Talk:Anne Hutchinson/Archive 2

"Most Famous" English Woman in Colonial America?
The sweeping last sentence of the article's introduction seems to subjectively elevate Hutchinson to the status as "the most famous, or infamous, English woman in colonial American history," which appears to me to be quite a far-reaching statement, and a matter of opinion no less. As such, I think that this assessment, unless there is some verifiable and reputable sourced document that speaks to some sort of general consensus regarding this point among historians (or alternatively, say a hypothetical scientifically-conducted public opinion poll that queries the recognizability of certain historical figures), it should be deleted or qualified as "one of the most." Please discuss. Mrzubrow (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right that calling Hutchinson the most famous or infamous English woman in colonial American history is a rather sweeping and seemingly subjective statement. I didn't, however, make the statement flippantly; I attempted to gather some ammunition before making such an assertion.  First, the statement is made from a quote that I presented near the end of the article.  At the end of the section on historical impact, I wrote the following sentence containing the quote, "As to her overall historical impact, in his 2005 book on Hutchinson and the Free Grace Controversy, Winship writes, 'Hutchinson's well-publicized trials and the attendant accusations against her made her the most famous, or infamous, English woman in colonial American history.'[126]"  I wouldn't have felt comfortable putting such a bold assertion into the lead of this article without some more data, so I created the wikipedia category American colonial women to attempt to determine who the best known such women were, and then I looked at their stats to see how many hits their respective articles received in wikipedia.  Though fame is subjective, I thought this would give an indication of fame.  I did find one woman whose article got a lot more hits than Hutchinson's, and that was Pocohontas.  However, she was not English, so that did not negate the claim that has been made.  None of the other women listed had near the number of hits of Hutchinson.  I probed around wikipedia and racked my brain trying to think of other possible women in the history books--Betsy Ross was post colonial; Sacajawea (sp?) was post-colonial and not English.  I couldn't come up with any others.  So, my search of wikipedia tells me that indeed, Hutchinson does stand up to that claim.  Another strong support for the statement comes in the sheer amount of material that has been published about Hutchinson.  There are at least ten biographies written about her, with at least that many more books written about the Antinomian Controversy in which she played a central role.  The literature on her is immense. Look at the bibliography and further reading section.  Is there any other English woman in colonial America about whom this much has been written?  Therefore, I base this bold assertion on the three facts that (1) it is stated as such in a scholarly work; (2) it is supported by wikipedia statistics; and (3) the published literature supports this.  I don't see the statement as being reckless or inappropriate, and the article was well vetted before reaching FA status, and was scoured by many eyes.  I feel strongly that it should stand as is.  I think the statement could be removed if the name of a more famous English woman in colonial America can be provided, with at least some justification, as has been given here for Hutchinson.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Material on Hutchinson's royal ancestry removed--why?
The following discussion has been transferred from the talk page of Agricolae

