Talk:John Alden: Difference between revisions

United States: Massachusetts Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance).

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Slight refactoring of an initial text from 1911 encyclopedia -- Please update as needed

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of all the random quote marks is?

2 ' is italics 3 ' is bold 5 ' is bold italics Danny

I think the question referred to their use in the text in the John Alden page where they seem to simply be quote marks that were in the original text that was lifted from an old encyclopedia. If someone dared me to I'd plunge in there and refactor them all out!....oh, what the heck, I will anyway....

Were all of Martha Stewart's parents parents born in Poland ? That's what I found on the web, and it makes me wonder if she really is descended of John Alden. If she is fine, leave it in there, 'cause the last time I did any Alden stuff here the entire article got deleted, and I never did find out why. So, can somebody who is aware of what is actually true either source this or delete the assertion if it is untrue ? John5Russell3Finley 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Notable Descendants" section is listed the "Baldwin Brothers." It links to a page about a music group called the "Baldwin Brothers," while giving the impression it might be referring to the brothers Baldwin who are actors. Furthermore, if the reference is to the actors, there are no sources that link them to John Alden, but, rather, are listed as descendants of John Howland. I recommend removing the "Baldwin Brothers" link from the John Alden page. see http://www.familyforest.com/Mayflower_Descendants.html

Incidentally, also, the line to Marilyn Monroe is through Stanley Gifford, who some have alleged might be her father. It is unproven. I recommend adding an "unproven" superscript note next to her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstamps (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Looney Toons episode featuring John Alden. The Hardship of Miles Standish It might be interesting to incorporate this into the article.

As the article itself states, John Alden was a carpenter on the Mayflower, not a Pilgrim. He did not come to North America for religious reasons. The designation John Alden (Pilgrim) for this article is therefore inaccurate and misleading. Suggest instead John Alden (Plymouth Colonist), John Alden (Colonist), John Alden (Settler), John Alden (Mayflower Passenger) or some other term that is not laden with historically inaccurate interpretations. Netmouse (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here independently to make the same suggestion. I would go further and suggest that this man's article should be John Alden, with an {{about}} to his much less important son, John Alden (sailor).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As he is a signer of the Mayflower Compact, how much more of a pilgrim could he be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.54.139 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article for the Mayflower Compact, it was clearly a social contract establishing the Plymouth Colony, and has nothing to do with whether or not a person was a pilgrim, as only about half the colonists were pilgrims. Alden was of course a colonist. However, he was not a Pilgrim, as he did not embark on the Mayflower trip for religious reasons. Netmouse (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current entry contains the following: "However, there are no further occurrences of the names George, Richard, and Avys in his family which would have been unusual in the seventeenth century."

This observation about the naming patterns would hold true among most Christian families in the 17th c. But among Puritan families, this was not so. The Puritans wanted to "purify" their church and their society of anything not found in the Bible; let family traditions dating back hundreds of years be cast out. Puritans bestowed on their children Old Testament names: (Sarah, Rebecca, Jacob, Joseph), and virtue names (Constance, Prudence, Faith). If you will study the names of John and Priscilla Alden's children, you will note that the names chosen very much conform to the pattern of the typical Puritan family.

Ivain 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "it is currently believed that he was from the Alden family of Harwich in Essex, England" is completely false. That is merely one of several hypotheses that have been ventured about Alden's origins over the years, and there is no consensus that it has any more merit than any of the others. I am replacing the two paragraphs that expand on this single theory with a single paragraph that points to a modern survey of all the major hypotheses, and which notes the position taken by Robert Charles Anderson, probably the pre-eminent living expert on the genealogy of early New Englanders.

In general, any Wikipedia claim about the English origins of an early New Englander that is sourced to Charles Edward Banks should be a candidate for immediate re-examination. pnh (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pnh - I have removed your speculation and restored information sourced by a Reliable source. A primary rule of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources i.e., all facts must have a credible source. Charles Edward Banks is an acceptable source. I have noticed that you have previously been warned of adding or removing information without a Reliable Source to another article. Please do not change material without a credible source. It is a fundamental rule in Wikipedia. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk)

Mugginsx - I cited and provided references to two sources, Alicia Crane Williams and Robert Charles Anderson, both of whom are about as respected in the study of the English origins of early settlers to Plymouth colony as it's possible to be. Williams has served as general editor of the John Alden volumes of the Mayflower Descendants' Society's "Mayflower Families through Five Generations" project. Robert Charles Anderson's "Great Migration" series has been widely reviewed as the most important work on early New England origins since the pioneering work of Donald Lines Jacobus in the 1920s and 1930s. The works by them that I cited provide chapter-and-verse evidence that there exists no proof for the Harwich theory of John Alden's origins, or for any other claim going beyond the fact that he was a cooper and was hired at Southampton. The existing article's claim that "it is currently believed that he was from the Alden family of Harwich in Essex" is simply nonsense. No such hypothesis is "currently believed" in any general sense.

As to the rest, your personal remarks to me are out of line. I have provided direct and complete citations to modern works of scholarship, which you have removed. pnh (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back I do see you added a source for some of the information you added, however, the fact remains you removed a large amount of information that was already there and properly sourced to a very much respected author of several works on the subject, so there was still no valid reason for you to revert and change. I refer you again to the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Mugginsx (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]