![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Whom in particular? That is just one source that is mentioned for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.80 ( talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed a section talking about a 21st century advocate of nullification. It is appropriate to discuss Jefferson's attempts at nullification and possibly secession as a response to Alien and Sedition Acts. Garfield's comments more than 60 years later are about Jefferson and nullification. The deleted remarks refer to a modern political outlier advocating nullification today based on an unusual interpretation of the 10th Amendment, and are not primarily historical commentary about Jefferson's response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Waltezell ( talk) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence precedes a list of names of people who were fined and/or imprisoned. There is no citation for this claim and it would seem to be a typo -- perhaps it was supposed to say "28 people were convicted."
71.126.235.108 ( talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Michael Kerpan
There is no link to some of Wikipedia's other pages in the introduction, specifically the Naturalization Act of 1798 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798). Also there aren't even pages for the other three acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.223.20 ( talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the worst Wiki article that I have ever seen notwithstanding the fact that it offers a lot of competently presented information related to the subject. What it does not do is make any kind of clear statement as to what the acts actually were, what they forbid or what they say. It is as though the critical first paragraph is missing. We launch immediately into why they were enacted, the context, some effects, etc. All very fine. But what were they? 98.69.160.197 ( talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here to ask about the same thing, I'm just amazed that there's no clear explanation. Joe Suggs ( talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC) http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/601714 says the Sedition Act expired March 3, 1801, not in 1800 as this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.197.28 ( talk) 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I recently added the full text of all acts to address the concerns of a lack of definition. Shall I add a wikified summary somewhere else, and is the formatting ok? It seems somewhat tldr to include the whole thing, is there a procedure for this? Americanbarbarian ( talk) 01:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The effects of the Acts should probably include the internment of Japanese Americans (Issei only = first generation) who were resident aliens (Not allowed to apply for citizenship) and therefore validly declared "enemy aliens" by the US government. (For the record, internment of the second generation (Nissei), Japanese Americans and citizens, everyone recognizes now as totally illegal.) Student7 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This article should say how many Americans were fined and/or imprisoned under the act; and since it mentions some under both Adams and Jefferson, numbers for each. Craig234 ( talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Craig234
Could someone with the books that are referenced for this line check the accuracy of this claim? I can't find any online source that says something similar. I think it should be removed if the owners of the books can't confirm it. My understanding is that the Alien and Sedition Acts expired as Jefferson entered office. Kringe1 ( talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I checked my copy of Chernow's biography of Hamilton and I think this description (brought up twice in the article, no less) is based on an elementary error. The cited page 668 of Chernow discusses the famous People v. Croswell libel case, but that case involved the alleged violation of New York's libel laws, not any federal laws (which, as you note, ceased to exist after Jefferson's inauguration). Furthermore, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was nothing unconstitutional about such laws, as the First Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the federal government, not the states. This is highly relevant because it undercuts the unstated implication that Jefferson was hypocritical for opposing the Sedition Act, while supporting prosecutions for seditious libel of those opposed to him. The Sedition Act was baldy unconstitutional, while the state laws were not.
As an earlier comment discussed in greater detail this article strikes a revisionist/anti-Jefferson tone through both the inclusion of this "fact" and the lengthy polemic conclusion centering on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Though of immense importance in their own right, the resolutions shouldn't be taking up the entire conclusion of an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Further revisions would be welcome.
Weygander ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Under WP:MOS/lead, the lead should summarize the article body. I accidentally put this sentence - "Roosevelt's proclamations were cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as good precedents for his controversial position that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States for an unspecified period, as part of the undeclared war on terror" in the lead first paragraph, and in a later edit, I put it where it chronologically follows in the lead fourth paragraph. Both occurrences were deleted [1], with the edit summary "Trump is already mentioned in the 21st century section. There is no need for 3 references to him". I agree that there should not be three references to Mr. Trump's use of these acts, and I agree that this content does not belong in the lead first paragraph, but it should be in the lead as per WP:MOS. So I added it back to the end of the fourth paragraph in the lead... and I could not resist making silly pun in the title of this talk page section. :) MBUSHIstory ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The Immigration Act of 1917 article says, "The McCarran-Walter Act revised all previous laws and regulations regarding immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and collected into one comprehensive statute." How did the McCarren Act revise the Alien Enemies Act? MBUSHIstory ( talk) 00:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Was the AEA the authority President Carter used in re deportation of Iranian students in 1979, and generally in 1980? MBUSHIstory ( talk) 00:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added a copy editing tag, due to poor style throughout, and some confusing grammar. Meesher ( talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lede I see both the forms "Alien Enemy act" and "Alien Enemies Act". I assume that both refer to the same Act. But everywhere else in the article the Act is only called the "Alien Enemies Act". Are both forms correct or should it be changed to "Alien Enemies Act" everywhere? Spike ( talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Whom in particular? That is just one source that is mentioned for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.80 ( talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed a section talking about a 21st century advocate of nullification. It is appropriate to discuss Jefferson's attempts at nullification and possibly secession as a response to Alien and Sedition Acts. Garfield's comments more than 60 years later are about Jefferson and nullification. The deleted remarks refer to a modern political outlier advocating nullification today based on an unusual interpretation of the 10th Amendment, and are not primarily historical commentary about Jefferson's response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Waltezell ( talk) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence precedes a list of names of people who were fined and/or imprisoned. There is no citation for this claim and it would seem to be a typo -- perhaps it was supposed to say "28 people were convicted."
