the first proposed amendment? The title doesn't even express that fact very well (as BD2412 mentioned above), and just because it references a fact does not mean that it is the best title for the article. A title that uniquely identifies the article subject and concisely describes its content (as you seem to acknowledge that this proposal does) seems like an ideal WP:TITLE to me. It is not clear to me why you object. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When I say that the current article proffers actual facts, I am citing the fact that the PURPOSE of this proposed amendment had NOTHING to do with the apportionment of representatives among the states. And that is the inference of the old title. If you want to stick to your guns on policy, the article might well be renamed "Congressional Representation Amendment". The reality is that the people who ratified the US Constitution did not trust the congress to increase the representation as the population increased. And that is why this was the first on the list of requested amendments. They saw republicanism as did Jefferson: "A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods." They were quite right in their concerns in that congressional districts that were to grow as a function of population no longer do so and were prevented from doing so early on. This amendment is about REPRESENTATION and not about APPORTIONMENT.The Trucker (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that regulating the size of congressional districts was a primary motivation for the amendment, but accomplishing that goal has everything to do with "the apportionment of representatives among the states." A state given more representatives will have fewer people per district, etc. So I think you are making a distinction where there is no difference. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply saying that district size has 'everything to do with "the apportionment of representatives among the states"' and stating a truth are seemingly two different things. I would say that My initial position is correct and yours is simply wrong. "Article the First" was about "representation" and NOT about how the representatives or seats were distributed among the states. There is no mention of distribution among the states in the amendment or in the discussions in the ratifying conventions or the debates in the congress. And as I have already stated: "Congressional Representation Amendment" speaks to exactly what this amendment was about just as many other amendment names speak to what they were about. "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is misleading and, in my opinion, dishonest.The Trucker (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

With some reservations, I'm relisting again. I don't like multiple relistings but hope this one might take a better direction.

Because, as an Australian, neither the current nor the proposed title have any hope of clearing the bar of recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources for me. They may meet the third criterion... only... but even that seems in doubt above. Can we do better?

So I invite alternative suggestions, and please relate them to WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Would you please clarify your concerns:

• "Recognizable to readers": Do you think that the article titles for the Titles of Nobility Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, the Child Labor Amendment, Equal Rights Amendment, and the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment are more or less "recognizable to readers" than the title "Congressional Apportionment Amendment"? Sure, some familiarity with the history is needed for all of these, but overall they seem clear. With some care to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF, I would suggest that, if your objections apply equally to those of these other articles, then we might gain some insight from the fact that their titles have not been questioned.
• "Unambiguous": Certainly "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is much more unambiguous than "Article the First." Countless documents have had a first article, but the number of congressional apportionment amendments is surely quite small.
• "Consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources": While you find this to be the criterion most easily met, I acknowledge that it may be problematic. At least, I have not done any careful work to research what the amendment is called in sources.

Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points! Looking a bit harder. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So in the interest of sticking to the suggested criteria, let us discuss changing the title to "Congressional Representation Amendment". My reason for that title is that it does exactly what is claimed as the objective in altering the current name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

After the above discussion, I have decided to alter my original proposal. Furthermore, since the new title did not require admin privileges, I have gone ahead and done it.

What was all the talk about consensus??? As I have stated above, I am not averse to renaming the article to be more descriptive of its purpose and its timing and context. But the "gutting" of the article while creating the new article is not acceptable to me. Such activity should not be acceptable to anyone else either. That "gutting" happened on April 10 of this year.The Trucker (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article title to Article One of the United States Bill of Rights. My reason is that, after researching how to respond to User:Mikcob's proposal of "Congressional Representation Amendment" instead of "Congressional Apportionment Amendment", it became clear to me that neither is well-supported by sources, and I dislike having things around that look like names but were actually made up by Wikipedia.

We did not "make up" the congressional records, nor the records of the ratifying conventions, nor the anti-federalist papers. Those are PUBLISHED SOURCES. Yet, the gutting of the articles was done on the basis of "NOR" which is, I believe, being misinterpreted and misapplied.The Trucker (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources I found generally referred to the article subject generically as the first article of the Bill of Rights. So, while I still dislike "Article the First" as ambiguous as well as uncommon phrasing, Article One of the United States Bill of Rights seemed the best way to go.

