This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

need more info 4 this

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.

The simplification is still more accurate regardless. Now, I know that US history is more a collection of myths than actual facts (and this is reflected in the articles on wikipedia) but the simply truth is that the Pilgrims were Puritans, who hold a more strict and, speaking as a secularist and an agnostic, more intolerance view of religion and the world. They are of the same ilk as Oliver Cromwell, a tyrant who banned Christmas and butchered Ireland, and those who executed women in Salem because they thought they were witches. Not really the type of people who should be emulated or supported at all. 90.221.206.98 ( talk) 06:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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))

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). ..

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)

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

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)

"It has been suggested" isn't good enough. Can we find sources?

• Removed unsourced and out-of-place "debate" paragraph. Fjbfour 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrims is the name commonly applied to early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts. Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America. The colonists faced a lengthy series of challenges, from bureaucracy, impatient investors and internal conflicts to sabotage, storms, disease,and uncertain relations with the indigenous people. The colony, established in 1620, would ultimately succeed, the second to do so among several English attempts. Their story has become a central theme in United States cultural identity.

This article inaccurately states that the colony of pilgrims, established in 1620, was "the second successful settlement in what was to become the United States of America, the first being Jamestown, Virginia which was founded in 1607". In fact, even if you include only Europeans as "settlements" there were already settlements in New Mexico, Florida, and Vermont when the Pilgrims arrived.

Everyone knows that. It should say "British settlement." Zyxwv99 ( talk) 00:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

what are pilgrims, what is the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.166.239 ( talk) 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrims are any people that make a pilgrimage. The first paragraph of this article defines and explains that in this article the term is being used to describe the early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in America -- SteveCrook 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. In which case the article should at least stat with a disambiguation reference. As it is the more general / accurate meaning of pilgrim is only mentioned as a secondary expansion to the US-centric cultural reference, itself a shortened form of the more correct Pilgrim Fathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.157 ( talk) 09:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The assertion under the [Mayflower Compact] section seems to me to be spurious and should be removed or if true, verified.-- User:salvin123 —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on doubtful relevance to the section, and the history of the anonymous IP that added it (although it's a shared IP at a school), I have removed the Panini Grill addition. If someone can support the statement with a source, I'll be happy to be wrong about this :) Forestgarden ( talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

looks like full on vadalism to me, an outside observer. Since panini is an italian/us dish and the pilgrims under discussion were english. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't really say why the Pilgrims are important, at least, not in the intro. It should say something about Thanksgiving, the Mayflower Compact, and influence on the future United States of America. There's also a claim over at the Mayflower Compact article that the agreement is "the foundation of the United States Constitution." Hires an editor ( talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Squanto, which says that Captain George Weymouth in kidnapped him in 1605. This article says Thomas Hunt... some where we have an error here. --cks5929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.246.108 ( talk) 04:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the amount of IP-originated vandalism on this article, should this page be semi-protected against them? Magic ♪piano 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What became of the historical Pilgrim church organization? Does it still exist in any form? Or did it merge with one or more other churches, or simply die out? -- 212.63.43.180 ( talk) 12:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the external links in the article point to churches that claim to be descended from the Pilgrims' churches; it sounds like they split at some point (into a Congregationalist church and a Unitarian church, according to one of the linked websites). It also sounds like maybe the individual church congregations were independent of each other. See also the following external links from the article: [1] [2]-- Why Not A Duck 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we have some major sources with lengthy citations that occur repeatedly ... I'd like to put the full citations of the major sources in their own section, and change the footnotes that use those sources to short format (e.g., Bradford(1898) 5). See Plymouth_Colony#References for how this would look.

Any objections?

-- Jw 193 ( talk) 15:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is surely US-centric to treat this article as the primary meaning fo the term "pilgrims" on Wikipedia, it should be a redirect to pilgrim. Would "pilgrim fathers" be better? PatGallacher ( talk) 02:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Pilgrims" are folks who go on pilgrimages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.188.208 ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Pilgrims should be a {{ R from plural}} to pilgrim. This article can reside at Pilgrim Fathers, or, if people insist that the title needs to reflect US usage, the title needs a qualifier, such as Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). -- dab (𒁳) 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I could not find a reliable version of this covenant (dated, 1606), it would seem that some reference to this covenant, if one can be found, ought to be included. Its date of 1606 coincides with Matthew's becoming Archbishop and his subsequent persecution and is not likely a coincidence. -- Danafr3 ( talk) 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Pilgrims having outlawed celebration of Christmas ^{citation needed}, it was illegal to do so and penalties were imposed on those that did. This ain't religious freedom. Its the antithesis. JimmyIrvin 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a big [Citation needed] here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.235.42 ( talk) 21:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear now that the Pilgrim Fathers belonged to a sect which we would now call religious fanatics, fundamentalists or zealots.

The religious freedom they sought were not freedom for others but freedonm for themsleves to pratice their own brand of extremist religion.

The ideas which they took which them to America seem to have taken a deep root.

From a European perpsective the USA today is an excesively, oddly, religious country. Most Americans claim to believe in a god (90% wiki). Western European countries are far less religious; 39% of Britons (wiki) admit to atheism - whilst the other 60% tend not to be very interested in the subject. From a religious point of view the USA today actually has more in common with Muslim Iran or Saudi Arabia than 'Christian' Europe.

Thus a legacy of the Pilgrim Fathers is a level of religous belief/superstition and extemism in the USA today which is abnormal (or atypical) in a developed country.

US politicians can mention 'God' in speeches without embarrasment. In the UK the only politician in recent times to do so was Tony Blair - his references were generally regarded as being at best bad manners, and at worst the sign of an unhinged mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.52.182 ( talk) 09:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the first paragraph "The Pilgrims' story of seeking religious freedom has become a central theme of the history and culture of the United States." is correct but misleading. Most people don't realise what "freedom" they wanted. Not many Americans want to know that it's all a myth, even if you cite the Columbia Encyclopaedia :)
The Pilgrims weren't seeking the freedom to worship as they wanted, they were allowed to do that in England. They left England and then Holland because the people there, especially in England, weren't as serious about religion as the Pilgrims were. The only religious freedom they sought was the freedom to impose their own religious views on others. But not many Americans want to know that -- SteveCrook ( talk) 20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this lately from British TV but you need to provide sources from scholars in the field even if they are non-Americans. Still, since they were alone in the America's and were in agreement about their own religion... who were they wanting to impose their ideas upon? There was noone but themselves and a few natives to impose religion upon. And your comment about them being allowed to worship as they want in England is also untrue. There ministers were being forced to join the church of England or they couldn't be preachers. Review the article on the Brownists (the Pilgrims were Brownists, not Puritans) and other religious dissenters. Alatari ( talk) 18:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the article in the Columbia Encyclopaedia (an American publication) enough? They were mocked while they were in England but they weren't forbidden from worshipping as they liked. They wanted to impose their own rules on anyone and everyone. It didn't work in England, so they tried it in The Netherlands. It didn't work there so they moved to America where they could impose their own rules on each other in peace. Good riddance to them. England and the Netherlands allowed plenty of other religious dissenters at the time but only this group were so extremist that they felt that they couldn't live in such liberal societies -- SteveCrook ( talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To avoid contamination of their strict beliefs and to escape the hated church from which they had separated, the sect decided to move to Holland, where other groups had found religious liberty, despite an English law that forbade emigration without royal permission. After several false starts, two of which were frustrated by the law, small groups made their way to the Netherlands in 1607, and by the middle of 1608 most of them had reached Amsterdam. They went from there to Leiden, where they established themselves as artisans and laborers. Life in Holland was not easy, however, and the immigrants found the presence of radical religious groups there objectionable. Dutch influence also seemed to be altering their English ways, and the prospect of renewed war between the Netherlands and Spain threatened. For these reasons they considered moving to the New World.

The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't mention anything about them wishing to impose their religion on anyone. It mentions that they were afraid of being contaminated by the old church and by groups in the Netherlands they considered radical and a possible war between the Dutch and the English. That makes them xenophobic and frightened of war but not fascist. If they wanted to impose their beliefs on others they would have stayed. Instead they ran. Alatari ( talk) 20:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just commenting on your statement about them being allowed to worship as they want in England being untrue. This is just the discussion area, not the main article. I'll leave it up to other people to do the full research for a more accurate article. BTW I didn't call them xenophobic or fascist. BTW the article mentions the threat of war between The Netherlands and Spain, not England -- SteveCrook ( talk) 21:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Separatists - because that's technically what they were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.70.183 ( talk) 22:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This may seem a bit petty, but in the sake of historicity: in the sub-section "Leiden" the quote uses "Ye". This is perhaps visually correct to what is written in the source text, but now how it would be read. See the article Thorn (letter). This is a printer's misuse of the Saxon letter Thorn which, like theta in Greek, made a "th-" sound, and which to men of this time would have been seen as such. To sum up, this should read "the universitie". That's it, really. Just a hobby horse of mine. KC Gustafson ( talk) 12:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.184.25 ( talk) 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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.[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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@ 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/?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)

@ 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. Thanks Oldperson ( talk) 18:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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 article Oldperson ( talk) 00:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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