Talk:Mayflower/Archive 2

Newlyn stop
Good afternoon, There is a paragraph in the article - 'Tradition has it that the last port in England for the Mayflower was actually not Plymouth but Newlyn in Cornwall on the Land's End peninsula when it was found that the water picked up at Plymouth was contaminated. Scholarly works do not mention this stop, but Newlyn has a plaque to this effect on its quay. Only the year "1620" is provided, with no date' - This paragraph has no validation and although they have a plaque it has never been proven. It is not mentioned anywhere else and I would like to ask you to please remove this paragraph. You link to the Wikipedia page on the Pilgrim Fathers and it is not mentioned on there. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catbaldanza (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I have removed the paragraph. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question has been restored with needed revisions. The debate over whether or not the Mayflower first stopped at Newlyn before sailing west is itself an important historic fact about which readers should be informed.  The essential parts of the paragraph have stood the test of time and should remain in this article at least until I can do more research on the  person who started the debate  and other related readings both on and off Wikipedia.  Your patience would be appreciated. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 16:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have to find a better source. R. G. Marsden, "The Mayflower", has been criticized for accuracy by other well known historians.  No, I cannot find it at this time but will look for it.  It was some time ago. Mugginsx (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt that the debate needs a better source. I'm not crazy about tourist mags used as "reliable" sources, because one never knows when they dramatize and embellish.  I did find this little message, though, which may be a good jumping off point for investigation. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I have found some very informative people at that site. Mugginsx (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I cited a better source that I found in the Newlyn article:


 * }
 * Hopefully, that will do until I can spend more time on it. I believe it supports the debate; however, as the requester indicates, it is not proof for a solid claim that would unseat Plymouth as the Mayflower's final point of departure. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have spoken to several historians on this matter so I am sure, once you have had time to review this, will be able to warrant my request to remove this. Catbaldanza (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be the likely outcome; however, the changes I made removed the main unsubstantiated claim that the "tradition" was that the Mayflower left from Newlyn. The only claim that is now made in that paragraph is that there is an ongoing debate and controversy over whether the final port of departure was Plymouth or Newlyn.  Readers who come to this article should have this information available to them, don't you think? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, can you please link me to any pages that show the actual debate you talk of? I have seen many that talk about the plaque and why it was put up but none about the actual research taht proved it, the debate (where it is actually a factual debate) and if the water was contaminated why was there not an epidemic in Plymouth at the same time?  Very interested to learn more about this.Catbaldanza (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "actual debate" itself is apparently poorly documented; however, there are several "hints" that something is "not quite right" in the annals of history. I myself find this interesting and amusing.  The bottom line is that it is highly unlikely that anything will be found that will change the way people feel about the traditional story.  In other words, the people of Plymouth have claimed for centuries that their ancestors were the last residents of England to see off the Mayflower, and rightly so.  Newlyn was at best just a mere, brief stopover to dump bad water and take on fresh.  It was like a jet refueling in mid-flight – it doesn't land, it just takes on fuel.  Many people of Plymouth likely went to the harbor to see those courageous explorers off on their ocean journey, but the busy people of Newlyn probably took little if any note of one more fairly small ship entering their port and then sailing off again in a few hours or less.  This news article from the Plymouth Herald in 2013 does lend some credibility to the Newlyn plaque's claim.  But then there are other pages like this one that tend to argue against Newlyn's claim.
 * The "actual debate" itself is apparently poorly documented; however, there are several "hints" that something is "not quite right" in the annals of history. I myself find this interesting and amusing.  The bottom line is that it is highly unlikely that anything will be found that will change the way people feel about the traditional story.  In other words, the people of Plymouth have claimed for centuries that their ancestors were the last residents of England to see off the Mayflower, and rightly so.  Newlyn was at best just a mere, brief stopover to dump bad water and take on fresh.  It was like a jet refueling in mid-flight – it doesn't land, it just takes on fuel.  Many people of Plymouth likely went to the harbor to see those courageous explorers off on their ocean journey, but the busy people of Newlyn probably took little if any note of one more fairly small ship entering their port and then sailing off again in a few hours or less.  This news article from the Plymouth Herald in 2013 does lend some credibility to the Newlyn plaque's claim.  But then there are other pages like this one that tend to argue against Newlyn's claim.


