Talk:Mayflower/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Naming

This is the exception that proves the rule for ship naming; Mayflower by itself overwhelmingly means the original ship, so it should get the plain article title. Stan 17:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Thomas Dermer Article

He paves the way for the Mayflower — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands?

Didn't the actual voyage start in Holland? I thought the original ship is actually there, not in America or the UK?

Nope. The voyage was initiated by John Carver who lived in Leiden, The Netherlands. He sailed, with about 35 people, to Southampton aboard the Speedwell. After arrival in Southampton both ships sailed for America.

Epiales 13:34 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a second Mayflower that sailed with Leiden passengers from London to Plymouth in 1629. But neither ship - nor any of the several other Mayflowers of the era still exists. Rmhermen 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogs

http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/pilgdogs.htm Grazon (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mayflower trip

Within wikipedia worldwide I found different dates concerning the trip of the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620:

September 06 till November 11, Old Style or the Julian Calendar

and

September 16 till November 21 New Style or the Gregorian Calendar.

TDK Boatman (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

changed "beings" to "begins" in "The known history of the farm begins in 1618..." NB Nbierma (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Passengers

This seems completely unnecessary to me, especially in the Passengers section: "The Mayflower landed in an area that John Smith had mapped on called New England. The Mayflower had landed in a place called Plymouth." 68.220.240.53 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed edits

24.22.155.78 added the following text to the article:

"The pilgrams (inspite of common belif) never intended to settle in virgina, most people aboard the mayflower weren't pilgrams but passengers along for the ride, to start tabacco farms in virgina. Obviously, these passegers were not happy at having been taken elsewhere, epcially to a shore with no prior english settlement to join. Rumors of mutiny quickly spread and to avoid a hostile situation the pilgrams created the mayflower compact."

He/she also added this [1] afterwards. I am removing both, but if there is any truth in the first edit feel free to re-merge with the article (in a more encyclopedic tone, of course) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland stop

The references for the stop at Renews are:

• [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

< this is a myth - there is no source material evidence to date - just locals 'cashing in' on the Mayflower 'brand name' -- all these refrences are nearly identical, indicating cut and paste replication> 66.30.252.172 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC) There is only the historical record of the Renews community which does not make it a myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.87.73 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Large iron screw

At one point, the ship's main beam cracked and had to be repaired using a large iron screw.

I've read that it was a printing press screw. Will look for proper citations. --Midnightcomm 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

John Alden

G.F. Willison in Saints and Strangers, p. 131, says Alden was hired by the Pilgrims to work as their cooper, not as a ship's crew member as the article claims. [ --68.163.147.144, 20:42, 20 November 2006 ]

22-November-2006: OK, I corrected the article "Mayflower" by stating "other hired personnel" and quoting text that John Alden was hired as a "cooper [barrel-maker]" plus added a footnote to an official source webpage describing records about the life of John Alden (at PilgrimHall.org). -Wikid77 12:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

There are clearly numerous places in this article that lack references. Why is the {{unreferenced|article|date=December 2006}} tag being removed? Please refer to WP:REF for clarification. Betaeleven 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Items are now referenced or removed. No need for the tag. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Who was the last person to die from that initial voyage? Montpierre en 07:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

answer: Pergrine White in 1704!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_White

66.30.251.176 02:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did they land?

The Pilgrims did not land at the tip of Cape Cod (Provincetown). Does anyone remember that they landed at Plymouth Rock (which would be present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts, which is not on the tip or Cape Cod). Plymouth, Massachusetts, is south of Boston, but it is not on the Cape. I am going to fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.130.131 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the article does not even state the correct county. The pilgrims founded Plymouth County, where Plymouth, MA is located. Cape Cod is Barnstabl County. They landed in, and founded, Plymouth (county and village-town-city), Massachusetts, not Cape Cod or Provincetown.

Yes, everything about Cape Cod is incorrect. Plymouth and Plymouth County are not on Cape Cod. They are on the South Shore or Boston.

No, it is all correct. Plymouth is certainly not on Cape Cod, but that was not the first landing site. The Mayflower first anchored in Provincetown Harbor at the tip of Cape Cod, and the Pilgrims subsequently explored parts of the Cape and actually had a skirmish with natives. It was a storm and native troubles that forced the Pilgrims to sail westward to Plymouth and its protected harbor. Plymouth was actually the second landing site, but is much more well known as that is where the settlement was established. Raime 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is all wrong. The Mayflower was the Mayflower and it will always be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.49.217 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pilgrims did indeed make landfall on Cape Cod where Provincetown now exists. There's even a spring on the Cape in the current town of Truro that's called "Pilgrim Spring" because that's the first fresh water source found by the Pilgrims upon landing in he New World. The place where Plimouth/Plymouth now exists is readily visible across Cape Cod Bay. They headed there next.

