Talk:Connecticut Compromise

message: There was never much dispute that the lower house would have population representation, that states were given equal votes in the upper house was a capitulation to small state demands.  [...] Also, none of the major Framers of the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, favored equal representation.  
Please provide a citation for this. anthony (see warning) 13:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This came from "Sizing Up the Senate," chap. 1.
you people r all nerdz. :P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.182 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites please

message: In point of manners, religions, and other circimstances, which sometimes beget affection between different communities, they were not more assimilated that the other states.l In ponit [???] of the staple productions they were as dissimilar as any three other States in the Union.
Is this a typo?  a mistake in the original? anthony (see warning) 12:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: This:bicameral legislature consisting of a lower and upper house. is presented as if it were the terms that the people noted in the sentence had presented it in those terms.  Ifit is not i dirwcte qoutical then please be more smartical your  welcom it should be rephrased to indicate that the terms/interpretation are those of the topic-editor.
Tedickey 10:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on quoting

message: The word "taxes" links to an off-site advertisement, however there is no text creating such a link in the edit mode. What is going on? Does Wikipedia do this on purpose, or is this complex vandalism? Is it even legal? FlashHawk4 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "taxes" linked in the current revision.Tedickey (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: Would it be justified to merge the Virginia Plan article into this one, considering how it (this article) outlines both the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan? Why have two articles that contain the same information? Otherwise, remove the synopsis of the Virginia plan to focus more on the Great Compromise.Ykerzner (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current split-presentation seems okay to me.  Merging the topics would make it harder for the casual reader to focus on the different discussions Tedickey (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging articles

message: Hmm, I just now moved a big block out of the history section of the greatly overgrown United States Constitution and then thought, oh no, I haven't warned the watchers of Connecticut about this. I hope my action will not be taken as taking WP:BOLD to the point of impoliteness, and especially I hope for help in neatening what amounts to a rough merge. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note Jim! I can't speak for everyone in the project but I have no problem with the edit. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jim, looks like a pretty excellent edit to me.  I've always thought this article ought to have more information than it did before given how important of an event it was.  My only concern with your edit is that it isn't sourced with inline citations, but I think that can be fixed without too much trouble.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, on second inspection the merged material fits neatly enough, unlike some of my first drafts of transfers among articles. The defects are mainly original in the material, and should have been already repaired when the text was in its original overcrowded article. Alas, my own editorial talent and inclination run more to arrangement and linkage than citation, and my time will go to finding and fixing other cases of duplicative, unlinked, overlarge or oversmall articles and the like. I'll hope other editors in our assiduous volunteer corps will either tolerate any remaining shortcomings or correct them. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving from Philadelphia 

message: I have deleted the following sentence:
::Less populous Southern States were allowed to count three-fifths of all non-free, non-Native American people toward population counts and allocations.
This characterization of the Three-Fifths Compromise is inaccurate because, among other things, it suggests that the Southern States were all less populous than the Middle and Eastern (i.e., New England) States, whereas Virginia was the most populous State in the confederacy,University of Delaware, Historical Literacy Project, "Population Estimates Used at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787; First Federal Census Data 1790",  http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf; retrieved 9 Sept. 2013. and North Carolina's population was larger than those of four of the seven Northern States (counting Del. as a Southern State).Ibid.
The sentence also, remarkably, employs even more clumsy and indirect language than the Three-Fifths Clause itself.  Surely, at this late date, Wikipedia can refer to slaves as slaves.  Further, the sentence suggests that there was a category of "non-free, Native American people", 100% of whom would have been counted in the federal ratio of representation.
I also replaced the word "wrangled" with "complicated", in the sentence, 
::This agreement allowed deliberations to continue and thus led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which further wrangled the issue of popular representation in the House.
although I have no idea what the original writer meant by that sentence, and thus may not have clarified it.
Jdcrutch (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to "Aftermath" Section 

message: "Therefore, on June 14, when the Convention was ready to consider the report on the Virginia plan, William Paterson of New Jersey requested an adjournment to allow certain delegations more time to prepare a substitute plan."  Should that say a recess rather than an adjournment?  RJFJR (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  adjournment or recess 

message: The article mentions the original draft of the compromise authorizing one senator per state, but never returns to the subject, so it is unclear how that proposal was amended into the final two senators per state form that was written into the Constitution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.65.234 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  From one to two senators 

message: There is no mention of the extension of this compromise into the configuration of the presidential election whereby the number of electors is always at least 3, regardless of state population size.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Argenio (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral College 

message: Change James Madison to James Madison 137.83.19.148 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Are you referring to the one on the "Compromise" section? If so, it doesn't need to be linked, since it's already linked in the "Background" section: "James Madison and Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional...". See MOS:LINKONCE.  —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021