 * }
 * So this debate, no matter how long it may go on – if it goes on at all – might never be settled. For me, then, the bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that some people in the world think that Newlyn was the final point of departure of the Mayflower from England bound for the New World.  That fact is notable enough to deserve a brief mention in the section of this article titled "Voyage". –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So this debate, no matter how long it may go on – if it goes on at all – might never be settled. For me, then, the bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that some people in the world think that Newlyn was the final point of departure of the Mayflower from England bound for the New World.  That fact is notable enough to deserve a brief mention in the section of this article titled "Voyage". –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The reference to the "article" from the Plymouth Herald leads not to an article but to a comment, and comments are not reliable sources and should not be referred to as "articles". Furthermore, it doesn't matter how people "feel" about this story, what matters is whether or not there is a reliable source to support what is said.  In such a significant story as the Mayflower, that should rule out tourist publications and comments as sources.  The debate does not need to go "on and on" in Wikipedia.  If there appears to be no reliable source, then the statement about Newlyn should not be included.  And unsupported claims should not be allowed in an article just so an editor can have time to do some research, the passage can be removed to a talk page, and if support is found, it can be reinserted.   StBlark (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this comment, StBlark! I agree that the tourist magazine is not a reliable source (as I mentioned above), so I've removed it and replaced it with the news article.  Not sure why you see that as a "comment", though, because it is a newspaper article written by John Boulden, another history buff from Plymouth.  Wikipedia has been known to use newspaper articles as reliable sources.  And in such a significant article as this one on the Mayflower, such a reliably sourced story as this one about the last port of departure most definitely (in my humble opinion) should be included. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a BIG problem with both of the two references regarding that “little known” part of the voyage: They are not considered “reliable sources” according to WP:RS. The first one, posted on the internet by the Plymouth Herald,  is not “a newspaper article”, as you erroneously suggest: it was never printed in the newspaper itself,  it is merely a “Letter to the Editor”, it was sent to the paper as an “email” correspondence (as the posting indicates), in response to previously posted “Letters to the Editor”, regarding an upcoming civic event.   The Plymouth Herald when it prints an actual “article”, in contrast, posts it as part of the paper itself, with a copyright and a publication dateline, both of which this posting lacks.   This email you refer to as an article shows no indication of any editorial oversight.  It begins: “I have read with interest the letters [etc.]”.  In saying this I am not disparaging the Plymouth Herald or the writer of that email.  The second reference, regards the Tregwary Cottage, and is an anonymous posting — with no dateline, no author, no editor, no copyright.  And it is “touristy” because it offers to help visitors by discussing “booking prices” and directions.  According to this “reference” you can actually spend the night in the Tregwary Cottage.  Which sounds like fun.  This doesn’t belong anywhere on Wikipedia.  The references we’re referring to are here:   The supposed stop in Newlyn is a contentious issue, and touristy interests would like to promote the idea as true, HOWEVER, if Wikipedia cannot find one single reliable source to support the story, then it should be removed.  The voyage of the the Mayflower is a significant part of history -- we should not fool around with it.  Cheers.  StBlark (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * }
 * Thank you – I don't agree that there is any "BIG" problem with those sources. There doesn't appear to be anything to indicate that this news story is a "Letter to the Editor", and can you substantiate your claim that it was not also published in the offline Herald?  Boulden is a Plymouth historian and teacher who has probably published several news and history stories in the periodical.  In this age of computers, news reporters and other story contributors often use email to get their stories in by the deadline.  As for the Tregwary Cottage citation, that is not a big problem either.  It's just perhaps a borderline source to back up the news source; however, if you want to remove the Tregwary Cottage citation, then do so.  If your assessment is that the Herald story is not reliable, then you'll have to do better than conjecture and rumor about Letters to the Editor and online publishing only.  And if you prefer, there are avenues of dispute resolution you can follow if you so desire.  In summary, we can agree to disagree and leave the article at status quo, or you may continue to challenge my stance that the Herald is a reliable source for a story that substantiates a claim made in this article. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  21:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you – I don't agree that there is any "BIG" problem with those sources. There doesn't appear to be anything to indicate that this news story is a "Letter to the Editor", and can you substantiate your claim that it was not also published in the offline Herald?  Boulden is a Plymouth historian and teacher who has probably published several news and history stories in the periodical.  In this age of computers, news reporters and other story contributors often use email to get their stories in by the deadline.  As for the Tregwary Cottage citation, that is not a big problem either.  It's just perhaps a borderline source to back up the news source; however, if you want to remove the Tregwary Cottage citation, then do so.  If your assessment is that the Herald story is not reliable, then you'll have to do better than conjecture and rumor about Letters to the Editor and online publishing only.  And if you prefer, there are avenues of dispute resolution you can follow if you so desire.  In summary, we can agree to disagree and leave the article at status quo, or you may continue to challenge my stance that the Herald is a reliable source for a story that substantiates a claim made in this article. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  21:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If that email were indeed published in the newspaper, the source and the citation don’t indicate. According to Wikipedia principles and guidelines, since there is no such indication that it was published as an article (or anything other than an online post), it falls short of being a reliable source.  Rather than giving up on this Newlyn story, I would suggest that the best thing to do would be to search history books and find a reference to it.  Surely there must be something somewhere in the histories that have been written about the Mayflower, if it’s a true story.  If it's not mentioned in any reliable source, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia.  StBlark (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Name etymology
florentine.net article This is one reference about the name mayflower and it´s origin. The italian wikipedia says the same. Maybe it´s worth to put these information into the article to find the whole story from the shipyard where the mayflower was built and which voyages it took. Furthermore there should be an article about the family Giucciardini which owned the ship and were quite important in the history of florence and our view onto the history of italy with the chronicles of Francesco Guicciardini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.51.247.199 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015
Dear Established User

I am hoping to add a new external link to this page for The Mayflower Pub in London. It is the original mooring site of The Pilgrim Fathers' Mayflower ship in Rotherhithe London and is of great historical interest to anyone who is looking to find more information on The Mayflower or experience the start of her voyage. Verification of this can be found on the company website: http://www.mayflowerpub.co.uk/

The external link I would like to place is this:

The Mayflower Pub London The original mooring point of The Pilgrim Fathers’ Mayflower ship in Rotherhithe, London and the oldest pub on the River Thames

Please complete this request for me or let me know what further information is needed

Emilystubbs27 (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ that is a blatantly promotional site - we are not here to help sell your beer - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
When this entry (Mayflower) is viewed on an iPad using the Wikipedia app, the heading says "Mayflower - Famous ship of the 19th century." That should be 17th century.

Pilarm1128 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Had to do some digging around on Wikidata, but Yes check.svg Done. Can't believe such a massive error was left up for so long. - a boat   that can float!   (happy holidays)  16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No toilets?
According to this article "There was no facility for a latrine or privy on the Mayflower and ship's crew had to fend for themselves in that regard." Wouldn't the ship have had a Head (watercraft) like all the other ships of the time? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Pilgrims were not "fleeing from religious persecution", on the contrary, they objected to the comparative religious freedom of England and were seeking to live somewhere they could persecute religious objectors to their faith, for example, the woman they murdered for being a quacker in 1620. Source: Stephen Fry on QI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinnaxos (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016
The line "Surgeon – Doctor Giles Heale. The surgeon on board the Mayflower was never mentioned by Bradford but his identify was well established. "

Needs to have the word 'identify' changed to 'identity'

Meadmax (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016
Most of the passengers were Separatists

This is incorrect. Less than half the passengers were Separatists. The majority were Anglican, because the majority of passengers were from the London area and not from the Separatist congregation in Leiden.

