Talk:State constitutions in the United States

Cite sources

This article needs source for the specific data cited in it, such as the number of words in the constitutions, the average times amended, etc. Mateo SA | talk 06:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

This data matches Thomas R. Dye. Politics in States and Communities. Twelfth Edition. Published in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, by Pearson Education. 2007.

Susan A. MacManus is listed as the second author. 72.200.56.115 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Robert Whitaker

Notes not Citations

Most of the entries in the References section are explanatory notes, not citations. it be clearer to the reader if they were moved to their own section, perhaps with letter footnote indexes. — Lentower (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

State constitution page names

Right now they're a mess, we have "Constitution of ...", "... Constitution" and "... State Constitution". A definite standard should be reached on this and the nonconformants be moved to the decided page name. I'm liking "... State Constitution", what does everyone else interested in this article think? Thanx 68.39.174.150 03:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a standard? This is why we have redirects. An article should be named using the most common name for the topic of the article, with redirects for less common names. The different state constitutions have different common names, and the articles should naturally reflect that. Mateo SA | talk June 28, 2005 04:37 (UTC)

And who defines what "the most common name" is? Especially the "Constitution of x"/"x Constutution" permutations 68.39.174.91 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

No one "defines" it. Instead, people research what the most common name is (such as by using Google). But even if you think no one can objectively "define" the most common name, what's the problem? Why is it so important that all the articles have the same naming pattern? If someone types a different name into the search box than the "official" article name, they will still get to that article (the redirect will send them there). Mateo SA | talk July 5, 2005 17:21 (UTC)

It seems disorganized, what can I say. Especially when trying to make an infobox template for them (Which is what I'm doing now). 68.39.174.91 04:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Some state consitutions seem to contain BOTH forms within themselves. (See the original of New York's.) The printed document has one form on the cover page, and the other form preceding the body. Now, WHICH ONE is its one-and-only name? Unless that constitution contains an article specifying its own official name, maybe they both/all are its name. Let the article name be specific for those constitutions that seem to specify their name clearly enough (with redirect(s) as needed for the other form(s)). Let the article name resolve by other means (including hasty popularity survey, which one subjectively sounds better or righter, best guess, coin toss, or status quo) for those that are ambiguous in their own text. Whiner01 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• To rake the muck on this again, here are the current stats as of August 06, 2007:

<state> Constitution: 30

<state> State Constitution: 4 (NJ,NY,TN,WA)

Constitution of <state>: 3 (HI,VT,VA)

None: 6 (IA,NM,RI,SD,WY,WV)

Redirect: 7

CO: Law and Government of Colorado

DE: Delaware Constitution of 1897

GA: Georgia (U.S. state) Constitution

ID: Idaho#Law and Government

KS: Wyandotte Constitution

MO: Law and Government of Missouri#State Government Organization

NE: Nebraska#Law and Government

Don't know why I looked into this; maybe I'll do something about it, maybe I won't. I personally think that, barring any uniqueness of a state (KS), they should all be "<state> State Constitution", specifically to differentiate WA state from DC and NY state from NYC. But I'm not married to anything here.--Old Hoss 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved. The current title is not "overly precise" given the incontrovertible fact that states in at least several other federal republics have constitutions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

State constitution (United States) → State constitution – There is no other article named "State constitution (X)", so the parentheses are unneeded per WP:PRECISION. The proposed name currently redirects here anyway. - Relisted Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC) - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose US bias. It should redirect to constitution, since a state frequently refers to a nation-state or a sovereign state. Further, some non-US provinces called states also have/had constitutions, such as constitution of New South Wales, which is not a US state, it is an Australian state. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—US bias. My state, NSW in Australia, has a state constitution (enacted 1932, if I remember). It's a state constitutiont. Tony (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter unless we have an article for Australian state constitutions. Powers ^T 20:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support; no other competitive topic. Who would look up constitution by searching for state constitution? A hatnote will suffice to clear up any ambiguity. Powers ^T 20:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Comment a set index can be established to list every state constitution where "state" is a sub-national administrative division. Otherwise the hatnote would be potentially extremely large, considering how many subnational "states" there are in the world. That list can sit at State constitution, which would counter the WP:Systematic bias of the US choice. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a rather different proposal, though. Write a set index article and then we can talk. Powers ^T 15:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • To counter systematic bias, this article can be called State constitutions for United States states, as an initial step -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
        • A bit redundant, don't you think? Powers ^T 02:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
          • How? Noun term (state constitutions) noun term (United States states) "United States constitutions" would be a bad idea, but would delete repeated "state", but would signify a completely different topic. Since the United States is itself a state, there is no extra redundancy here only what is needed for clear indication of topic. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
            • You don't need to say "state" three times. You're essentially saying "state constitutions of states in the United States". Either "state constitutions of the United States" or "constitutions of states of the United States" would be sufficient ("United States states" sounds funny). Powers ^T 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
              • constitutions of states of the United States, does sound better. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, AFAIK, Germany has them, too, and if not, other countries surely do. I'd propose to name it "State constitutions of the United States" and using a similar pattern for other countries, e.g. "State constitutions of Australia", as given above. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • But we do not have articles on state constitutions in Germany, do we? Powers ^T

