Talk:Intolerable Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intolerable Acts article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Title and word choices

Is this a pro-American or pro-revolutionist POV? I wonder if "retaliation" couldn't be replaced by a better or more accurate word; surely Parliament was more interested in putting down rebellion than simply retaliating. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:19, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Response" should be NPOV, although it may lose information. "Retaliantion" may actually be correct, in which case it should be changed back and expanded upon. (NPOV should always be obvious, even without knoledge of the subject.) Paullusmagnus 18:52, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Arguably the title of the Article fails to be NPOV. The people who passed the stupid laws called them Coercive or Punitive Acts, and the legislators generally get naming rights. "Intolerable Acts" would be right in a work that was specifically American; but that's that other collaborative encyclopedia, not Wikipedia. I think. But really, who cares enough to make this a redirect? Dandrake 04:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally I'm less worried about aritcle titles than article bodies when it comes to NPOV. Aside from that, I don't think its NPOV. The acts were more widely and popularly (and historically) known as the Intolerable Acts. The only reason the acts are important today is because of the Revolution, and they were labeled as such contemporarily. I mean, would it be NPOV to have an article titled Alexander the Great? That's how many people know him... I don't think we're at risk of readers believing that we're making a judgement call and affirming his greatness. Similarly, I think we can trust readers to be wise enough to understand that the article is named for the common form of the acts, and that we're not saying that the acts were intolerable as a matter of opinion. --Dante Alighieri 20:36, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Calling *all* the acts punative against the colonies is a NPOV, the Qubec act was not punative except that it denied the colonists ability to claim land from the french setlers. --Barberio 6 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Correct: the Quebec Act was a piece of legislation essentially unrelated to the other Coercive Acts. I'll make a note of it in the article. --Kevin Myers July 9, 2005 16:53 (UTC)
Edited away the 'neutral'. Neutrality is a meaningless concept in a cival war involving a revolt against cental power. Refusing to join the revolt is indirect support of the central power. ie, they can still use supply lines through this 'neutral land' which is not the meaning of neutral lands in conventional wars. --Barberio 13:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. Declining to come to the defense of the "central power" while rebels pass through your area and attack the "central power" is not "indirect support of the central power." It's neutrality. Here's one source on the subject:
During the American invasion, "Relatively few Canadiens had rushed either to the side of the invaders or to support Carleton. Most had, instead, stuck to their farms and sold supplies, for hard cash, to anyone -- American or British. There was a kind of pragmatic neutralism underlying the response of most habitants to the American invasion." (G.A. Rawlyk, "The American Revolution and Canada" in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, p. 501).
He goes on to write about how many Canadiens were disappointed when, after France joined the American side, the French failed to invade Canada and throw out the British. Many Canadiens were neutral, if not tilting away from the British. Please cite a source if you believe otherwise. --Kevin Myers 13:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
There is a *Very Big Difference* between inaction, and Neutrality. Unless you can provide a cite to support the use of the the word Neutral as it is taken in war (the denial of lands and resources to *both sides*), then it should be described as inaction. In *most wars* the majority of populations take no active parts in the wars, but are not described as Neutral. Describing as Neutral is a POV. (Notem Rawlyk used 'kind of pragmatic neutralism' as the motivations behind inaction, this is diferent from describing the Canadiens as neutrals. --Barberio 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
As it happens, Rawlyk goes on to say "it is not surprising that many Canadiens preferred to remain neutral" (same page). Mark Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution uses similar language, writing that the Canadians "were not loyal to Britain so much as neutral" (p. 909). That's two academic references that support my point. If you have academic citations to make a counter argument, now would be the time to quote them. --Kevin Myers 16:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