Hello; I'm curious about your removal of the royal ancestry of Anne Hutchinson and the wife of Edward Hutchinson in those respective articles. Your comment in the edit summary was that the material is non-noteworthy, but I'm not sure why that is the case. This seems to have been done unilaterally, without any discussion on the talk pages. It concerns me most with the Anne Hutchinson article, since this article has come under the scrutiny of many editors since last October. Though I've done the lion's share of recent editing on this article, I've tried to maintain or enhance the work of other editors, and this little section represents such an undertaking. So, I'd like to get your reasoning on this. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are millions of people, hundreds of thousands with Wikipedia pages, who descend from Alfred the Great and Charlemagne. It is not a distinction that merits mention on every page of everyone with such a descent.  In the case of, say, Elizabeth II, the descent from Alfred the Great perhaps merits mention as it is directly relevant to her context as queen of the state that represents the political descendant of the one he played an important role in founding.  Likewise the descent of Matilda of Flanders from Alfred the Great is relevant because this descent was one of the motivations for William's choice of her as marriage partner.  However, we gain no greater understanding of Anne Hutchinson as a person or an actor in history by knowing the name of one of the 16 million ancestors she had 24 generations before, whoever it happens to be.  She didn't know she had such a descent, her contemporaries didn't know she had such a descent, her major biographers didn't know she had such a descent (or didn't feel it was worth mentioning).  It is genealogy for genealogy sake alone - indiscriminate information that provides no insight into her as a person, her actions, interactions, social status or context.  Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I agree with you that there are a vast number of people who descend from Charlemagne and other royal persons.  I've read that most modern people of European ancestry are likely descended from Charlemagne.  However, of these possibly billions of people, how many know they are descended from Charlemagne?  How many have seen a generation by generation presentation of their descent?  I would imagine it's an extremely small percentage.  Of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to America before 1800 only a small percentage have traceable ancestries back to European royalty.  The immigrants with known royal connections are known as "gateway ancestors," and there aren't a large number of them.  Gary Boyd Roberts has published a book on the royal ancestry of American immigrants, and there are only a few hundred such immigrants that have thus far been identified; Anne Hutchinson is one of them, and the first wife of Edward Hutchinson is another.  When George H. W. Bush was elected U.S. President in 1988, it was a big deal genealogically, because Bush was found to descend from Anne Hutchinson, and Hutchinson became his connection to English royalty.


 * I too used to think that Hutchinson likely did not know she was of royal descent, and I used this same argument when another editor first inserted ancestral material into her article. Now I'm not so sure that Hutchinson wasn't aware of a royal connection.  Her family was middle gentry, and her mother was born in Canons Ashby House in Northamptonshire.  Her mother's maternal grandfather was knighted, and there was likely an awareness among the Marburys and Drydens that their ancestors were of some importance, even if a royal link wasn't known.  Just because people became Puritans doesn't mean they weren't well connected.  There were many members of the gentry who became Puritans; a couple that come to mind are Sir William Masham, 1st Baronet in whose household Roger Williams was the family minister, the Countess of Leicester for whom John Wilson ministered, and Theophilus Clinton, 4th Earl of Lincoln, who hosted all the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company prior to their voyage to New England.  Just because New Englanders didn't exercise their royal connections doesn't mean they weren't aware of them.


 * Even if Hutchinson's royal ancestry wasn't known or important to her does not mean that this article should exclude mention of the fact. This article is not written for Hutchinson, who died 370 years ago, or her contemporaries; it is written for a 21st-century audience.  There very well may be people reading this article today who are quite interested in her royal connection.  Take the young person who just learns from her grandmother that she has a famous ancestor named Anne Hutchinson.  Being curious, the youngster googles Hutchinson, and of course what pops up first?--the wikepedia article.  She then discovers that she is not only descended from Anne Hutchinson, but descends from some early European kings as well!  This could be a life changer.  I remember as a 15-year old seeing for the first time a lineage that went from little me all the way back 12 generations to a person born in England in the 1500s!   It was a life-changer for this teenager, and led me to decades of genealogical and historical study, and then to becoming a wikipedian.


 * The Hutchinson article doesn't even hint at her royal connections until the very end of the article, and in a very unobtrusive way. There is nothing in the lead about it, and there is no mention anywhere in the body of the article.  There are just a few lines at the very end that say, hey, in case you wanted to know, someone (someone notable at that) has published her royal connections.  You have the option of ignoring this section, as most people probably do; but it's there for those who are curious.


