Talk:Puritans

Template:Vital article

Christopher Hill line doesn't seem to be objective

The line: "English historian Christopher Hill, who has contributed Marxist analyses of Puritan concerns that are more respected than accepted, writes of the 1630s, old church lands, and the accusations that William Laud was a crypto-Catholic:"

There doesn't seem any citation or grounds for marking Christopher Hill's views as respected rather than accepted, when other historian's aren't commented upon in the same manner. I would suggest: "English historian Christopher Hill, who has contributed Marxist analyses of Puritan concerns, writes of the 1630s, old church lands, and the accusations that William Laud was a crypto-Catholic:"

Then if a reader doesn't accept Marxist analyses they are free to make the inference themselves without the article prejudicing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZephroC (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Puritans. Cúchullain ^t/c 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Puritan → Puritanism – This article is discussing Puritanism in general, not one single Puritan. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Zacwill16 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom, although we could also move this to Puritanism. bd2412 T 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts Puritanism is actually a better title. I've changed my suggestion to that. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support – A sensible proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with the spirit of the move, however I must note that Puritan currently discusses the topic from the point of view of the group (i.e. Puritans), and not the -ism {77 vs. 29 mentions}. If the article is moved to Puritanism, it will need some language tweaking, or should be moved to Puritans instead. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as the article is about the people, not the Puritanism itself. Calidum T|C 22:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify I oppose moving to Puritanism. Moving to Puritans I would support, however. Calidum T|C 13:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose please don't change horses in midstream, the requested move is to Puritans which I would support but now you've changed it to Puritanism which I oppose with the same reasoning as Calidum. Pjefts (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I hardly "changed horses in midstream". I changed it a couple of hours after initially making the proposal, when only one person had offered any comment, which was that Puritanism might be a better title. If you don't like it, request a move yourself. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer Puritans but okay with nom's proposal. Current title is okay but should be better with either suggestion. Red Slash 03:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Prefer Puritans since this is an ethnoreligious group as oppsed to just simply a religion. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarity

In the 3rd sentence of the lead, "They took on distinctive beliefs about clerical dress and in opposition to the episcopal system, particularly after the 1619 conclusions of the Synod of Dort they were resisted by the English bishops." needs unscrambling. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic content

Let's talk about this content. Firstly, the North American colonies were of Catholic French and Spanish as well as Northern Europe Protestants. I don't see where this fits in with the rest of the article? There were no actions against Catholics in Puritan New England because there were no Catholics there at the time. Pjefts (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Puritan anti-Catholicism in North America is factual, well sourced, and looking at edit history I'm the fourth editor to acknowledge this. "In 1647, Massachusetts passed a law prohibiting any Jesuit Roman Catholic priests from entering territory under Puritan jurisdiction". DRodgers11 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the Killjoys ?

Killjoys is in the section title but not mentioned in the text. HalfGig talk 12:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unclear and cryptic

This is not a clear and useful article because it fails to touch on the main aspects of puritans. Some sections are cryptic and not easily readable. I don't feel I learned much from this article. I suggest to make improvements to it (lots of them).

Since the article is full of inconsistencies and unclear passages, I will lists all the things I found.

1. Killijoys are mentioned but not a single explanation is provided.

2. "Elizabethan Puritanism contended with the Elizabethan religious settlement, with little to show for it. The Lambeth Articles of 1595, a high-water mark for Calvinism within the Church of England, failed to receive royal approval."

This passage is not explanatory.

3. "The Puritan movement in England was riven over decades by emigration and inconsistent interpretations of Scripture ..."

Is it "the Scripture" or "the Scriptures"?

4. "The Assembly was able to agree to the Westminster Confession of Faith doctrinally, a consistent Reformed theological position."

I don't understand the connotation of "agree" in this context.

5. "The membership of the Assembly was heavily weighted towards the Presbyterians, but Oliver Cromwell was a Congregationalist separatist who imposed his doctrines upon them."

This is not a good sentence and it should be rewritten.

6. "Under the Act of Uniformity 1662, the Church of England was restored to its pre-Civil War constitution with only minor changes, and the Puritans found themselves sidelined."

What kind of "minor changes" were made?

7. The "Millennialism" is a pointless section without substance.

8. "But the sexualization of Restoration theatre ..."

Aside from the fact a sentence should not start with a disjunctive conjunction because there is no contrast if you do that and it's grammatically wrong, as well as a widespread bad habit, what is "sexualization" exactly?

9. The "Family life" section does not say much about marriage. Did Puritans only marry other Puritans?

10. "African-American and Indian servants were likely excluded from such benefits."

Were they typically or always excluded?

11. The "Education" section says "The Puritan model of education in New England was unique, with the possible exception of Scotland."

Unless I learned geography the wrong way, Scotland was never part of New England.

12. "The Plymouth Colony Puritans of New England disapproved of Christmas celebrations, as did some other Protestant churches of the time."

What's the reason? It would be nice if it was explained.

13a. "In fact, spouses were disciplined if they did not perform their sexual marital duties, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7 and other biblical passages."

How were they disciplined?

13b. "Puritans publicly punished drunkenness and sexual relations outside marriage."

How were they punished?

14. "The Puritan spirit in the United States" and "Historiography" are cryptic, unclear, academic in tone and they lack substance.

15. "William Laud was a crypto-Catholic ..."

What exactly is a crypto-Catholic?

16. Under the "Notable Puritans" section, the entries for James Noyes and Thomas Parker could be combined since they say essentially the same thing. If every bullet is dedicated to a single entry, it seems the same, then the two entries should be spread out.

ICE77 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)