Guide’s Guide: The Province Lands: What the explorers discovered first were five Native Americans, who ran away too fast to be questioned. Next, they found a spring of fresh water - their “first New England water” which tasted better, they said, than anything they’d drunk in their lives. http://www.nps.gov/caco/planyourvisit/upload/FinalGGPlands.pdf

Pilgrim Spring Trail, Truro: ". . .Features: Path leads to a site representative of where the Pilgrims drank their first fresh water in New England. . ." http://www.nps.gov/caco/planyourvisit/upload/2009selfguidingrevise.pdf

Pilgrim Spring Trail and Small Swamp Trail: Pilgrim Heights, High Head Road. There is an interpretive shelter referencing the spring discovered by the Pilgrims (Pilgrim Spring), Pilgrim Land Sand Dunes, walking and hiking trails and picnic spots. http://www.guidebookamerica.com/gb/ma/cape_cod/area_guides/truro.htm

Pilgrim Spring Trail, Truro Virtual introductions slideshow: Explore some of the areas of the New World first encountered by the Pilgrims and learn about their first taste of fresh New England water. http://www.nps.gov/caco/photosmultimedia/upload/Pilgrim%20Spring%20trail.wmv

All the best, Wordreader (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Look here - http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/voyage7.php They landed at the Cape Cod Hook which is now called Provincetown Harbor. Mugginsx (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

When I was reading this article for a project I came across several words that are misspelled including hopeful (spelled in article as hopefull), young (spelled as yong in article), own (spelled as owne in article), and married (spelled as maryed in article). Unless a different dilect of English spells things this way these errors need to be corrected. I won't correct them for now until someone confirms they are spelling errors or they are truly supposed to be spelled this way. Xtreme racer 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The spellings are correct, they are transcribed from original documents from that time. They are quoted from their sources and this is why they are in italics. The "dialect" is old English, and many words were spelled differently at that time compared to "official" dictionary sources today. Reference the United States Declaration of Independence (as it was written http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence_(as_it_was_written) for more examples of these kinds of older spellings. Fjbfour 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, Massachusetts

The first sentence of the article originally read: "The Mayflower was the famous ship that transported the Pilgrims from Plymouth, England, to Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts (United States), in 1620." I changed it to: "The Mayflower was the famous ship that transported the Pilgrims from Plymouth, England, to Plymouth, Massachusetts (which would become the capital of Plymouth Colony) in 1620." The first link should go to the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, not Plymouth Colony. The town was the actual settlement where the ship landed; Plymouth Colony consisted of the town of Plymouth, as well as several other settlements in the region. The colony eventually consisted of all 3 Southeastern Massachusetts counties, so it is a little too vague to name as the exact landing location. Also, I left out the United States part becuase it didn't seem appropriate. The Massachusetts name is needed for disambiguation purposes, but should we really name the United States as the landing location, when the country didn't even come into existence until more than 100 years later? Raime 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some wording issues

Despite the fact that it is undoubtedly true, I find the wording of some of this entry to sound like something from a children's encyclopaedia.

The Mayflower was the "famous" ship that transported "the pilgrims"

Is the word "famous" really appropriate here? Also *THE* pilgrims? Which pilgrims? I know any American can tell you what "The Pilgrims" means to them, but there *are* other Pilgrims. 70.189.213.149 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either way on "famous", but I agree that the reference to "the" Pilgrims should be clarified. As a British reader, it's not at all clear: there have been pilgrims for thousands of years, all across the world. --AlexChurchill (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

September 6 or September 16?

I followed a link here from September 6, and this page says instead it left on September 16. The page for September 16 doesn't contain a mention of the Mayflower, but September 6 does. If the dates are "old style", should the links be changed to point to September 16? --AlexChurchill (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So much confusion over this. The introduction now gives both sets of dates. Old Style dating was in use: Sept. 6 sailing, Nov. 11 arrival (66-day voyage). The links for those dates point to pages that both now give the New Style equivalents. I am reluctant to list the sailing & arrival dates on the Sept. 16 & Nov. 21 pages as well, as it could open a rather large "Pandora's Box". (Should all older dates be shown both ways and linked in duplicate? Where would one draw the line?) However, it can easily be done if others deem it appropriate. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the linked date should be the one in use at the time, whether it was OS or NS. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Later Mayflowers

The Mayflower of Boston, in New England, laden with tobacco from Virginia was seized by the Spanish at Santo Domingo after a storm in 1653.

