Jump to content

Talk:Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.44.242.105 (talk) at 01:30, 10 February 2023 (→‎Specific ethnicity of the pilgrims, germanic or celtic?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.226.203.216 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You seem to be doing whatever you can to avoid signing your posts  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.184.25 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I edit Wikipedia for a living, accounts are free. You should pay attention to the header on every page you post on which says "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (SteveCrook (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC))" -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, reverting to insults. That's a sure indication of giving up  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Encyclopedia

I see that the quote from the (American) Columbia Encyclopedia has been commented out (but not deleted). What do people think of that? The quote says that they were "not actively persecuted, the group was subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors." Yes, they were fined and even imprisoned if they didn't pay their fines, some were even executed for unrelated reasons. But is that being "actively persecuted" or just getting people to obey the law of the land. They were free to leave at any time (that they weren't in prison). Which citations are the more believable? Should both be included to open out the discussion and to get people to realise that it's not all one-sided? -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

poor sources

This article states that:

"While seeking religious freedom for their own group, the Pilgrims exhibited intolerance to other faiths.[1] Despite the narrative of people being free to practice their own faith being described as "an American myth" by historian Kenneth C. Davis, the Pilgrims story became a central theme of the history and culture of the United States.[2]

The sources listed are an article from the newspaper "The Guardian" and Kenneth Davis "an historian". The Guardian article is so biased it should cause embarrassment for any editor here who really thinks Wikipedia should be NPOV. It is also inaccurate regarding the treatment of Catholics in the U.S. who faced as much discrimination as anyone else not of the Protestant faith. Race has always been a more important factor than religion in the U.S. in terms of discrimination and if you were white and Catholic you had it easy compared to anyone who was black. The Irish have fared very well here.... better than in England. In addition Kenneth Davis has also been criticized for promoting his own opinion in his books. You need better, more reliable sources to assert that the Pilgrims were not tolerant of other faiths. They may not have been, but the sources cited here are not scholarly and are clearly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified Lack of Native Resistance and Incomplete History of Peace Treaty

In the settlement section, the statement "With the local population in such a weakened state, the colonists met no resistance settling there." does not have a citation and follows a section that implies the local population was long gone anyways. It is confusing that if there is no population that you would refer to it as weakened. There needs to be consistent presence or not of a native population there and the conclusion that there was no resistance needs to be cited.

Further in the settlement section, a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit is mentioned with a noticable lack of history or context of the pilgrim and Massosoit history and interactions. The section feels incomplete without more details about the communication and the backstory of pilgrim and native relations.

Meliasimpkins (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page

This page was at one point titled "Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)." Many links still point to that and are now redirected. I'd like to suggest here that the page be moved back to that title for several reasons.

  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled according to the term most commonly used today. I noted in the edit history that it was changed because the Pilgrims were "historically" known as the "Pilgrim Fathers." Actually, I have most commonly seen the one-word term "Forefathers" in 19th century writings. But today, they are called Pilgrims. That's the common term.
  • Along the same lines, "Pilgrim Fathers" is vague to most readers. "Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)" is quite clear.
  • Last, let's face it, "Pilgrim Fathers," from a literal standpoint, is inaccurate and its a loaded term. The settlers included women.

Will await any comments before putting in the request. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Pilgrim Fathers was a poetic term in the 19th century, but not the most common name. Today it is a huge anachronism.Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2017

