Talk:Nullification crisis

Inaccurate summary of the resolution

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph originally read, "The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to the satisfaction of the South, and the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation."

The emphasized clause contradicts other Wikipedia articles, including the linked article on states' rights which itemizes subsequent efforts to nullify Federal law, including current efforts to nullify the Federal prohibition of the medicinal use of marijuana, as well as the article on the Fugitive Slave Act.

I replaced the emphasized clause with "remained controversial, asserted again by opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Legal Tender Act of 1862 (nullified by California's Specific Contract Act of 1863) and Federal acts prohibiting the sale and possession of marijuana for medical use in the first decade of the 21st century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.78.137 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I am writing thus is the correct place. But at the top of the article it reads that the crisis ended in 1837. Shouldn't this have read 1833? Wgb8210 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Underlinking?

Really? In what way? Bagunceiro (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, though I'm not the one who put that notice up. Last night, I added Wikilinks to most of the article, though I wasn't able to finish. However, IMO, it seems like there are enough of them. I think I'll finish adding Wikilinks, though, before I make the suggestion that the notice be removed. Greengreengreenred 17:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I finished that, and now I think it doesn't need the Underlinking notice, but I may be wrong. Greengreengreenred 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nullification Crisis. 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/20060824095525/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219200227/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/messages/ajack001.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/messages/ajack001.htm

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) 13:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

After review of the revision history, this article seems to be a constant target for vandalism. I would like to request Semi-protection to prevent this. - Mrsupersonic8 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Nullification Crisis → Nullification crisis – Per WP:AT article titles use sentence case unless it's a proper noun, and this one isn't. deisenbe (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed The books and articles listed in the bibliography all capitalise Crisis as a proper noun; much of the lower case in the article is because of the proposer. Timrollpickering (Talk) 01:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging original proposer and opposer: deisenbe, Timrollpickering –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. A (non-exhaustive) search on Google Books finds many using "nullification crisis", but only one that I could find that capitalized it. (Didn't take note of which ones I found, sorry). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Deacon. Searches show that if anything a majority don't capitalise, and it certainly isn't "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources", as required by MOS:CAPS.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Removing out of scope line at lead para 1 end

I am going to remove the end of the first paragraph in the lead as out of the scope of the topic. This line reads as shown below.

• However, courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification by states.(1)(2)

It is inappropriate for the article since it is talking about (and citing) court rejections that occurred many years after the crisis this article is about. Also, the cites shown in this article seem the same as in Nullification (U.S. Constitution) at para 1 cite 4 (The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts,) and para 2 cite 5 (Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.) Differing only that this article cited to the wayback archives for the court cases.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)