12 Feb 1675: Symon Corbin, grandfather of Francis Corbin (agent for Earl Granville in NC, 1749-59), was Master of ship Mayflower of London, to Newcastle, carrying 8 hhds. qt. 3,200 lbs. Virginian tobacco for William Hooker.

30 Apr 1677: In the Mayflower; William Eaton Master; for Ireland; Virginian tobacco. Johnc41 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone just vandalized the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.49.217 (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Since the Mayflower was British, shouldn't the dates follow the British convention and be named 6th September/ 16th September? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.89.250 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The governing policy is at WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. The article appears to be written in U.S.-style English, not U.K. style. Besides, this story is primarily rooted in American history. I see no compelling need or justification for changing the date format. Let's leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Other settlements

I removed the entire section "Other European settlements in North America" because it isn't relevant to this article much at all. It was tangential at best and did nothing to add to the reader's understanding of the Mayflower. Remember, the article is about the ship, not the Plymouth Colony, and not a history of colonialism in the Americas. If there is a concern that people may think the Mayflower brought over the first colony to the US, make sure the opening states that somewhere like "an early colony" with a link to the list of colonies in America or something like that. The extensive list of all the colonies that were established before Plymouth has nothing to do with the ship. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How exactly?

How exactly do you build an "accurate replica" (from Mayflower II section) when the "Details of the ship's dimensions are unknown" (from Ship section). Perhaps someone with a bit of knowledge in this area could correct this apparent conflict of information within the article? JonEastham (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this anomaly before I saw the comment. I agree that it needs to be corrected. The other strange bit in the article is the description of Jordans as a "Quaker village". At one time it was a stronghold of Quakerism, but that does not make it a Quaker village. The article on Jordans notes that the name "Mayflower barn" seems to have pre-existed the ship. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

THE MAYFLOWER [A COPY] WAS AT KANKAKEE ILINIOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.164.214 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious freedom????? They banned Christmas !!

The Pilgrims having outlawed celebration of Christmas, it was illegal to do so and penalties were imposed on those that did. This ain't religious freedom. Erroneous claim in the article that a basic study of theology debunks. JimmyIrvin 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

These folks were not allowed to pursue their religious beliefs as they saw them back in England. So, as they saw it, they were looking for religious freedom. There were other reasons for the move, though, like lack of available land and a recession in the textiles industry. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Mayflower voyage

Having read the article for the first time I see it, by ignoring the origins of the Pilgrim Fathers who travelled on the Mayflower, perpetuates the myth that the voyage started from Plymouth rather than Plymouth just being the final stop before heading out across the Atlantic.

The Mayflower and the majority of the group started out from Boston in Lincolnshire, hence the naming of Boston in USA, whereas Plymouth is the name given to the last and first landfalls.

Boston, Lincs should at least be mentioned in the article.

DickyP (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Philbrick

Philbrick is an outstanding scholar and his accuracy and balance have been highly praised by specialists in the field. See for example the highly favorable review by Kupperman, in New England Quarterly, Dec2007, Vol. 80 Issue 4, p701-703 or the New York Times review. Philbrick is a winner of the National Book Award for best history book -- all in all very serious RS that cannot be erased on whim. If an editor knows a refutation of his argument in a RS (I have not seen any such) he should ADD it to the coverage here. Do not erase. Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Voyage / post-voyage death toll

At first I thought there was a big discrepancy here. The second paragraph seems to say that 2 people died during the voyage: "...and after a grueling 66-day journey marked by disease, which claimed two lives, the ship dropped anchor...."

Later in the "Pilgrims' voyage" sections it says "When it ended, there were only 53 passengers, just more than half, still alive."

I then realized where my confusion comes from. The first section refers to the period before they dropped anchor, and the second talks about a disease outbreak during a period of months after dropping anchor but before moving ashore off the ship. So while the article is technically correct, referring to a "grueling 66-day journey marked by disease, which claimed two lives" seems a bit silly considering it was followed by a similar, even longer, period which must have been even more grueling and makes the voyages disease outbreak hardly worth mentioning by comparison.

