Talk:New Haven Colony

message: British is an anachronism when discussing colonial ventures in the 17th century. I've switched in to English Wetman 19:05, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: British

message: The major objection I see to the flagged section is that it basically replicates the section just above. Could not the two be merged and a more historically informed section result in which both the issues of the regicides and the possible influence on the merger be discussed both separately, on their own terms, and together, in terms of whatever causality might be imputed? 
Also, some mention probably ought to be made to the fact that the regicides (Whalley and Goff, in any case) ended up further north, in the Mt. Holyoke/Amhurst/Northfield area, and are buried there, by all reports. So the complicit action in sheltering them was rather short-lived on the part of Connecticut. 
A more likely (or at least equally worthy) consideration was the tendency of all the charter re-negotiations to simplify the number of smaller colonial groups for more streamlined governance, whether under the hated provincial governor Andros, or others. MA had a similar event in the giving of the Old Colony (Plymouth), which had never prospered as well financially, to the MA Bay Colony when the 1691 charter was returned.
In some ways, too, since the Hartford colony was founded by members of the MBC (from Cambridge, MA, under Rev. Hooker) and was first governed by Winthrop's son FitzJohn, putting the NHaven group under their governance was consistent with giving that line of colonial oversight predominance overall.96.237.177.133 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication to be amended

message: Section reads more polemical than neutral ("theocracy"; "made no pretense of rule by the will of the people") with several off-the-cuff assertions of fact ("*no* farming experience"; "good port locations") needing some citation or elaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.85.91 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article still reads "New Haven's political system was confined to church members only..." which sounds like a theocracy, in any case why do you presume that the term theocracy is one of opprobrium? Historian932 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of 'Founding' section 

message: The body states 1637-1664, but the banner on the right states 1638-1665. To the gallows with you! lol
2602:304:CDA6:51B0:ED:7FCF:42C9:4B07 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article says the colony merged with Connecticut in 1664, but other articles say 1662. Richard75 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict in dates of existence 

message: The section relies upon Longfellow's poem as an accurate depiction of historical events. I added a note to clarify that the depiction is from a poem written 200 years later. I also added link to poem, which is in the public domain and hosted on wikisource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.91.96 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Phantom Ship  

message: The cave is only called Judges Cave (look up images of it; there’s a plaque), not Three Judges Cave. Only Whalley and Goffe hid there. Dixwell never joined them there (which the article vaguely suggests ). (There is however a divy inn nearby called the the Three Judges Motel, and 3 streets converging on New Haven are named for the 3 of them). 24.44.56.122 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regicides and Judges Cave