It is the deletion of sourced material while creating a _NEW_ article that is not acceptable. Because of the way the alterations were managed, my watch-list was not updated. I was not aware of the removal of the material until "Article the First" was redirected to the new "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights" on or about May 2. Now it seems we are being mislead by the manner in which the history merges works or was done. If the history of "Article the First" was changed as the new history claims at the cited time and date of the change, then why was my watch-list not updated? That may be irrelevant, but I have many things to do and cannot afford to devote my entire life to this sort of activity. What matters now is getting the deleted material back in place.The Trucker (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I infer from the discussion above that no one will object to this new proposal, which is why I made so WP:BOLD as to go ahead with it. If I am mistaken and someone does object, then of course we can discuss it further. I also want to point out that the histmerge advocated by User:70.24.250.235 and User:BD2412, as well as myself, still needs to be done. I cannot do it as I am not an admin. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:BD2412 for executing the histmerge! --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The histmerge shows the massive deletion and I would like to see that material put back in the article whether you name it "Goldilocks" or "Pooptydo". We are citing material in the PUBLISHED congressional record. And BTW, here's another "source" for you: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14223-article-the-first-is-congress-ignoring-an-amendment-ratified-by-the-states

The Trucker (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: I am glad that you seem to have no objection to the new article title. My understanding is that that is all we have been talking about thus far. Yes, I did remove a fair amount of material from the article a few weeks ago, and I am glad to discuss my reasons for doing so. I did it openly, and I have no idea what may have happened with your watchlist.

Please carefully read the WP:NOR and WP:RS policies. In my opinion, the material I removed was in serious violation of these policies. It is not the job of Wikipedia to draw conclusions directly from primary sources (e.g., "congressional records," "records of the ratifying conventions," and "anti-federalist papers"). Rather, a Wikipedia article should be based on the way secondary sources (e.g., newspapers, books from reputable publishers, etc.) sift through the primary sources and summarize them.

Please be further advised that allegations in a lawsuit are not appropriate reliable sources. Even descriptions of that lawsuit in secondary sources would be appropriate only for a Wikipedia article about the lawsuit (should the lawsuit be itself notable).

Please also be advised that the John Birch Society, which published the article you cited in your last post, is not considered to be a publisher of reliable source material. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved

While the change of the title of this article is somewhat less "on point", that is no longer the primary bone of contention here. What is of primary concern is the removal of a large amount of well sourced material in a manner that I believe to be inconsistent with accepted norms.

In the past, it has been my experience that citations were placed on "suspect material" and that authors were notified as to the opinions of those who found fault with the material. That procedure insured that the author of the material AND OTHERS were warned of a deletion well in advance of its occurrence. In this case a very large amount of material has been removed without sufficient notifications and elapsed time.

I have revisited the WP:NOR and WP:RS policies and it is my opinion that the deleted material falls within acceptable parameters and should not have been deleted. There may be some debate concerning WP:RS, but no real debate of WP:NOR. Most of the deleted material is sourced in an unimpeachable fashion and is not subjective opinion. Specifically: The House and Senate versions of an amendment to address this issue are taken straight from the House and Senate archives and no opinion is involved. The final version of the amendment is then presented and sourced appropriately. As to OPINION, I gave two references to my own writings on that subject and now there are more.

This issue is _NOT_ resolved.

As to the "screwing up" of the Amendment by the full House (the change of "less" to "more"), we now have a new secondary source in the "Christian Monitor" (as opposed to the John Birch Society). http://www.christianpost.com/news/its-time-to-increase-the-size-of-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-115723/ Most specifically "In simple English, this amendment, properly interpreted (most agree that there's a scrivener's error in the final line), would have fixed the maximum size of a congressional district at 50,000 people."

But this disagreement as to WP:RS should have been resolved __PRIOR TO THE DELETION__. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 02:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The article was a mess of speculation, overly long primary-source quotes, and general rambling. The "accepted norm" that I decided to follow was to be bold and fix the article. I don't apologize for that.

That said, deletion is not forever. If there is consensus to restore some or all of the material that I removed, then carrying out such a decision would be easy to do. Here are the edits in question, with my reasons in the edit summaries: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Regarding the new source (by Sean Trende) cited in your last post, I would not generally give very much credence to an opinion piece in The Christian Post, but I see that this article was originally published in Sabato's Crystal Ball (which may be more reputable) and that the author is an analyst for RealClearPolitics (definitely a WP:RS, though RCP is not directly involved with this article and so speaks only to the general credibility of the author).

The claim that the amendment contains a scrivener's error is not hard to believe and even this source may be sufficient to support it, though more sources would be better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, User:Mikcob, but I gather that you want to further say that this error is actually due to some conspiracy, a claim that has no WP:RS support that I've seen.

The claim that Connecticut ratified the amendment and that it should be included in the Constitution is also mentioned by Trende. This may be sufficient sourcing to mention that there is a dispute on the point, but certainly not sufficient to state the claim as fact. I would very much like to hear from a constitutional scholar on this point, and if no such comment can be found then I would have a hard time believing that it can be true, as such a claim would clearly be important enough to merit scholarly attention if it had any merit at all.

Since User:BD2412 and User:Andrewa and User:70.24.250.235, and perhaps also User:Xoloz, have shown enough interest to weigh in on the article title, perhaps they can help to evaluate the claims being made in this thread also. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: Rather than hoping to restore all 18 kilobytes of the questionable material I removed (68% of the article as I found it!), I suggest that you focus on the points that are most important to you and enumerate in this thread a brief summary of them with an argument from good sourcing as to why they should be included. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether this destruction of the first amendment to the US constitution was a deliberate political act on the part of the first congress, or a case of stone cold stupidity, is less important than the FACT that the amendment was compromised to such an extent as to make it non-serviceable, impotent, and unsuitable for ratification. The result (no suitable amendment) was to leave the matter of increasing representation in view of increasing population totally in the hands of what has continued to be an unresponsive the congress.

