Talk:Edward Doty

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

I believe Piano non troppo goes too far in removing the notable descendants section. He says that Doty has thousands of notable descendants. Doty has thousands of descendants, but only a few are notable. All of the descendants on this list except one were truely notable with wikipedia biographies of their own. The exception, John Andrew Johnson, had been recently added, and I have now undone his name, as I have removed a previous non-notable entry. Limiting the list to notable descendants keeps this from becoming a linkfarm or genealogical catalog. The list does not contain genealogical links and would be worthless for genealogical purposes. Bootboy41 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated description of Mayflower voyage

The following passage appears to be duplicated in several Wikipedia articles about Mayflower passengers. Should it be deleted or rewritten?

The small, 100-foot ship had 102 passengers and a crew of about 30–40 in extremely cramped conditions. By the second month out, the ship was being buffeted by strong westerly gales, causing the ship's timbers to be badly shaken with caulking failing to keep out sea water, and with passengers, even in their berths, lying wet and ill. This, combined with a lack of proper rations and unsanitary conditions for several months, attributed to what would be fatal for many, especially the majority of women and children. On the way there were two deaths, a crew member and a passenger, but the worst was yet to come after arriving at their destination when, in the space of several months, almost half the passengers perished in cold, harsh, unfamiliar New England winter.

--Jeremy Butler 14:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the voyage was the same for all, it is duplicated - There is no need to rewrite for same reason. Mugginsx (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-wording

Re-wording an article just because you like your words better is a violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. The term indentured servant is only mentioned once so that is resolved. Wikipedia is written by and for people of various ages and degrees of education. That is one of its prime directives.Mugginsx (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on your reverting of my good-faith edits:

The phrase "indentured servant" appears just once, but Doty is identified three times as a servant of Stephen Hopkins--once in the "Early life" section and twice in the "Mayflower voyage" section. Hence, it is redundant to keep identifying him that way.
Using wiki-lists makes an article easier to read for people of all ages/education. Thus, I do not understand why you reverted the lists I created.
Your reverting of my good-faith edits is itself a violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, which states, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit..."
I have been a Wikipedia editor for over nine years and I do not believe in "revert wars." I will not revert your reverting of my good-faith edits. But I also will not attempt to improve this article any further.

--Jeremy Butler 16:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what "lists" you are referring to. Mugginsx (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, I agree with the changes that you have made. I believe they all improve the article. In the past I have found Mugginsx highly resistant to changes that I have proposed. Like you I have stopped trying to improve this article. Bootboy41 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hopkins

I don't have time to rewrite it now, but the mention of Stephen Hopkins is incorrect. He did not serve under John Smith at Jamestown — Smith was back in England by the time the Sea Venture colonists arrived after being shipwrecked in Bermuda. The total time Hopkins was involved in Jamestown, from leaving England until returning was probably about six years off the top of my head. This is all easily confirmed from his own WP page.

I'll try to get back here to clean it up, if someone doesn't beat me to it. 71.37.42.93 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]