I would suggest that mention of the at-anchor period and death-toll be included in that same early paragraph. One question that comes to mind, is whether the post-anchor disease outbreak can be considered part of the same outbreak that took two lives during the voyage. If so, and it seems likely, it might make sense to describe it this way which gives a good way to segue from the "grueling voyage" to the post-anchor-not-technically-voyage period.--Ericjs (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the page

I just wanted the head editors of the page to know that me and two other students from my English Literature class are going to be editing the page for a class project. We noticed that the page could use some work and we have a college library of reliable resources to use to add some unknown information to the page. If you have any questions you can contact our professor, his username is redcknight. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylordomenick (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I have done some general cleanup as detailed in the edit summaries. Many of your additions look like they could be direct, verbatim quotes from the cited sources. If so, they must be clearly identified as such with quotation marks and proper attribution. Brief quotes are generally acceptable, but longer ones may be removed as actual or potential copyright violations; to avoid this it is best to summarize the material in your own words. For more on the relevant policies, please read WP:Copypaste and Wikipedia:Sourcing#Verifiability and other principles. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We paraphrased as best as we possibly could but when it comes to certain facts such as the ship's dimensions, there is no way to really paraphrase numbers. I went through what we added and I don't really know what else can be done to make it look like our own words. You said that our work looks like it could be verbatim quotes, however we are all college students studying English, so we know all about plagiarism rules and I assure you that direct sentences were not taken directly from our referenced texts. I'm sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused the head editors of this page, we worked hard on our research and we would hate to see all of it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylordomenick (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reassuring message, and congratulations on your excellent work. Whenever a polished, lengthy and elaborate edit appears, full-blown and with no subsequent touch-up, it is apt to raise suspicions of cut-and-paste from elsewhere. I am happy to know you did your homework in advance, and that these high-quality additions need no quotation marks or other, more drastic attention. They are truly assets for the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Barn?

Wasn't the lumber from the ship used to build a barn? I've seen it on TV. --50.137.171.62 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Per the citation currently #12, that is speculation, at best, unsupported by evidence. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Eizabeth Hopkins

There is no record of her giving birth on the voyage. I believe Oceanus was born was the ship was anchored. (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Size of the Mayflower

This article goes with the 100 foot length number, but the true size and details aren't exactly known. Other sources use other numbers or simply say that the dimensions aren't known. The first source states that the ship wasn't really a tiny ship. At best, a statement that the ship's dimensions aren't known with precision applies. Here are a smattering of sources, but I can't vouch for their reliability:

- "Mayflower was a ship of 180 tuns. . .early 17th Century. A tun - spelled T-U-N - was a large barrel or cask for wine equal to double hogsheads (or 265 gallons). . .capable of carrying 180 of these large barrels fully loaded. So this was not a tiny ship as some authors in the past have indicated. In fact, she would have been one of the larger merchant vessels of her day." http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mosmd/#part2

- Gun deck, a.k.a. "tween deck", about 80 feet long with an extra 12 feet in the adjacent gun room = ~92 feet + thickness of the fore and aft ship walls. Is the bowsprit usually added in? If so, that will make the measurement longer. "width at the widest part was about 24 feet". http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/History/mflower5.php

- "The dimensions of the first Mayflower were 90 feet in length (12 Feet more than a tennis court), 26 feet in width, with a tonnage of 180." http://ncmayflower.org/ship.htm

- "Mayflower II is a square-rigged vessel that is about 25 feet wide and 106 feet long, displacing 236 tons of water." ["Plimoth Plantation's full-scale reproduction, Mayflower II, was built in Devon, England", "details of the ship, from the solid oak timbers and tarred hemp rigging to the wood and horn lanterns and hand-colored maps, have been carefully re-created. . ."] http://www.plimoth.org/what-see-do/mayflower-ii

- "The exact dimensions of the Mayflower are unknown. No contemporary pictures, paintings, or detailed description of the Mayflower exist today. However, the ship is known to have had a burthen of 180-tons. From this fact, experts in 17th century merchant vessel construction have estimated the size of the Mayflower to have been about 113 feet long from the back rail to the end of the bowsprit beak. The keel was about 64 feet and a board width of about 25 feet. For a look at the interior of the Mayflower, see the" [sentence stops here] http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ahopkins/cushman/mayflowe.htm