 * In summary I feel strongly that the deleted material should be reinstated in the article for these reasons: (1) a royal ancestry for an immigrant to America is not common; probably fewer than 1% (likely much fewer) of immigrants to America have documented royal connections; it is noteworthy!; (2) while her royal ancestry has no bearing on Hutchinson's impact on the modern world, it is an aspect of her life that some people of note decided was important enough to publish; (3) there are some people who may find the material of great interest and importance; the Hutchinson article garners about 1000 views a day, and among those viewers are likely some descendants who might likely be very interested in royal connections; and (4) the inclusion of a few royal ancestors, to my understanding, violates no rules of wikipedia, violates no rules of copyright, and is presented in an unobtrusive and thoroughly documented way. I think it is wrong to remove this material based on a personal opinion.  I may be wrong, but have strong feelings about this, so am posting this discussion on the Hutchinson talk page to invite others to comment.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that someone finding out that they descend from royalty may alter the way they view themselves. Were they to learn that Anne Hutchinson did needlepoint might change the way a young girl feels about her own sewing skills and she may go on to become a fashion designer, but it is not really the role of Wikipedia to change lives by catering to every indiscriminate curiosity.  You can look into everyone's life and find an obscure detail that will appeal to the limited audience of a hobbyist publication, even a scholarly one such as NEHGR or TAG, but that does not make notice of this particular bit of (to Joe Public) trivia in a specialized publication noteworthy to the general population to whom a Wikipedia article is directed.  As fascinating that it may be to bibliophiles that the copy of Common Sense once owned by George Washington is now in the collection of the Cleveland Public Library, such that an article on this book appeared in the Journal of Library Sciences, that doesn't mean it merits mention in the Wikipedia articles about Common Sense, George Washington or the Cleveland Public Library (used just for illustrating the point - I have no idea whether GW ever owned a copy of Common Sense).  The benchmark for what should appear in a Wikipedia biographical article (WP:WEIGHT) is that Wikipedia should mirror the weight given by the published scholarly biographies that have served as the secondary sources for the article.  Are you aware of a general biography of Anne Hutchinson that has stressed the fact that a royal descent has been found for her (not mentioned in passing, but stressed)?  If not, then it is giving it undue weight to include this nugget in her Wikipedia biography. Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted material re:ancestry reinstated
The material concerning Hutchinson's ancestry that had been deleted a few days ago has been reinstated. Justification comes from the following paragraph in the article Dispute resolution (the italics are mine):


 * "Follow the normal protocol


 * When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help."

There was no discussion or consensus reached prior to the deletion, and had there been a discussion, there would have been opposition to the proposed deletion. The article has been returned to the wording with which it was approved at FAC.--Sarnold17 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You're putting it back, not because it has any business being there, but simply because it was there before? Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously. I've been greatly impressed by the fact that in all of the discussion above you have a strong point of view, but you seem oblivious to the fact that someone else might also possess a point of view, and that their point of view might be contrary to yours.  I see no acknowledgement of other points of view in anything you have written either on this talk page, your talk page, or other talk pages.  You are very adamant about your opinions, and you may even be correct.  But wikipedia is not about being correct; it is about being collaborative.  It is not about shoving your opinions down the throats of other editors, but rather about finding common ground with other editors.  I have now seen three cases where you have intimidated other editors and/or denigrated their work.  This is SO counterproductive.  You obviously know a lot about European royalty, and certainly have insights that no other editors possess.  Why not turn your high powered perception toward creating new content? Why not encourage other editors to join you along the way?  Deleting the material that other editors have been refining over a period of time can be very offensive.  Getting into arguments with other editors over what should or should not appear in an article wastes your time and theirs.  I've already spent several hours of my precious editing time thinking about and engaging in a dialogue with you.  I would have much preferred those hours going into my own editing, or my full-time job, or my family, or my other obligations.  All this quibbling is not doing you, me, or the wikipedia project any good.  As to this specific article, you are certain of the correctness of your opinions, yet I have seen neither a single wikipedia guideline, nor a single other editor that has supported your point of view.  On the other hand, the article has received edits from hundreds of contributors, has been through an extensive peer review, and has been perused by an undetermined number of experienced editors during the FAC process.  No one seemed to find fault with including Hutchinson's connection to royalty.  Instead of denigrating the work of other editors, it would be wonderful if you could focus on creating good content for the project; it would be good to get some other editors working with you; it would be good to leave the quibbles behind and focus where there's agreement.  There's a lot yet to do with this project; I see years of editing ahead for me.  Again, to answer the question--"seriously?"-- Yes, seriously.--Sarnold17 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a certain irony in a screed that begins with the suggestion that one should appreciate that others might have a viewpoint that differs from one's own, and then proceeds to refer to the other viewpoint as quibbling and makes accusations of 'denigrating the work of others' as if there was a dichotomy whereby your editing is righteous and productive and anyone who disagrees is unproductive and acting in bad faith. Setting aside all of the personal evaluation of me and your time management issues, I am just going to return to the point at hand.  The article is better without genealogical trivia that has not been considered relevant by any published biographer of the subject.  Your fascination with your own genealogy aside, it just isn't relevant to understanding the individual in question.  Its inclusion is a violation of WEIGHT and INDISCRIMINATE.  So what if nobody found fault with it in the past?  I am finding fault with it now, based on Wikipedia policy.  You disagree, so now give me a policy-based argument for its retention (an argument why the text is appropriate, not an argument based on editing etiquette or simply suggesting that nothing should be changed because it is an FA), rather than just telling me to go edit somewhere else. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at WP:Weight and WP:Indiscriminate, and cannot find a single hint in either that royal ancestries should be excluded from a wikipedia article. The former deals with point-of-view issues and fringe theories.  Nowhere therein does the section suggest the exclusion of legitimate genealogical material.  Considering the mention of a royal lineage in the Hutchinson article as being unduly weighty is without foundation.  Virtually no weight in the article is given to the fact; it is merely mentioned in the final few lines of the article, almost parenthetically.  The second reference (indiscriminate) deals with fiction, databases and lists.  Nowhere therein is anything written that would exclude the mention of a royal ancestry in an article.  It has become more apparent to me that removing genealogical information from articles is based on personal opinion and on a personal vendetta against the value of genealogical material; the basis for such reasoning is "I don't like it."