As I have stated all along, this amendment was requested in the ratifying conventions to address the issue of inadequate representation in the new government. And the request, for all intents and purposes, was not dealt with. I believe that honesty and integrity demand that we document the Senate and House versions of the amendment prior to the abortive act, and then describe the method by which the abortive act was accomplished.

We draw no conclusions, nor do we speculate. We simply document the facts.

On that basis I intend to reassert the heretofore described information with as much brevity as is reasonable.The Trucker (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not "document the facts." We cite secondary sources that have already documented the facts.

If you can cite reliable secondary sources that support your story, then by all means we can discuss putting it into the article. However, the sourcing of the material I removed was either primary or non-existent, so restoring that material as it was would be inappropriate in my opinion.

Moreover, your story that the amendment failed because it was sabotaged by the scrivener's error does not even hold water, as it seems to me. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the bare number of states needed, and Delaware declined to ratify Article One because (as a small state) it opposed its intended purpose. That's a pretty simple story, with no need for a conspiracy that turns on a wording error. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion/story concerning the reason for the non-ratification of this amendment is a fine example of what should not be placed into the article. The article should state factual realities and possibly opinions attributable to secondary sources. Your "story" (and mine, if I had one) is an opinion from a primary source called "the self". I mentioned the "scriveners error" OPINION in passing to illustrate the meaning of the word "opinion". My own opinion, WHICH I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT INTEND TO PUT INTO this wikipedia ARTICLE, is that James Madison orchestrated this entire fiasco. There is a plethora of evidence concerning his desire to keep the House and the Senate small (plutocracy forever) and his reservations concerning too much representation (the confusion of a multitude). Yet I have no intention of asserting this opinion in the article.

Your insistent insinuation that I am "telling a story" is in error. Exposing the facts is not opinion, insinuation, or "story telling". My interpretation of current policy is that conclusions, summations, and opinions must be taken from a secondary source such that wikipedia nor its editors (we) are drawing the conclusions, asserting summations, or taking a stand concerning opinion.

I believe we have reached the point where OUR discussion is over. This matter will need to involve more parties in order to proceed. A preference for secondary sourcing does not justify the hiding of highly relevant material when such material is properly sourced and not subject to debate or refutation.The Trucker (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As this article is not on my watch list, I'm coming in new (though late) to this discussion. I was quite surprised to see the new name for this article, and given what I've read on this talk page, I must ask - why was it made without there being a consensus about it? When I first read this title my first thought (even though I do know that the 1st Amendment was originally Article 3 of the Bill of Rights) was, who vandalized the First Amendment article and how did I end up here when I clicked on "Congressional Apportionment" in the Constitution navbox? I am against this change. This failed Constitutional amendment is commonly known as "Article the First" (which is too ambiguous and nebulous to be a good title) or as "Congressional Apportionment." I've Also seen it called the "Apportionment of Representatives" amendment. Either of these last two would be better than the new current title. Drdpw (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drdpw: You are objecting to this title because it may cause confusion with the article on the First Amendment? That may be a convincing point, and it's certainly worthy of discussion. I was in favor of a title centered on "Congressional Apportionment" until I tried to find sources that used such a name and couldn't find any. If you can find sources to support that title, then I may very well support a change to that title.

You may also note Mikcob's arguments above in favor of "Representation" instead of "Apportionment." I tend to think he is making too much out of incidental details, but I thought the lack of sourcing for either option was a good excuse to sidestep the issue with the current title. If, on the other hand, you can supply convincing sourcing for "Apportionment," then that would also be an effective reply to Mikcob's objections. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Several years ago there was an article named "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" and that title displayed a page about the text of the first of the 12 amendments to the constitution proposed by the first congress. As the amendment was referred to in the congress as the first article of the list of 12, "Article the First" seemed appropriate. More importantly, however, this amendment has nothing to do with how "apportionment" is done among the states. There have been six or seven different apportionment schemes employed to distribute the seats of the House of Representatives among the states, and the there is a book (sadly enough) named "Fair Representation" that spends about 180 pages on these methods without discussing ANY rationale for determining the LEVEL/QUALITY of actual representation. The book would have been more appropriately named "fair apportionment". To speak of representation we look to one very good book in particular entitled "Original Meanings" from Jack N. Rakove. I have captured some quotes from this Pulitzer prize winner at my personal website so I can easily link thereto and not have to re-write what is said over and over again. It is not intended as a source or a "cite". or a "ref" http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/OriginalMeanings.php The amendment that is the subject of this article was not about "apportionment" of some arbitrary number of seats. It was about how to determine a proper number of seats so as to provide adequate representative districts in which candidates would be better KNOWN to the people who elect them. I feel that the new title is a compromise that at least does not lead the reader astray. As to where we should go when clicking the "constitution nav box", might https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment be an appropriate destination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The new title is a poor compromise because that is not the name it's generally known by (it doesn't fit the common naming convention), and because it could indeed lead a reader astray (Article One of the United States Bill of Rights and Amendment One of the United States Bill of Rights). Article the First is commonly known by that name or by the name Congressional Apportionment Amendment. One or the other of those should be the title of this article. There was not a problem with the article's title being Congressional Apportionment Amendment. It's a widely used identifyer for the proposed amendment. Examples - (secondary sources) wikisource; The United States Constitution, p.53; United States Constitutional Law: An Introduction, p.238; (tertiary sources) Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball column; Facebook page; Youtube presentation by Eugene Martin LaVergne.
We could have the same conversation about the Corwin Amendment as the amendment is not about Corwin, but about state domestic institutions. I could change the title - and be correct/accurate - however, everyone looking at my change would think, "{expletive} No one calls it that" and then undo the change. No, in this case it would have been better to leave the title as it was. The amendment is about the apportionment of representatives. Drdpw (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Out of the six sources you just cited, only the third source seems solid. It is United States Constitutional Law: An Introduction by Paul Rodgers, published in 2011 by McFarland [11]. The others are 1) an article heading on Wikisource, which should fall under WP:NOTRELIABLE, 2) an apparently self-published book, 4) a likely RS article (more below) that never uses the phrase "Constitutional Apportionment Amendment", 5) a Facebook page, and 6) a video of a lecture given to a political advocacy group by a self-described "Constitutional scholar."

