Talk:Intolerable Acts

Title and word choices
Is this a Pro-American or pro-revolutionist POV? I wonder if "retaliation" couldn't be replaced by a better or more accurate word; surely Parliament was more interested in putting down rebellion than simply retaliating. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:19, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * "Response" should be NPOV, although it may lose information. "Retaliantion" may actually be correct, in which case it should be changed back and expanded upon.  (NPOV should always be obvious, even without knoledge of the subject.)  Paullusmagnus 18:52, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Arguably the title of the Article fails to be NPOV. The people who passed the stupid laws called them Coercive or Punitive Acts, and the legislators generally get naming rights. "Intolerable Acts" would be right in a work that was specifically American; but that's that other collaborative encyclopedia, not Wikipedia. I think. But really, who cares enough to make this a redirect? Dandrake 04:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm less worried about aritcle titles than article bodies when it comes to NPOV. Aside from that, I don't think its NPOV. The acts were more widely and popularly (and historically) known as the Intolerable Acts. The only reason the acts are important today is because of the Revolution, and they were labeled as such contemporarily. I mean, would it be NPOV to have an article titled Alexander the Great? That's how many people know him... I don't think we're at risk of readers believing that we're making a judgement call and affirming his greatness. Similarly, I think we can trust readers to be wise enough to understand that the article is named for the common form of the acts, and that we're not saying that the acts were intolerable as a matter of opinion. --Dante Alighieri 20:36, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Calling *all* the acts punative against the colonies is a NPOV, the Qubec act was not punative except that it denied the colonists ability to claim land from the french setlers. --Barberio 6 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)


 * Correct: the Quebec Act was a piece of legislation essentially unrelated to the other Coercive Acts. I'll make a note of it in the article. --Kevin Myers July 9, 2005 16:53 (UTC)


 * Edited away the 'neutral'. Neutrality is a meaningless concept in a cival war involving a revolt against cental power. Refusing to join the revolt is indirect support of the central power. Even though, they can still use supply lines through this 'neutral land' which is not the meaning of neutral lands in conventional wars. --Barberio 13:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Declining to come to the defense of the "central power" while rebels pass through your area and attack the "central power" is not "indirect support of the central power." It's neutrality. Here's one source on the subject:


 * During the American invasion, "Relatively few Canadiens had rushed either to the side of the invaders or to support Carleton. Most had, instead, stuck to their farms and sold supplies, for hard cash, to anyone -- American or British. There was a kind of pragmatic neutralism underlying the response of most habitants to the American invasion." (G.A. Rawlyk, "The American Revolution and Canada" in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, p. 501).


 * He goes on to write about how many Canadiens were disappointed when, after France joined the American side, the French failed to invade Canada and throw out the British. Many Canadiens were neutral, if not tilting away from the British. Please cite a source if you believe otherwise. --Kevin Myers 13:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a *Very Big Difference* between inaction, and Neutrality. Unless you can provide a cite to support the use of the the word Neutral as it is taken in war (the denial of lands and resources to *both sides*), then it should be described as inaction. In *most wars* the majority of populations take no active parts in the wars, but are not described as Neutral. Describing as Neutral is a POV. (Notem Rawlyk used 'kind of pragmatic neutralism' as the motivations behind inaction, this is diferent from describing the Canadiens as neutrals. --Barberio 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As it happens, Rawlyk goes on to say "it is not surprising that many Canadiens preferred to remain neutral" (same page). Mark Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution uses similar language, writing that the Canadians "were not loyal to Britain so much as neutral" (p. 909). That's two academic references that support my point. If you have academic citations to make a counter argument, now would be the time to quote them. --Kevin Myers 16:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Those two citations fail the 'weasle words' test for POV. The first quote suffers that 'many' does not equate to most, the second is again not a direct atribution to neutrality but a likeness to it. It's important to note that the Province as a whole, rejected the call for independance and *remained* loyal. It would be inacurate to say 'Most French were neutral during WWII as most French did not fight against the germans'. Again, Inactivity does not equate to Neutrality. --Barberio 16:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your failure to cite a single source (after repeated requests) is striking. I notice you may be relatively new to Wikipedia, but I assume you're familiar with the policies No original research and cite your sources. Published, well-known, professional sources (such as what I've quoted above) are generally preferred over the analysis of individual Wikipedians. You may disagree with the professional historians quoted above, but until you cite other historians who support your argument, you're essentially engaging in original research, which has no place here. --Kevin Myers 01:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your sources do not actualy support your original assertion *as written in the article* that the Province of Quebec was mostly neutral during the war of independance. Using the word Neutral, which has *specific* conotations towards warfare, to describe Quebec during the conflict is misleading. *YOU* are the one proposing use of this language over the NPOV 'pragmatic inaction' based one, so it is *YOUR* onus to provide the supporting cites.  --Barberio 04:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong again: my language is cited multiple times above, while you have an opinion and no references. It's you vs. the historians, and here we have to side with the historians. However, this discussion more properly belongs on the Quebec Act talk page. --Kevin


