Talk:Messenger of Peace (missionary ship)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Messenger of Peace (missionary ship) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Polynesia: Cook Islands Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Messenger of Peace (missionary ship) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 May 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the missionary ship Messenger of Peace (pictured) was built in 15 weeks using scrap metal, ropes made of hibiscus, and sails made of matting?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Messenger of Peace (missionary ship).

Wikipedia

Should the islanders written about in this article be described as "heathens"?

This article originally included the following wording: "[Williams] arrived in Rarotonga in 1827, while there heard of other heathen islands in the vicinity" and "In mid 1830, the ship visited Samoa, where they were well received by the Samoan heathens". This wording was removed by Geopersona as inappropriate, but restored by Broichmore. I also believe this wording is inappropriate for Wikipedia's voice and removed it again. Broichmore reverted a second time, saying that the wording is not derogatory but rather "the voice of the period".

I believe that we should not describe the islanders as "heathens" in Wikipedia's voice. Google's definition of "heathen" identifies it as a derogatory term. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term is "an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible". However, the derogatory connotation of the term is shown in the second usage: "an uncivilized or irreligious person". Do other editors have any thoughts on this? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geopersona: Pinging you again since you had originally reverted—do you have any comment? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Broichmore had linked heathen to paganism, I was happy with the wording before today. But I hope people will agree that this edit makes it clear that the word is being used in the voice of the period. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem. William Carey (missionary),wrote An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. (1792; repr., London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1961) He was a Particular Baptist and here we have a Congregationalist- but the principle remains the same. Baptist Missionary Society was of course called the Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Amongst the Heathen. ClemRutter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm acutely aware that a word can have different meanings within different sections of society, and Wikipedia reaches across so many sections of society! It does though get problematic when words have had different meanings at periods through history, sometimes markedly so, at other times in a more nuanced manner. A key test is whether today's reader of the article might be misled by what is written - words should generally be used according to their modern meaning but an explanation can be useful for the casual modern reader if using an historical quote. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]