Please change

Most of the passengers were Separatists

to

Less than half of the passengers were Separatists Benwikiped (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling attention to the OP ( Benwikiped) for not offering reliable sources. However, even without RS, the editor was correct. Though I am not entirely putting all my faith on it, the History Channel page says so (here).  Nick Bunker once said that there were more separatists in the Mayflower than what scholars have admitted (here), but we now have the exact number. WP has a page with all the passenger names (here) and the number is around 37, which is about a third of the total aboard the ship (102). So, unless you have better evidence, I will be making the change in the article. Thanks.  Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  02:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Separatist
This article uses the word Separatist, but it goes to our article on Separatism which is a catch-all applying to many different groups from all over the world ("the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group"). The simplest way to lead the reader to a usable definition is most likely to use English Dissenters instead. That article opens with "English Dissenters or English Separatists were Protestant Christians who separated from the Church of England in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries." Any comments on this possible change? EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Though the current link is not totally wrong, I would prefer your suggestion because it is clearer and more accurate. -- Caballero / Historiador ⎌  08:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed it, with the more precise sub-section "Puritans," since the dissenter page is also sort of a catch-all. The Puritan section is rather brief, but it's still better than the previous link. —Dilidor (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The most extensive write-up on the religious beliefs of the Mayflower people may be at Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony). That article states that the majority were Brownists but our article on the Brownists doesn't have good references. Certainly, calling the Mayflower colonists 'Puritans' seems both correct and informative. The Brownists, if that's a correct term, were separatist Puritans and disagreed with some of the beliefs of mainstream Puritanism. The best coverage of the nuances of separatism within Puritanism seems to be at Puritans. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In the broadest sense, the Separatists aboard the Mayflower (not the majority of the Mayflower people) could be called Puritans, but the article should distinguish them from those who stayed to cast their vote for internal changes within the Church of England or those who came afterward in the so-called Great Puritan Migration (the article has the dates starting too early).


 * The majority of these Separatists were Brownists, but that is a very elastic term. Consider that later the same William Bradford recanted Browne. So, a better title might be "radical separatists," but in the meantime, making a distinction between Separatists and Puritans should be a priority.


 * Bunker's book (cited above, page 77) sheds light on these issues. The little book of Very Short Introductions from Oxford, on Puritans, written by Bremmer, is also a good foundation. There is a new book out, but not yet in the US, that should also serve us well:Why the English sailed to the new world (though it leaves the Welsh and the Scots out from the title). In short, these series of articles touching on the "Pilgrims," Separatists, and Puritans require some work by a dedicated team up-to-date with the scholarship. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Gun room for powder storage? I seriously doubt it.
Maybe they did things differently on the Mayflower, but I've never heard of a ship "storing the gunpowder in the gun room". That's just asking for the entire ship to be blown up the first time a cannonball smashes through the hull. Powder is usually stored below the waterline, where it's relatively safe, for this exact reason' Storing the powder above the waterline would be stupid for this reason, and because the gunroom is one of the few habitable areas of the ship, which means that it would be lighted with candles, also just begging for the ship to be blown into small pieces. I can't imagine them closing off an entire section of livable space just to store powder there, nor sharing living space with powder, even if they didn't mind the horrible vulnerability the first time an enemy shot at them. That said, their biggest cannon fired a 3.5lb shot? Are you sure of that? That's a very small solid shot. And I agree with the above, every ship I've ever heard of was equipped with "heads", which are basically overhanging outhouse seats that allow feces to drop into the ocean. Being a very simple thing to build, it's hard to imagine a ship of this size not being equipped with something of this sort. What are they suppose to do, hang over the rail and hold on tight? Use a pot every time? AnnaGoFast (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mayflower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130102083007/http://bloosee.com/r/im8FVs to http://bloosee.com/r/im8FVs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726115455/http://www.plimoth.org/features/mayflower-2/ to http://www.plimoth.org/features/mayflower-2/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121223104248/http://www.highton-ridley.co.uk/blog/2009/07/pilgrims-point-rare-one-in-colour.html to http://www.highton-ridley.co.uk/blog/2009/07/pilgrims-point-rare-one-in-colour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of apparent non sequitur from "Early history"
In "Early History" I found these statements:

One particular Mayflower that has caused historical confusion was a ship that was partly owned by John Vassall and was outfitted for Queen Elizabeth in 1588, during the time of the Spanish Armada. However, there are no records of Vassall's Mayflower after 1594.

If in reading the records it is possible to determine that the 1588 Mayflower does not appear in records after 1594, then how is it possible for anybody to confuse the 1588 Mayflower with the 1620? Unless the author of this passage can answer that question, it should not be restored.Wordwright (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnson
This article cites copiously from Caleb Johnson's self-published book and his self-published website. Johnson is not an historian, as far as I can see. This seems wrong to me. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

== Don't my critical observations capture real problems and don't my revisions indeed strengthen the prose and the logic of the sections in question, and isn't reversion to the state I found the article in unjustified? ==

Dilidor reverted my edit and did not submit an argument, but only asserted that the "editor did more than copy edit---changed meanings, inserted new notions and bad syntax and grammar; thus the reversion." But even if I had done all three things, reversion should not have been the solution: if I had made syntactical and grammatical mistakes, then he should have corrected them; it isn't clear what Dilidor means by "inserted new notions" or "changed meanings," but he/she might more properly have listed them one at a time in the talk page to determine whether they were warranted. Since I can justify each change I made, I thought it might be proper to do so here.

1. The Opening Section.

1A. Original text: "This voyage has become a cultural icon in the history of the United States, with its story of death and survival in the harsh New England winter environment. The culmination of the voyage was the signing of the Mayflower Compact, an event which established a rudimentary form of democracy, with each member contributing to the welfare of the community."

1B. Problems. (i) The antecedent of "its" in the first sentence is "this voyage," and that is illogical, since the voyage did not die or survive. (ii) The culmination of the voyage was the arrival of the Mayflowerin New England; the signing of the compact had nothing to do with the voyage.

1C. My revised text: "With the story of its passengers' death and survival in a harsh New England winter, the ship itself has become a cultural icon in the history of the United States. The Puritans' own sense of identification with the ship was expressed in their naming and signing of the Mayflower Compact, an event which established a rudimentary form of democracy, with each member contributing to the welfare of the community."

1D. Comment. It is true that I introduced the notion of the Puritans sense of identification with the ship, but I did so on the supposition, again, that Mayflower is the name of the ship, not of the voyage, and on the additional supposition that the choice of the name of the ship for the compact rather than "Plymouth," the name they gave to their settlement, for the sake of which they made the compact.

2. Mayflower Structure and Layout.

2A. The original text, first paragraph: "The Pilgrim ship Mayflower was a square rig with a beakhead bow and high, castle-like structures fore and aft that served to protect the ship's crew and the main deck from the elements—designs that were typical with English merchant ships of the early 17th century. Her stern carried a 30-foot high, square aft-castle which made the ship extremely difficult to sail against the wind and unable to sail well against the North Atlantic's prevailing westerlies, especially in the fall and winter of 1620, and the voyage from England to America took more than two months as a result. The Mayflower's return trip to London in April–May 1621 took less than half that time, with the same strong winds now blowing in the direction of the voyage.

2B. The original text, third paragraph: "This ship traditionally was heavily armed while on trading routes around Europe, due to the possibility of encountering pirates and privateers of all types. And with its armament, the ship and crew could easily be conscripted by the English monarch at any time in case of conflict with other nations. By 1620, the Mayflower was aging, nearing the end of the usual 15-year working life of an English merchant ship in that era."

2C. Problems. (i) The topic of this section is the physical build of the ship itself, and the importance of that physical build to the voyage. Thus the material in the third paragraph about arms and pirates belongs, by theme, to the section on the gun deck. (ii) the sentence in the original third paragraph about the age of the ship has no thematic relation to the material about the arms nor any thematic relation to the material in the subsequent sub-sections; where should it go? Since it is the physical build of the ship that determines, in part, its useful span of life, I thought it best to place it at the very beginning of the section. Its place there also gives it implicit force: the passengers faced even greater dangers than we can appreciate because the ship was near the end of its useful life. (iii) "As a result" is a weak phrase, so I removed it from the end of the sentence where it had an emphasis it did not deserve, to the beginning of the clause, where after the itemization of the interacting causal factors of the ship's build and the ocean's meteorological activity it performs the logical function of introducing the effect. (iv) Although the Pilgrims made their voyage on the Mayflower, the Mayflower  was not built by or for the Pilgrims, so it is inaccurate to refer to the Mayflower  as "the Pilgrim ship." That would be like calling the planes the terrorists used to attack the WTC "the terrorist planes."

2D. My revision. "By 1620, the Mayflower was aging, nearing the end of the usual 15-year working life of an English merchant ship in that era. The ship was a square rig with a beakhead bow and high, castle-like structures fore and aft that served to protect the ship's crew and the main deck from the elements—designs that were typical with English merchant ships of the early 17th century. Her stern carried a 30-foot high, square aft-castle which made the ship extremely difficult to sail against the wind and unable to sail well against the North Atlantic's prevailing westerlies, especially in the fall and winter of 1620, and as a result the voyage from England to America took more than two months. The Mayflower's return trip to London in April–May 1621 took less than half that time, with the same strong winds now blowing in the direction of the voyage."

2E. The original text: "No dimensions of her hull can be stated exactly, since this was many years before such measurements were standardized. She probably measured about 100 feet (30 m) in length from the forward end at the beak of her prow to the tip of her stern superstructure aft. She was about 25 feet (7.6 m) at her widest point, with the bottom of her keel about 12 feet (3.6 m) below the waterline. William Bradford estimated that Mayflower had a cargo capacity of 180 tons. Surviving records from that time indicate that she could certainly accommodate 180 casks of wine in her cargo hold. The casks were great barrels holding hundreds of gallons of Bordeaux wine each."

2F. Problems. (i) Again, in the first sentence the information that identifies a cause is put after the information that indicates the effect. (ii) The first three sentences have the same subject, the dimensions of the ship, and since the second and third sentences indicate the best estimates of the ship's dimensions, the information should figure in one sentence, not three. (iii) In the last three sentences the topic is cargo capacity and the two themes of the numeric indication of the capacity and the merchandise for which the capacity was important; but the sentences are inelegant because mention of the source of the information interrupts the actual detailing of what we want to know, because it is not necessary to explain what a cask is, and because "casks...holding hundreds of gallons of Bordeaux wine each" is nicely specific, so that the earlier and vaguer "casks of wine" is unnecessary. The original text consists of six sentences and 120 words; my revision consists of two sentences and 113 words.