Those two citations fail the 'weasle words' test for POV. The first quote suffers that 'many' does not equate to most, the second is again not a direct atribution to neutrality but a likeness to it. It's important to note that the Province as a whole, rejected the call for independance and *remained* loyal. It would be inacurate to say 'Most French were neutral during WWII as most French did not fight against the germans'. Again, Inactivity does not equate to Neutrality. --Barberio 16:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Your failure to cite a single source (after repeated requests) is striking. I notice you may be relatively new to Wikipedia, but I assume you're familiar with the policies No original research and cite your sources. Published, well-known, professional sources (such as what I've quoted above) are generally preferred over the analysis of individual Wikipedians. You may disagree with the professional historians quoted above, but until you cite other historians who support your argument, you're essentially engaging in original research, which has no place here. --Kevin Myers 01:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Your sources do not actualy support your original assertion *as written in the article* that the Province of Quebec was mostly neutral during the war of independance. Using the word Neutral, which has *specific* conotations towards warfare, to describe Quebec during the conflict is misleading. *YOU* are the one proposing use of this language over the NPOV 'pragmatic inaction' based one, so it is *YOUR* onus to provide the supporting cites. --Barberio 04:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrong again: my language is cited multiple times above, while you have an opinion and no references. It's you vs. the historians, and here we have to side with the historians. However, this discussion more properly belongs on the Quebec Act talk page. --Kevin

Changed from British colonists to just colonists, due to the fact that the colonists were of many more nationalities than British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.136.195 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Shouldn't the acts be listed under the m ain article? otherwise, they are all a group of stubs -Lt Ender

Agreed. I am in favor of merging the individual acts here, and turning the articles into redirects here. Firestorm 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title Dispute

Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Coercive Acts' or something of that nature? My reasoning is that that is what the acts are called in England, the nation in which they were passed. Agree/Disagree/Comment? Firestorm 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, can you produce any evidence that they are more commonly known by a name other than the "Intolerable Acts"? The acts certainly were of greater significance to the colonies than to Britain, so without any additional evidence, I'd say they should stay where they are. older≠wiser 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And before pursuing this line further, it really might be useful to read the discussion of the very same subject at the top of the page. (Though I took a position before, I don't insist on it. In fact, I think the argument given there in favor of the present title is persuasive.) Dandrake 01:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for redirecting my article "Coercive Acts".

They're the same thing, so they should've had a redirect anyway. :P

-skateboarder11(skateboarder11@nospam.gmail.com)

[edit] "Rape" in image caption

I changed rape in the image caption to abuse and this was reverted. The argument, "powerful men leering over naked woman-one pulling up her dress and looking under--yea that's rape" is reasonable. The problem, I think, is that the caption is actually just inaccurate: there was no literal "rape" of Boston to denounce in the cartoon. A better caption might be "A cartoon likening the Intolerable Acts to rape" or something like. Comments? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear from the cartoon that the person is a woman. The breasts are not overly pronounced and the "dress" looks like a bed-sheet to me. older ≠ wiser 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The cartoonist likened the attack on Boston to a rape. Note the leering man at the right lifting her dress and peering up her legs. Note the woman in the background averting her eyes. That's the strongest portrayal of rape in American art for many decades. And yes "rape" was used in 18th century political language to describe a hoirrible political abuse--just like today. For example DeFoe: 1706 "When Kings their Crowns without Consent obtain, 'Tis all a mighty Rape, and not a Reign." For that matter Shakespeare: "Thou hast..done a rape upon the maiden vertue of the Crowne." Rjensen 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon makes the implication of impending rape secondary. The primary figures represent Boston (the woman) and the Boston Port Act (the man with the kettle). The caption is "The able Doctor, or America swallowing the Bitter Draught". Without actual sources, saying that this cartoon denounces the rape of Boston or likens the attack on Boston to rape is unverifiable or original research. The most straight-forward interpretation of the cartoon is that the Boston Port Act was forced on an unwilling America and that it was an injustice. Ignoring the primary figures for a different interpretation would have to be backed up. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You're making all that up (original research). You have no sources regarding this speciifc picture. Naked woman held down by powerful men is a very powerful symbol of rape, I suggest. Rjensen 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Without any clear indication that the person is indeed a woman, I'd say your interpretation is OR. older ≠ wiser 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not "making all that up": notice that the figures are labelled. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
if you're not making things up, please give us your references. Rjensen 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"Intolerable acts" is the term is used in standard British history books, such as P. M. Barnes ed A New Dictionary of British History (1963) and The Oxford Companion to British History 1997. Rjensen 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remember that you're viewing this from modern attitudes, you need to add historical context. It is highly unlikely that the author of the original cartoon was thinking 'Sexualised Assaults'. It's clear to me that the author was thinking 'asault to force feed unwanted medicine'. Adding more to that would be a POV based on current attitudes, not historical context. --Barberio 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption solved: it's an Indian woman sexually assaulted

