Talk:Plymouth Colony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Plymouth Colony is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
United States flag This article has been nominated for Selected article, at Portal:United States.

Contents

[edit] Voyages of the Mayflower

The article talks about the Mayflower leaving for a second time. Was there a first time that it tried to sail to America? This is ambigious... --Clarkbhm 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't make it very far from England on the first two attempts. Actually, at the moment, this article isn't very informative at all. Bleh. --iMb~Meow 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The charter, and the storms

They had a charter to settle in a different area and were driven by storms to plymouth, the article makes it sound like they planned to land there the whole time, without a charter.

Yeah, I know. The story you mention is one of those things that "everyone knows" because it's what they were taught in school, but there's no basis for it.
Mayflower was by all accounts hired to go to New England (which in those days was everything north of mid-New Jersey), and the Scrooby gang's old patent (which was abandoned after they started to deal with Thomas Weston) didn't cover even the Hudson. The boat was headed to a place where they didn't have a patent, period, no accident, no conspiracy.
I've been filling out the Pilgrims article with detailed, referenced information about all this. See especially the "Cape Cod conspiracy theories" section there for the usual wacky stories and why they don't add up.
But the most important bit is that Bradford was very clear that Weston told them to go to New England.--iMb~Meow 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(Not putting this part in any articles, because it's just a musing on my part: I think that the accident/storm thing comes from a well-intentioned attempt to clean up the "pilgrim" story for children. It's inconvenient to suggest that these people did less-than-legal things, but they bribed their way out of England, Bradford was hiding from the law, amd one of the first things they did when they got to America was rob graves and houses. All that is left out of the traditional story too. --iMb~Meow 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Superlatives

The "Context" section says: "Plymouth was the second permanent English settlement in the Americas, the first being Jamestown, Virginia. Earlier abandoned settlements include the Popham Colony (present-day Maine), the "Lost Colony" of Roanoke Island (present-day North Carolina), and Cuper's Cove and Bristol's Hope in present-day Newfoundland."

But Jamestown was not the only settlement in Virginia. Plantations in Virginia were settlements, and essentially villages unto themselves, complete with cottages and streets for laborers, stores, taverns, etc. A few pre-1620 permanent English settlements other than Jamestown, which have wikipedia pages, include: Henricus, Shirley Plantation, Berkeley Plantation, Varina, Virginia, Wolstenholme Towne, and Martin's Hundred. There were many others. Some might not quite qualify as "permanent", but some do, and there are many others not on wikipedia.

I've noticed an abundant use of superlatives on wikipedia. It seems like everything has to be the first of something or other, or ranked in a list of superlatives (Plymouth being the second after Jamestown, for example). Usually if one digs a bit deeper, the superlatives turn out false or at best highly qualified. Often they are misleading, as in this case -- suggesting that Jamestown was the only settlement in Virginia before 1620. Pfly 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now the claim is "Plymouth was the third permanent European settlement in the Americas, the first being St. Augustine, Florida, settled by Spain, and Jamestown, Virginia also settled by the English." Which is even less true: Quebec City 1608; Santa Fe, New Mexico 1607-1610; Bermuda 1609; etc, etc. Pfly 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: fact tag at speedwell's intentional self sabotage

A recent editor added a fact tag at the speculation of Speedwell's self sabotage. The statement WAS REFERNCED twice: once in a contemptoray account (Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation") and in a modern account (Philbrick's "Mayflower"). This should have been clear from the Bradford quote and the TWO reference tags after said quote. However, I have added a multireference to make this MORE clear. The Philbrick reference now is directly where the fact tag was, and at the end of the paragraph to indicate that the entire paragraph is also referenced to that citation. If this is inadequate, I can enter the actual quotes from both Bradford and Philbrick in a footnote, though I would think that would be excessive. The Bradford reference specifically has a wikilink to a transcript of Of Plimoth Plantation where the acusations are made. Please, if this is not clear, and I need additional clarification, please let me know so I can dig out more sources on this. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That editor was me. That statement about the self-sabotage is just the kind of statement that could be challenged, so it should have its own note. It is hard for a reader to tell from your "end of the paragraph" notes what information was found where. Awadewit 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of two points questioned in the Landings section

  1. The Pilgrims had no patent to settle, so there was question on board the ship of where the authority to govern the colony would come from. The Mayflower Compact was drawn up to establish a principal of government.
  2. The Shallop was brought on board the Mayflower in pieces, having been built in England and dissasembled for transport. They offloaded the pieces, and rebuilt the boat. Since this was not a new boat built from new lumber, but a previously built boat that had been dissassembled, transported, and reassembled, I thought rebuilt was appropriate. I added some bits to clarify this point.

