Talk:Monticello Convention

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Article needs extensive clean-up

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Much of this entry reads like a 50s-era childrens' textbook. To cite just one example: "...[HBC] livestock would trespass on settlers lands (sic)." The issue of whether livestock belonging to prior-established owners can legally be said to "trespass" on interlopers' presumed property was the very crux of the argument. The example also indicates old-school nationalistic bias in its implication that only Canadian cows ever got loose and trampled their neighbours' corn. A cursory reading of any academically-valid account of the Pig War will establish the true nature of the diplomatic issues of the day.

Aside from such historical clangers, the text suffers from clunky, tortured, or just wrong English. (E.g., verb tense and punctuation in the above-cited example.) In sum, as written, it's not encyclopedic. Laodah 00:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic