Talk:Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Academic Kids

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

text of portrait

there are clear errors in the text put today under the portrait: Thomas Jefferson's name is replaced by John adams. Factually correct text would be:

213.243.157.114 15:47, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In any event, it is much, much too long. -- Emsworth 15:53, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We're tring to make captions complete sentences and explain the relevance of the image to the article. This style of caption does end up longer than captions that are not complete sentences. This one doesn't seem particularly excessive. I've corrected the factual errors. 81.168.80.170 16:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think anything longer than a couple of lines is excessive and inelegant. I disagree with the changing of captions to make them explain their relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a picture book; anyone who wishes to understand the captions must merely read the adjacent text. Lengthy captions are only appropriate when the adjacent text is not necessarily relevant to the picture. -- Emsworth 17:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you shorten those captions (or craft new ones) to an apporpriate length to help the readers survey the article and understand the relationships of Jefferson and Clay to the article? -- ke4roh 18:59, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the adjacent text would suffice here. -- Emsworth 19:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made a new attempt, with captions that explain the relevance of the figure but in a much briefer way. Emsworth, please see Wikipedia:Captions and raise any issues about the principle of explaining relevance there. 81.168.80.170 21:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While 81.168.80.170 was taking another attempt at captions, I was writing here: I strongly feel that the captions should provide some context (see Wikipedia:Captions). What would you think of a compromise involving some especially short captions like "Mayhem surrounding Jackson's elections spurred the amendment?" I'm not sure I understand well enough why Clay's picture was inlcuded (as opposed to any others), so I'm not sure I can write the best caption, but I might try something like "The amendment precluded Clay's presidency." -- ke4roh 21:18, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

The captions I have just added both (a) indicate the relevance of the image and (b) are not too long. Just noting that I absolutely oppose the reinsertion of the previous seven-line captions. -- Emsworth 00:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"portrait" as verb

I have seen English texts where there is written "portraited". Actually, it is very practical. Only with 10 signs, you have a reference in, for example, a caption of picture. It makes the reference unambiguous, in cases where several names are mentioned in the text.

I admit that probably the texts I have read were American-English. However, there is no need to enforce those strict British grammar regulations here in Wikipedia. 213.243.157.114 00:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, WordNet from Princeton University and the American Heritage Dictionary all give portrait as a noun only (except the last, which notes the adjectival usage in relation to paper orientation). In any event, I hope you agree that the current captions meet the standards of demonstrating the image's relevance to the article and of clarity. -- Emsworth 00:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would understand portraited, though I'd think it odd, and few modern dictionaries (American or British) mention that usage. I would favor "portrayed." -- ke4roh 01:16, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the current captions do those things well. (And I wouldn't lengthen them for the world!) The only thing I'd do is shorten them further by making them full sentences, obviating the need for "whose" and "who". Cost: the caption doesn't explicitly state what's in the picture, but that's not a problem for human (as distinguished from computer) readers of the article. Just opening my June 2004 National Geographic Magazine to page 21, I see this caption, "A tea vendor in Najaf stops to refresh merchants who — for the first time in years — can taste prosperity. The end of trade sanctions and the return of religious tourists and students have packed hotels and filled market stalls as Najaf regains its role as a center of Shiite learning." I note that the caption leaves the reader to discern that the tea vendor is the man holding the teapot in the picture (and not any of the three customers). -- ke4roh 01:16, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Electoral College under Amendment XII

Furthemore, the Twelfth Amendment explictly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: people under thirty-five years of age, those who have not inhabited the United States for at least fourteen years, and those who are not natural-born citizens.

It may be true that the Vice President must have those qualifications (Article II, Section 1), but I don't believe that the 12th Amendment states anything about that. The actual text of the 12th amendment is here:[1] (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#12) [2] (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Amendment_XII). Maybe I am missing something, for I am certainly not a Constitutional expert. But if others agree, perhaps we should reword the above paragraph. (Or we could reword the 12th Amendment, since this is, afterall, Wiki!)--Brim 05:58, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• See the line "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." -- Emsworth 12:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how I glossed over that. —Brim 08:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's possible for the pres and VP to come from different parties, correct? even without a tied EC vote? but this would very rarely happen in practice? SpookyMulder 07:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)