Talk:Committees of correspondence

message: This needs ot be moved to Committee of Correspondence Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There WAS a "specific" Committee: the Continental Congressional one (Which was an intelligence committee), so that can go there, and the more general ones can stay here. 68.39.174.39 22:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is it's a general term by which a series of them were known—they were all intelligence committees and they were all called committees of correspondence, and were probably all designated in capital letters during their time (of course, early American English capitalized seemed to capitalize just about everything in formal writing).  But feel free to expand the mention of the Continental Congress committee in this article.  Postdlf 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title discussion

message: I came across a page, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h675.html, that reads remarkably similar to this article. Either that page used this article, or this article used that page. Should it be cited? --Bsdlogical 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Sources 

message: Where did the designation of Committees of Correspondence as being "shadow governments" come from?  This just stikes me as being incorrect.  Certainly in Massachusetts they were quasi-legal institutions whose members were elected by and under the authority of the town meeting. This made them semi-legal; and they often shared members and various protective community actions with the local militia. Did Richard D. Brown use this term? His book seems to be the only citation for several of the introductory sections. I believe the preferred term should be "semi-legal institutions" or something along those lines.  More citations would also help. IPBiographer (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadow governments?

message: * This other article is primarily about the Virginia committee of correspondence.  The history of each state's committee of correspondence is different. The article's scope is also greater than just the topic of the committee of correspondence.
* I would propose: The commitee of correspondence article be renamed the Virginia committee of correspondence, the content which is common to all states be merged into the Committee of Correspondence article, that a sub-section be created in the Committee of Correspondence article with a summary, and a link to the main article, of the Virginia committee of correspondence article. BradMajors (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article  Virginia committee of correspondence was entirely plagiarized.   After the offending material was removed the article was reduced to a single sentence.  I have removed the link to this article since it is of no value at all as a source of information. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The commitee of correspondence]] proposed merger

message: Why is the word Patriot capitalized?  In fact, why is it used at all?  Might not a non-US reader question which side should be considered patriotic?  Or is it assumed that in an article on US history, bias rules may be disregarded?
--Jeepien (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Patriots" is the usual name of the group involved, as used by RS. Their opponents are called "Loyalists". Bias? no, that follows the dictionaries (like the OED). Rjensen (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Most books do not capitalist patriots.  For example, the 2013 book Patriots uses lowercase throughout for patriots and loyalists, though it capitalizes "Committee of Correspondence". Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: There is no mention of the role of Committees of Correspondence during the War of 1812.  IPBiographer (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1812 is Missing 

message: The list of members of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence includes two people who weren't alive as of March 1773, when the Committee was formed: Robert Carter Nicholas and Dudley Digges. Both appear to be a case of right name/wrong person.
The current link to Robert Carter Nicholas leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Nicholas, who was born in 1787. His grandfather, also named Robert Carter Nicholas, was an active Virginia politician at the time. It seems likely that the article simply links to the wrong Robert C. Nicholas, but I have no sources to back that up, so I can only point out that the link is in error.
The current link to Dudley Digges leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Digges, who died in 1639. It seems he was the great-great-grandfather of the Dudley Digges who served in the Virginia House of Burgesses until the American Revolution, but again, I have no sources to positively identify the much later Dudley Digges as one of the members of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence. 
OldeMusicke (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous links 

message: The link to Daniels (1986), p. 5. doesn't go anywhere.  Was this #Daniels link deleted?   I am researching the North Carolina Provincial Congress for an article on it and Joseph Hewes was the member of the committee that was in touch with other colonies at the time of the First Provincial Congress in North Carolina.
User:G._Moore talk  13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniels Link

message: Not sure what this is supposed to mean: "By February 1774, 11 colonies had set up their own committees; of the thirteen colonies that eventually rebelled, only the provinces of North Carolina and Pennsylvania had not."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainePatriot (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Clunky and Unclear Wording