Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Difference between revisions
→Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015: new section |
I made a mess and I'm trying to clean it up so don't gronch my grizzles I'm just being tidy |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye." |
"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye." |
||
:Do you have [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|a reliable source]] for what you say? [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
:Do you have [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|a reliable source]] for what you say? [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== The Robertson v. Baldwin citation needs clarification == |
|||
The plain use of the words "sailor" and "deserters" make it seem as though Robertson, et al, had run away from the Navy, and that the case was about the obligations of those in the military. They had not and it was not. They were merchant seamen who fled from the merchant ship Arago in Astoria. They were arrested and held in jail until the ship was ready to sail, then forcibly put into the captain's custody. After they refused to work during the voyage, they were rearrested in San Francisco and charged under a federal statute criminalizing a seaman's refusal to work. I can't edit the article, but I would recommend wording it as: |
|||
In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a group of merchant seaman challenged federal statutes which criminalized a seaman's failure to complete their contractual term of service. The Court ruled that seamen's contracts had been considered unique from time immemorial, and that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional." [[Special:Contributions/81.85.69.212|81.85.69.212]] ([[User talk:81.85.69.212|talk]]) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Oh, here's the text of the opinion to confirm all that shizz: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html [[Special:Contributions/81.85.69.212|81.85.69.212]] ([[User talk:81.85.69.212|talk]]) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015 == |
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015 == |
Revision as of 20:03, 14 November 2015
![]() | Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 19, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 18, 2004, December 18, 2005, December 18, 2006, December 18, 2007, December 6, 2008, December 6, 2009, December 6, 2010, December 6, 2012, and December 6, 2014. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
The following phrase is incorrect
"two Democrats, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and James Nesmith of Oregon voted "aye." "
Johnson voted aye but was NOT a Democrat, he was a Unionist.
Should be corrected to:
"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye."
- Do you have a reliable source for what you say? SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
The Robertson v. Baldwin citation needs clarification!
The plain use of the words "sailor" and "deserters" make it seem as though Robertson, et al, had run away from the Navy, and that the case was about the obligations of those in the military. They had not and it was not. They were merchant seamen who fled from the merchant ship Arago in Astoria. They were arrested and held in jail until the ship was ready to sail, then forcibly put into the captain's custody. After they refused to work during the voyage, they were rearrested in San Francisco and charged under federal statutes criminalizing a seaman's refusal to work. I can't edit the article, but I would recommend wording it as:
In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a group of merchant seaman challenged federal statutes which criminalized a seaman's failure to complete their contractual term of service. The Court ruled that seamen's contracts had been considered unique from time immemorial, and that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional."
Here's the text of the opinion to confirm all that shizz: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html
Also, I learned how to make an edit request tonight! Go, me! 81.85.69.212 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Top-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress things
- GA-Class United States Constitution articles
- Top-importance United States Constitution articles
- WikiProject United States Constitution things
- GA-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- GA-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (December 2014)
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests