Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1689 Boston revolt/archive1

Concerns from Quadell that have been addressed

 * "the revolution". This article is about a revolt, in the context of a revolution in England. I assume that when you say "to delay notifying Andros of the revolution" and "News of the revolution apparently reached some individuals", you mean the Glorious one, that had already occurred, right? But then you say "Andros had first received warnings of the impending revolution"... does this mean he knew about the English Revolution before it happened? (Yet Mather wanted the Lords of Trade not to tell Andros about it after it already happened?) Or does this mean "warnings of the impending revolt"? Later, you say "When a proclamation of the revolution reached Boston in early April", and I assume that's the English one. It could certainly be more clear.
 * Your comment below (I think) indicates that it should be "warnings of the impending revolt", right? It still says revolution. – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Catholics, Anglican, and Puritans. So James II was Catholic, and pissed of the Anglicans by promoting Catholicism. Meanwhile, Andros was very Anglican, and pissed off Puritan New Englanders by (among other things) promoting Anglicanism. Mather, a Puritan, congratulated James on passing the Declaration of Indulgence, why? Was it because such a move would benefit both Catholics and Puritans by weakening Anglican control? Or was he just kissing up? Then after (or was it before?) the Glorious Revolution, Andros apparently "issued a proclamation warning against Protestant agitation", even though he was protestant himself. Can that be right? The Puritans thought Andros was part of a "popish plot", even though he was very Anglican, and the conflict in England was between Anglicans and Catholics. Is that all correct? It's a bit confusing, and doesn't make a lot of sense. Sometimes history is that way, I know, but if I'm misinterpreting events then the article should be more clear on those points.
 * Done. Your comments below show that my initial reading was right, so I don't think further change is needed to the article in this area. If Andros warned "against Protestant agitation", then that's what the article should say, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Charters. In the second-to-last paragraph of "Background", you mention "Massachusetts's colonial charter, revoked by Andros". This is apparently a big deal, but had not been mentioned before. What does it mean, that the charter was revoked? Does it mean that Andros ruled Massachusetts as he pleased? Did that change the judicial system, land rights, or what? Did he replace it with a charter of his own? I'm just trying to understand the context. Then Mather sent Bradstreet a letter saying that the charter had been illegally annulled. Did Bradstreet not know the Massachusetts charter had been annulled? People in Boston apparently wanted their old charter back "great with expectation", but I don't know why. Later, you say "Rhode Island and Connecticut resumed governance under their earlier charters", indicating that those states had charters revoked as well, but the article hadn't said that before, so it's a bit of a surprise. Perhaps more could be added in "Background" to make this all make more sense?
 * The changes you made satisfy many of my concerns. My only remaining issue is that the text still seems to say that Mather informed Bradstreet that the charter had been illegally annulled. But I think Bradstreet already knew the charter was annulled, right? – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All good. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like no one died in the revolt. I think that should be mentioned in the lede, since it helps better understand the event right off the bat.
 * Done – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did Boston conspirators confiscate drums? It seems like a random detail. Or did they confiscate different "equipment" from "regimental drummers"?
 * Done. Your answer satisfies me that no other information in needed about this. It just sounds odd to my modern ears, but it's fine. – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is during this period of captivity that he is said to have attempted an escape dressed in women's clothing." "Is said to" are weasel words. Who said it? There is no source for this... only for the claim that it wasn't true.
 * Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several places in the article where the wording is either confusing or old-fashioned, and less-than-ideal for a contemporary encyclopedia.
 * "...who imposed harsh discipline that did nothing to make the militia appreciate them."
 * "then summoned Governor Andros to surrender, for his own safety because of the mob..." (I think there's a comma problem here.)
 * "...after his servant plied the sentries with drink."
 * I don't like the new wording either. "After his servant managed to intoxicate the sentries"? Was it against their will, or did he just help encourage them to celebrate?
 * Now it's clear. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "...when first a detachment of troops, then Henry Sloughter, upon whom William and Mary had bestowed a commission as colonial governor, arrived."
 * Fixed. – Quadell (talk)
 * "...documents making the charges against Andros..."
 * Well, were the charges "made" by the document, or were they "listed" or "described" or "detailed"? – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Intoxicated" does sound bad, but I am not sure what a good alternative would be. I will work on rewording the Henry Sloughter sentence, but am also not sure what changes could be made to "making the charges against Andros."   DCI talk 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The events of the revolution, however, overtook this attempt to gain redress."
 * I'm aware of the idiom "Events overtook us", but I don't think it works here. I still think it needs a reword. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a wording change here. Does this work for you? – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Both your wording changes are fine. Thanks!   DCI talk 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, what does it mean that Andros "vacated land titles in Massachusetts"? I'm not sure what "vacated" means in this context. Did he take the land for his own, or redistribute it, or what?
 * Your comments below help me to understand. However, a similar explanation should be in the article, so that the reader understands. – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede says Andros was "effectively voiding land titles", and the Background section says he "vacated land titles in Massachusetts", but the article still isn't clear what that means. A reader might be forgiven for thinking he was taking the land for himself. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not great, but I think it's good enough. – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Andros, you say, "tried to escape to the Rose. The boat sent from the Rose, however, was intercepted by militia..." The to and from is confusing. I'm guessing that Andros somehow told folks on the Rose to send a small boat to get him and bring him to the Rose, but the small boat was intercepted en route? It's not clear.