 * The material that had been removed from this article is legitimate, well-documented material from notable authors. The removal of this material borders on censorship.  This is material that is useful and desirable to some readers.  We live in an age where DNA studies are making genealogical relationships more and more significant.  We don't need to be doing less of this stuff; we need to be doing more of it.  Here is a quote from the WikiProject for Genealogy (the italics are mine):


 * From WikiProject Genealogy:
 * The WikiProject for Genealogy is a place for standardizing genealogical tables within Wikipedia and for enhancing genealogical knowledge within articles. While Wikipedia is not and never was intended as a genealogical tool, that does not mean that it cannot be.  Nearly all royalty pages list a brief ancestry as well as a list of spouses and issue.  This practice should be more widespread, outside the bounds of simple aristocracy and into the bounds of everyday people.


 * A royal ancestry is not meaningless, unduly weighted, or indiscriminate material. It is material that has been incorporated into articles and books by notable authors; we would be showing bias by omitting it.  Sarnold17 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

American vs English spelling
I have reverted the good faith edits made to change the British spelling of this article to American spelling. There has been considerable discussion on this talk page about the spelling, and ultimately the article went through a peer review and FAC with British spelling. Consensus will need to be reached to change the spelling of the article, and it will take considerable effort to do so, since it is a long article, and there are many parts of the article that do not appear, such as alt texts and citations.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Children of Francis Marbury
Number of surviving brothers and sisters: I think it is incorrect that Hutchinson's father's five oldest surviving children were all girls. I get Mary (died young), Susan (lived), Elizabeth (died young), John (lived), Anne (lived), Francis (lived), Bridget (died young), Emme (lived). That's five surviving children, but it's three girls and two boys. I'm not a Hutchinson expert, and this could be wrong. Maybe John and Francis died young too? I only have baptism dates for them. But the next two kids are also boys, so there would have to be a lot of infant death for this to be right.