- "Did You Know? ['fun fact' at the bottom of the page] - The Mayflower was 90’ long, 25’ wide and carried its 102 passengers on a 66 day journey from Plymouth, England finally reaching Provincetown, Massachusetts on November 10, 1620." http://www.nps.gov/caco/index.htm

All the best, Wordreader (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Marriage to natives

There was some pilgrims who married the local natives. That should be included, as one of them ended up with the daughter of a Chief, a princess as it were. Kaiser Matias 03:32, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Location of the landing of the Mayflower

Please do not change the landing location. Please see Mayflower landing history at: Caleb H. Johnson, The Mayflower and Her Passengers (Indiana: Xlibris Corp., copyright 2006 Caleb Johnson), p. 143 and Eugene Aubrey Stratton, Plymouth Colony: Its History and People, 1620-1691, (Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing, 1986), pp. 406, 413

They landed at the Cape Cod Hook which is now Provincetown Harbour. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Is there any objection to my setting up automatic archiving for this page? Several posts are still here from 6 to 10 years ago, and the contents are getting needlessly long. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No objection here. Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. I will give it another day or two, then get those stale items cleared away and archived. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. At least, that should do it. P.S. It did. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hertz1888. Mugginsx (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Scope creep in article?

Since this article is about the boat itself, shouldn't that be the focus? Obviously it's realted to an important historical event, but that event is covered in detail elsewhere. It seems like the majority of the article is based on the Pilgrims rather than the boat. Additionally, some of the most basic infomration about the boat (e.g. that it was a galleon, etc) seems to be missing.

I'd recommend that the article be trimmed down and any extraneous information that's not duplicative of information from other articles on the Pilgrim's journey be added to those respective articles. Again, this is the article about the boat, not about the whole of the event. It certainly warrants a discussion of the context in which the boat is important; it just shouldn't be the focus or account for the greatest degree of length of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.238 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The quick answer as to whether it should be trimmed is no. The historic voyage is inextricably linked to the ship and to every American. Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is considerable scope creep and also some non-neutral language "with its tragic story of death and of survival in the harshest New World winter environment. The culmination of the voyage in the signing of the Mayflower Compact is one of the greatest moments in the story of America". That is clearly emotive and not objective 41.134.250.244 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cannons

what type of cannons were on the ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.135.35 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to get an exact number (or type) of cannon from any of my sources here as numbers of cannons differ from reference to reference. Author Nick Bunker in his Make Haste from Babylon seems to have it best -

7 cannons of long range

2-3 small cannons - known as 'stern chasers" for close range

Caleb Johnson, in his on-line work MayflowerHistory.com, has specifics on cannons but no real quantities

quoted from the Pilgrim effort to move guns from the ship to a fort made at Plymouth under The Militia and Fort

The largest was a minion cannon, which was brass and weighed about 1200 pounds, and could shoot a 3.5 pound cannon ball nearly a mile. They also had a saker cannon of about 800 pounds, and two base cannons that were much smaller, perhaps about 200 pounds and which shot a 3 to 5 ounce ball. Mugginsx (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Italics

To editor Mugginsx: Edit summary:

Undid revision 577516328 by Paine Ellsworth (talk) italics pr MOS and administrator

Would you please expound on your rationale for your revert of my recent italics expansion in the article? I tried to stick with the MOS where it guides us to italicize ship names in running text as well as in article titles. It seems odd to sometimes put "Mayflower" in italics and sometimes not. What administrator would suggest to do that? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was told it should always be in italics. I will check to see if there are any omissions. I made some additions a few hours ago. It think the administrator was either User:Orangemike or User:RHaworth. Mugginsx (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what puzzles me about your revert – I had already done that for you – why didn't you check that before you reverted my edits? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I will check the edit history but I believed that you inadvertently removed some italics. If that was not the case, my apologizes. Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Accepted with all due respect for you Mugginsx, and thank you for taking care of the Mayflower article! I would only ask that you be more careful with your reverts in the future. Experienced contributors who make good edits are not usually treated like vandals, okay? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You were not treated as a vandal. That would have described a completely different set of circumstances. I am however sorry if I made a mistake.Mugginsx (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that you did not have "vandal revert" in mind when you reverted all my MOS edits without checking; however, it does concern me that you made me feel as if I had vandalized the page, and that you might do it again to other contributors. None of us "own" these pages, Mugginsx; we are "involved editors" and "custodians" of the pages we watch. I only ask with all respect that you be more careful in the future, and that's all. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am not looking for an argument today but perhaps you are. I am too busy. Mugginsx (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, with that I would agree – you are too busy. Chou – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are ridiculous. Mugginsx (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Glorification of the United States

In particular, the second intro paragraph seems to delve into the mythology of America's beginnings, which focuses on the heroism of the settlers amidst the trials they faced and the nobility of the ideals upon which the United States was founded.

