Talk:Wyandotte Constitution

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wyandotte Constitution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Old West / History 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Kansas C‑class Top‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Illusionary Conflict

The user Ndickinson1 keeps on adding a section on supposed conflict with 14th Amendment, believing the word "men" represents "male privilege".

First, "men" has been used throughout history to mean "A human regardless of sex or age; a person" (thefreedictionary) in English and this usage remains current as is easily confirmed by consulting any decent dictionary.

Second, even if you chose to interpret "men" to mean males, there is NO conflict.

The statement "All Greeks have a right to life" in NO way conflicts with "All humans have a right to life". Same with males instead of Greeks.

The section on the supposed conflict is based on an illusion caused by poor understanding of English usage and of rudimentary logic.

Shores of bohemia (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Wikipedia is not the proper place for user OPINIONS -- Ndickinson1 should find some other platform to propagate his ideas, be they reasonable or, as in this particular case, simply mistaken. If, however, Ndickinson1 finds some scholarly article on the use of the words "men" and "person" in the U.S. and Kansas constitutions, and their implications, that could be mentioned.

Shores of bohemia (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the user "Shores of bohemia"'s credentials for removing information from this page. I am not sure where he gets the idea that "man" covers both "men" and "women." The framers of the U.S. Constitution clearly believed this was not the case and changed the language from "rights of Man" in the Declaration of Independence to "rights of Person" in the U.S. Constitution. I am not sure why "shores of bohemia" thinks he can override their language, or hide information about the Kansas constitution from the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.40.114 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wyandotte Constitution. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130608115555/http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/wyandott/history/1911/volume1/146.html to http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/wyandott/history/1911/volume1/146.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of African Americans from Voting

The Contents section's first paragraph says that the constitution "…denied universal suffrage for women, blacks, and Indians." Then the second paragraph says that "The motion to exclude African-Americans was subsequently defeated…" Huh? Did it give suffrage to African American or didn't it? Was the first paragraph just talking about a proposed draft? If so, it should say so, because the way it's written, it sounds like it's talking about the version as ratified. MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]