Talk:Messenger of Peace (missionary ship)

Should the islanders written about in this article be described as "heathens"?
This article originally included the following wording: "[Williams] arrived in Rarotonga in 1827, while there heard of other heathen islands in the vicinity" and "In mid 1830, the ship visited Samoa, where they were well received by the Samoan heathens". This wording was removed by as inappropriate, but restored by. I also believe this wording is inappropriate for Wikipedia's voice and removed it again. Broichmore reverted a second time, saying that the wording is not derogatory but rather "the voice of the period".

I believe that we should not describe the islanders as "heathens" in Wikipedia's voice. Google's definition of "heathen" identifies it as a derogatory term. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term is "an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible". However, the derogatory connotation of the term is shown in the second usage: "an uncivilized or irreligious person". Do other editors have any thoughts on this? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging you again since you had originally reverted—do you have any comment? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that Broichmore had linked heathen to paganism, I was happy with the wording before today. But I hope people will agree that this edit makes it clear that the word is being used in the voice of the period. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the problem. William Carey (missionary),wrote An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. (1792; repr., London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1961) He was a Particular Baptist  and here we have a Congregationalist- but the principle remains the same.  Baptist Missionary Society was of course called the Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Amongst the Heathen. ClemRutter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm acutely aware that a word can have different meanings within different sections of society, and Wikipedia reaches across so many sections of society! It does though get problematic when words have had different meanings at periods through history, sometimes markedly so, at other times in a more nuanced manner. A key test is whether today's reader of the article might be misled by what is written - words should generally be used according to their modern meaning but an explanation can be useful for the casual modern reader if using an historical quote. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)