Talk:Stephen Sayre

A fact from Stephen Sayre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the American merchant Stephen Sayre (pictured) was committed to the Tower of London on charges of plotting to kidnap King George III?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/July.

Wikipedia

Biography: Politics and Government

	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 is supported by the politics and government work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Rochford[edit]

A fascinating article! Were Lord Rochford and William Nassau de Zuylestein, 4th Earl of Rochford one and the same person? (Nobility confuses and I wouldn't dare wikilink unless confirmed) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nary an inline cite of any kind to be found... Ling.Nut 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so what? Who said that inline citations are a boon for an encyclopaedia? How many inline citations the Britannica has? The article is very competently written, does not contain any controversial claims, that's all that matters here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has paid contributors, rigid quality controls, and more importantly, absolute control over the final product. Wikipedia has... the need for inline cites. But whatever. Ling.Nut 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Britannica has less questions of legitimacy than Wikipedia. I'd agree that in-line citations would be great. There are already page numbers cited here so it wouldn't be terribly difficult. I also agree with the first editor above that this is quite an interesting article. --Midnightdreary 03:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An American?[edit]

Am I missing something here? Surely he'd have been a Virginian, Marylander, or whatever before and during the war of Independence? Doesn't being an American follow only once the United States came into existence? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, British subjects in North America were called "Americans" before the formation of the United States. "American" didn't yet indicate a nationality; it was just a description. The Revolution changed the meaning. We see a glimpse of this change in 1774 when Patrick Henry famously exclaimed: "I am not a Virginian: I am an American." In his case, he didn't actually mean it—he remained steadfastly a Virginian to the end—but the process had begun. Unfortunately, the article American (word) does not yet adequately address the usage of the word in the colonial era and how it was transformed by the Revolution. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]