Talk:Mason–Dixon line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grammar, Logic, and Style

I am very concerned about the grammar and style in this article. This makes no sense: "the western part of this line and the Ohio River became a border between free and slave states, although Delaware remained a slave state. " It contradicts itself. If Delaware did remain a slave state, then therefore, the MD Line is NOT a border between free and slave states. The intro paragraph needs to make sense, be logical, be correct, and not have run-on sentences. Also, there is no need for parentheses in the lead paragraph. Check up on style for when to use parentheses. Thank you! Jdubowsky 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what they're trying to say, though, it could have been said differently, you're right. The portion of the Mason-Dixon Line running from The Wedge (PA/DE/MD border meeting point) westward to the Ohio River was a sort-of "slave/free" boundary, though the portion from The Wedge southward to the Transpeninsular was not part of that boundary (The Twelve-Mile Circle is, however, the continuation of the slave/free boundary). So, in essence, you both are right: anything south of Maryland's border was slaved, but despite Delaware's not wholly being to the south, it was still a slave state. However, how you would like to word that is on you, and I hope this helped! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mason-Dixon map needs to be updated to reflect the (re)surveying of the Twelve-Mile Circle as well. This will help clarify the extent of Mason and Dixon's effort.

Side note here but: "In 2009 the proprietary governor of Maryland, Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore, signed an agreement with William Penn's sons which drew a line somewhere in between..." 2009?!

Emancipation

"During and after the American Revolution, 46.000 thousand Loyalists (according to Canadian sources as in the book "True Blue") " This was contributed by an undependable anon. Were slaves in these states freed by the Emancipation Proclamation or was it at the end of the War? Please amend if necessary. --Wetman 06:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand your quote about the loyalists. Nevertheless, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states "in rebellion." It did not apply to Maryland, Delaware, or even portions of the confederacy that had been pacified (such as some counties in Virginia and certain parishes in Louisiana). The Maryland Constitution of 1864 ended slavery there, ratified on October 13, 1864. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution banned slavery on all U.S. soil, including Delaware. It was ratified on December 6, 1865, although Delaware voted against it (decades later they ratified it). Although there were minor actions for two months afterwards, the war effectively ended with Lee's surrender on April 9, 1865. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:03, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Name Clarification

This article makes no mention as who Mason and Dixon are. What are their first names? Is Mason Geroge Mason, father of the Bill of Rights and author of Virigina's constitution? Or is it just some guy? If it is George Mason, how did he get involved in surveying?--Atlastawake 19:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Astronomer Charles Mason and surveyor Jeremiah Dixon both came from England to do this work. NoSeptember 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of partial revert

In order to avoid more delays in editing this page (there is a lot to do outhere), why don't you open two headings (i.e. "geography" and "culture")? Every boundary (internal or external) in the world has both geographical and cultural components, so there is really nothing special about the Mason-Dixon Line (i.e. North and South cyprus, parallel 38 in the Koreas). Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia and it should contain all aspects of the subject. If the Mason-Dixon line is a cultural boundary is because people talk about it in that way (even if the line does not extend to the Western part of the country). I think that you should present both, the cultural and geographic aspects of it, even if you don't agree with the other position. Wikipedia should be as objective as possible. Astharoth1 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted most details of this edit, by User:WhiskyWhiskers. The reason is that I strongly disagree with omitting all references to the "pop culture" Mason Dixon line from the introduction. The fact that "Mason-Dixon" line means two different things should be made clear up front. I also don't see one usage as more "real" than the other, but we can leave that question for the philosophers, I imagine.

Anyway, I thought I'd post my reasoning here. If you want to revert me, please discuss here, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, an anon reverted me with the edit summary "Wikipedia should be about facts, not imagining". I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page, where it belongs.

Now, the fact that, in popular usage, the "Mason-Dixon line" is the cultural boundary between North and South is not an "imagining". Most of the time, when people say "Mason-Dixon line", that's what they mean. The introduction to an article should be a summary that includes the most important points in the article. The most common usage of the term is one of the most important points, therefore, it should not be left out of the introduction. I've reverted back, because that's how I hope I can persuade someone to talk about it here, and we can probably reach some kind of consensus. I refuse to discuss content by means of edit summaries. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because ignorant people think the Mason Dixon line stretches all the way to Missouri, there is no need to honor and perpetuate their ignorance. WhiskyWhiskers 02:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your view is overly pedantic to the point of being misleading. No source that I can find asserts that the colloquial definition of the Mason-Dixon line is incorrect; each acknowledges that sense of the term and gives it some discussion. I'm happy to leave those paragraphs in a section of their own near the end, but the article is weak if the cultural significance of the line is not mentioned in the intro. I have attempted a compromise version.