• Support per nom and User:LtPowers. There is no other competing article. If this changes, deal with it then, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The hatnote deals with any other possible confusion. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as long as the alternative is for State constitution to keep redirecting to the U.S. article anyway. "Someone else could/should write an article about state constitutions in other places" is not an alternative until that article actually gets written. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, the consideration for topics about which WP has no article is blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL and contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:D. When and if there is such an article, then we can deal with it. State constitution currently redirects to this disambiguated title. That's just wrong. The only bias at play here is the anti-US bias reflected in some of the oppose !votes. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This primary topic thing in operation here is plain madness. Please think of the searching reader. Tony (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – in spite of B2C's minimalist interpretations, ambiguity is not a good thing, and precision is. It shouldn't be necessary, but I started a stub State constitution (Australia) just to make the ambiguity more explicit to those who don't see it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a good start, if not somewhat contrived. Now, if after some time traffic builds on that article to rival that of this article (around 3,000/month recently), then it might be reasonable to propose making State constitution a dab page and moving this article back to State constitution (United States). But until then putting this primary topic at State constitution with a dablink to State constitution (Australia) is how we comply with WP:TWODABS. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Disambiguation is not the only issue here. What about the traditional precision criterion, which said that titles should be precise enough to specify what the topic of the article is, so you don't have to go read the article to figure it out? Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Disambiguation in general, and primary topic in particular, takes the traditional precision criterion into account. The underlying idea is that if a given use of a term is so dominant in reliable English sources compared to other uses of that term (within the domain of topics sufficiently notable to have articles in WP) to be "primary", then the term alone is sufficiently precise to refer to its primary use. These criteria, ideally, and in this particular case, are complementary and mutually supportive, not conflicting criteria that have to be balanced and weighed against each other. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's not what the precision criterion says. It says that the title must only be precise enough to uniquely identify the topic, not so precise that anyone can tell what the article is about without reading the lead. Powers ^T 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
        • You call that uniquely identifying? Uniquely misleading, I say. I'd be very irritated as a reader. Tony (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
          • That's reasonable, but my point stands that Dicklyon was misrepresenting what WP:AT has to say about precision. Powers ^T 13:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Actually, it says "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise." The last time B2C tried to squeeze an "only" in there to make it support his minimalism, he was reverted (by me, quite likely). When I referred to the "traditional precision criterion" I meant before it was emasculated by some to be little more than disambiguation; it has been slightly repaired recently. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
              • I don't see the difference; the latter clause clearly implies the "only". Powers ^T 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
                • Your interpretation "the title must only be precise enough to uniquely identify the topic" could be changed to "the title must only be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" and be somewhat closer (though the "must" and "only" are really not in the spirit of the criteria). But "uniquely identify" is about nothing but avoiding ID-space collisions, while "unambiguously define the topical scope" goes beyond that to encourage some actual precision in the title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

State constitution dab page

It's ridiculous that the undisambiguated title state constitution was left redirecting this or any page with parenthetical disambiguation. However, considering that a stub for state constitution (Australia) has been created, and several others presumably could be created, I went ahead and turned state constitution into a disambiguation page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's probably the right thing in the end, but in the short term it has broken hundreds of links; see [1]. So I'm going revert until someone is willing to fix it properly. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fewer than 100 links, which you seem to agree do need to be fixed. I don't have the time or inclination to do it right now, so I won't, but I am going to restore the disambiguation page others can fix it. Honestly, this should have just been moved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring what I just said, I started fixing the links, many of which shouldn't have come to this article anyway. So far I've done about 12, which I believe puts the number of "broken" links under 70, effectively dropping it from the "under 100" category down to "a few dozen". More to come.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Alabama State Constitution

This information is out of date, Alabama has a new constitution that went into effect on Nov 28 2022 and is now the 7th governing document of that state. The page will need to be updated to reflect this change. Abhishek Pradhan (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)