Interestingly, #4 was cited above by Mikcob and discussed by him and me above, and while it does not give any particular name to the amendment it does frequently use the word "apportionment" to describe its purpose, so this should help to convince Mikcob that this amendment really is about "apportionment." Further, #5 and #6 appear to be from the same advocacy groups that I perceive Mikcob to be supporting, so they may also be useful. Overall, I would support a change of the article title to Congressional Apportionment Amendment, but 1) I would like to try a little longer to see whether consensus with Mikcob is possible, and 2) that change will require the help of an admin.

@Mikcob: Can you please define the words "apportionment" and "representation" as you understand them? It really seems to me that you are making a distinction where there is no difference. Are you saying that apportionment is only redistributing representatives among the states while keeping the total number constant? That seems too narrow a definition. As Drdpw has just pointed out, what seem to be your ideological fellow travelers have no problem with the name Congressional Apportionment Amendment, and there is at least one reliable source that uses that name. Furthermore (again following Drdpw's helpful tips), the article on United States congressional apportionment makes it clear that it is setting out how many representatives each state will have. Is this not what this amendment was to regulate? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be possible to use the word "apportionment" to speak to apportionment of power between the owner class and the producer class, or the aristocratic caste and the plebeians. But that is simply NOT how the word is used here in the United States by most Americans. Here it is used primarily to talk about "apportioning" a number of seats in the US House of Representatives among the states based on the population of each state as compared to the total US population. There is no discussion of determining a proper number total number of seats. In no instance I can find this word as used in relation to United States Government having anything to do with any metric other than distributing Seats in the legislature among the states. I can find no discussion in any of the places that use the word "apportionment" concerning a rational basis for determining what the total number of seats should be. And it was the opinion of the antifederalist that requested this amendment that the smallness of that number would not strike a reasonable balance between the aristocratic class and the producer class. This is discussed in a less obvious fashion in Federalist 10 (factions) and in other writings from Madison. In his writings Madison always paid lip service to democratic principles but was always in favor of limiting the number of representatives in the House so as to prevent "the confusion of a multitude". Almost all references to the word "apportionment" (google is you friend) speak only to the apportionment of the fixed number of seats in the House among the states. Never a word is uttered about how that number is determined, nor any words about district size and the effects of large or small districts on proper representation of "class". Proper representation would probably be based on the number of people that must share one vote in the lawmaking process: The smaller that number is, the more "representative" the chosen "person" must be in the eyes of the others. As Madison says, there is a fault on either side of the "best" number. Too small and there is a risk of incompetence; too large and there is the risk of pandering to the more affluent, even out of necessity.

Each and every dictionary reference I find concerning "representation" speaks of a group or person representing another group or person. What the antifederalists had to say about this, and the cause of the creation of "Article the First" was that there was a lack of sufficient representation of the common people arising due to the scant number of representatives. They saw it as a overly large number of people that would be represented by each of these few. In larger districts, they held, that only the more aristocratic caste would be well known enough to be elected to office, and that the common people would have no true representation. It is interesting and confirming that in our current state of government the enormous district sizes make it virtually impossible for a candidate to become well known enough to be elected without intense and expensive campaign funding. In smaller districts, well known persons arise naturally, but more importantly, it is far easier to remove and replace a person who the people find is not actually representing their interests. And owing to this observation, smaller districts are more representative of the common people than are the larger

The concept of representation favored by the antifederalists was sometimes referred to as "the mirror of representation" in that a representative should be much "like" those he is representing (no female representatives back then). The opposing view held by Madison (especially in federalist 10) was the idea that larger electoral districts would improve the chances of finding a "fit character" to represent the people of the district. But by this he was addressing the economic, literary, and deliberative capabilities of the sort of representative he felt was appropriate, and the lack of such qualities in the bulk of the common people. At that time LARGE electoral districts were 5 thousand people. Madison wanted 30 or 40 thousand. Most especially in the 1780's there was a less educated and less literate general populous. In today's USA the problem of finding qualified persons is much less, and in the enormous constituencies we have today it is extremely difficult for many well qualified people of good character and intent to take on the job of representing their constituents. The observations of the antifederalists concerning the representation of the common people is even more pronounced today than it was then.

