Talk:House of Burgesses

message: What is the proper definition of Burgesses? Is it the leader of a Borough? Keeperoftheseal 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Burgess, a Freeman (Colonial), IE. a Freeholder. 68.39.174.238 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added historical information on medieval terminology of the ORIGINAL TERM, and its taken out.
It was marked as vandalism? are you kidding?
Can I have an explanation, why you think this is vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narwhalhistory (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was important information taken out? 

message: It states that changes in 1620 lead to the creation of the House. Yet, two paragraphs later it states that the House first met in 1619. This is also stated before the reference to 1620. I've corrected the error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.46.143 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Can someone add info on how to pronounce "Burgesses", is it the same as Burgess?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.95.89 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: The phrase "land-owning males" is used. It is not clear if non-whites were allowed to vote. The initial anti-Polish sentiment suggests that 
they were not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land 

message: The term is first bolded and defined in the fourth paragraph. Seriously? Not to mention that it's even mentioned in the third, without a word as to what it is. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite the intro 

message: The 4th para in the lead says:
:Similar to the British Parliament, the House of Burgesses would consist of delegates elected by the colonists, and would meet once annually at Jamestown
This implies that it didn't happen.
Similarly the 5th para:
:... to this new legislative body that would come from eleven boroughs adjacent to the James River, along with eleven additional burgesses.
Yet the 6th para says: The assembly had 22 members, implying that it did happen, as does the rest of the article.
Can somebody clarify the situation, and alter the text accordingly, please? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would? 

message: The section headed "Meeting Places" adds little or nothing that isn't better expressed elsewhere in the article.  I have tuned it up a little, but it should really be rewritten entirely by somebody with better information than I have.  For example, it says nothing about the state house at Jamestown, which is mentioned earlier in the article.  The section should give a description of that building, and say when that building was constructed, who designed it (if that is known), when the House of Burgesses first met there, and whatever else may be known about it.  (Recent archaeological investigations may provide considerable information.)  Alternatively, if nobody will rewrite it, the section should be deleted as redundant. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some matter from the article on the Wren Building concerning the House's meeting places in Williamsburg, but the section still needs rewriting and expansion.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Meeting Places" Section 

message: I have made numerous small revisions to the "Legacy" section.  
* "House of Burgesses" for "Assembly":  the Colonial Assembly was the House of Burgesses plus the Council.  Only the House of Burgesses became the House of Delegates.
* "Commonwealth of Virginia" for "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia":  the full style of Virginia is "Commonwealth of Virginia", not "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia".  A commonwealth is a state, and there's no need to explain that.
* "Capitol building" for "Capitol" (Colonial Williamsburg):  the building is no longer a capitol, whatever Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., may name it.  The Capitol is in Richmond.
* "January 2007" for "2006":  corrected date according to press release cited.
* "then-vice president" for "Vice President":  with apologies to Binabik80, Mr. Cheney is no longer Vice President of the United States.
* deleted numerous superfluous instances of "Virginia" in names of institutions, since Virginia is the only State under discussion.
J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to Legacy Section 

message: For reasons discussed at length on the History of Virginia Talk page, I have replaced the lengthy account of Polish craftsmen and their strike with a brief account based on reliable sources.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments and edits - for my part, edits look *Excellent* - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Thank you for your comments - yes - I understand and agree with you - any help you can provide to improve the 1619 Jamestown Polish craftsmen strike article would be appreciated of course - you may have a more seasoned notion, compared to many editors, of those parts of the article that may be ok and those parts that could be better - I may try to help as well at my next opportunity - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Craftsmen's Strike 

message: The list of members of the first session of the House of Burgesses contains a great many red links.  Does somebody plan on writing articles for all those people?  If so, please say so here, and give us an estimate as to when they'll be done.  If not, why not remove the red links?  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The redlinks are a little ugly to look at, but I seems to me that they comply with WP:RED.  Having the links encourages people to write new articles.  Unless there is an argument that the links do not comply with the guideline, I think the template ought to be removed.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Red links are incredibly useful, IMHO, and are no more distracting than blue links. MPS (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links