71.126.235.108 ( talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Michael Kerpan
There is no link to some of Wikipedia's other pages in the introduction, specifically the Naturalization Act of 1798 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798). Also there aren't even pages for the other three acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.223.20 ( talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the worst Wiki article that I have ever seen notwithstanding the fact that it offers a lot of competently presented information related to the subject. What it does not do is make any kind of clear statement as to what the acts actually were, what they forbid or what they say. It is as though the critical first paragraph is missing. We launch immediately into why they were enacted, the context, some effects, etc. All very fine. But what were they? 98.69.160.197 ( talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here to ask about the same thing, I'm just amazed that there's no clear explanation. Joe Suggs ( talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC) http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/601714 says the Sedition Act expired March 3, 1801, not in 1800 as this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.197.28 ( talk) 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I recently added the full text of all acts to address the concerns of a lack of definition. Shall I add a wikified summary somewhere else, and is the formatting ok? It seems somewhat tldr to include the whole thing, is there a procedure for this? Americanbarbarian ( talk) 01:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The effects of the Acts should probably include the internment of Japanese Americans (Issei only = first generation) who were resident aliens (Not allowed to apply for citizenship) and therefore validly declared "enemy aliens" by the US government. (For the record, internment of the second generation (Nissei), Japanese Americans and citizens, everyone recognizes now as totally illegal.) Student7 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This article should say how many Americans were fined and/or imprisoned under the act; and since it mentions some under both Adams and Jefferson, numbers for each. Craig234 ( talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Craig234
Could someone with the books that are referenced for this line check the accuracy of this claim? I can't find any online source that says something similar. I think it should be removed if the owners of the books can't confirm it. My understanding is that the Alien and Sedition Acts expired as Jefferson entered office. Kringe1 ( talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I checked my copy of Chernow's biography of Hamilton and I think this description (brought up twice in the article, no less) is based on an elementary error. The cited page 668 of Chernow discusses the famous People v. Croswell libel case, but that case involved the alleged violation of New York's libel laws, not any federal laws (which, as you note, ceased to exist after Jefferson's inauguration). Furthermore, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was nothing unconstitutional about such laws, as the First Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the federal government, not the states. This is highly relevant because it undercuts the unstated implication that Jefferson was hypocritical for opposing the Sedition Act, while supporting prosecutions for seditious libel of those opposed to him. The Sedition Act was baldy unconstitutional, while the state laws were not.
As an earlier comment discussed in greater detail this article strikes a revisionist/anti-Jefferson tone through both the inclusion of this "fact" and the lengthy polemic conclusion centering on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Though of immense importance in their own right, the resolutions shouldn't be taking up the entire conclusion of an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Further revisions would be welcome.
Weygander ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Under WP:MOS/lead, the lead should summarize the article body. I accidentally put this sentence - "Roosevelt's proclamations were cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as good precedents for his controversial position that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States for an unspecified period, as part of the undeclared war on terror" in the lead first paragraph, and in a later edit, I put it where it chronologically follows in the lead fourth paragraph. Both occurrences were deleted [1], with the edit summary "Trump is already mentioned in the 21st century section. There is no need for 3 references to him". I agree that there should not be three references to Mr. Trump's use of these acts, and I agree that this content does not belong in the lead first paragraph, but it should be in the lead as per WP:MOS. So I added it back to the end of the fourth paragraph in the lead... and I could not resist making silly pun in the title of this talk page section. :) MBUSHIstory ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The Immigration Act of 1917 article says, "The McCarran-Walter Act revised all previous laws and regulations regarding immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and collected into one comprehensive statute." How did the McCarren Act revise the Alien Enemies Act? MBUSHIstory ( talk) 00:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Was the AEA the authority President Carter used in re deportation of Iranian students in 1979, and generally in 1980? MBUSHIstory ( talk) 00:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added a copy editing tag, due to poor style throughout, and some confusing grammar. Meesher ( talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lede I see both the forms "Alien Enemy act" and "Alien Enemies Act". I assume that both refer to the same Act. But everywhere else in the article the Act is only called the "Alien Enemies Act". Are both forms correct or should it be changed to "Alien Enemies Act" everywhere? Spike ( talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)