Talk:Middle Colonies

message: This article is chock full of deliberate vandalism and unsupported, incorrect information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.202.211 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dutch in middle colonies 

message: Please can you get some maps of the middle colonial please that would be very kind of you guys.Thank You--209.158.102.2 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A long year and a half later, I got off my butt and learned how to use SVGs and have created a new map here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAP 

message: The Middle colony is surrounded by water. The Atlantic Ocean is one of the ocean located near a port. This port(Near Massahussets)is where the tea from England was imported to the colonists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.174.163 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ports 

message: stupid middle colonist had sex unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.145 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion?? 

message: This article was almost entirely a massive copyvio cut-and-pasted from http://school.discoveryeducation.com/teachersguides/pdf/ushistory/ul/mt13c_the_middle_colonies_tg.pdf 
I've now removed the whole thing by reverting all the way back to an old, and unfortunately very inadequate, version of the article. 
Although the current version of this article -- as of the time of this comment -- appears to bear a very strong resemblance to the text in http://en.allexperts.com/q/General-History-674/Middle-Colonies-1.htm , dated 10/25/2007, please note that the Wikipedia text has been taken from an earlier Wikipedia revision dated 7 June 2007, which pre-dates the publication date of the allexperts.com article... -- The Anome (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio note 

message: The new content added to the article is unsourced, and is not placed within proper sections, but simply inappropriately tacked unto the lead. It is unhelpful, and, in addition, deals largely with states like Maryland and Rhode Island, which where NOT Middle Colonies. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The new content was organised the way it was "not according to your sections", because the previous arrangement of headers artificially breaks down a more fluid exposition of the information.  The article's section-by-section set-up is hard to flesh as one piece, without all the little tie-ins of one fact connecting to another fact, in a fluid cross-section manner.  It is better to compartmentalise the article by historical division, since this IS regional history and needs to be treated as such.  There was no formal Middle Colonial establishment.  It was, from the beginning, rather hodgepodge.  The Dutch and Swedes, for instance, were both squatters on English land--whether or not they had permission from the Pilgrims who lived in Holland, is up for debate.  The Crown, obviously did not allow them there, so the Anglo-Dutch War was pretty important as a factor in this.  Over all, the attempt to segregate aspects from an informal region in a former era, is rather forced and unnatural.  68.231.163.38 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I ask is that you break information into appropriate sections rather than leave it in the inappropriate place: the lead. WP:Lead section: states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." (emphasis added) - thus it should not discuss things not in the sections below it. Also, see WP:Summary style Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to make those amends, please do so.  I'm afraid my strong point is in explaining the viewpoint of the author, not in WP:Manual of Style issues.  Maybe it's just laziness, but I already put in some hard work.  The titles to each section could probably be changed though.  68.231.163.38 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for separating it into sections! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I myself was a bit more tense on this issue than you warranted, but Wikipedians tend to bite the newbie and when one joins up to the encyclopedia with an account, the old guys follow you around, like first impressions are lasting impressions.  It's actually very nice of you to avoid trying to absolutely destroy my efforts to help for FREE.  It's also very unusual, based upon my own experience.  The "norm" is for established account holders to bash and corner, gang up and revert war against IP addresses, without good faith assumptions.  It's like the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty" here!  But then again, this website is not the US government...  68.231.163.38 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Information" 

message: User:Scapler seems to be of the mind that the Middle Colonies were only those which were directly successive to the Eurocontinentals, but where would the English conquerors from other colonies come from, but the proto-Quakers of RI and proprietary class of MD?  They were unwanted in the Puritan and Anglican colonies, despised by their own kind, so they went to live with foreigners and be the thin English veneer over other people, rather than suffer humiliation and hostility from other English.  Of course, the Crown appointed Anglicans and Parliament also encouraged Puritanical settlement in the region, but the heart of the Philadelphian people was a blend of Calvert and Williams.  I assume Scapler hasn't read David Hackett Fischer, nor done any cultural studies of 17th century England and colonial offshoots.  Okay Scapler, provide an opinion on the issue which is not carbon copied myopia.  You ought to be able to look at the details and see that they are much more complex than the cookie-cutter stuff we were taught in elementary school, but you are apparently stuck in that primitive mindset of what the lower grade level teaches about basic Americana.  There's a lot of grey in a black and white world, so please don't be afraid to step aside from your article hogging.  I provided the main source for my editing confidence on this issue, a notable Brandeis professor in American history.  68.231.163.38 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions of assertions of this one man do not, however, warrant taking up half the article and almost all of the lead. See WP:Undue weight Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find directly challenging assertions from other authors, then please do so.  The more the merrier, when it comes to bringing light on the individuals and their ways of life in the Middle Colonies.  Most sources ignore or gloss over the English contribution to the Mid-Atlantic, simply because most immigrants have come through the very same region, before and after the English had a permanent presence there.  But, take it from the Amish:  they consider all non-Amish to be covered in the blanket term "English", regardless of origin.  If you think that the format is bloated, then I will at least do as much to separate the top from subsequent info.  68.231.163.38 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental Euro colonies? 

message: Much of the "Diversity of British founders" section is still on colonies which were not Middle Colonies, and is on English history not relevant to the Middle Colonies. But, it still had a wealth of useful information, so I have integrated what I could glean to more appropriate sections and have appropriately cited it to Mr. Fisher's work. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why you think the historical and cultural background, the very nature also of the colonists, is irrelevant.  It may seem irrelevant in 2009, but not in the actual time for which they lived.  This article is supposed to be about those people in general and how the Middle Colonies were, which by definition, would mean other than the Virginians and New Englanders.  There is still a fallacy of viewing the Middle Colonies as nothing but that which was carved out of New Netherland, when the English origins of these colonies matter more, since it was they who founded them, whereas the Dutch were only along for the ride, rather than expelled like the French were to Louisiana.  You know Maryland, as a proprietary venture, is considered a Middle Colony by many sources and that among the English, Quakerism was the general religious orientation, while Quakerism evolved out of the Seekerism which was Rhode Island spirituality.  These were typically proprietary, without an established church, nor western land claims, but were multi-ethnic.  That was what I wrote and I don't see why you think it doesn't belong.  After all, New York and New Jersey were both incorporated into New England at one time, so why not accept the religious connection between Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, even Maryland, as they all refused to establish an official church?  The Dutch and Swedes were officially Reformed Calvinists and Evangelical Lutherans, which is not a typical understanding of the Middle Colonies, as the Middle Colonies were not really establishmentarian in any sense.  You want to say Maryland was one of the Southern Colonies, but they were not Anglicans.  You want to say that Rhode Island was one of the Northern Colonies, but they were not Puritans.  It may seem simple to divide them all up with the Dutch and Swedish colonies being a good marker, but this clear division ceased to exist in 1664, when the Continental Europeans no longer had an establishment of their own.  The English of course, had "seed colonies", like Virginia and Massachusetts, which spread out and broke off to found other colonies; those are the very sources of the English people whom founded the Middle Colonies, not Dutch, Swedish or German, but English.  That is why both Maryland and Rhode Island are predecessors to English settlement further in the Mid-Atlantic, proprietary (like MD) Quakers (like RI) for instance, which is why Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth of its own kind of people, a criss-crossing of South and North.  Have you seen these maps?  68.231.163.38 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate your work, we are not here to convince people that they have been taught incorrectly. I went through your paragraphs and integrated much of it into other parts of the article, making it easier for someone to read and understand. As for the other colonies, if you can solidly link the history you give to the Middle Colonies in the article, it is irrelevant. You argue that all this events are interconnected, yet you simply wandered around in various histories with little explanation at some points, in a generally difficult to follow manner. No matter what your opinion on differences are, or Mr. Fischer's for that matter, the vast majority of historians label the Middle Colonies as only Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware. This is not a place to "correct misconceptions", but an encyclopedia, where we collect information and publish that which has already been widely reported and spread as the correct information, at least according to WP:SOAP. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not even read this highly praised work, but have instead taken it upon yourself to classify Connecticut as a Middle Colony, when its entire establishment was the same as Massachusetts and New Hampshire, something Rhode Island was not.  You also ignored the external link I provided, which describes Rhode Island as being the first exile of the Quakers, after being banned from Boston.  Like the Jews whom you well cite, the Quakers and Jews were best well received in RI of all British colonies, because of the absolute separation of Church and State and while Maryland was officially tolerant, their personal ideology just didn't work well with Quakers and Jews due to extreme differences in Catholicism.  This is widely accepted and conventional American history.  Do your research.  By including CT in this article and continuing to put not only spelling errors and misconceptions of other "minor details", like New York City being the burned-over district, shows just how little you know about this, all the while professing I am having an agenda or something.  I'll tell you what my agenda is: it is to present an accurate, comprehensive and culturally sensitive coverage of the middle colonists; this is something that you have proven to not a clue how to do.  You have made this a battle ground and destroyed hard work to help the subject, apparently because I was right to be wary of your intentions here.  I retract my "apology" for being tense with you in our initial exchanges.  Now that I know of your belligerence to good faith edits, I hereby withdraw from this power and control issue for you.  You want to have it your way or the highway.  Fine, struggle to be accurate and forthcoming and treated seriously.  Fight or flight is what I am combining here with past experience among Wikipedians.  You throw the book at other editors, especially IP addresses, to cover up your own shortcomings.  Good bye.  68.231.163.38 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to censure or cover up nothing. First of all, comments on things like the "Burned-over district" show that you are not as all-knowing on the subject as you claim. This term was never applied to the Colony of New York, but only used to describe it during the Second Great Awakening, after New York was a state, and no longer a Middle Colony. I have no agenda here other than making a readable, useful article. Much of your prose made little connections to the colonies or were very convoluted and difficult to follow, so I integrated it into various sections where it would make more fluid sense.  Thank you, though for your observation that Connecticut should not be included in the article. Someone else added that before I got here, and I did not remove it, I guess I missed it initially, so thank you! My main concern with your contributions has been that you have added content which has overwhelmed the rest of the article, all from the views of  one author, giving him considerable undue weight over all over sources. I have not tried to undue good faith edits, much of your information has been simply plugged into different sections of the article. I suggest you read the disclaimer at the bottom of every edit window: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" Thank you. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration 