I hope that clears stuff up.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Just add something in to the text to that effect in both cases since it is unclear right now. Awadewit 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Squanto? No. Tisquantum

Why must we continue to use the ridiculously incorrect name Squanto when it is widely held in academic circles that the pronunciation of his name was actually much closer to Tisquantum? Continuing to call this man Squanto amounts to little more than preserving an historical inaccuracy. It seems clear that in order to present material as correctly as possible the name Squanto should be memtioned no more than once, in order simply to address the fact that it was never actually Tisquantum's name. Are we really interested in preserving historical errors? I should hope not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dblecros (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

All reliable, main stream, historical accounts of him call him Squanto, as do contemporary (i.e. 16th century) accounts as well. While all accounts usually drop the nugget of information that yes, his proper name in the local Wampanoag/Massachusett dialect was Tisquantum, I see no compelling reason not to call him by the name that every historical account does. The same goes for Massasoit (a title but not a name), King Philip (A name he chose himself, see Philbrick, to represent himself in official court procedings, and which historians invariably refer to him as, even though they all in passing mention that his born name was Metacom(et) ), Alexander/Wamsutta, Samoset, John Sassamon (whose Massachusett name escapes me as yet), and for that matter dealing with Miles vs. Myles Standish(for which there is no historical agreement on spelling, so just pick one and stick to it). Again, we can do no more than use the terminology used by reliable, mainstream sources. To report that Squanto's full name was Tisquantum may be appropriate; to ignore that all major historical and contemporary accounts call him Squanto is not.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map and 3 more towns?

Just a quick note to let folks know I'm working on a map. Based on initial research it looks like the towns of Falmouth, MA and Bristol and Little Compton, RI were incorporated while they were a part of Plymouth. Kmusser 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in June 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Otheus 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from the Copyeditor

After a rather lengthy hiatus (2 months, or about 12 years in terms of Internet age), I have resumed my proofreading of this article. It's in fine shape. I have some questions here, for those of you who are more up on the subject. Please see this diff and the comments therein: [1] thank you. --Otheus 14:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the points as you requested. Hope this looks better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth, Massachusetts

There should be a prominnet link somewhere in the introduction about the actual settlement and town of Plymouth outside of its listeing as "capital" in the infobox. The Pilgrims formed Plymouth as the original settlement of Plymouth Colony, and the modern town was the location of many of Plymouth Colony's historical events (i.e., Plymouth Rock and Pilgrims' landing, Thanksgiving). Shouldn't there be a link to the article about the town somewhere in the intro, let alone in the article? Raime 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed; I have added a sentence to the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly provides a link to Plymouth and differentiates it from Plymouth Colony. Raime 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Communism

While this section could become a very important aspect of the article, right now it needs some work. References to the history of the colony and of the life of William Bardford are not needed in detail in this section, as they are covered in previous sections of the article. I have thus removed them. Also, the extremely long quotes from "Of Plymouth Plantation" may not be necessary. The entire article does not have any long quotations such as these, but rather relies on summaries. Perhaps summaries of these quotes, rather than the quotes themselves, should be used. Furthermore, this section is in dire need of referencing and sourcing. While I do not necessarily advocate the removal of the Christian Communism section, it needs a lot of work. Raime 00:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the utter lack of references, it read like original research as well, and thus it can be removed without prejudice, which I have done. If references can be provided, and reputable historians can be cited in said references, then I have no problem with the section coming back. But as unreferenced original research, I see no reason to keep it at all. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
On further consideration, I believe you have certainly made the right move in removing the section. Raime 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a further note on descriptions of the religious nature of the group: It don't believe it's correct to say that the separatists were a sub-set of the Puritans. This section:

"The Pilgrims themselves were a subset of an English religious movement known as Puritanism, which sought to "purify" the Anglican Church of its secular trappings. The movement sought to return the church to a more primitive state and to practice Christianity as was done by the earliest Church Fathers. Puritans believed that the Bible was the only true source of religious teaching and that any additions made to Christianity, especially with regard to church traditions, had no place in Christian practice. The Pilgrims distinguished themselves from the Puritans in that they sought to "separate" themselves from the Anglican Church, rather than reform it from within.

