Talk:Samuel Gorton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Descendants mentioned in article[edit]

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)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel Gorton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 16:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


  • "the leader of a small sect of converts known as Gortonists" The words "of converts" seem superfluous.
  • "and his demeanor towards the magistrates and ministers". I think you need to be more specific. "and an aggressive demeanor"?
  • "until he and a group of others" Again a bit vague. "he and his supporters" perhaps.
  • "purchased land of the Narragansett people." I would say purchased land from but maybe "purchased of" is correct in US Eng?
  • "though all but three of the presiding magistrates voted to give him a death sentence." three out of how many?
  • "Gorton and two of his associates sailed to England where they obtained an official order of protection for his colony from the Earl of Warwick." It would be helpful to give the date.
  • "A man of great learning and great intellectual breadth," This is POV and should be attributed or left out.
  • "Baptized on 12 February 1592/3" I think you need to just say 1593 in the text and infobox. 1592/3 normally means that the year is uncertain, and will mislead readers who do not read the note.
  • "and became an accomplished scholar". This is again POV. You need to make clear that it is the claim of someone who was presumably a descendant of Gorton.
  • "Three of his religious mentors were John Saltmarsh, William Dell, and William Erbury, the first two being chaplains in Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, and Erbury a Welsh Puritan." As he emigrated in 1637 this was presumably before they became Civil War chaplains. Perhaps "Three of his religious mentors were John Saltmarsh and William Dell, who were later to be chaplains in Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, and William Erbury, a Welsh Puritan."
  • Seekers and Ranters - these could be linked.
  • First paragraph 'Plymouth..." One biographer... Another biographer... These are both quotes from the same book by someone called Gorton. The bias needs to be made clear.
  • "struggle known as the Antinomian Controversy" a few words of explanation what the controversy was about would be helpful.
  • "as did his older brother Thomas." He has not been previously mentioned. If he accompanied Samuel to America it should be stated where you describe his emigration.
  • "Being a bitter partisan by nature, Gorton used his talent and energy to consolidate many discontented settlers into a destructive party in the otherwise peaceful settlement established by Williams." This is POV and should be attributed to the author.
  • "the Pawtuxet settlers became agents of the underhanded dealings of Massachusetts" underhand dealings is POV.
  • "The Arnolds and their Pawtuxet partners became complicit in efforts by Massachusetts" "became complicit" is POV "supported"?
  • "with the help of the resentful Pawtuxet settlers, the local natives were goaded into filing a complaint against the Gortonites" goaded is POV. Perhaps persuaded.
  • "Despite the improprieties of the trial, all but three of the ruling magistrates gave Gorton the death sentence, though a majority of the deputies refused to sanction this." What improprieties? How many magistrates were there and were they the same as the deputies?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seeking justice for the wrongs committed against them" POV. Maybe "Seeking justice for the wrongs they believed had been committed against them".
  • "detailing the injustices against the Shawomet settlers" POV as above.
  • "Commissioner of Plantations" This term needs explaining - is there a suitable link?
  • "he likely preached at the conventicle of a woman who has only been identified as Sister Stag." My dictionary defines conventicle as a secret or unlawful religious meeting? Was it secret or unlawful? This needs more explanation.
  • Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick. It would be helpful to explain his position - why he had authority.
  • User:Sarnold17. This is a well-researched article, but it is far too much a defence of Gorton rather than an impartial account to pass GA. You will need to revise to be more neutral, and make clear when you are citing sources which may be biassed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have failed this article as there has been no response to the comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)