Talk:Pilgrims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Pilgrims falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Merge?

There are two articles that should be linked or combined:

• Pilgrims
• Pilgrim Fathers

and maybe linked to a third:

• Pilgrim

-- Heron

Pilgrim Fathers is just a redirect to Pilgrims, so there's nothing to combine. --Brion VIBBER

And Pilgrim is about the more generic pilgrim that makes a pilgrimage. Nothing directly to do with the Pilgrim Fathers SteveCrook 20:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What is that photograph of? What's the scale on that thing? Looks like a large stone on the ground, or it could be a pebble or a geographical feature. The caption could be improved, I feel. Lupin 15:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the scale given by the people? SteveCrook 20:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Were the Pilgrim Fathers ever really persecuted in England? Isn't that a PoV if it's presented without evidence? The English histories teach that they left, not for religious freedom, but because they thought the Church of England wasn't strict enough. The Columbia Encyclopaedia records "Although not actively persecuted, the group was subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors" SteveCrook 20:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In the England of that time, religion was much more an expression of politics than it is now. The English government was having to try to hold together people with a broad range of views. At one end of the scale were those inclined to be Roman Catholics and at the other end were the Congregationalists. Those at each extreme may have been inclined to see themselves as oppressed. Indeed, by modern British standards, they were but the political system was then still developing and had a long way to go. Even now, when society is under pressure, the political response is likely to restrict freedoms. (RJP 10:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

All true, but was there any actual persecution, as the article used to say before I modified it to "what they saw as religious persecution"? I just wanted to correct the often held view that they left to escape persecution and to seek "religious freedom". They really left more because their neighbours used to mock them and because the rest of the country wasn't strict enough, they wanted the "freedom" to be more strict in their views, not quite the same as "freedom to worship as you want" SteveCrook 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a topic of serious disagreement among historians and the article should reflect it. I object to this sentence in the article as it now stands: "They left, not for religious freedom, but because there was too much freedom of religion in England and they wanted it to be more strict." This is a gross simplification of historians' views on the subject and, I think, almost exclusively a British point of view.

That's why I cited the Columbia Encyclopedia to support it. So that people would realise it isn't just an exclusively a British point of view.

[edit] Hudson River near Virginia?

The article states:

"Their intended destination was a section of land in the area called Northern Virginia, granted by one of the Brewster family friends in the London Company. This grant would have placed them near the Hudson River."

Unless my geography's way off, the Hudson River is nowhere near Virginia. Perhaps the author meant the Potomac?

Critic9328 02:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Are they talking about the Colony and Dominion of Virginia rather than the current State(s) of Virginia? SteveCrook 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arrival in America

Someone has changed the date from 21 November to 11 November. This looks like a disagreement about the calendar being used. Do we not normally use the modern one? (RJP 17:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

I took out the 'local legend' stuff about the Pilgrims stopping at Renews Newfoundland - there is ZERO source material evidence for this myth.

[edit] Needs more information

After reading just some of this article I noticed huge details missing. Isn't there anyone that knows? I learned more than this in a once a week 8th grade history class. Some of the information is not even correct.BryanAtkinson 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to make any corrections/additions - but be prepared to have them disputed. SteveCrook 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] took out "tragedy of the commons" section

I removed this section because it was just as far off as the notion it was attempting to dispel. While it's true that the settlers were under contract to keep common property, it's also true that they did generally stick to that for the seven year term. There are still records (example) of the property divisions at the end of the contract.

(There were individual plots for the settlers, but only around an acre a head, good for a house and garden. That kind of thing was being done from the start.) --iMb~Meow 01:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leiden and america sections

I tossed up a not-verified tag as a general reader warning but do intend to fix those sections shortly. Right now it supplies the "pious" and "free speech" explanations, and both are dubious. (There is no doubt that Brewster got into trouble with his pamphlets, but that doesn't account for everyone else.) --iMb~Meow 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah, and the "poor economy" thing is weird. Leiden was prosperous, just without many opportunities for immigrant farmers who didn't speak the language. --iMb~Meow 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(more will be said of the press thing, but it's more of a sideline; Brewster didn't get into trouble with this until after the govt. had agreed in principle to let them go. --iMb~Meow 04:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] old conpiracy theories

I put some language in the article that perhaps overstresses the point that Mayflower was intentionally headed to an area outside the London Company grant. That's intentional, to counteract a widely repeated conspiracy theory put forth in the old Azel Ames history. Ames' conspiracy theory hinges on "the First (London) Virginia Company's charter, which embraced, as is well-known, the territory between the parallels of 34 deg. and 41 deg. N. latitude." The trouble is, that's the territory from the 1606 charter and was superseded in 1609. --iMb~Meow 04:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC). ..

[edit] Abrupt stop

This article seems to end rather abruptly with the establishment of the first houses; no mention of the first rough winter, nor of the subsequent assistance from the indiginous population, nor of the so-called "First Thanksgiving" which is celebrated in the U.S. every November. Powers ^T 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of that material is in linked articles, like Plymouth Colony and Thanksgiving. -Will Beback 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be under Plymouth Colony, but I think a link to same near the end -- so the user can follow the narrative chronologically -- might be in order. I should have checked at any rate. =) As for Thanksgiving, the word does not appear in the article at all. Powers ^T 01:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Compare this article with the conquistador´s one. Where is the neutral point of view?

[edit] Amsterdam and Leiden

There's an abrupt shift of focus when the article mentions arriving in Amsterdam, and then continues with circumstances in Leyden. There's some misunderstanding about the role of Amsterdam, which was actually quite small. Does anybody know enough of the issue to clarify things with a few words? Classical geographer 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)