I will not here claim to know what the "proper" number of representatives would be. But with all of the hubbub about the 1% and the 99% and the talk of "states rights" it should be clear that "apportionment" among the states of the fixed number of House seats is not in and of itself, a rational means to properly insure adequate, fair, and just representation. And if the inconvenience of more representatives must be suffered in order to properly represent the whole of the people, then so be it.

But your last sentence makes it clear that you still do not fully appreciate the purpose of the amendment. The amendment which is the subject and object of this article was an attempt to increase the TOTAL number of representatives in step with population and not an attempt to "fairly" allocate a smaller number of House seats among the states. Apportionment was already based on state populations (according to their number) without this amendment. This amendment did not seek to change that in any way. And the word "apportionment" as understood by most sources and most persons today does not reflect the nature of this amendment. You say that the article on United States congressional apportionment discusses apportionment among the states and then ask "Is this not what this amendment was to regulate?". NO!! This amendment was about granting more control to the general population and less control to the oligarchy and the plutocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As you said,

"Here [in the US] it is used primarily to talk about "apportioning" a number of seats in the US House of Representatives among the states based on the population of each state as compared to the total US population. There is no discussion of determining a proper number total number of seats."

The reason for this is that for the past century we have been able to skip the first step of the apportionment process, as we haven't needed to determine the proper number of total seats in the US House. Before then we couldn't skip step #1 and the amendment we're discussing was an attempt to regulate that first step. Giving a greater voice in federal decision making to "the people" (or, as you stated, "granting more control to the general population and less control to the oligarchy and the plutocracy") was the desired effect of the amendment. The amendment is about establishing the the first step in the process of bringing that desired end to fruition, and that process is referred to as the apportionment process. That's why, when it's not referred to as "Article the First" in print & in conversation, it is almost always called the "Congressional Apportionment Amendment." Drdpw (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: You said: But your last sentence makes it clear that you still do not fully appreciate the purpose of the amendment.

What I said was that apportionment is "setting out how many representatives each state will have." Speaking generally, part of that process could be altering "the TOTAL number of representatives in step with population," though as Drdpw points out, that is not currently done. I believe I spoke correctly in saying that this was also the intended purview of the amendment.

@Mikcob: You have not replied to the point that "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" is the only proper name for this amendment that is commonly seen in sources. Your long discourse about a Madisonian conspiracy is really beside the point. We are not here to right great wrongs. Rather, we are here to summarize what is already said in reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to summarize what I believe is on the table at present as being the current condition of the article: I am amenable to the current conditions wherein the name of the article is "Article One of the United_States Bill of Rights" as it currently stands and so long as "Article The First" redirects to it and so long as "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" redirects to it. In the article itself I have reasserted the relevant history of the amendment inside the first congress (in a non-prejudicial manner) and I am thus OK with the content. The article currently draws no conclusions as to why this amendment was messed up (conspiracy or screw up) or why it was not ratified. And I am of the opinion that this is as it should be. I would like to see the word "Amendment" appended to the words "Congressional Apportionment" where it appears in the sidebar under "Unratified Amendments". I am of the opinion that referring to this amendment as "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" should navigate to the current title and content because that name has latter day importance (is used in other sources). But the phrase "Congressional Apportionment" alone should link to "United States congressional apportionment" wherever it is found in the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: Drdpw has convincingly argued that "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights" is a poor choice for the title because it is too easily confused with the First Amendment. We just haven't taken action on that yet, waiting to have this conversation first. The fact is that sources use "Congressional Apportionment" to refer to this amendment, clearly intending "apportionment" to mean assigning to each state its number of representatives with the possible component of changing the total number of representatives. Unless you have an argument that we haven't heard yet, I think we have consensus to change the title back to its original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonlet: Google says:

"Article The First" --- About 2,560,000 results (0.92 seconds)

"Congressional Apportionment Amendment" --- About 112,000 results (0.60 seconds)

So leave it as it is or change it back to "Article the First".The Trucker (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: (I have redacted and do retract and apologize for the comments I posted here at 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC).) Drdpw (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting, lest anyone be confused, that User:Mikcob uses the moniker "The Trucker" when he signs his posts. The two names refer to the same user.

Some confusion can be forgiven because frequent use of WP:SINEBOT and {{reply to}} have kept the moniker "Mikcob" around a lot as well. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: How many of those Google hits for "Article the First" have to do with the subject of this article? This is the point I have made from the beginning about that name; it can refer to any number of things.