 * Your point is well taken. I think the original source said that his first five children were girls, which is actually not true, because son John was his fifth child.  I thought I could correct this factual oversight by adding the word surviving, but we really don't know if John survived or not.  Since there is no burial record for him, the assumption is that he survived.  I've gone back to the original wording, but expanded it to state that the first six of his seven childen were daughters.  John was the only son of the first seven children.  I believe this to be true:  (1) Mary, c. 1584, dy; (2) Elizabeth, 1585, lived to adulthood; (3) Susan, c. 1587, d. 1601; (4) Mary, c. 1588, survived; (5) John, 1589/90; (6) Ann, 1591; (7) Bridget, 1593, d. 1598.  I'm trying to be accurate, and still make the point that Marbury was initially surrounded by daughters; most of his sons were born late in his life.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverend
Whereas WP:NCWC states "Honorifics such as "His Holiness" should ordinarily not be used in naming clergy" and whereas the occupation of these men is otherwise clear, and whereas though they may be named with honorifics in source material this 'pædia is not necessarily the same type of writing as any of said sources; so I believe this edit ought to stand. DBD 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your invitation to discuss. Let me get back with you sometime later this evening or tomorrow.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again, DBD, and thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I've reread the changes that you made to this article several times, and I've read the wikipedia guidelines on honorifics several times.  My reaction is this:  the article, before the changes, made sense, and said what it needed to say.  The article is about a person whose fame stems from a major theological crisis in colonial America, and involves a number of people who were clergymen.  It is important to identify these people as clergymen in the article.  Two ways of doing this is using the title "The Reverend", or using the descriptor, "minister" or "Puritan minister."  To me, either is acceptable, but using reverend is a bit more concise, and does not carry other meanings as does the word minister.  I looked all over the section on honorifics and the article on naming clergymen, but I could not find a single reference to the word "Reverend."  To me, Reverend is a title, and it is appropriate to use.  I don't know how wikepedia distinguishes between an honorific and title, but there should be no problem with using a title.  We say President Barack Obama, so why can't we say Reverend John Wilson?  The title says a lot, and taking it away also takes away meaning.  The way I view the word Reverend is the way wikepedia views certain other titles (from the MOS):  "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that."  This is almost exactly how I've used the word Reverend.  I used it once in the info box for Hutchinson's father, and I used it when I introduced the various clergymen.  I also used it in the image captions, since some readers might scan the images without reading the article.  To me, this is a totally appropriate way to introduce a person as a clergyman, it is unambiguous, and these titles are not used excessively.  Without specific guidelines on the use of the word "Reverend", I see no reason to change things.  The article reads well as it is, and says what it needs to say.  Also, a minor point, is that in describing Governor Henry Vane, it is appropriate to capitalize his title.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Header added

 * Hello Im just making changes to this article as a part of a college criminology class. Please message me if there are changes that need to be made to my edit of this page before deletion. Thank you Ataggart618 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anne Hutchinson. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130729090900/http://www.newportbristol.com/colony/FoundersBrook.html to http://www.newportbristol.com/colony/FoundersBrook.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Hutchinson. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130905043144/http://pelham.patch.com/listings/hutchinson-elementary-school to http://pelham.patch.com/listings/hutchinson-elementary-school

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Hutchinson. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130922142301/http://intermezzo-opera.org/2014%20Season/2014%20Season.htm to http://www.intermezzo-opera.org/2014%20Season/2014%20Season.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

English language variant
Currently, this article is in British English. Apparently, someone tried to unilaterally change the spellings to American English, so reverted it (see their reasoning above). The subject was born in England and became well-known in colonial North America, in what is now the United States. What variant should this article use? Potentially helpful pages: MOS:ENGVAR

Manual of Style/Spelling

List of dialects of the English language

American English


 * Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language

British English


 * Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language

Comparison of American and British English

American and British English spelling differences

&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * She was English, so only British English applies here. Dimadick (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

She was not English, she was a Colonial American. The bulk of the article addresses her life in America, and very little is even known of her life in England. I had started making the change to American English at an earlier date, not noticing the note at the top of the article. Someone reverted my change and drew my attention to that note, so I dropped it. But if this question is still open for discussion, then I would strongly urge that it be written in American English. It is an article on American history, not British history. —Dilidor (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?
What the hell is going on? Why are you edit warring? See WP:3RR, WP:BRD. Talk it out here.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 17:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been attempting to bring Nedrutland into a discussion concerning the issues involved here, but without success. —Dilidor (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like both of you have been edit warring since June 29. Plus, by this edit of yours, you had already violated WP:3RR and you should have already have tried to start a discussion here. Both of you are edit warring. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is a mirror of an edit war at John Cotton which began when a series of my edits were reverted en masse (and without any justification given); any discussion on Talk here would likely be only a re-run of the Talk for that page. Any edit I make here or on John Cotton are automatically reverted by Dilidor without any consideration of their merit.