It may be that many people who use the term "Mason-Dixon line" in the extended sense are ignorant of its history, but one need not be ignorant in order to allow that a culture will develop its own vocabulary, appropriating terms at will. A neologistic usage 150 years ago is standard now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with GTBacchus; the vast majority of people who use the term do not know about the actual line, but rather the cultural line. So this belongs up front in the article. -Blauwkoe 09:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WhiskeyWhiskers, please direct discussion to the talk page. I have made some changes to your version, which I am explaining here.

• "Popular usage, albeit erroneous, extends" --> "Popular usage extends"

  I challenge you to provide an authority that holds that the colloquial use of the phrase "Mason-Dixon line" to refer to the cultural boundary between North and South is erroneous. Until you do, that is an unsourced allegation, which I would say is also incorrect. See my comments above about the appropriation of terms and the evolution of language.

• In the caption on the map of the South, you changed the perfectly correct "The Mason-Dixon line forms part of the northern boundary of the shaded states", which is true in the most pedantic sense available. I changed it back, because it's correct, even according to your restricted definition.
• "The Mason-Dixon line became symbolic of the division between the "free states" and "slave states" before and during the American Civil War." This is a fact, plain and simple. The Mason-Dixon line itself - the one that you agree is the Mason-Dixon line - became symbolic of the division between slave states and free states. There are no two ways about that. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be talking about it now. Can you provide a source that the Mason-Dixon line did not become a symbol? I can provide a dozen that it did, and am ready to do so at your request.

Please reply here, so we may discuss what the article should say, and why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, please do not use phrases like "I refuse to negotiate". This is very far from the neutral tone which Wikipedia is supposed to maintain. The fact (verifiable) that the original MDL was a surveyor's boundary does not negate the fact (verifiable) that in popular culture for well over 100 years (certainly since "Are You From Dixie" by Yellin and Cobb in 1915) the term "MDL" has been used consistently as a shorthand for the cultural divide between North and South. It may be a technical error but so are many, many other common English uses of words or terms -- these then get established. I think there's room for both of these ways -- and I think we had it about right when we said "the concept has been extended in popular culture". It's obvious this is beyond the original meaning. I don't mind talking about this, but please, "no negotiation" is what has gotten the world into a lot of trouble. "Can't we all just get along?" There should be a neutral way to express all this. -Blauwkoe 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the next step is to line up sources. It's silly to claim that the colloquial meaning of "MDL" is erroneous, in the face of a century and a half of usage. If WhiskeyWhiskers doesn't see it that way, then we need to cite authorities. It should be pretty easy, but I won't be able to work on it today. Meanwhile, very little harm is done leaving it in the current version. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to see how there is an argument here at all; obviously, it's a fact that the Mason-Dixon line has come to be thought of as the line dividing the North and the South. Whether or not that was the original intention is irrelevant; it has taken on that meaning now, and that's all that matters. Merriam-Webster defines Mason-Dixon line as, "the boundary line from the SW corner of Delaware N to Pennsylvania & W to approximately the SW corner of Pennsylvania & often considered the boundary between the N & S states." [1] So there you have it. It has both meanings. Kafziel 04:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the latest edit, here, is good. Hopefully everyone is happy with that. Kafziel 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But technically the Mason-Dixon Line is not a boundary between North and South States. When you consider the fact that Maryland and Pennsylvania BOTH had claims to the same territory(from Philadelphia to probably about hagerstown,MD) geographically the line is insignificant. Also maryland was very divided over the issue of slaver to begin with and it wasnt really practiced except in the southern parts of the state and in Baltimore. As far as defining it by Southern sympathy...before the confederacy Philadelphia had very strong southern sympathies that became diminished once the confederate states seceded. The fact remains that Maryland was a sort of hybrid state with an industrial economy yet still had support for slavery though it wasnt widely practiced throughout the state and was actually banned in some places(see Sandy Springs, MD) there were other issues they supported the South on other than slavery as Maryland was a major center of abolitionists. At any rate..the Mason Dixon line is irrelevant in the modern US because in many ways Maryland, DC, and NoVA are more wealthy, racially harmonious, diverse, and accepting than MANY of the states above the mason dixon line. In fact there is far less racism and discrimination in this area than u would find in the New England states or much of Pennsylvania. I think its more correctly classified as a mid-atlantic state...and as it is a border state i dont think it can be correctly said to be north or south.

Sources

• MSN Encarta, online encyclopedia. Second paragraph discusses colloquial use of "MDL" dating back to Congressional debates in 1820. Colloquial usage is not deemed to be "erroneous" or in any way incorrect.
• The Columbia Gazeteer of North America: "Before the Civil War the term “Mason-Dixon Line” popularly designated the boundary dividing the slave from the free states, and it is still used to distinguish the South from the North." Does not assert that this usage is in any way incorrect.
• a quote from Macmillan Information Now Encyclopedia "The Confederacy": "Between the Revolution and the Civil War, the line acquired additional significance as the border between Northern states that had eliminated African slavery and Southern states that retained the institution. In 1820 Missouri, west of the Mississippi River, was admitted as a slave state, with slavery prohibited in the remaining territory north of 36°30'." No assertion that the extended usage is incorrect.
• National Geographic news First paragraph: "Most Americans know the Mason-Dixon Line as the divider between North and South; freedom and slavery. But the line's origins have nothing to do with slavery and actually predate the United States." No assertion that this use is in any way incorrect.
• About.com (probably the weakest source in the lot) First sentence is similar to Nat'l Geo above; also: "[The] boundary [between free and slave states] became referred to as the Mason-Dixon line because it began in the east along the Mason-Dixon line and headed westward to the Ohio River and along the Ohio to its mouth at the Mississippi River and then west along 36 degrees 30 minutes North. The Mason-Dixon line was very symbolic in the minds of the people of the young nation struggling over slavery and the names of the two surveyors who created it will evermore be associated with that struggle and its geographic association." Not the best copy perhaps, but they're not exactly Brittannica. Oh, speaking of...
• Encyclopedia Brittannica "The term was first used in congressional debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820) to describe the dividing line between the slave states to its south and the free-soil states to its north. It is still used as the figurative dividing line between the North and South." Again, no assertion is made that this use is incorrect.

Ok, that's six (maybe 5 and a half) reliable sources, all documenting an extension of the term "Mason-Dixon line" to designate the boundary between free states and slave states. Every one of them acknowledges this usage continuing into modern times. Not a single one declares this use to be erroneous or in any way incorrect. Thus, User:WhiskyWhiskers' assertion that it is erroneous appears to be original research. I'll correct the article now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous in that it was a public perception, not an actual extension of the surveyed line. The public often has difficulty discerning fact from fiction. 24.0.91.81 05:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not an actual extension of the surveyed line"? Do you mean that nobody went out in the field, surveyed a longer line, and made it official in that way? Can you say what particular "fiction" you're talking about? Do you think that someone believes that... what, Mason and Dixon were called back from the dead to make the line longer? I honestly don't understand your objection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC on this article, by the way. See WP:RFC/HIST. I maintain that the claim that popular usage is "erroneous" is supported by nothing but an argument made by one person on this talk page (and in a handful of edit summaries). No authority on US history or geography agrees that this usage is erroneous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Erroneous" popular usage

I agree it's erroneous and even history revisionism of sorts; though I don't agree with eradicating it from Wikipedia or any other source. Erroneous or not it is a popular view; I simply think it should be well clarified. I don't believe text should imply it's an equally valid view either explicitly or by omission.--Psf11 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

As an editor who has a history degree, I'll offer some background. During the colonial period slavery was legal in every colony. It was relatively rare in northern colonies for economic reasons. Following independence the northern states ended slavery. Pennsylvania implemented the slowest transition and still had a handful of slaves as late as the 1820s.

The Mason-Dixon line acquired its cultural and political significance in the early nineteenth century as slavery ended everywhere north of this boundary. Hence, the Missouri Compromise debates describe what was then an emerging reality. The popular use of this term is not a corruption of some truer or purer definition. Durova 10:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried a sample rephrasing of the header, which I hope will be satisfactory to both sides. Septentrionalis 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dixieland

Does the nickname 'Dixieland' come from this line? If so, should that not be referenced?