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: moved to Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). No one has explicitly opposed the move and everyone who discussed the plural issue agreed it should be Pilgrims. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Pilgrim Fathers → Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony) – See above reasons posted a week ago with no comments or objections. This page used to be called Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony). Pilgrim is the Common Name, not Pilgrim Fathers. "Plymouth Colony" distinguishes the page from the more general page for religious pilgrims. "Pilgrim Fathers" may be used in the U.K. but this article certainly bears greater significance in the U.S. as the Pilgrim story is one of the core stories of the founding of the American colonies and by extension, the U.S. Also, Pilgrim Fathers is archaic and factually incorrect--the settlers included women and children. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, of course. "Pilgrim" is the common name, and 'fathers' leaves out the women and children who arrived on the shores as Pilgrims. This likely could have been moved as uncontroversial. Randy Kryn 15:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's certainly not uncontroversial, since Pilgrim Fathers is still very, very common, especially in the rest of the world. Most of us non-Americans still refer to them as the Pilgrim Fathers, not the Pilgrims (and probably wouldn't have a clue who the Pilgrims even were!). Of course, it's an American topic and American usage should therefore probably be primary, if Pilgrims is indeed the commoner American usage (except that the current title avoids disambiguation, so is neater). But uncontroversial, obvious or clear-cut? No, certainly not! We're also talking about a group of people as a group here, so surely it should be Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I acknowledge the broad use of "Pilgrim Fathers" in Europe. But also agree that this is primarily an American topic. "Pilgrims" is the term in the U.S., and one virtually every American schoolchild would be familiar with. I suggested "Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony)" because that was the former name and that's where hundreds of wikilinks now point (and are redirected). But I agree it should be plural "Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)" if it's not too cumbersome to do another redirect.--Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects aren't a problem, as some seem to think they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and Randy Kryn. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minor clarification on terminology: the term Pilgrim Fathers is not "factually incorrect," although it might be seen as "archaic" by our gender-sensitive generation. But it is merely a (former) turn of phrase akin to "Founding Fathers," and is not intended to ignore women and children. I also am not clear on why it needs to be moved, but if it is moved, I concur that it needs to be Pilgrims plural; the singular somehow reminds me of John Wayne. —Dilidor (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "Pilgrim" seems archaic. They were not pilgrims. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mayflower Puritans saw themselves as pilgrims and, therefore, used the term to describe themselves. See William Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation. —Dilidor (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term Pilgrim is pervasive in present-day popular culture, as well as textbooks. It is definitely current and widely recognizable in the U.S.--Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many legitimate words and phrases are misnomers. Positive and negative electrical charge were named 20 years before the electron was discovered, which is why electricity flows "the wrong way." Amerigo Vespucci never discovered America, but we have two continents named after him. The Germans have never called themselves Germans; that was just the name of some tribe the Romans encountered. That's how language works. As Wikipedians, it is not our task to reform the English language. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). Plural is correct here. Also, they viewed themselves as pilgrims and every individual who attended any primary school in the States would know what you were talking about when you say "the Pilgrims." Hell, they might not know any other sense of the term. Its clearly the common name used for a primarily American topic. Let's use common sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References to Indigenous people

There are repeated instances in the unquoted text referring to indigenous people as 'Indians.' This is no longer an acceptable scholarly term, and it would be appreciated if this term was avoided here and in similar articles in future unless included in a direct quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.29.154 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the States it is still an acceptable scholarly term, and it's the term that many, many of those from the tribal communities themselves use when referring to Indians generally (as opposed to their own specific people). Canadian history runs parallel with US history and mirrors it in many respects, yet at the same time, our presents are the direct product of our pasts, and what is true regarding relations with the indigenous peoples in one country is not likely relevent in the other. Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory Language and personal insults

@Dilidor: I would caution you to exercise restraint and maturity, and not use accusations and inflammatory language in your revert marks as you have done here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)&diff=912588471&oldid=912195131. I advise you that the language used in my edit was taken from the source (citation)https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pilgrim-Fathers. The only change I made was to refer to the Brownists as a sect, whereas the EB says radical faction of Puritanism. The rest of the paragraph you reverted was factual information and not a rant. For some reason you are too sensitive to the subject and thus become over emotional and inflammatory. If you want to discuss this on the Administrative Noticeboard.I am ready I think it would be better if we had a civil discussion, including maturely discussing our concerns and objectives.Oldperson (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Revert

@Dilidor: I object to your recent revert. You did not read the citations ,apparently. For instance this citation mentions that they called themselves Saints
https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/mayflower%7Ctitle=The Mayflower, This citation mentions that they were a radical faction https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pilgrim-Fathers and yes they did stop short of their destination because they ran out of beer. Beer was not what you or moderns think of, an evil alcoholic brew, it was life sustaining potable liquid and in fact. as Benjamin Franklin attested to in a previous edit which you also reverted, was actually made of vegetables as well as grain, in fact he reported sampling some 75 different varieties of vegetation based beer, also cited in that earlier edit which you reverted.
Please check citations before reverting. I only post edits which are supported, and I strive to edit from a NPOV. ThanksOldperson (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war being conducted by user

User: Wikiuser100 is conducting a revert war concerning insubstantial edits which add nothing of value to the introduction, but which do break the proper formatting of bold-facing the article title. This user has also refused to bring his rationale to open discussion here on the talk page. —Dilidor (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dilidor, this preemptive strike here at the Pilgrim talk page is outrageous. You know all of this to be bold faced lies.
You are the one who started the edit war. I did not revert any of your edits. I simply capitalized an errant lowercase P in the lead sentence, and subsequently aacepted the edit of another contributor.
This has all been outlined clearly in my edit summaries, as anyone can see at the History page, and in the edit warring template I placed on your talk page on November 8 and referenced in the edit warring template I placed there earlier today, November 12, before you thought you could gain sympathy by striking here at the talk page as if none of this had been established.
I did not even know you existed when this began. Rather, when you began your reverts of my edit(s) and commenced this edit war.
I welcome an administrator to come here and verify the accuracy of my statements above, and put an end to this nonsense you are instigating here, and disruptive reverts at the Pilgrim page.Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser100: You apparently do not have a grasp on the proper way to resolve disputes—which begins here on the talk page, when one editor starts a discussion concerning that dispute. This is not a "preemptive strike" (whatever the hell that is), it is not "bold faced lies", it is not an attempt to "gain sympathy," and it is anything but "outrageous" to start a discussion. Here. On the talk page. It's how it works. —Dilidor (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilidor and Wikiuser100:I've seen this argument on ANI. I think that Wikiuser is expressing is frustration. You and I have had our issues,and apparently will in the future. I respect you as an editor, but do believe that when it comes to some subjects you have myopia,it can be said that we all do. Your edit summaries have left a lot to be desired, although you have improved lately, but you do appear to have an aversion to resolving issues, and justifying your edits and reverts on talk pages. There is,I have observed, an institutional reluctance in America, to defend oneself, their position, POV, and worse to admit error or wrong doing, and that impedes the production of a reliable encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 00:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim mythology

