Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:38, 18 February 2014 editYoshi24517 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers54,819 edits →Help!!!: fixed what i was trying to say.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:06, 10 March 2014 edit undo76.105.96.92 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 79: Line 79:


There are people who keep messing up this article. Admins keep banning people who vandalize this article. Plz help!!! ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) There are people who keep messing up this article. Admins keep banning people who vandalize this article. Plz help!!! ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


==Requested move 10 March 2014==

{{Requested move/dated|Scott v. Sandford}}

] → {{no redirect|Scott v. Sandford}} – The short names of all court cases in the United States consist only of the parties' last names, never their full names. This is also the consensus with regard to naming American case articles throughout Misplaced Pages without exception. ] (]) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].''

*

===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''

Revision as of 21:06, 10 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dred Scott v. Sandford 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dred Scott v. Sandford 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former featured articleDred Scott v. Sandford is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 6, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 2, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It 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.
WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMissouri
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNational Archives (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 6, 2004, March 6, 2005, March 6, 2006, and March 6, 2007.

POV in opening pargraph

This unsourced sentence in the opening reeks of unsubstantiated POV (and is very naive to say it caused the Civil War). It compromises the whole article. Since this is a well written article, it should not be sabotaged so early on with a sentence that is flame bait.

It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, leading to the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights for freed slaves.

Americasroof 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above, which has since been edited, but I also would like to mention that the same bias exists in the last sentence of this paragraph.

The reasoning used in the "Slaughter-House Cases" is extremely sound considering the fact that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were written with the intention of overturning the Dred Scott decision.

The first part evidently lacks neutrality; the last part probably makes a conclusion that is a bit uncalled for -- as though this was the only or principal reason for the amendments. Finally, there is no reference for the statement.CallidusUlixes (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check the talk page before making my edit a few minutes ago: I excised this part:

"The court’s decision was so contentious that some go as far as to suggest that the Dred Scott decision caused the Civil War. Although such an assertion is rejected by most legal and historical scholars, it is nevertheless acknowledged that"

The Finkelman reference paper (ref# 4), one of the most-cited references in the article(kinda, sorta) opens with this:

While the case’s holding and doctrine are no longer jurisprudentially important, its historical and cultural impact can hardly be overestimated. Though surely an exaggeration, it has been said that the case caused the Civil War. While other forces caused secession and the War, Dred Scott surely played a role in the timing of both. After the War, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were in part designed to overturn its holding.

I note that Finkelman omits to cite WHO, if anyone, clamied the civil war was caused by Dred Scott. No substantiation for that line. therefore, I report that I did get rid of what user:America'sRoof rightly calls "naive" and "flamebait". Mang (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of Africa hypothesis and Dred Scott decision

Interestingly enough, if one considers the Out of Africa theory, had the Dred Scott decision stayed put, the USA might've wound up with no citizens, apparently. Obviously, someone would've had to correct for this evolutionary finding before long. 198.151.130.57 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of opening paragraph

"but retains historical significance as perhaps the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court"

That states an opinion, and it states that opinion as if it was a fact. Most people in the western world, Myself included, find racism and slavery appalling. I simply believe that we should reword the sentence to something more like; "but retains historical significance as what many believe may be the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court" or something similar perhaps. Just for neutrality sakes. We should attempt to maintain a NPOV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanjay (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is absolutely compromised by the statement (however true individuals such as myself believe it to be). Moreover, the cited article does not use the word "worst" to describe the decision. However, it does describe the decision with the phrases, "reputation as a 'bad'decision," and, "unquestionable the most controversial decision in Supreme Court history," without citation or proof, compromising the neutrality of the cited article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.180.93 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court votes

The article does not name all the justices in that 1857 decision, which raises the question if the ones that were set against Dred Scott's plea did so because they were slaveowners themselves. Musicwriter (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions in the text

First paragraph... "worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court." I resent the use of wikipedia to arbitrate opinion under the pretense of encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.26 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Help!!!

There are people who keep messing up this article. Admins keep banning people who vandalize this article. Plz help!!! Yoshi24517 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Requested move 10 March 2014

It has been proposed in this section that Dred Scott v. Sandford be renamed and moved to Scott v. Sandford.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Dred Scott v. Sandford → Scott v. Sandford – The short names of all court cases in the United States consist only of the parties' last names, never their full names. This is also the consensus with regard to naming American case articles throughout Misplaced Pages without exception. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Categories: