Talk:House of Burgesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the House of Burgesses article.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

What is the proper definition of Burgesses? Is it the leader of a Borough? Keeperoftheseal 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Burgess, a Freeman (Colonial), IE. a Freeholder. 68.39.174.238 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added an explantion where the term burgess originated. (in the top) - narwhalhistory

I corrected misinformation concerning the Raleigh Tavern. Even under Anthony Hay, the Raleigh retained its name. It was never named 'Anthony Hay's Tavern.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.195.100 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was important information taken out?

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 (talkcontribs) 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Error

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)