2G. Revisions. "Since this was many years before hull measurements were standardized, no exact figure for the Mayflower's dimensions is possible, but she probably measured about 100 feet (30 m) in length from the forward end at the beak of her prow to the tip of her stern superstructure aft, was about 25 feet (7.6 m) at her widest point, with the bottom of her keel about 12 feet (3.6 m) below the waterline. William Bradford estimated that the Mayflower had a cargo capacity of 180 tons, and surviving contemporary records indicate that in her cargo hold she could certainly accommodate 180 casks holding hundreds of gallons of Bordeaux wine each.

2H. Original text: "Forward of that was the steerage room which housed a whipstaff (tiller extension) for sailing control, rather than a wheel as in later ships. Also there was the ship's compass and probably also berths for the ship's officers."

2I. Problems. (i) These two sentences leave it unclear what is where, but the "also there was" and "probably also" seem to mean that the steerage room housed the whipstaff, the compass, and berths. (ii) The repetition of the "also" and, again, the parcelling out of information in more sentences than necessary and the placing of uncertain information after certain make the prose weak.

2J. Revision. "Forward of that was the steerage room which probably housed berths for the ship's officers, and in which were to be found the ship's compass and, rather than a wheel as in later ships, whipstaff (tiller extension) for sailing control."

Comment: There should most certainly be an "a" before "whipstaff." That was my oversight.

2K. The original text: "The poop deck was above the cabin of Master Jones, on the ship's highest level above the stern on the aft castle. The poop house was on this deck, which may have been for passengers' use either for sleeping or cargo. On normal merchant ships, this space was probably a chart room or a cabin for the master's mates."

2L. Problems. (i) Was the poop deck above Master Jones' cabin or above the stern on the aft castle? Or was it on the highest of many levels above the stern on the aft castle? Or was Master Jones' cabin on the highest of many such levels? (ii) Which do you need to know first, the probable normal use of a thing or the probable unusual use of a thing? I say that you need to know the normal use first—it is absurd to say something like "sometimes people rent storage space to sleep in, although usually people do so to house overflow possessions."

2M. Revisions: "On the ship's highest level above the stern on the aft castle and above Master Jones' cabin was the poop deck, on which stood the poop house, which on normal merchant ships was probably a chart room or a cabin for the master's mates, but on the Mayflower may have been for passengers' use either for sleeping or cargo."

Comment: My revision may get the spatial relations between the highest level, the stern, the aft castle, Master Jones' cabin, and the poop deck wrong, but my sentence has the virtue of syntactic clarity. Only someone who has expert knowledge of how these features of a ship were generally ordered should decide.

2N(a). The original text: "The gun deck was where the passengers resided during the voyage, in a space measuring about 50x25 ft with a 5-ft overhead (ceiling).

2N(b). Problem. Why should a merchant ship have guns? The reason is given in a sentence from another paragraph, so I placed that sentence at the opening of this section.

2N(c). Revision: "As was customary for ships on trading routes around Europe, against the possibility of encountering pirates and privateers of all types, the Mayflower was heavily armed. The gun deck was, etc." 2N(d). The original text: "The gun room was in the stern area of the gun deck, to which passengers had no access due to it being the storage space for powder and ammunition for the ship's cannons and any other weapons belonging to the ship.

2N(e). Problems: (i) "due to it being" is an ungainly four words; (ii) "belonging to the ship" is redundant after "the ship's." The sentence has fifty words. Now consider my thirty-five word revision:

2N(f). Revision. "The gun room was in the stern area of the gun deck, to which passengers had no access because it was the storage space for powder and ammunition for the ship's cannons and other weapons."

2N(g). The original text: "The gun room might also house a pair of stern chasers, small cannons used to fire out the stern of the ship."

2N(h): Problem:  "of the ship" is wordy.

2N(i). Revision: "The gun room might also house a pair of stern chasers, small cannons used to fire out the ship's stern."

2N(j). The original text: "There were no stairs for the passengers on the gun deck to go up through the gratings to the main deck. To get up to the main deck, passengers were required to climb a wooden or rope ladder."

2N(k). Problems. These two sentences on the same topic make for thirty-eight words and repeat the expressions "passengers" and "main deck." Consider my thirty-three word revision:

2N(l). Revision: "There were no stairs for the passengers on the gun deck to go up through the gratings to the main deck, which they could reach only by climbing a wooden or rope ladder."

2N(m). The original text: "There was no facility for a latrine or privy on the Mayflower, and ship's crew had to fend for themselves in that regard."

2N(n). Problems: (i) "Facility for" is unnecessary because "latrine" and "privy" just are the names for what we now euphemistically call "the facilities." (ii) Since "privy" is the 17th-century term, and is well known, "latrine" is unnecessary.

2N(o). Revision. "There was no privy on the Mayflower, and ship's crew had to fend for themselves in that regard."

3. Early History. General Remarks. A history of X is useful only if it is developed in historical order relative to a single topic or theme. There are three topics in the history: (i) The history of the name "Mayflower" for ships and the problem of identifying the historic Mayflower from the records; (ii) the construction of the historic Mayflower'; (iii) the history of the historic Mayflower and her captain before the voyage; (iv) how the Mayflower'' came to be involved in that historic voyage.

Basic Structural Problems. In the original text there are six paragraphs ordered according to these topics:

P1: Where was the Mayflower built?

P2: What Captain Jones did before the historic voyage and what persons owned the ship at the time of the voyage.

P3: A review of ships named Mayflower from 1603-25 backwards to 1588 to show that identifying the historic Mayflower could be difficult.

P4. What Captain Jones did before the historic voyage.

P5. What Captain Jones did before the historic voyage.

P6. The strange fact that no records indicate the doings of the Mayflower between 1616 and 1624.

My first revisions were then structural: I put the section in topical and thematic order.

3A. Basic structural revision. I made the original P3 the new P1.