I've heard, but don't know authoritatively, that "dixie" comes from "dix" - a French unit of money common in the formerly French Louisiana territory; coincidence with "Mason-Dixon" may be noteworthy, but possibly accidental. EdK 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the red line supposed to stop short of the southwest corner of Pennsylvania? Oh - now I see the bit about Native Americans stopping them. But is the part to the corner considered part of the line? If so, maybe it should be a slightly different color.

The article says that "Mason and Dixon's actual survey line began south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and extended from a benchmark east to the Delaware River and west to what was then the boundary with western Virginia (now the state of West Virginia)." But a point 15 miles south of Philadelphia is in New Jersey, east of the Delaware River. --Nabumetone 14:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because NJ was to the immediate south is why Mason and Dixon first went west before heading south to establish a suitable location for a benchmark that became known as the stargazers' stone, which still stands today near Embreeville, PA. The aforementioned source contains photos and detailed history. EdK 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"This article contains a trivia section"?

Could someone point to this section? For the life of me I can't find it.

Imagine there's a trivia section and at some point it's renamed from "Trivia" into "Cultural references" – the content still remains unchanged. El_C 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the Mark Knopfler "Sailing to Philadelphia" reference keeps getting removed from cultural references and suggested it is moved to a trivia section? The whole song is about the Mason and Dixon and the line - it's hardly a passing reference. Some of the other cultural references seem more trivial than this e.g. Rocky's opponent being named Mason 'The Line' Dixon. Mark Knopfler is hardly an unknown artist in popular culture.

It's not - read the lyrics. It's about Mason and Dixon, has no relevance to the line itself (it's surprising that the anon-IPs don't apply the advice to put the trivia in the relevant topic). Tedickey (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sailing to Philadelphia, To draw the line, A Mason-Dixon Line" seems a reasonable reference to the line, given the context of the rest of the song. How do you apply your criteria to the Rocky reference not being trivia? It has no relevance to the Mason-Dixon line itself.

Actually it's rather oblique. (For the second comment, which is not really relevant to this discussion, I didn't add the Rocky reference, that was another anon-IP, but agree that it is more relevant to the topic). While we're on this thread, I note that the comments in Mason & Dixon and Sailing to Philadelphia are inaccurate - you may wish to improve those comments Tedickey (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My point on the Rocky reference was that you have rejected the Sailing to Philadelphia reference on the grounds of trivia. This seems to fit the Rocky reference as well, so is obviously not grounds for rejecting Sailing to Philadelphia. While we're on the subject, I notice that you have rejected this reference repeatedly (and quickly) citing variously "trivia", "vandalism", "non topical advert" and "non factual comment". It would help people to understand your objection if you could make your argument more clearly and consistently, either in comments or in discussion. People keep adding this reference (another one this week), so they obviously don't find it as "oblique" as you do. I landed at this page as my first hit in google (search mason dixon line) after listening to the song to find out what it was about, I'm sure others do the same. I also don't understand the relevance of your references to anon-IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.200.50 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Caps

Shouldn't line be capitalized in the title, since it is part of a proper name? A quick Google search shows that is how it is usually done. Dhaluza (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"As a Cultural Boundary"

In this section, while discussing slavery, the article states that Pennsylvania outlawed slavery before the American Revolution, and then mentions several states that it remained in effect until after "the war." Presumably this means the Civil War; I didn't change it however, because it states that Maryland and Delaware were two of these, and as far as I can find, Maryland outlawed slavery in a new state constitution passed in 1864, and Delaware was a Union state, and thus didn't abolish slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment. Can anyone confirm this?Kaiguy (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For Maryland, 1864 isn't in conflict with the statement, since it was under military occupation throughout the war. (I'd still verify that date ;-) Tedickey (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maceo-Dickinson line

While the reference exists, the "used to referred to" part implies that the usage was common. There's only a handful of hits from google, basically pointing to the single source. Tedickey (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Is the concern that the term is not currently popular, or that you don't believe it is real, or both? Anyway a few sources if it is helpful.

