Talk:Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
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 original research. General Ization Talk 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC) by Finder Ed. The remaining text was also unencyclopedic and mostly
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
- 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)
- Ah, reverting to insults. That's a sure indication of giving up :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
This article states that:
"While seeking religious freedom for their own group, the Pilgrims exhibited intolerance to other faiths. 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.
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
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.
- 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)