 * This seems to contradict what is said about the Quebec Act in its own article. Especially the section Effect on the Thirteen Colonies, which includes a quote from the Declaration of Independence about the act. This suggests that the founders saw the Quebec Act as being related to the other Intolerable Acts. Thrilway (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed from British colonists to just colonists, due to the fact that the colonists were of many more nationalities than British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.136.195 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.230.131 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging
Shouldn't the acts be listed under the m ain article? otherwise, they are all a group of stubs -Lt Ender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.215.101 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I am in favor of merging the individual acts here, and turning the articles into redirects here. Firestorm 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for redirecting my article "Coercive Acts".
They're the same thing, so they should've had a redirect anyway. :P

-skateboarder11(skateboarder11@nospam.gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.4.43 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Caption solved: it's an Indian woman sexually assaulted
from Library of Congress from: Full Caption: ”The able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter Draught.” Etching. From the London Magazine, May 1, 1774. British Cartoon Collection. Prints and Photographs Division. LC-USZC4-5289.

Prime Minister Lord North, author of the Boston Port Bill, forces the ”Intolerable Acts,” or tea, down the throat of America, a vulnerable Indian woman whose arms are restrained by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, while Lord Sandwich, a notorious womanizer, pins down her feet and peers up her skirt. Behind them, Mother Britannia weeps helplessly. This British cartoon was quickly copied and distributed by Paul Revere Rjensen 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sexually assaulted" is not supported by that link. The leap from "while Lord Sandwich, a notorious womanizer, pins down her feet and peers up her skirt" to "sexual assault" is rather large. The leading and therefore primary statement in the link's description is "Prime Minister Lord North... forces the 'Intolerable Acts,'... down the throat of America". &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * well yes: four men holding a woman down by force, stripping her partly naked and lifting her dress is considered sexual assault. You want porn in the pciture too? Rjensen 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, watch that you stay on the good side of Assume good faith.
 * My point is that you are focusing on something that is not the subject of the image. It would be akin to me adding the caption to the image at right like so, which misses the point of the image and inaccurately describes it.
 * Further, the text from the Library of Congress is copyright and we can't use it verbatim on Wikipedia. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Items written by a US goverment agency--Library of Congress-- are NOT copyright. Rjensen 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the caption as given by the LOC. Although not everything in the LOC is public domain, they are generally pretty good about indicating copyright holders where they exist. In this case, there does not appear to be any copyright concerns. It is rather interesting that America is portrayed as an Indian woman. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all! I'm a doctoral candidate writing a chapter about The Able Doctor and I came across your discussion on this talk page. There is a strong scholarly consensus that the print is a depiction of an attempted rape. See Lester Olsen, “Pictorial Representations of British America Resisting Rape,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 12 (2009), 1-39; Clay Zuba, "Redness and the Contest of Anglo-American Empires," in Community Without Consent, ed. Zachary McLeod Hutchins (Dartmouth College Press, 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:808D:4C00:39B5:965C:3DD8:B7C5 (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "scholarly consensus" changes things. People see the picture and can draw their own conclusions, the most toned down wording (objective) caption, is it is now (nad has been for years), seems ok. Who is this for, blind people. They can't see the picture anyway (it already has a caption from the cartoon artist, that screen readers should have access to), and know if people are drawing their own conclæusion (or toning down). comp.arch (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Coercive Acts, not the Intolerable Acts
There is no evidence at all that colonists referred to the Coercive Acts as the Intolerable Acts. NO EVIDENCE. This is a 19th century invention by historians. The term used at the time was Coercive Acts.Princetoniac (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wiki uses 21st century language because our readers are 21st century people. If we had to write articles dealing with the 1770s or 1670s or 1570s using ONLY the language of that bygone day, then Wikipedia would be confusing indeed to many readers not trained in historiography. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

They were the COERCIVE ACTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.32.218 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sooooo...
PLEASE tell us exactly WHY the Intolerable Acts got their name. It annoys me I_I. “With great power comes great responsibility,” as people always say.52.144.111.98 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)