I am not a person who criticizes the United States more than the average person, but I think this type of glorification is unprofessional and violates neutrality in an article whose purpose should be to inform of facts, rather than transmit a political message. In particular, the expulsion and near extermination of the natives somewhat undermines the believability of this noble origin myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.148.213 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've removed the paragraph. As there's little in the body of the article to support/develop those assertions, per WP:Lead we should stick to the facts on the page. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 23:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the wholesale removal of this paragraph, or the hasty timing. One editor agreeing with another does not spell consensus, and two hours is by no means sufficient to allow for discussion. Something comparable to a week's time, perhaps longer, might be more appropriate. To keep or not to keep are not the only options; someone with the appropriate historical background might like to rework the paragraph to make it more neutral. There is room to at least mention and put in context the iconic nature of the voyage in American history, for which it shouldn't be difficult to find ample citations. I view the central tenet of the original comment as overreaction, as I'm not aware of the Mayflower passengers having expelled or nearly exterminated anyone. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal of this paragraph. Thank you for the notification of this discussion Hertz1888. In addition, I agree with all of your comments. The Mayflower experience is not mythical, it is based upon many documents written contemporaneously with the experience. Not only did the Mayflower passengers not exterminate anyone in their time, but lived, for the most part, alongside the Native American population in friendship while trading and learning from each other. See: articles Squanto and Massasoit and others Later conflict with the indigenous population are not attributed to the Mayflower passengers and their causes can be historically compared to those of many countries in the world. I added some references and will see if any more work needs to be done on this paragraph in accordance with your suggestions and Wiki guidelines. Mugginsx (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hertz1888 and Mugginsx, certainly it's a good case to follow bold, revert, discuss and now we're discussing. Given that there seems to be a general belief that newcomers find our talk pages too intimidating to navigate, (see long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Flow), I took the time to read the IP's comment, looked at the article, and agreed. Here's the paragraph I removed:

This voyage has become an iconic story in the earliest annals of American history with its tragic story of death and of survival in the harshest New World winter environment. The culmination of the voyage in the signing of the Mayflower Compact is one of the greatest moments in the story of America, providing the basis of the nation's present form of democratic self-government and fundamental freedoms.

Specifically, phrase by phrase, here are my objections, which to some extent have to do with the scope of article. Is the article about a ship or about Plymouth Colony? The paragraphs begins by saying: This voyage has become an iconic story. Okay, yes, probably true, but I'd suggest delinking iconic.

Then it says: in the earliest annals of American history. The phrase seems to suggest American history began in the winter of 1621-22. What about the voyages made by the Vikings in the medieval period, Christopher Columbus's voyage (though, unlike the Vikings, he didn't quite get to the mainland), and the slightly earlier voyages made to Jamestown, Virginia and Roanoke Colony? And clearly the continent was already settled by the Native Americans, and had been for tens of thousands of years, so it seems to suggest their history doesn't exist. Either it needs to be rewritten or removed.

Then it goes on to say: with its tragic story of death and of survival in the harshest New World winter environment. I'd suggest removing tragic and simply state that about 50 percent of the passengers didn't survive the first winter. But again, this is an issue of scope and I'd further suggest that material is better covered in the Plymouth Colony article. According to this article the passengers spent the winter on the ship but that information is contrary to what the diaries tell us: they were building houses as early as December and I think it was about January that the hall was built. Again, material for the other article, imo. The death and survival also belongs in the other article - the voyage was finished. The harshest New England winter environment is putting it a little strongly. In fact that winter was relatively mild, not a lot of snow, the harbor wasn't frozen, they were able to fell trees and build, etc., etc.