message: http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/middle_colonies_1607.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Maryland as Middle Colony 

message: http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/new_england_colonies_1607.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.163.38 (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of New York and New Jersey as New England Colonies 

message: The article says the British fleet sailed up the Boston Harbor with several hundred soldiers. Boston was in the Massachusetts bay colony though.. Should it say the New Amsterdam harbor instead? If not some sort of clarification should be there - did the fleet detour to Boston to pick up recruits immediately before seizing New Netherlands? Charles Edward (Talk) 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point. I've just put the WP:GAN on hold for lack of page numbers for books used as in-line citations. This reference, without page numbers, is being as an in-line citation for that and adjacent statements: . The article can stay on hold until this question is adequately answered.Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that there was confusion there: the British fleet stayed a short while in Boston, then moved on to anchor off of Coney Island. The article now states this as well. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Harbor 

message: Other Wiki articles state that, during the period 1664 and 1682, the area was a Royal colony, named NY Colony, not the province of NY.
76.218.100.214 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY COLONY VS. PROVINCE OF NY 

message: The citations needed cleaning--many were to textbooks or otherwise were not secondary sources, so I added references to recent scholarship.Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Living quarters? 
How did they eat? 
Celebrations?
Children?
Typical amount of money per household? (Like was a majority rich, poor, or...) 
Occupations?
Just stuffs like that...thanks. Not sure how to use this by the way...so help or some sort of consort is much appreciated. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.131.211 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifestyle & Living