Dilidor I am not going to edit war over it,but the fact is that the so called "Pilgrim father" store is really that of a childs tale to an exageration of reality. As you know they didn't call themselves pilgrims, they call themselves saints,a and they were only about 1/3 of the complement of the Mayflower. As you stated it was Bradford who wrote in his diary that they were pilgrims. And as religionists, they were even more intolerant in their doctrines and practices than the Church of England. Their legacy the Salem witch trials, amongst other things. The Puritans were in fact a theocratic state and Roger Williams left to found a state free of {religion. And yes, Massachussets did have to reform itself and rid to be admitted to the union, even Ben Franklin fled Boston for the freedom of thought of Philadelphia, because Massachussets was theocratic, and Finally the only reason the Mayflower stopped in Mass. bay was because they ran out of beer. As you know the only potable liquid was beer, and beer could be made of almost any vegetable. In fact Ben Franklin found 75 different kinds of beer. If it could be fermented it could be made into beer. So why do you object to these verifiable and verified facts?Oldperson (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. When have I "objected to" the disparate things that you mention above? —Dilidor (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The various edits of mine that you have referred to above Dilidor, were reverted by you, this includes the mention that the pilgrims were a minority of the Mayflower manifest, that they called themselves saints, that they stopped at Massachussetts bay on the way to the mouth of the Hudson river because they ran out of beer (potable liquid), all of those are facts from RS, all of these facts have been reverted by you. I hope that refreshes your memory. I will be glad to spend the time to post diffs. Fact is I fail to understand the problem with including such facts in the lead and articleOldperson (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 100 - citation for verfication?

In the section "Arrival in America" it reads: " William Brewster led them in reading Psalm 100". This is not supported by the noted sources [Bradford and Winslow]. Do other sources support the scene of Brewster praying the psalm 100 or is it a myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D0:970B:8701:4999:8F13:F75B:A06D (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrival in America" the date for sighting landfall is incorrect.

In the section "Arrival in America" the date for sighting landfall is incorrect. Also, the painting, 'Landing of the Pilgrims' by Michele Felice Cornè, circa 1805, may need to be scrutinized. The ship does not appear to be the Mayflower, rather it's an 18th century British warship flying Royal Navy ensigns. Also, the small boat does not match any boats from the Mayflower and, there are British marines in the landing party. JohnPCrawford (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) John Crawford[reply]

Notational clarification needed

This may be clear to readers more acquainted with these details than I, but it was and is unclear to me. In the article, "... the ship was anchored in Provincetown Harbor by November 11/21.[1][2]" made me wonder "what the heck does 11/21 mean? A quick look at the cited source which can be seen online did not clear that up for me. Digging around, I found "THE MAY-FLOWER AND HER LOG", Project Gutenberg's The Mayflower and Her Log, Complete, by Azel Ames, where I see: "Saturday, Aug. 12/22. Made port at Dartmouth MAY-FLOWER in company. Came to anchor near MAY-FLOWER." I don't understand the similarly confusing notation there saying 12/22, but it seems to conflict with 11/21. Also, I see similar notation elsewhere in the article (e.g., "They resumed exploration on Monday, December 11/21") which I don't follow.

Please clarify this. If this is a common notational convention which is understood by those properly clued-in, a clarifying footnote with a clue for readers not in that group might be helpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bradford_1_8-9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Winslow & (2003), p. 64.

“one shilling (£0.05; about £20.00 today)”

This expression, cited right before footnote number [5], seems anachronistic, given the decimalization of the pound sterling only in 1971. Would it not be better to express it this way: one shilling (12 pence; about £20.00 today)? 173.243.188.17 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific ethnicity of the pilgrims, germanic or celtic?

Has there been any ancestry DNA test done on Pilgrims remains to figure out what their real ethnicity was? 50.44.242.105 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)&oldid=1138504301"