• Texas Monthly‎ Magazine, Dec. 1983, v. 11, no. 12, Page 168. "To cross from Harris into Galveston County was to go south of the Maceo-Dickinson line, as Houstonians called it."
• Galveston: a history of the island‎ by Gary Cartwright. page 215. "Motorists driving south on the highway from Houston spoke of crossing the Maceo-Dickinson Line."
• Houston: land of the big rich‎ by George Fuermann. page 170. "Almost halfway between the two cities is the little town of Dickinson, which is politely agreed upon as the Maceo-Dickinson Line."
• Texas Ranger Dispatch Magazine, Issue 27, Fall 2008. page 7. "Their holdings in legitimate businesses and real estate were so great that the Galveston-Dickinson County line was often referred to as the 'Maceo-Dickinson County line.'"

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Into New Jersey

Does the Mason Dixon extend into New Jersey? I thought it was shaped like a 'T' as shown here: http://www.chefsuccess.com/f18/morning-update-october-18-2009-a-56794/ Quantumelfmage (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I recall seeing some earlier discussion that said in effect they're not really related - just coincidence Tedickey (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That map seems to start the line 15 miles south of Philadelphia - which is in New Jersey. To be more precise, the agreement between the Penns and Calverts said that the latitude of the border line would be 15 miles south of Philadelphia. M&D found the latitude of South Street in Philly, moved 31 miles west to Embreeville, Pennsylvania then measured 15 miles south to the "Post mark'd West" to start actually measuring and marking the line. The Post mark'd West is of course the east end of the line and is in Delaware! I hope that explains it. Smallbones (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Western survey endpoint contradiction

The article seems to contradict itself about the western endpoint of the M&D survey. The History section says

In April 1765, Mason and Dixon began their survey of the more famous Maryland-Pennsylvania line. They were commissioned to run it for a distance of five degrees of longitude west from the Delaware River, fixing the western boundary of Pennsylvania (see the entry for Yohogania County). However, in October 1767, at Dunkard Creek near Mount Morris, Pennsylvania, nearly 244 miles (393 km) west of the Delaware, a group of Native Americans forced them to quit their progress.

but the Geography section says:

The surveyors also extended the boundary line to run between Pennsylvania and colonial western Virginia (which became West Virginia during the American Civil War, on June 20, 1863), though this was contrary to their original charter; this extension of the line was only confirmed later (see Yohogania County for details).

Assuming one of these is correct, either they were commissioned to run the line out to the western border of Pennsylvania and didn't, or they weren't and did. Anybody have a reference for which it is? RossPatterson (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sweet Tea Line

The Mason-Dixon Line as a barrier between today's cultural North and South, is obsolete, especially in regards to Maryland. I came up with the "Sweet Tea Line" as a more accurate way of dividing North and South a few years ago while driving in across the country. I stopped in Oklahoma to eat and ordered sweet tea. The restaurant I was at didn't serve it. I went less than 20 miles and crossed the state line into Arkansas and stopped at the first restaurant I saw and they, of course, served sweet tea. I then came up with this hypothesis: 100% of the restaurants in your county serve sweet tea, you are in the south. I live in Alabama and this is certainly true. I haven't done any research, but I would guess the sweet tea line, if mapped out, would dissect parts of Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctconaway (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• an interesting cultural phenomanon. you can only get plain tea in colorado, but the second you cross the line into the oaklahoma panhandle, sweet tea is everywhere you want to be:) Brian in denver (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Systematic errors and Cavendish's expermiment to weigh the earth

"To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this section may need to be removed from this article.

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. " I can see nothing in the talk page explaining why this is up for deletion?Engineman (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a digression from the topic, and has no useful sources TEDickey (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The last edit didn't address any of the issues with the section. TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What Is This Supposed to Mean?

"During such survey work it is normal to survey along the length of the line and then survey back to the starting point which with no errors would coincide." That sentence is really pretty obscure. GeneCallahan (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"During such survey work it is normal to survey along the length of the line and then to survey back to the starting point; ideally there would be no return error at all, while typically there would be return errors that were random - . . ."

