Talk:Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

message: ...because even according to the U.S. Library of Congress, San Marino has the oldest constitution still in effect in the world: http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.htmlViciouspiggy (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article as it is now phrased is perhaps more accurate. Would you consider removing the tag? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with the Jon Roland blog being considered a reliable source.   Hopefully this can be compromised, otherwise I need to add back the tag.  Thanks.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I concede it's use for the verification of the "first written constitution" assertion as that's well enough explained by the citation from the Connecticut State Register, but I'd like to leave in it's explanation of Old Style Vs the New Style dating- it's a simple and clear explanation for something that I had to correct well meaning editors over a few times before it's addition. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there another way to get that info?  The Old Style V and Julian calendar info must certainly be able to be sourced elsewhere and just directly written into the article. I have a problem with using websites which run against WP:SPS policy.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just put a suggested edit to this effect into the article, not set in stone, but to show you what I am thinking.  Again, I can compromise this somewhat.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing the accuracy of this article... 

message: The section title 'Individual Rights' seems a bit 'original'.  This concept, a precursor to the Age of Enlightenment I think is better known in scholarly circles as classic Political Liberalism.  I suggest we call it that.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberalism would likely have different connotations to the non-academic reader. The entire analysis could be labeled as original research since there isn't a single citation in the section, and I'm tagging it as such. I would venture that a properly referenced re-write is in order. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalism

message: This article includes the statements:
:The Massachusetts General Court granted them permission to settle the cities of Windsor, Warwick, and Hartford in the area now known as Connecticut. Ownership of the land was called into dispute by the English holders of the Warwick Patent of 1631.
should the first mention of "Warwick" be changed to "Wethersfield" as in Wethersfield, Connecticut?  I don't think there ever was a Warwick in Connecticut.  There is a Warwick, Rhode Island (settled 1642) and there is a Warwick, Massachusetts (settled 1739) but no Warwick, Connecticut.  The Warwick Patent of 1631 was granted by the Earl of Warwick (more specifically the Saybrook patent from Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick) as a land deed.  See  and  and  for example. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of research I found this which confirms what you say. It also says that Springfield was involved too, which is news to me! I'll update the article —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warwick?