Here is the original P3 text:

"There were 26 vessels bearing the name Mayflower in the Port Books of England during the reign of James I (1603–1625), and the reason for this popularity of the name has never been found. One particular Mayflower that has caused historical confusion was a ship that was partly owned by John Vassall and was outfitted for Queen Elizabeth in 1588, during the time of the Spanish Armada. However, there are no records of Vassall's Mayflower after 1594. The identity of Captain Jones's Mayflower is based on records from her home port, her tonnage (est. 180–200 tons), and the master's name in 1620 in order to avoid confusion with the many other Mayflower ships."

3A(i). Problems: (i). As I pointed out on the Talk Page, if the 1588 Mayflower does not appear in the records after 1594, a a full twenty-six years before the historic Mayflower, then how in the world could it be confused with the historic one? (ii) In the opening sentence, the statement that in the twenty-two years of King James' reign there were twenty-six ships bearing the name Mayflower makes an issue of the popularity of the names, and so implies that there should be an explanation—since no explanation has been found, "and" makes no sense—only "but" does. Thus my simple revision:

3A(ii). Revision. "There were twenty-six vessels bearing the name Mayflower in the Port Books of England during the reign of James I (1603–1625), but the reason for the name's popularity has never been found. The identity of Captain Jones's Mayflower is based on records from her home port, her tonnage (est. 180–200 tons), and the master's name in 1620 in order to avoid confusion with the many other Mayflower ships."

3B. Structural Revision: I made the original P1 the new P2.

The original P1 text:

"It is not known when and where the Mayflower was built, but it is likely that she was launched at Harwich in the county of Essex, England. She was designated as "of Harwich" in the Port Books of 1609–11, although later known as "of London". Harwich was also the birthplace of Mayflower master Christopher Jones about 1570."

3B(i). Problem: There are two bits of information in this paragraph:  (i) the conflicting evidence about Harwich or London; (ii) the fact that Jones was born in Harwich.

3B(ii). Revision. "It is not known when and where the Mayflower was built, but it is likely that she was launched at Harwich—coincidentally the birthplace of Mayflower master Christopher Jones about 1570.—in the county of Essex, England. She was designated as "of Harwich" in the Port Books of 1609–11, although later designated as "of London."

3B(iii). Comment. The orphaned "in the county of Essex, England" was my mistake—I simply did not succeed in distinguishing the actual text from the text of the inserted reference.

3C. Basic Structural Revision. Since the history of Jones' relation as captain of the Mayflower took up portions of the original P2 and P5, and all of the original P4, I combined them in a single paragraph.

Here is the original text of P4, which I made the new P3: "Records dating from August 1609 first note Christopher Jones as master and part owner of the Mayflower when his ship was chartered for a voyage from London to Trondheim in Norway and back to London. The ship lost an anchor on her return due to bad weather, and she made short delivery of her cargo of herrings. Litigation resulted, and this was still proceeding in 1612."

3C(i). Comment. I made no changes to the text.

3C(ii). Structural Revision. Since the opening of the new paragraph covered the years 1609-12, I placed those sentences in P5 after them that covered the years 1613-16.

Here is the original text:

"Records of Jones's ship Mayflower show that the ship was twice on the Thames at London in 1613, once in July and again in October and November. Records of 1616 again state that Jones's ship was on the Thames, carrying a cargo of wine, which suggests that the ship had recently been on a voyage to France, Spain, Portugal, the Canaries, or some other wine-producing land."

3C(iii). Revision: "Records of 1616 again state that Jones's ship was on the Thames, carrying a cargo of wine, which suggests that the ship had recently been on a voyage to France, Spain, Portugal, the Canaries, or some other wine-producing land."

Comment: It was only by inadvertence that I omitted the original sentence about 1613.

3C(iv). Structural Revision. The opening sentences of P2 develop the information about the cargo Jones carried, so I placed them last in the paragraph.

The original text:

"Captain Jones became master of the Mayflower 11 years prior to the Pilgrims' voyage, sailing the ship cross-Channel taking English woolens to France and bringing French wine back to London. He had also transported hats, hemp, Spanish salt, hops, and vinegar to Norway, and may have taken the Mayflower whaling in the North Atlantic in the Greenland area, and she had traveled to Mediterranean ports."

3C(v). Problem: (i) Since it has already been established that records show Jones to have become captain of the Mayflower in 1609, the original opening clause is no longer necessary. (ii) Since both sentences are about the cargo Jones carried, they should be one sentence. (iii) Because the paragraph mentions his activities in chronological order, the simple past tense is necessary—the past perfect would be necessary only if the theme required that we view his career from the temporal perspective of the historic voyage. We are not doing that.

3C(vi) Revision. "He sailed the ship cross-Channel taking English woolens to France and bringing French wine back to London, transported hats, hemp, Spanish salt, hops, and vinegar to Norway, may have taken the Mayflower whaling in the North Atlantic in the Greenland area, or sailed to Mediterranean ports."

3C(vii). Comment. After "Norway" there should be an "and." Again, a simple oversight.

3D. Structural revision. Since P6 (the last paragraph in the section) mentions the years 1616 to 1624 and the new topic of records, following strict chronological order I made it the new P4. I did not change the text.

3E. Structural revision. The last portion of the original P2 concerns the immediate period before the historic voyage and the owners of the ship; since the immediate period before the historic voyage is necessarily the end of the ship's early history, I made this material the new P5, the final paragraph.

3E(i). The original text. "By that time, Jones was one of the owners of the ship, along with Christopher Nichols, Robert Child, and Thomas Short. In 1620, Jones and Robert Child still owned their quarter shares in the ship, and it was from them that Thomas Weston chartered her in the summer of 1620 to undertake the Pilgrim voyage. Weston had a significant role in the Mayflower voyage due to his membership in the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London, and he eventually traveled to the Plymouth Colony himself.