A ref (Bradford) has now been added to this statement: The culmination of the voyage in the signing of the Mayflower Compact is one of the greatest moments in the story of America, providing the basis of the nation's present form of democratic self-government and fundamental freedoms. But, Bradford simply describes the writing and signing of the Charter - which indeed was an important document but oddly not a lot of said about it here - as soon as they decided to build in Plymouth. We can't use Bradford to cite that the document provided the basis for the nation's present form of self-government. I think we should mention in this article the specific details from Bradford and then turn the implications and analysis over to be dealt with in the body the Mayflower Compact page. I also don't think this article suffers much from having that lead paragraph removed. Anyway, that's my reasoning. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, As an editor since 2008 with 24,533 edits, and creator of several articles which I am not even going to try to count, I do not understand what you are saying here. This article is about the ship and the historic voyage. As to one of them, my answer is: Not everyone reads every article on a subject. If you wish to read more about the Mayflower Compact please look at the article with that name. It is linked in blue for that exact purpose. The Mayflower Compact is mentioned briefly because it was signed on the ship toward the end of the voyage. Also, why would you want to de-link "Iconic". The purpose of linking is for persons who may not understand what a word means. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. The rest of your objections I will look at one to one but the article is referenced appropriately and the wp:Scope is appropriate. If you understand the American Constitution you will understand the statement about the Mayflower Compact. The Vikings remark....really? I don't know what to say about that. Bradford is the author of the account of the voyage and I does not confirm any facts about the comparison of the Mayflower Compact to the United States Consitution. I see that Bowman is already in place to reference that statement.Mugginsx (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mugginsx per WP:BRD I boldly deleted a paragraph, Hertz1888 reverted my edit, and I made a thoughtful comment explaining my reasons. Before I commented I checked Bradford and various other sources I have at hand. You've made what I think are a couple of fairly rude replies, here, which was then refactored here. It's probably best not to refactor and best not to personalize. If someone else wants to join the conversation, I think that would be a good idea. As it now stands, the second paragraph could do with a rewrite. But I don't want to get into a long and acrimonious talk page discussion which does nothing but prevent improving the material under discussion. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you found my remarks inappropriate. After re-reading them, I will attempt to make myself clearer. I am a direct person and find that to be the best way to communicate. If you found my remarks rude, you have my apology. I do believe that before removing any material you MUST have a WP guideline which substantiates your reason for removal. At least that has always been the way it has been here at Wiki as long as I have been an editor. So far, you have no consensus to remove the material. I welcome any other editor to comment here. Lastly, I am allowed to re-factor my comments until they have been answered, at which time I would have then drawn a line through them.Mugginsx (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I got many edit conflicts Mugginsx and gave up because I had work that needed to be finished. Anyway, the paragraph, that was only gone for an hour or so, has now been rewritten. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am the anonymous reader who submitted the initial criticism. I will admit to being somewhat intimidated by talk pages. However, I must stand by my position that the paragraph in question violates neutrality. Even acknowledging that no individual Mayflower passenger massacred the natives, they were nonetheless among the first waves of a population transfer that was predicated upon the removal of the natives (who I do not think would consider this event to be "great.") The most egregiously partisan phrase is obviously "one of the greatest moments in the story of America." The previous commenter was absolutely correct in pointing to the centuries of American history before European colonization. Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia's place to indicate what is and is not "great," although the simple addition of "it is considered to be..." would accurately show the importance of the story within American culture, while maintaining this institution's vital neutral stance. I only present these criticisms because of my respect for the institution of Wikipedia and the plethora of knowledge that it has brought me. Finally, I do accept that debate and due process must be carried out before a decision is taken, and also that- as another commenter put it- the "wholesale removal" of this paragraph is not necessary. It simply and quite apparently needs a serious rewriting.68.112.148.213 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the linking of "iconic" and the reference to a questionably relevant "source" actually amplifies my feeling that this is a debatable political position that requires defending even through unconventional means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.148.213 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a try. You can always open an account too, which makes it easier to navigate and watch articles. Any questions you might have can be directed to any editor here. Simply click "talk" after their signature and you'll be taken to an editor's user page. Welcome. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As you are unaccustomed to talk pages at Wikipedia, might I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In there it states this is not the place for personal views on or off the subject. In fact, this section title 'Glorification of the United States' is inappropriate for the same reason. This article is about the Mayflower journey. It is part of the history of England, Holland and the United States. But the point that the lead needed some neutralizing was warranted and I made a few changes to satisfy that issue. The link to the word iconic is to define it for anyone who is unfamiliar with the word. It's use seems perfectly acceptable and paraphrases correctly several of the authors cited in this article. This article is based on sources, not editorial opinions. The Native American populations and how they were later affected is not the topic of this article and falls outside its scope. There are several other articles here that discuss these issues, at least in part. You might want to do some searching for those articles and see if you have anything you might want to add from reliable published sources. Rus793 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rus793, thanks for the rewrite. I'd suggest we tone down greatest moments in American history unless the source specifically supports it and then it can be attributed. Also, I'd just like remind you that we try to avoid biting newcomers. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral on 'greatest moments in American history.' Yes, this and other sources do support this statement but I'm not sure it's that important a point to make in the lead of this particular article. I double-checked the cited journal article to make sure text-source integrity was maintained and the current edit is OK as-is. Rus793 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