EdK (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDB as RS

Just a reminder - it's not WP:RS. See Wikipedia:Imdb#IMDb. Likewise, most of the text in the "popular culture" section is WP:OR since the opinions expressed are unsourced TEDickey (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are now--Godwhale (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There are sources given, but (a) not all of the opinions are "sourced", and (b) the ones given aren't cited so that someone can verify them. TEDickey (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of land between North Line and Arc Line

The text in this page as well as The_Wedge_(border) seems to indicate that the land between the North Line and the Arc Line was intended to be in Delaware. The blue color of that zone in the image goes the same way. But looking at modern maps, it seems that that land is in fact in MD. The text in Delaware ("Diagram of the Twelve-Mile Circle, the Mason-Dixon Line and "The Wedge". All blue and white areas are inside Delaware, except for the small sliver of Maryland on the western extremity of the circle.") also lean toward MD. Clarifications please. 199.84.44.28 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Mason–Dixon Line → Mason–Dixon line – No reason for caps here, per MOS:CAPS. Lowercase is much more common in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Ngrams shows historically line is usually not capitalized [2]. Zarcadia (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Systematic errors

The article mentions Cavendish's theory of the Allegheny mountains influencing Mason's measurements, and also the subsequent Schiehallion experiment. What I'm missing here is the final conclusion: Was Cavendish correct? Was it the mountains? Was there some other reason for the systematic errors? Or was the issue never cleared up completely? --BjKa (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Danson's article "The Work of Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon", and other sources have discussed the effects of variations in the direction of gravity on the line. See bibliography at Mason Dixon Preservation Partnership web site http://www.mdlpp.org As I recall, the line wanders about 900 feet from a geodetic line of latitude, but only 200 feet (and usually a lot less) from a line of astronomical latitude, the main difference being due to deflection of the gravity vertical, or of a plumb bob. Attraction of mountains is a major contributor to this, but you don't have to be on a mountain to have such effects. NGS data shows 5.5 seconds change (about 550 feet) in deflection of latitude (Xi factor) between southern Philadelphia and the Stargazer Stone, still some distance from significant mountains. BillHart93 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mason-Dixon Line and Slavery

The lead paragraphs go into too much detail on this subject. Someone recently tried to simplify it but made a messy edit that was reverted. Should most of this material be put in a separate section and only a sentence left in the lead? BillHart93 (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Source of Technical Information for Survey

Article has an unreferenced section tag on it dated October 2012. While looking up some material for another article I found a source on surveying history (The makers of surveying instruments in America since 1700) that has some of the details on the project. I will try to map some of those into the article... Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mason's and Dixon's line?

The fact that this grammatically incorrect version of the name appears in one official document of the time doesn't necessarily mean that the line was (or, more to the point, is today) "also called Mason's and Dixon's line". I'd like to see a more scholarly source for this assertion. WCCasey (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears in multiple official documents through the end of the 19th century. It is not a colloquialism now (but then, Wikipedia is not a jargon dictionary). TEDickey (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, good. It shouldn't be hard, then to find a better source. Failing that, I'd like to at least change the wording - like "sometimes called Mason's and Dixon's line through the end of the 19th century" WCCasey (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking around the other day, it seemed that there were a half-dozen usable sources, and that I noticed nothing more recent than around 1915. ttyl TEDickey (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes on "popular culture"

Entries lacking at least a link to an existing topic haven't any links to a reliable source. The reader shouldn't have to do a web-search to see the one- or two-line mention of Dixie in the lyrics. TEDickey (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The repetition of Sailing to Philadelphia of course, is done for purely promotional purposes. There's no need for that, either. TEDickey (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There is NOTHING promotional about Sailing to Philadelphia in this article, as it clearly does relate to the subject at hand. Please refrain from adding commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. 71.176.14.40 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly promotional, essentially making STP the main items in the trivia category, providing more words than in any of the WP:RS, and given the editing history, appears to be mostly 1-2 individuals promoting it. TEDickey (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 71.176.14.40 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Try to stick to finding WP:RS rather than focusing on personal attacks. So far, your edits are nonconstructive TEDickey (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

YOU try to stick to WP:RS. This has been demonstrated already on the article page for Sailing to Philadelphia already. So far, your nonconstructive edits constitute WP:BIAS and are indicative of vandalism. 71.176.14.40 (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The most recent edit is an improvement. The given sources still need work to support the statements made TEDickey (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you concur, although YOU could have made the same edits yourself instead of nitpicking, TEDickey. Thanks for your assistance. 71.176.14.40 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In 1958, guitarist Duane Eddy released a 7" single containing the song "Mason Dixon Lion," which is sometimes referred to as "Mason Dixon Line." See [3] and [4]. However, it won't hurt my feelings if it's not included. berfle (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't items listed under Popular Culture be only those that refer to the actual Dixon, Mason, or their Line? We are accumulating references to characters named Mason Dixon and Dixon Mason, and I feel just using the names is too far from the actual topic to merit a reference.BillHart93 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference to the line in popular culture