from Library of Congress from: [1]Full Caption: ”The able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter Draught.” Etching. From the London Magazine, May 1, 1774. British Cartoon Collection. Prints and Photographs Division. LC-USZC4-5289. Prime Minister Lord North, author of the Boston Port Bill, forces the ”Intolerable Acts,” or tea, down the throat of America, a vulnerable Indian woman whose arms are restrained by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, while Lord Sandwich, a notorious womanizer, pins down her feet and peers up her skirt. Behind them, Mother Britannia weeps helplessly. This British cartoon was quickly copied and distributed by Paul Revere Rjensen 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sexually assaulted" is not supported by that link. The leap from "while Lord Sandwich, a notorious womanizer, pins down her feet and peers up her skirt" to "sexual assault" is rather large. The leading and therefore primary statement in the link's description is "Prime Minister Lord North... forces the 'Intolerable Acts,'... down the throat of America". — Saxifrage ✎ 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
well yes: four men holding a woman down by force, stripping her partly naked and lifting her dress is considered sexual assault. You want porn in the pciture too? Rjensen 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Africa
Africa
Hey, watch that you stay on the good side of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
My point is that you are focusing on something that is not the subject of the image. It would be akin to me adding the caption to the image at right like so, which misses the point of the image and inaccurately describes it.
Further, the text from the Library of Congress is copyright and we can't use it verbatim on Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Items written by a US goverment agency--Library of Congress-- are NOT copyright. Rjensen 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the caption as given by the LOC. Although not everything in the LOC is public domain, they are generally pretty good about indicating copyright holders where they exist. In this case, there does not appear to be any copyright concerns. It is rather interesting that America is portrayed as an Indian woman. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] September 19, 2006 2nd consecutive revert

Just a note here explaining my revert immediately following another's revert. There was additional vandalism in the article (the insertion of several instances "OWNED") from a previous edit. My revert to an earlier version has removed them. Cheers, El Krem 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For such a provoking title...

... this article seems bland and sanitized. I'd like to see some meat on these bones, assuming there is any. -- Chris 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that most of the meat is in American Revolution and related articles. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit of meat, right next to the bones. :) Bo 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entire Page

I have changed the page back to the one it looked like on December 6th. Can someone please edit it? I am not an expert at this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.12.151 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Removed "I love you" from the text.

Erased some vandalism

"..This was an agreement to boycott British goods and if that did not get the acts reversed after a year, to stop exporting goods to Great Britain as well. I love you. The Intolerable Acts were the last straw for both Great Britain and the colonies..."

I suggest this article be locked so that anonymous people don't interfere with others who seriously need information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.206.230 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Not going to happen; we don't lock articles just for minor vandalism. If it were a WoW-clone targeting it or massive vandalism, then maybe. Also, don't write a comment on the talk page for every minor instance of vandalism, it just clutters things. Firestorm 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quartering in Private Homes?

This article explicitly states that the Quartering Act of 1774 did not allow for the quartering of soldiers in private homes, but the Quartering Act article says that this was, in fact, a part of the law.

[...]it required that troops be housed not only in commercial and empty buildings but in occupied dwellings as well.

Can someone clarify?

--Skillet5 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out: I meant to update the Quartering Act language too, but didn't get around to it. While many sources claim that the Quartering Act allowed troops to be billeted in occupied private homes, David Ammerman's 1974 academic study claimed that this is a myth. (The language of the 1774 act certainly says nothing about private homes, though it's perhaps ambiguous on the point.) I'll update the language of both articles to clarify the disagreement. —Kevin Myers 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look guys.....

This article doesnt even say what the intolerable acts are?!!? yeah seriously nor does it say the significance of them either

1/25/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.14.49 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After you read the article, I believe that you will retract that statement. 76.217.91.94 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)