I can confirm that the Google results you report are more or less accurate. If I add "Bill of Rights" to the "Article The First" search, the number of hits goes down to 58,700. For fairness and completion, adding "Bill of Rights" to the "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" search decreases the number of hits there to 71,400. That supports my contention that both titles are used, and it shows that CAA is marginally more used in addition to better satisfying the criteria of WP:TITLE (particularly Naturalness and Precision). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As it's been over a month since the above discussion wrapped-up, I will rename & move this article and redirect the related redirects (to Congregational Apportionment Amendment) some time over the weekend. Drdpw (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that the consensus was to leave it as it is with the title "Article One of the United States Bill of Rights", with redirects hereto. So why are you changing it?The Trucker (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob:Please see BlueMoonlet's comments above at 17:17, 15 May 2014 (I think we have consensus to change the title back to its original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment") and at 03:05, 21 May 2014 (CAA is marginally more used in addition to better satisfying the criteria of WP:TITLE (particularly Naturalness and Precision).

@BlueMoonlet:If I am misinterpreting please let me know. I will hold off on making the change pending clarification.
Drdpw (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I never claimed that User:Mikcob consented to that consensus, though I did point out that Mikcob's arguments have been answered and that Mikcob has not really answered those answers. Therefore (to quote slightly more context), I said, "Unless you [ Mikcob ] have an argument that we haven't heard yet, I think we have consensus to change the title back to its original "Congressional Apportionment Amendment." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Results Of the One Word Change

I had inserted a single sentence that speaks to the result of a on word change by a committee just prior to the delivery of this first proposed amendment. To wit:

"By changing the one instance of the word "less" to "more" the intent of the amendment was defeated, returning the control of representation to the House itself as opposed to automatically increasing membership as total population increased."

That line was then removed with the following comment as reason:

"rm unsourced speculation. No RS has commented on either the intent behind the change, its effect on the ratification process, or what its effect would have been if the amendment had been ratified."

(1) The source for this statement is the article itself, (2) The sentence takes no position as to the intent of the change,(3) The sentence takes no position as to the effect of the change on ratification, (4) The effect of the change is documented in the Analysis section of the article itself, and (5) The Analysis section clearly illustrates that without the change the membership of the house would have grown automatically without the control of the congress.

As there is nothing amiss with the one line summary, I have reasserted it.The Trucker (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Analysis section itself is entirely unreferenced, and Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source.

There is nothing in the analysis section that needs a reference in that it quotes the language of the amendment as contained in the article and then uses simple arithmetic to illustrate that the amendment was made non-serviceable by the change.The Trucker (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the text at issue here is that no one knows how the "less"/"more" error would have been adjudicated, had the amendment been ratified. Would it have been enforced as written, or would it have been judged a scrivener's error and the original intent enforced instead? Unless a WP:RS has commented on the matter, we have no idea and we should not make any statement one way or the other.

Therefore, we have no evidence that the change "defeated the intent" of the amendment, whether you mean by changing the way it would have been enforced or whether you mean by damaging its chances for ratification (you have argued both in the past, and you could mean either or both in this instance). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you BlueMoonlet are the one who is indulging in speculation. e.g. Whether there was a scrivener's error is not mentioned because that _is_ speculation. The fact is as I have stated it. What would have happened after the fact is not being entertained. Again. because that would be speculation. It seems to me that you want to eliminate pertinent facts. I have not reasserted the sentence because it seems quite childish to do so. But be assured that I have every intent to do so unless you can bring forth some substantive rationale for omitting it.The Trucker (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence in question could be tweaked a little. Would something like the following work,
By changing the one instance of the word "less" to "more" the Conference Committee undermined the article's usefulness to the process of apportioning representatives, leaving Congress free to exercise its own discretion, within Constitutional boundaries (Art. I§2.3), either to increase or reduce the number of representatives.
While this wording might not be in alignment w/your POV regarding Article One's purpose or intent, I believe this sentence does accurately describe the impact that the change had on the House passed version Drdpw (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: Please assume good faith. I am not engaging some conspiracy to "eliminate pertinent facts." I just want to write a reliable encyclopedia.

You acknowledge that we do not know whether the change was deliberate or due to an error. You acknowledge that we do not know how the change was or would have been interpreted. Therefore, we do not know that the change "defeated the intent of the amendment"! That is all I'm saying.

@Drdpw: Your version still assumes that the modified version of the amendment would have been taken literally, which we don't know. Do you agree?