3E(ii). Problems. (i) The sentence that begins "By that time" was originally preceded by these sentences:  "Captain Jones became master of the Mayflower 11 years prior to the Pilgrims' voyage, sailing the ship cross-Channel taking English woolens to France and bringing French wine back to London. He had also transported hats, hemp, Spanish salt, hops, and vinegar to Norway, and may have taken the Mayflower whaling in the North Atlantic in the Greenland area, and she had traveled to Mediterranean ports." Since in these sentences the only temporal indicator is that Jones became the master eleven years before the historic voyage, and nothing is said about the time between 1609 and 1620, "by that time" sounds strange. (ii) But if by 1620 Jones had become part owner of the ship, why should we be told that he still owned his shares? We haven't been given any reason why, by 1620, he might not have owned his shares. Since the phrases "by that time" and "still" stand in conflict in the original context, I eliminated them in revising because all that matters for the early history is simply the state of affairs just before the historic voyage—we don't need any even implied information about the partnership among the owners.

3E(iii). Revisions. "By 1620, however, along with Christopher Nichols, Robert Child, and Thomas Short, Jones was one of the owners of the ship, and it was from Child and Jones that Thomas Weston chartered her in the summer of 1620 to undertake the Pilgrim voyage. His membership in the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London gave Weston had a significant role in the Mayflower voyage, and he eventually traveled to the Plymouth Colony himself."

3E(iv). Comment. The "however" is intended to acknowledge the fact that, although there is no other information about Jones and the Mayflower between 1616 and 1624, we do know how things stood in 1620. I put the information about CN, RC, and TS in a subordinate clause because Jones is the link of transition from the paragraphs about his career to the broader matter of the historic voyage, and I joined the sentence about the charter to the other sentence because Jones is identified as acting in his capacity as owner, rather than as captain, in his dealings with Weston.

General admonition and exhortation. I have elaborated my justification, and admitted my mistakes, to make it clear to what standard we should all hold ourselves. The purpose of editing is to improve an article; since anyone can edit any article, and many editors, for whatever reason, make improvements by adding information without regard to composition, it is no wonder that sometimes redundancies and other infelicities sometimes appear. Nor should it be any wonder that sometimes someone like me comes along and looks at the result of many uncoordinated interventions and realizes that the article could read more neatly. I am certainly not surprised to discover that, in my own good faith attempts to improve an article, I make mistakes of my own. But I have never reverted anybody's changes simply out of pique, and I never suppose that the grammatical or syntactical or lexical infelicities I find reflect anybody's ignorance—I correct them and without fail justify them by appeal to objective standards of semantic clarity, rhetorical strength, or logical rigor.

I also elaborated my justification because, after all, people who really care about language and writing enjoy thinking carefully about niceties of grammar, syntax, usage, style, and logic—if you think a discussion about whether "and" or "but" is better, then you really shouldn't do any editing. If a person can't elaborate arguments as I do, or doesn't find elaborated arguments engaging and informative, then they really shouldn't do any editing. Anybody who wants to do editing and who isn't familiar with such elaborate arguments would do well to spend time with some of the great critics of usage—Fowler, Newman, Safire, Gardner, and so on. Wordwright (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As I already pointed out in my response to this post which you pasted onto my talk page: You made so many edits on so many subsections that it was easier to revert. There were too many problems with those edits to enumerate them all; one example will suffice.


 * "The Puritans' own sense of identification with the ship was expressed in their naming and signing of the Mayflower Compact…." There are numerous problems with this statement: 1) The Pilgrims did not "identify" with the ship; it was a vessel which they used to cross the ocean to the New World, nothing more. 2) The Mayflower Compact had absolutely nothing to do with the Mayflower! They certainly did not write it and sign it in order to "express their identification" with the ship. 3) The Pilgrims did not name that document anything, never mind "The Mayflower Compact"!


 * Regardless, I have now gone back through and edited the subsections individually to correct the problems. In the future, please edit by subsection rather than by the entire article. Cordially, Dilidor (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019
ff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.48.4.238 (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Entry for Mayflower has common, but egregious error of fact
In the first sentence of the entry for “Mayflower” the article states that the passengers were Puritans. This is absolutely, categorically incorrect. It is oft repeated, but it is still false.

Half of the passengers of the Mayflower were Separatists, a Protestant religious minority distinct and separate in leadership and operation from the Puritans. The other half of the passengers were not religious immigrants at all, but were moving to the New World for primarily economic motivations. They were largely members of the Church of England or unaffiliated with any church, but several may have had exposure and sympathies with the Puritans.

Nevertheless, it is a tremendous error to call the Separatists by the title Puritan. The Separatists were not Puritans. Puritans wanted the beliefs and practices of the Church of England to change, but chose to attempt to initiate those changes by remaining members and working for desired changes through internal reform. The Separatists eschewed the Church of England completely, walking away entirely, saw the Church of England as irretrievably corrupt. The Separatists worshipped in clandestine bodies of believers apart and distinct from the Church of England.

(Strictly for comparison, I’ll point you to the the protests held at the National Democratic Convention in 1968. Some of the protesters were “hippies” that were opposed to the war in Vietnam. Other protesters were not “hippies,” but rather simply anti-war protesters. But both groups were protesting the policies and practices of the Democratic Party. Said more directly, all protesters outside the convention were anti-war protesters but not all protesters were hippies).

Multiple groups were working to resist the policies and practices of the Church of England in the period 1608-1620. One group, the largest, were Puritans. The other group, the Separatists, harbored no hope of changing the Church of England by remaining members. They separated from the Church of England and had established multiple congregations that acted autonomously, and suffered persecution from the Crown because of this unauthorized practice of worship.

To be correct, the first sentence should be edited to replace “Puritans” with “Separatists.” Puritans were not Separatists, and Separatists were not Puritans.

