Talk:Report of 1800

Report of 1800 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 29, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 4, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 19, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 29, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that James Madison's Report of 1800* was used to support the doctrine of nullification, despite his objection to that doctrine?*
Current status: Former featured article

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Mercer[edit]

might the John Mercer mentioned in this article be John Francis Mercer? Hmains 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so...that article says he moved to Maryland well before this time period. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category, Links[edit]

I would like to link this to Category:Legal literature, also add Blue links to all the years mentioned in the article. OK? If I don't get a response in a week, I will do so. Bearian 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelinking years is generally discouraged by the manual of style unless the links provide important context, but the category seems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo[edit]

I went to copyedit this article, and I found little to do. This is by far the best-typed, most clearly written, most encyclopedic article I've seen here so far. Congratulations on the FA. --Milkbreath 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And all done without any flamewars on the talk page. Impressive indeed! --SirEditALot 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happens sometimes. Look at other Featured Articles' talk pages. Brutannica 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

How are articles chosen to be featured on the Wikipedia Front Page? 60.230.32.113 08:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I choose them. Raul654 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...from the pool of Featured Articles approved by the community (if I may finish the thought) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GutzmanK edit[edit]

GutzmanK wrote:

The text in Note 26 is incorrect: the majority in the Virginia House of Delegates agreed in the debate over the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 to delete the words "null, void, and of no force or effect" from the Resolutions' description of the unconstitutional Sedition Act precisely because "null, void, and of no force or effect" was -- as future Virginia Governor James Barbour explained -- already implicit in "unconstitutional." Thus, the Resolutions said simply that the Sedition Act was "unconstitutional," "unconstitutional, null, void, and of no force or effect." Therefore, the text in Note 26 here should be deleted.

Is there anything to this? Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the note comes from the source listed, either as a footnote there or in the introduction, but perhaps there is disagreement on the issue that I am not aware of. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

This featured article does not meet the featured article criteria. There is a lot of uncited text, multiple references are just unsourced notes, and Madison's primary source papers are used very heavily as sources. Hog Farm _Talk 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]