Talk:Missouri Compromise

Fouled up date

First sentence: "In the 197678878800s the nation hit a huge westward expansion..." It seems this date has been fouled up. Is someone able to correct it? 68.224.107.200 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Amy 4/25/12

rough article

There are actually a few problems with the writing of this article - particularly in the first few paragraphs. It's a really rough read as far as the grammar & how the info is presented. Unfortunately when I see something written as awkwardly as that it always makes me question whether there are any errors in the facts as well. If I knew more about the subject I'd try to help w/ it, but I wouldn't want to unknowingly adjust something in some way that adversely affected the facts of the article. 68.224.107.200 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Amy 4/25/12

This resulted from edits on April 24 apparently by over-enthusiastic students not too well informed about Wikipedia; I reverted to the article version as opf April 23... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

agreed. it's really bad and is based on a one-page oneline "source" --the kids did not spend much tine reading up on the subject. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted or not, it is still VERY rough, to wit:

""This deliberately ambiguous provision is sometimes known as the Second Missouri Compromise. most negros dissapoved the pass saying it was under the line a reporter later reported fom a egro named Aj " if its under it under and let it be and sae tom robinson" ""

(Are we to assume that the way it is written, it just needs (sic) prefixed to the text? Or what???)

The article's topic is quite important to the understanding of this period in the history of America. As such, it should be accorded some advanced priority in accomplishing an accurate final version. 68.111.65.233 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a frequent vandalism magnet; it's OK as of right now. You could ask for article "semi-protection" status at Wikipedia:Requests for protection... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this still reads very poorly. Not going to change any facts, just tightening up grammar and punctuation in the first paragraph Felosele (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Major re-edit for MoCo lede

The Missouri Compromise spanned two Congressional sessions (15th & 16th), and the controversy encompassed more than a few issues. I've tried to touch on this matters in the lede.

Historian Sean Wilentz emphasizes the role of the Jeffersonian Republicans, North and South, during the debates, rather than the disbanded Federalists. I've relied on his historical understanding of the events; his themes comport with the other sources in the Ref list, for the most part. 36hourblock (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Captions? WTF?

The captions are all very long, as a recent editor has noted. We should trim them significantly. If the content is that important it belongs in the article body. DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missouri Compromise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024013411/http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/ to http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Consistent ref formats

This is a good article, its only flaw being inconsistent reference styles. I put Bibliography and Further Reading into Citation format. Some inline references have long quotations from the source; might those long quotations belong in the text of the article? Some sources in Further Reading are cited in the article. In my not-perfect experience, that should be moved into the Bibliography. Further Reading is just that: sources not used in the writing of the article. With the lists in Citation format, and many inline references done as short refs (author last name, year, page #) , this could use the Harvnb referencing format, so that a short ref links to the full citation in th Bibliography. A few short refs do link, but using a system unfamiliar to me. That is one of the inconsistencies in the references. I have learned not to add Harvnb or one of its close Wikipedia format cousins unless the editors of the article agree to the change. Prairieplant (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Terminology: "Republicans"

Several references to "Jeffersonian Republicans" or simply "Republicans", as such are grossly misleading, conflating two different unrelated political parties into a single term. What's intended here must be "Democratic-Republicans", Jefferson's party which is obviously not the same as the (current) Republican Party which didn't exist until 1854. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mason-Dixon Line?

Just curious that the Mason-Dixon line article mentions the fact the term came into regular use around the Missouri Compromise, yet this article has zero mention of it. Also the mention of 36°30' doesn't link to anything. Shouldn't this be included here somewhere?? --gobears87 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of first paragraph - Kaminokuni

Kaminokuni. Hi there - why are you removing the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobEret (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• James Monroe 02.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Mason-Dixon Line: Citable Source Sought

Hi. I frequently edit the article on the Mason-Dixon Line, in which it is stated that the use of the term as we now know it goes back to the debate in Congress over the Missouri Compromise. If you google it, you'll find many websites that state this as fact. For example, the website for the town of Rising Sun, Maryland says: "In popular usage, especially since the Missouri compromise of 1820 (apparently the first official usage of the term "Mason's and Dixon's Line"), the Mason-Dixon Line symbolizes a cultural boundary between the Northern United States and the Southern United States." But, our article has no citation for the line being explicitly named during the congressional debate on the compromise. If any of you who edit this article have access to authoritative books on the subject, could you please look for the term, and give me the citation so I can use it in that article, or tell me that there is no reference to Mason & Dixon's Line in the reported debates? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)