Later, after 1630 when large numbers of Puritans began arriving, the Separatists were muted and the Puritans became the dominant religious expression in Massachusetts. But this change was a decade after the Mayflower Expedition. Rmcushman (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please provide Reliable Sources for your rant. VViking Talk Edits 14:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment: I did some quick googling and came up with a source which might shed some light here. It would take more reading than I have done to boil that down, though. There's also ("Only about half of all of those who sailed on the Mayflower in 1620  were Separatists. "),  ("Nearly 40 of these passengers were Protestant Separatists–they called themselves “Saints”–who hoped to establish a new church in the New World. "),  ("Many of the Pilgrims were members of a Puritan sect known as the Separatists."), and more. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re the terms Pilgrim, Puritan, Separatist, I see that says, "Many of the Pilgrims were members of a Puritan sect known as the Separatists.  ...". I see that the article body says, "According to the Mayflower passenger list, just over a third of the passengers were Puritan Separatists [...]". I haven't really read the article and don't know much about the relevant history so I won't comment further; the sources I've linked above may or may not be useful. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)


 * In his book: Of Plimoth Plantation, William Bradford, a leader of the original Plymouth colony settlers refers to the group only as "Pilgrims" where he states "They knew they were Pilgrims."


 * In his book "Saints and Strangers" George Willison tells us that the group who came to Plymouth consisted of two factions, "Saints" and "Strangers." Those who were believers as it were called themselves "Saints" and they called the non believers "Strangers."


 * The term "Puritan" was never used by either the "Puritans" of the Massachusetts Bay Colony or those of Plymouth. Neither was the term "Separatist."  In fact both terms were considered derogatory just like the Society of Friends considers "Quaker" to be derogatory.   I submit to you that Puritan is incorrect as there is absolutely no evidence than anyone from either group who are commonly referred to in that manner ever called themselves Puritan and would have been offended if you addressed them as such.  Historians usually use the term for those who sought to purify the Church of England from within.  The term Separatist is applied by historians to those who sought to create a new church outside of the Church of England.  Both factions existed in both colonies though "Puritans" were more common in Massachusetts Bay Colony and "Separatists" were more common in Plymouth Colony.  I Challenge the editors of this article to cite the original source and quote a single resident of the Plymouth Colony who ever referred to himself as a "Puritan" and demand that word be stricken from this article within one year of my challenge!

American Indians
Which tribe(s) helped them during the first winter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.88.181 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Implications for pre-existing cultures
Any article discussing colonisation must surely at least acknowledge the implications that this had for pre-existing cultures, perhaps links to relevant pages could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknicely (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be hard tracing the impact of this ship in particular, rather than any other. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging the implications would not mean tracing particular impacts, rather a recognition that colonial activities affected pre-existing cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknicely (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021
Please change your wording in the article. It was a BRITISH ship not an English ship. You used the correct flag, the Union Flag, but labelled it "England"  That is not the England flag (check Wikipedia for England as reference as required). England is not the same as Britain (or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). 47.197.133.101 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The flag and name are both correct. See Union Jack for more information. It was an English ship flying the Union Flag. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of the Flag of Great Britain when the Mayflower is a pre 1707 ship
The Mayflower was in existence essentially from ~1609-1624, why is the flag of Great Britain used rather than the flag of the Kingdom of England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.101.139 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the Union Flag predated Great Britain. See Union Jack for more information. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They weren't headed to Virginia?
The article never explains how they ended up in Massachusetts even though they wanted to go to Virginia. And I just saw a letter to the editor, obviously not a reliable source, claiming the captain was bribed to go somewhere out of British control.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objection to this, I'll start looking into it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic?
It seems like this is more about the voyage than the ship itself. Could someone please enlighten me on this? Aythya affinis (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that most people would be interested in the voyage than the ship itself.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

== The Pilgrims were Separatists, NOT Puritans. The Puritans came to Massachusetts Bay Colony (Salem) later. The Puritans wished to remain inside the Church of England, but to "purify" it by changing things offensive to them. The Separatists, those who went to Holland and then came on the Mayflower to America, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and create a new way that was later called Congregational. In their chosen way, the congregation chose their pastor. ==

The Puritans came to Massachusetts Bay Colony (Salem) later. The Puritans wished to remain inside the Church of England, but to "purify" it by changing things offensive to them. The Separatists, those who went to Holland and then came on the Mayflower to America, wanted to separate completely from the Church of England and create a new way that was later called Congregational. In their chosen way, the congregation chose their pastor. Pastors were to be educated, hence Congregationalists founded many of the early institutions of higher learning in the new country.

~ Rev. John L. Haldane descends from 11 Mayflower passengers, is a member of the Mayflower Society, and has published a book on the matter. He is the third generation after his father and grandfather of Congregational Ministers.
 * I've seen something like this. Either a letter to the editor (not a reliable source) or a newspaper columnist.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Grammar
Ummm I felt like I was reading a 5th grader’s essay going through this article 100.8.134.253 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Mayflower's restoration
Just so you know, the Mayflower is being restored.

Jason and Henry (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

100 foot ocean swells . . ..
The claim of 100 foot ocean swells is extremely, extremely difficult to believe, even though sourced. The sources are very very likely self-serving and exaggerated. Thousands of ships have crossed the Atlantic many times per year for centuries and there have been only a handful of solitary, rogue waves over 50 feet reliably reported, so the 100 foot swells (plural) reported are extremely extremely likely to be an exaggeration. And 100 footers are waves, not swells. Sources from the 1600's giving this wave height must be unreliable; indeed if a series of 100 foot waves hit the ship, no one would have lived to report it. Someone with more experience and cred than I should excise this "fact". Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)