 * Many of the edits you (Mr. Guye) have now reverted should not in any way be controversial, including, for example, the use of UKEng spelling on a page that is flagged "Use British English" (behavior => behaviour), reducing the overlinking of John Wheelwright (now linked four times) and simple errors of fact (e.g. St Pancras, Soper Lane was not "several miles northwest of the city". Please take a detailed look at your edit and consider each change. Nedrutland (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All I am trying to do is to get you two to discuss on talk pages instead of edit war. I looked at my reversion and saw both new problems and improvements, but I am not making further edits because I am not taking sides here.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 19:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But by reverting all edits,, you have in effect taken one side; the one that will not permit any change to be made to this page. Nedrutland (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The edits in question are a mix of good and bad. On one occasion on the John Cotton article, I went through laboriously to make individual changes to what I perceived as problem edits, constituting half a dozen or so separate edits on my part—only to have them all reverted to the last version by Nedrutland. Here are a couple of the things that I see as problems in this article:
 * Over-linking, often on simple words or concepts such as "vicar" and "clergy" and "curate" and "fellow", clearly addressed in the MOS as to be avoided.
 * Incorrect linking, such as linking "she was put out of her congregation" with "shunning"—two very different forms of discipline within Puritan theology.
 * There were other issues of less merit, such as a global changing of "Anglican church" to "church of England", which could easily have been resolved on the talk page—as I did attempt, but to no avail. —Dilidor (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of your comments are more relevant to discuss on the Talk for John Cotton (minister) but I will start to respond here.


 * Your first act on John Cotton was to revert en masse without any explanation thereby failing to assume good faith. When you did start to explain some of your objections, I was able to accommodate legitimate concerns and some of your preferences (St. rather than St, for example, on a page flagged for US variant of English).


 * The guidelines on what generally should not be linked is not so clearcut as you suggest. Curate for example, currently has 5,000 plus links so it is clearly not inconceivable that it can be linked. You prefer a gloss on curate here (“assistant priest”) rather than a wikilink. I consider a link to be better than a gloss. You have not yet objected to vicar being linked on this page; I presume this is because I did not link it? And if you don't like the shunning link for "she was put out of her congregation", then find a better one.


 * As a rule of thumb in contemporary discussions, when the Church of England is specifically meant use Church of England; if it is the wider Anglican Communion (which wasn’t really a concept in C17) use Anglican. Until the American War of Independence (and more precisely until the ordination as bishop of Samuel Seabury in 1784) English settlers in the New World who were what would later be called some variant of the Episcopal Church, were members of the Church of England. To quote from the lede of Episcopal Church (United States) “The church was organized after the American Revolution, when it became separate from the Church of England ...”, therefore here (and on John Cotton) Church of England is correct.


 * If you now concede that the edits are a mix of good and bad then discuss how to improve the bad edits and stop reverting all changes, whether good or bad. Nedrutland (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have conceded from the very first that there were good edits mixed into the bad. I will also point out that your demand that I "stop reverting all changes" is the pot accusing the kettle. Furthermore, I yielded on the "Church of England" issue in our first abbreviated attempt at discussion.

The manual of style is actually quite clear in its guidelines on linking. Notice that it specifically lists:
 * Everyday words understood by most readers in context—"put out of her congregation" and "traducing" are good examples from this article
 * Common occupations—"vicar" and "curate" come to mind
 * religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)—perhaps Church of England falls under this but, as I keep reiterating, this is not a point which I am contending

Regardless, I am not interested in continuing this debate, which has resulted only in locking down the entire article. So I hereby relinquish my concerns. —Dilidor (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)