How about this: By changing the one instance of the word "less" to "more" the Conference Committee added much confusion to the amendment's effect. If taken literally, the change would return the control of representation to the House itself as opposed to automatically increasing membership as total population increased. I would then refrain from much further detail, because we can only speculate as to whether any of this would ever have been reified. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I find either of the proposed wordings to be sufficient if placed in the article instead of my original wording at the point of my original wording. This acquiescence does not apply to any edited version of the proposed wordings or to other placements. You have both offered very good language. Thank you both.The Trucker (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the section title from Analysis to Potential effect of amendment (to more closely match titles of similar sections in other unratified US constitutional amendment articles) and have also added a "needs additional citations for verification" tag to the section. Drdpw (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Map

I'd like to suggest that a map showing ratifications/partial ratifications/rejections/abstentions be included as it has with the Equal Rights Amendment article.Graham1973 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What are "partial ratifications"? SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Where one house, but not the other accepts the resolution.Graham1973 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction To Legislative History

The "House Journal" shows a House RESOLVE 'that the first article be amended by striking the out the word "less" and in the last place of said article inserting the word "more"'. That RESOLVE is followed by: "On the question that the House do agree to the alteration and amendment of the eight article in the manner aforesaid",

	"It was resolved in the affirmative, ayes 37, nays 14."

The next day, the "Senate Journal" shows a RESOLVE to accept the House alterations. On page 186 of "The Great Rights of Mankind" -- Bernard Schwartz, We find "On September 24th, the House voted 37 to 14 to agree with the Conference Report". That count of Yeas and Noes is for the 8th article only. That is the only vote on that date according to the House Journal . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The legislative record for this Constitutional amendment was correct before edit. That said, what the cited primary source documents do show is that, aside from the House vote on the Eighth Article, everything was passed without a recorded vote. I am adding (in place of the sentences you added earlier) a sentence from a secondary source that addresses this distinction. Drdpw (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

NO. What the House Journal says is that the Conference Report was on "on the table" and the House RESOLVED to change the last "less" to "more" as well as to amend the 3rd and 8th articles as it saw fit. The "Conference Report" was not passed. The RESOLVE was passed. And any secondary source to the contrary is mistaken. What I can't understand is why the truth must be sacrificed to rules that make no sense at all. What I documented is right out of the record. And that record is irrefutable. If you read the actual policy on primary sources and OR I think you will find that irrefutable stands on its own. I have already illustrated the error of the other primary source though I had to go to the library to do it. I see no reason to go to the library again to figure out how this secondary source screwed it up also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: There are good reasons for the OR policy, chiefly that it is easy to misuse or misinterpret primary sources. If your purpose in citing a primary source is to make an interpretive point, then there is a problem, because we must rely on secondary sources to do such interpretation, per WP:PSTS. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your current secondary source is non verifiable in that it is, for all intents and purposes, "out of print". That book is not available from Amazon and not listed in Worldcat and hence, not available in any library. As to my "making an interpretive point", you are mistaken. I am citing the words as written in the actual journal. And the journal _*IS*_ accessible for all to see.The Trucker (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not my source. I think it's due to User:Drdpw. And you may have a point, as I also cannot find it in my university's usually exhaustive catalogue. I'd be curious if User:Drdpw would like to say something about the book's nature and how it is available. On the other hand, I just cut that source out of the text we are currently discussing (using instead two sources that I found here), so it's more or less moot, I think. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also good reasons why we are not here to right great wrongs, even if those wrongs appear in secondary sources. If you have other secondary sources that refute the ones you think are wrong, then we can talk. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There are good reasons to tell the truth. I have seen _NO_ verifiable authoritative secondary sources that refute the actual House records. When you come up with one we can talk.The Trucker (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This may seem surprising, but the reason is that truth is not always easy to agree upon. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the present controversy, I have suggested a rewording that avoids the issue of whether the vote was on the conference report or on a resolution. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; your edit conveys the facts of the matter w/o getting mired in the legislative intricacies and politicking surrounding it. Drdpw (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NOT agreed. By the placement of the sentence it is inferred that the conference report was accepted. It also fails to mention the clarification of which "less" was to be changed to "more". And as such, that sentence in far less than truthful. If telling the truth ends up "righting past wrongs" then so be it.The Trucker (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob:IMO, your persistent and frequent reverts to this article constitutes edit warring. Please cease and desist or you will be reported. Drdpw (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mikcob: I think it is sufficient to say that the word was changed during the conference process. You keep wanting to go into more detail, for reasons that are not clear to me but that I think stem from the ideology that you are bringing to this discussion. I simply think that such detail is unnecessary, and that avoiding such detail will help us avoid the kind of contention we have been experiencing around here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is The Actual House Journal Not Definitive?

Should impeached or non accessible secondary sources be considered superior to irrefutable primary sources when references to the primary source are merely providing factual information and not drawing conclusions or expressing a point of view? Please see section on "Correction To Legislative History".

1. Primary sources are not appropriate in this case Until recently, this page contained much speculative discussion about a conspiracy to subvert the article subject, and this discussion was due to User:Mikcob, who has proposed this RfC. Since I and others cleaned up the page, Mikcob has continued to dispute niggling details of the legislative process undergone by the article subject, and has generally tried to support the edits with primary sources (e.g., the record of congressional proceedings). Though s/he has stopped trying to explicitly add back the conspiracy theory, I believe the reason Mikcob attaches importance to these details is because s/he thinks they are important to supporting the conspiracy theory.