While the rewrite does satisfy my initial complaint, I don't appreciate your needlessly patronizing tone or your attempt to delegitimize my entirely justified criticism by dismissing it as a "personal opinion." It was an assessment of the standards of Wikipedia's content and has every right to be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.148.213 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Can somebody change the hyphens in the infobox to en dashes to conform to WP:MOSDASH please. 86.146.160.217 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Build date

This BBC article gives a built date as "believed to be 1590", citing the project currently underway to build a replica. Is this good enough to use in the article? Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as you give the reference. Mugginsx (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of old-style dates

The new-style dates, e.g., November 11/21, 1620, have been removed. In the first place, they were all incorrect since there is an eleven-day separation between old- and new-style dates, not just ten days. Also, the New Year fell on March 1st in the old-style calendar and on January 1st in the new-style. This means that for all dates between Jan. 1st and Mar. 1st, the old-style year is one less than the new-style year. For example, in the Ben Franklin article, we see his birth date given as O.S. January 6, 1705 and N.S. January 17, 1706. These date notations didn't really become important until the 1700s when the dates were actually and officially changed. If, however, editors deem it important to show both O.S. and N.S. dates in this article, then ALL the dates should be altered for consistency. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will check the references I gave for the dates but if everyone wants to change it, and provide acceptable references for the changed dates, its OK with me. Right now, they are a mess. Mugginsx (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

At risk of sounding patronizing and not meaning to, so far it looks like you've done a good job. Not sure what you mean by "a mess"; however, if the day dates are questionable, then they can usually be changed to the "month, year" format without losing anything important, such as:

• "on April 17, 1604." → "in April, 1604."

That would usually suffice, wouldn't it? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the sheer number of Mayflower and Mayflower-related articles. You, too do a good job and if noone else has a problem with the dating then neither do I, but you must use your references which states the dates you entered because mine stated what I put in the articles. Mugginsx (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If those sources gave you dates that were only ten days apart, then they were not reliable, because by definition the separation between old-style and new-style dates is eleven days, and in some cases the year changes as well. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What book shows your version of the dates? I'm just wanting to be sure before I have to back and change the places where it states differently. I haven't checked lately but I believe it is - or was in most of the Mayflower and Mayflower passenger articles under a paragraph which briefly describes the voyage. That is many articles. Mugginsx (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources in the Old Style and New Style dates article in both the Cultural references section and below that in the Notes and references section. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 08:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check them out.Mugginsx (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Mayflower passengers were not Puritans

The article should be changed so that it doesn’t refer to the Pilgrims as “Puritans”, which is a mistake: There were 104 passengers on the Mayflower and only four of those were ever considered Puritans, but that consideration was more than a decade and a half before the Mayflower set sail. That’s four “one time” Puritans out of one hundred. The Pilgrims and Puritans were very different, the Puritans kept the faith and stayed with the church in order to purify the church. The Pilgrims were not “pure” enough for the Puritans and left — to get away from the Puritans and the rest. The Pilgrims were considered a relatively tolerant group, at least more tolerant than the church they separated from, the Puritans were less tolerant than the church. The Pilgrams landed on Plymouth rock and formed their own colony. The Puritans arrived a decade later, brought their version of the church with them, and they formed The Massachusettes Bay Colony — completely different from the Plymouth Colony. The Pilgrims had a rather positive experience with the idiginous population, the Purtians had a very bad time. The Puritans hunted witches, the Pilgims did not. The confusion did not start with Wikipedia, and it has been studied as a phenomenon: Why is it that people want to mix the two groups into one lump? There are tons of reliable sources. Here are a couple of links. [12], and [13]. There are sources (including possibly the touristy sources that have been used as references for this article) that repeat the mistake, so it’s important to use the most reliable sources. StBlark (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Typo under "General layout"

In the section "General layout" the second link is misspelled--the word "spritsailin" should read "spritsail in", and "in" should be removed from the link. (Once the typo is corrected, this Talk section can be removed.)

Done! Barklerung (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)