|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Descendants mentioned in article
I don't want to offend anyone, but I've removed mention of two of Gorton's descendants that had been added to this article, with the following reasoning: first, descendants mentioned in an article should be of sufficient notoriety that they merit a wikipedia article themselves. Gorton has thousands of descendants, many of whom are prominent in their fields, but if they don't meet the wikipedia notability guidelines, then it is not appropriate to mention them as descendants in a biographical article. Secondly, when material is added, it needs to be referenced. If someone is notable enough to have a wikipedia article written about them, then their inclusion in an article such as this should include a reference showing the connection between the subject of the article and the famous descendant. A possible source for such connections is material published over the years by Gary Boyd Roberts of the New England Historic Genealogical Society. These types of articles were published in the Society's periodical Nexus, now called American Families, I believe.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Fiction re Samuel Gorton was inappropriate and controversial here. J. Peterka 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I find this argument totally and utterly unconvincing. The actual chapter in Ken Ichigawa's book is done entirely in faux 17th century spelling and grammar conventions, is concerned with the details of Gorton's life and tenure as the founder of Warwick (and other political history within the Colony). The book itself is deeply concerned with the Gortonite founding of Shawomet and its significant for the history of Warwick. This is, needless to say, probably the most significant fictitious potrayal of Gorton that ever has, or ever will, appear. It may, in fact, be the only significant treatment of Gorton to have appeared in either the 20th or 21st Centuries. How is this controversial or inappropriate? The hangups of people uncomfortable with two four letter words that have been in the English language since at least the 15th century doesn't constitute Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and I see nothing in the official standards that supports this decision. If you have a factual issue, please take issue there-- otherwise, don't delete content. Rewrite it. I furthermore suggest you check the Wikipedia:Profanity entry, which clearly indicates that this information is appropriate in this context.
Clearly, the fiction re Gorton is controversial, since I've made it so. I regard the paragraph as inappropriate because, like many entries in the Wikipedia, it's a blatant, biased opinion. Pornography is not a problem; it's among the spices of life. Putting words in other people's mouths is wrong! Enough has been written about Samuel Gorton to make clear his motives, attitudes, etc., in the context of his place and time. Historical fiction should strive for accuracy of historical facts and introduce fictional characters and situations which help develop a feeling for the ambient of the time. If anything more is to be included in this article, it should be extracts from the references, which show his character in considerable detail.
I'd like to see opinions of others on this topic. J. Peterka 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)