My addition was removed as apparently it was unsourced

Below is a URL which provides some backing to this claim I have made

http://yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Animated-Cartoons/Southern-Fried-Rabbit-04.JPG

This is a still of the cartoon "Southern fired rabbit" referenced in the article. Bugs Bunny and Sam are clearly standing in front of a sign saying the "Mason Dixon". Is this sufficient sourcing for you to put back a genuine reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are far too many uses of the name in popular culture to list all of them. I favour only listing those with a strong and serious connection to the actual line and its socio-political consequences. A cartoon about northern-southern conflict is not a serious reference (regardless of the sourcing) in the same way as a book about the line, a song about its creators, or a documentary about it. BillHart93 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The popular culture section is all about how the subject matter (in this case the MD line) has impacted on other areas which at first may appear to be unrelated (such as cartoons, characters in books, lines in songs). A single documentary about the MD line might struggle to fall into this area as it is self referencing, however a set of documentaries about other border lines or the founding cartographers inspired by the the documentary's producers visiting the MD might be seen as popular culture.

The MD line forms the basis for the plot of the whole Bugs Bunny cartoon and does illustrate some (but not all) of the differences seen on either side of the line albeit cliqued and dated to fit into the length of short film. Whilst the cartoon may not portray everything with absolute accuracy, that is not what popular culture is all about. The subject matter just lends itself and inspires the creation of something new which has strong links to the originating object, in a way it "tips its hat" to it.

I would disagree that a cartoon can not be a serious reference. These cartoon characters are globally recognisaible and in some respects one could argue that they have a far more reaching appeal than a solitary documentary may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchkick (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mason–Dixon line. 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 https://archive.is/20140505150058/http://www.whiteclayfriends.org/mason_and_dixon.php to http://www.whiteclayfriends.org/mason_and_dixon.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture - Golden Girls

Why was my contribution of a reference to Mason-Dixon Line from The Golden Girls removed with the explanation "not an improvement" by user Tedickey? In my opinion it's as much of an improvement as any of the mentioned references from popular culture? I watched that specific episode where Blanche's father from the South claims she has "the prettiest smile on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line", and - not being an American and familiar with that reference before - looked it up on Wikipedia in this very article. Since I noticed this section of references in popular culture, I thought it was nice to add it (The Golden Girls in general have a lot of references to the South, since Blanche often reminisce about her past). If this kind of miscellaneous information is discouraged, please remove the whole section, not just my contribution! Aatox (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of the popular culture is non-notable trivia, usually poorly sourced as was this item. Wikipedia is all about notability, rather than trivia TEDickey (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Western boundary of Pennsylvania

Somebody recently (8 June 2019) changed the Geography of the Line section paragraph about the western boundary so that it uses the Ohio River rather than the Delaware River. This is an understandable mistake, as the Ohio does, in fact, begin very near the western border of Pennsylvania, and formed a large portion of the western boundary of Virginia (now West Virginia). But the description is "5 degrees west of the Delaware River", that is, about 265 miles west. I assume that the editor in question, and, probably most readers, do not realize that 5 degrees of longitude at 40 degrees north latitude is actually a long distance, so I added an estimate of the distance in miles. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Line" is actually a "Curve"!

On every map I have ever seen, the Mason-Dixie line is perfectly straight. But in reality: if you look at it westwards from the eastern end you will find it curving to the right. (Under the assumption that Earth is curved, not flat...!). I am amazed that this simple fact has been totally ignored in this article. Hilmer B (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not called "The Straight Mason-Dixon Line". It's a line of demarcation to resolve a property dispute. To me, it's much more interesting that it separates Delaware from Maryland, too, and that arc line. It's most definitely not a simple straight line. Paulmlieberman (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

News of the line

This page got 8691 pageviews on March 9. It normally gets 1-2000 per day. The reason for this spike can be found in this article published March 7: They’ll walk the line: Mason-Dixon surveyors to create new record of Maryland-Pennsylvania border. Paulmlieberman (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)