 * The text still says "He refused and instead tried to escape to the Rose. The boat sent from the Rose, however, was intercepted by militia..." It's still not clear to me. Was a boat sent from the Rose on his orders (and how did he get an order to the boat)? Or was the boat sent (and intercepted) without Andros' knowledge, on the assumption that he would want to take it to escape to the Rose? Or do we not know? If the boat was sent without his knowledge or authorization, then I don't think it's fair to say he "tried to escape". – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the Fiske, Chisholm, and Evans sources should all be listed in the "References" section, not in the individual footnotes. As it is, there appears to be a mixed format, with some footnotes abbreviated and some listed in full. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the cite formatting.  Magic ♪piano 07:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Amid rumors that Andros had abandoned them as part of a 'popish plot', the militia in Maine mutinied". Abandoned? I thought they hated him and couldn't wait for him to leave? What would he have abandoned them for or to? (This is aside from the question of why they thought Andros was Catholic.)
 * This is still unclear. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lord Churchill's Coup by Webb describes the "plot." The carpenter on the Rose had told fellow crewmen that Andros was going to set Boston on fire and bombard it from the ship.  Then, the governor was supposedly going to sail the ship to France.  Although the idea seemed far-fetched, nervous Puritans may have accepted it as truth.   DCI talk 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question is, now necessary is it that the plot be described in this article? I've added language indicating that the so-called plot was without merit.  Magic ♪piano 07:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at changing the wording to make it clearer. Is this change accurate? If so, that's clear enough. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your review. Here are a few clarifications, and I will see what changes should be made, based on your comments.  DCI talk 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Clash of religions. The whole religious thing is very confusing.  It was Catholics vs. Anglicans, and Anglicans vs. Puritans.  Although the Puritans were very against the Catholics, it seems that they found Catholics the lesser of two evils, especially when it came to Mather talking to the King.
 * Mather was kissing up to James; the declaration of indulgence helped the Puritans as much as it helped the Catholics (vis a vis the Anglicans). The easiest way to view what's going in with respect to religion is this: The Puritans did in Massachusetts what the Anglicans did in England: suppress religious views that weren't theirs.  Thus the Puritans didn't like Anglicans or Catholics (or Baptists, Quakers, etc), and the Anglicans didn't like Catholics or Puritans (or Baptists, Quakers, etc).  Everybody hated the (minority) Catholics, which is why James had so much opposition, and accusations of Catholic "popish" plots (no matter how ridiculous, like those leveled against Andros) made good bogeymen in whipping up opposition forces.  Magic ♪piano 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Revolt/revolution. I noticed this as well, and will change it.  "Revolution" refers only to the events in England.  "Revolt" refers only to those in America.  One of the instances you mentioned contradicts this.
 * Telling Andros. In short: Mather didn't want Andros to know.  Andros, however, had probably heard from his own sources in England that James was gone.  Andros's efforts to keep the people in the dark about the revolution were certainly in vain.
 * Andros had no official notice because of Mather's work. All he had were rumors and unofficial reports, which he could not act upon in an official capacity.  He was certainly interested in suppressing reports that James had fallen until something official arrived. Ian Steele's article is probably the best at detailing who knew what (and in what capacity) when.  Magic ♪piano 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Protestant Agitation. I could get rid of the quote and reword; he seems to have been less than happy about his King being overthrown, and didn't want any repercussions reaching New England.
 * Simon Bradstreet. Mather was probably trying to convince Bradstreet that the old charter had been annulled (see below) illegally.  Bradstreet must have been rather hard to convince, as the rebels had to persuade him to take over after Andros was overthrown.
 * Charters! This is not my strongest point in the article.  Andros was given authority to basically overrule the "old" colonial charters and replace it with the new Dominion charter.  This made many New Englanders unhappy (Charter Oak).  As for land titles, the Wikipedia entry on Andros explains it much better.  Although the article is not a source, I'll quote: "Since all of the existing land titles in Massachusetts had been granted under the now-vacated colonial charter, Andros essentially declared them to be void, and required landowners to recertify their ownership, paying fees to the dominion and becoming subject to the charging of a quit-rent."
 * The business with the Massachusetts charter is currently best described at Massachusetts Bay Colony (where some of it is cited and might be adapted for use here). Its old charter was revoked in 1684 (before Andros enters the picture).  The dominion charter was designed to supersede all of the other existing New England (and later NY/NJ) charters.  This article should have a few sentences on the revocation of the Mass. charter.  Magic ♪piano 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Drums. The drums were seized as a precaution.  Andros loyalists could have used them to summon up Anglican resistance, I suppose, although all the Anglicans seem to have been rounded up fairly quickly.
 * The reason for seizing the drums is so that they could not be used to muster the troops.  Magic ♪piano 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Andros's escapes. He did not escape in women's clothing, of course, but it is a rumor circulated in books like John Fiske's 1898 "The Beginnings of New England," which is on Google Books.  I'll add a source for the book, which claims that Andros tried to "effect his escape" dressed in women's clothing.  About the Rose: he was going to meet the boat, apparently the militia got there first.

It's confusing to me when the responses are separated from the original requests. I'm going to keep all my new comments above, where I left my first comments. Feel free to reply there, if you like, which will keep discussion in one place. – Quadell (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)