Talk:Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)

Thanksgiving and the conception of a government for the people

I just deleted this section. I read it last night and was surprised that it wasn't a recent edit/vandalism. The whole section was full of opinion and didn't address the issues indicated in the title. There was little regarding the issue of governmental developments and neither the context nor history of Thanksgiving were addressed at all. The content that was deleted might have a place within a section focusing on the religious/cultural motivations but is still inappropriate in tone/wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duralphi (talk • contribs) 00:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I completed the removal of the problematic edits by Finder Ed. The remaining text was also unencyclopedic and mostly original research. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. – It was indeed a recent edit (on October 25). General Ization ^Talk 00:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, although I am a frequent wikipedia consumer, I have not edited articles on wikipedia before. My daughter asked a question about the pilgrims that I didn't know the answer to and while we were looking up the answer, I found the bizarre "Thanksgiving and the conception..." section. I looked at the "view history" tab and didn't see any recent changes... but for all I know I was looking in the wrong place. Thanks for fixing what I missed. --Duralphi

Edit: I was doing it wrong (looking in the wrong place). In the future I'll look in the correct place and actually delete all the inappropriate edits by the offending editor. Thanks again, --Duralphi —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Not Actively Persecuted"

This part of the separatist section confuses me. The section goes into detail about how the separatists were forced to pledge allegiance to the Church of England under penalty of fines, and how some ministers were executed for not complying. Then at the end there's this quote saying they "weren't actively persecuted"... isn't it one or the other? The last part sort of goes against the whole section.

It's the difference between them being actively persecuted and being "subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors." -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Being executed doesn't count as persecution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B113:9790:0:6A:3E4D:BC01 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They were executed for sedition, not for being Protestants (according to the article). Do you know any more details of the reason why they were executed? The quote "Although not actively persecuted ..." is just a quote from the (American) Columbia Encyclopedia -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Persecution implies being attacked physically or verbally more than once. It's rare for people to be executed more than once  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It literally says in the article that they were fined and executed for not pledging allegiance to the Church of England. It doesn't matter if they call it "sedition", it's pretty obviois it's based on religion. If the UK would start executing Muslims for not pledging allegiance to christianity, it would be considered persecution. It's pretty persistent if they're doing it to multiple people.

You realize an encyclopedia isn't a good source, right? It can be used, but in cases where it contradicts more reliable sources, why use it? Why are you so insistent on pushing this POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B113:9790:0:6A:3E4D:BC01 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Literally?  :)
It actually says "The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593." they are two separate sentences -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fine. How is "imprisonment and larger fines" for "conducting unofficial services" not persecution?

You seem to be doing whatever you can to avoid direct conversation about the subject. If your beliefs are so flimsy why are you insistent on pushing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B01A:9349:0:6C:D9FF:BD01 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be doing whatever you can to avoid signing your posts  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit wikipedia for a living, brother. I don't have an account. I don't see how that's even relevant.

I don't even know why I bothered talking to you. It's clear from the archive that you won't accept any version of reality that doesn't align with your laughable POV. The funny thing is, you don't have any sources that support your actual viewpoint on the pilgrims so you obsess over one line from a fucking encyclopedia article that maybe vaguely supports your general attitude.

Hey, if anyone else reads this: letting idiots like this control your page is a really bad idea.