might want re-writing to reflect what I think to be the more accurate statement that Puritans and Separatists were two kinds of dissenting, or non-conforming Christians in England at the time. When the Puritans left to go to the New World, in a sense they did separate themselves from the C of E physically, but their sense of mission was not to create a new church, as the Separatists held. When the two groups first met and interacted in New England, they carried their "inherited" or latent mutual suspicions with them and were reportedly uneasy or distant with each other at the outset. Shortly thereafter, the amalgam of beliefs that became the Congregational Way subsumed both, but the original relationship between them was not as represented.

I also think the "Christian Communisim" thing might be overstating things a bit, for one thing it's an anachronistic name by about two centuries; for another, the use of Acts 2 as a basis for decisions about property, etc., wasn't fully carried out where the use of Indian lands was concerned--in fact, native practices around sharing some lands was broader.

I would need to pull some references to support any of these statements, made offhand but based on researches into American colonial church and cultural history.168.122.12.202 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is really good information, but it needs sources. I think it could be a relevent addition to the article, as long as it a) has references and b) is kept short enough to not overweigh the other information in the article. The religion section would be a good place to add some of that information if availible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Condensing references

Has the use of {{rp}} been considered to condense the notes section? LaraLove 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of that template only moves the page numbers from the notes to the text; it actually makes it HARDER (in my opinion) to clearly identify the page numbers (since the numbers now float seperately from the reference they belong to) and makes the text sloppier. That template has limited use in cases where one SINGLE book makes up the VAST majority of refs (like 80-90%). In this case, where there are 3 books as major refs, 4-5 books also used, and dozens of websites, it wouldn't markedly reduce the notes section (might remove 20-30 lines) but would instead make the refs harder to follow and the text harder to read. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other British colonies

I'm trying to find out what articles Wikipedia has on other British colonies in the Americas. I found Thirteen Colonies and Category:Former British colonies, but does anyone know if a list of all the British colonies in the Americas exist? I would be looking for a list that included colonies such as Providence Island (the short-lived colony off the coast of South America). Does anyone know if such a list exists? Or a timeline showing what happened to all the different colonies? Carcharoth 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

British colonization of the Americas is the best I can find. Raime 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's perfect! Thanks. Carcharoth 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PLYMOUTH WAS NEVER A BRITISH COLONY! Britian did not exist until 1702, PLymouth was an ENGLISH colony as it never lasted till 1702. It is catigorized as a British Colony-which is incorrect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.167.119 (talk • contribs)
Yes, you're correct. I guess it is just a common misconception that is widely accepted as truth. Since England became a part of Britain, and British expansion continued, they are just grouped together, however factually incorrect it may be. Rai-me 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, British colonization of the Americas clears up the distinction between English and British fairly well. Rai-me 22:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wessagussett

In the article, is Wessagusset meant to be spelled Wessagussett about half the time and Wessagusset (one 't') the other half? Online references conflict, so it appears the two different spellings are legitimate or reference different entities. Even so, it looks like the versions incorrectly cross context one or more times in the article, as here where a sentence with one 't' spelling is sandwiched in a paragraph between two sentences with a two 't' spelling:

…a house at Wessagussett under the pretense of sharing a meal and making negotiations. Standish and his men then stabbed and killed the two unsuspecting Native Americans. The local sachem, named Obtakiest, was pursued by Standish and his men but escaped with three English prisoners from Wessagusset, whom he then executed.[41] Within a short time, Wessagussett…

Michael Devore 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed this. While both spellings are used in different sources, this document should be internally consistent. I went with the two "t" version. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

Just a suggestion... Editors here should consider nominating this article to be featured on the main page for Thanksgiving! See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. --Midnightdreary 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have LOVED to have done this. But the current request system makes actually MAKING a request impossible. Since only 5 requests are alowed at once, it is dumb luck that you can get a request on once a prior request is taken off. It would be a great idea, but in practice it is impossible to actually make a request any more. Maybe next year! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

How does one magnify the maps shown in these articles so they can be read? I tried to save them but the resolution is too low to allow magnification! 76.102.31.185 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on the map, then on the next page click "View full resolution" -- which should take you here. Pfly (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)