Per WP:PSTS, the use of primary sources is appropriate only when the coverage from secondary sources is inadequate, and it must never be used to support interpretive points. For this topic, I think it is clear that secondary sources have covered all the ground that is of general interest (and contrariwise, if the points Mikcob wishes to add are not covered, then they are ipso facto not of general interest). Furthermore, even if it is not explicit, I worry that Mikcob's reasons for citing primary sources are in fact interpretive. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose a snowball close of this RfC, if anyone feels qualified to put that into action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets us be clear about this. On this talk page AND NOT IN THE ARTICLE I have said that "the fine hand of James Madison was at work in this change from "less" to "more". But I have not (according to own memory) ever suggested anything like that in the article as it previously existed or as it now exists. What I have said is that the original article entitled "Congressional Apportionment Amendment" was a complete nullity in regard to the actual history. And this is my primary reason for not wanting to go back to that name. The amendment was about representation and would not have altered on word of "apportionment". Now it appears that BlueMoonlet believes that the actual issues in the history are "niggling". And I hereby dispute that. Let us document the facts and the truth and let others form their own opinions. That is why I reference encyclopedias. I can get opinion and politics in a lot of places. Here, I expect the get the facts.

The so called secondary sources in this case have thus far failed to provide accurate or adequate information concerning the legislative history of the amendment in the closing days before it was sent out to the states for ratification. For those closing days we have a secondary source that says that the article was changed at the behest of James Madison, yet I do not insist on this being asserted in the article. All I am attempting to put into the article is that the full house absolutely did not vote on this change AND that the final language was asserted from the chair and not from any conference committee. Those are facts and not guesses.

One of the secondary sources previously treated as the holy grail makes a provably false statement concerning the matter while another proved to be totally inaccessible. And the latest "secondary source" quotes this article as reference. Why are we hiding pertinent information?

Facts can indeed be niggling. The issue here is not truth but relevance. Who cares whether "the final language was asserted from the chair and not from any conference committee"? More to the point, if secondary sources do not care to discuss the topic, then Wikipedia should presume that it is not worth the time of our readers either. That is the whole point of an encyclopedia, not to report all the facts but to sift through the facts and report those that are worth the attention of a lay reader.

If you think secondary sources are in error, then support your argument with other secondary sources. Otherwise, you are using Wikipedia as a platform to right great wrongs.

If you have a secondary source that discusses Madison's role in the wording change, then by all means we should put it in the article (though, given your history here, it would be best to discuss it in the Talk page first).

If a source currently cited in the article itself cites Wikipedia as a source, then that source should not be considered reliable per WP:WINARS and we should remove it. Again, let's discuss this on the Talk page before taking action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Primary sources are inappropriate per WP:PSTS. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the section entitled Potential effect of amendment from the article:

Under the terms of the proposed amendment, were the U.S. population to have been below 3 million, each state would have had one Representative in the United States House of Representatives for every 30,000 persons.

Were the U.S. population to have reached 3 million with the amendment in force, the total number of Representatives would have been recalculated. To reach the minimum of 100 representatives, Congress would initially have had to keep the district size at 30,000 per representative.

As the population would have approached 8 million, Congress could have gradually increased the size of districts from 30,000 to 40,000 and still meet the minimum of 100 representatives. This would have been allowed by the amendment, as it says "...there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; ...".

However, even at a district size of 40,000, the number of representatives would inevitably have grown to 200 when the population would have reached 8 million, thus triggering the final clause. It would have been impossible to satisfy with a population between 8 and 10 million, as it says "...there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons". For a population of 8 million, a district size of one per at least 50,000 yields at most 160 representatives, below the minimum of 200.

The final clause's conditions would have been satisfied only by a population size of 10 million or above. The clause stipulates a minimum district size of 50,000, and at that minimum size, a population of 10 million would have yielded the minimum of 200 representatives. As the final clause only stipulates a minimum district size, it would thereafter have allowed for any number of representatives between 200 and the current population divided by 50,000. At the approximate current U.S. population of 310,000,000, this would yield a House of Representatives with 200 to 6,200 members, depending on the district size. By changing the one instance of the word "less" to "more" the Conference Committee added much confusion to the amendment's effect. If taken literally, the change would return the control of representation to the House itself (under Art. I§2.3) as opposed to automatically increasing membership as total population increased.

Currently, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives and six non-voting Delegates from the District of Columbia and the territories, which do not possess statehood status. The figure of 435 is set by statute (2 U.S.C. 2a & 2b) and the allocation of seats among the 50 states is calculated by using "method of equal proportions". The present statutes would comply with the article's final language so long as there are at least 50,000 people in each Congressional district; as apportioned after the 2010 census, even the smallest district (the lone district of Wyoming) far exceeds this number. Therefore, ratification of this article today would have no impact on the present Congressional apportionment process, though it could impact future changes to the process.

This material is completely original research. To the extent reliable sourcing can be obtained for this material, it can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)