Talk:National Monument to the Forefathers

Lousy image
I admit this is a poor image, but it is the best I could do in the public domain. If anyone has a better free-use image, please upload it to Commons, and link to it here. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cameron's Interpretation
Inserting "Cameron's interpretation" violates NPOV as it suggests that his presentation is unique, wrong, biased or otherwise worthy being highlighted as differing from consensus, conventional wisdom, or mainstream thought. If evidence can be produced that there are other verifiable interpretations of the monument that differ in meaningful ways from what is presented in the movie, then the "Cameron's interpretation" language should be used, and a section added presenting the differing interpretations in neutral, encyclopedic fashion (no coat-racking). Until and unless this can be done, please leave this section alone. Jwbaumann (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I couldn't disagree more strenuously. A producer/director made a film detailing their own personal interpretation of the monument. To suggest that putting that into the article about the monument somehow violates NPOV strikes me as a misunderstanding of the neutrality policy and a thorough misunderstanding of the collaborative, interpretive process that is film-making. It would be a violation of NPOV to claim that the film is the correct or sole interpretation but that's not what the sentence said; it was merely a statement of fact, a neutral statement. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a more direct approach: Cameron is not a reliable source on the history and values of the Mayflower Pilgrims (or late 19th century monuments). Normally, his interpretation -- his opinion -- does not belong in this article. Rather, we would cite common interpretations found in reliable sources.
 * The only reason Cameron (and his interpretation) is presented here is that the film is notable. This inclusion, IMO, barely skates past the normal "In popular culture" sections that we routinely remove because the topic is so narrow and the film deals almost exclusively with ideas Cameron links to it.
 * If the interpretations in the film come from reliable sources, we can cite those sources directly, but not Cameron's presentation of those sources. If, for example, he says that noted historian Joe Blow said this statue demonstrates that the Pilgrims were against gay marriage, we could certainly look up what Professor Blow's credentials are, determine if he is a reliable source and (if so) cite his interpretation. Cameron's interpretation, though, is no more relevant here than mine, yours or that of the kid who sat in front of you in first grade eating paste. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My intent was never to include Cameron's interpretation in this article (that is already covered in the article on the film itself), I was merely making the neutral statement of fact that there has been a film made about the subject of this article and that film contains the interpretation of the filmmaker. I wholeheartedly agree that the details of Cameron's interpretation have no place in this article (particularly after seeing Cameron expound upon his interpretation on C-SPAN this morning where he claimed the US is based upon the political system of the Hebrew republic under Moses).  Sorry for failing to make that clear in my earlier post.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why must Cameron's interpretation be deemed "unreliable"? Is it because of his faith?  His research in making the film was beyond reasonable and precise.  Sounds like old fashioned highbrow, closed minded, bigotry from those still living in darkness.  ;-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckinflorida (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For comparison, suppose we had a former pro footballer who became a broadcaster and then one of the four Principle Speakers for the Green Party in the UK. He makes a factual claim about the Queen of England. Is he a reliable source? Should our article on the Queen state that she is a blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system? Certainly not: It is a fringe claim, sourced to someone who is not an expert in a relevant field.
 * Or how about an actor who says humans need to eat food while it is still alive to get "life energy" from it? Or an actor who says U.S. income taxes are voluntary?
 * Cameron is not a reliable source for this topic. He is presenting his opinion on a topic well outside of his field of expertise. Cameron is a high school graduate making fringe claims (that we can extract information about 18th century, wealthy land owners (with many Deists and agnostics in the mix) from a monument built by 19th century Masons to honor 17th century Brownist refugees) that are contrary to published academic work on the subjects. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry summer 'phd'(your modest) but you must have watched the wrong movie. In the movie I watched Cameron lets the 'experts' (Sue Allan, Herb Titus etc) in their fields explain to him the events/history/reasons etc. Backed up with the Historical Markers (Holland, Harvard etc) and the Historical documents (mayflower compact etc) and the Historical books (Bible commissioned by congress etc). Then and only then after being explained by the experts does he draw his conclusions in front of the experts to make sure he has the facts straight. The expertise you so sarcastically ("life energy", Alpha Draconis etc.) are saying that Cameron is lacking were right in front your face the whole time... ahh duhh (return sarcasm)
 * You state: 'If the interpretations in the film come from reliable sources, we can cite those sources directly, but not Cameron's presentation of those sources. If, for example, he says that noted historian Joe Blow said this statue demonstrates that the Pilgrims were against gay marriage, we could certainly look up what Professor Blow's credentials are, determine if he is a reliable source and (if so) cite his interpretation'
 * So get to work, cite the sources... Lets look at Herb Titus.. Is he not a 'reliable source'?

Really I could go on and on.... As to the Monument specifically, Cameron ask an expert his interpretation of the Monument. Which is pretty much word for word Wikipedia's interpretation of the Monument. Is Wikipedia and by default the expert not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.139.200 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) So yeah the 'Cameron's Interpretation' needs to be removed. At worst changed to 'Experts Interpretation'... or 'Cameron ask the experts for their Interpretation' etc. etc.(more return sarcasm) But I doubt that will happen around this 'clique based forum on steroids'... However that don't mean your right and now everyone who reads this will know you were wrong... User:joeHighSchoolDropOut...(more return sarcasm)
 * (edit conflict)You're apparently a bit confused about my intention here. The film was produced by Cameron. He controlled the money and determined who spoke and who did not. While I do not doubt that novelist/tour guide Sue Allan and attorney/birther Herb Titus have views that are inline with Cameron's, I have trouble finding any indication that Allen, Titus, Cameron, et al. are in any way representative of mainstream academic discourse on any subject.
 * When Cameron trots out David freaking Barton to promote his historical revisionism, it is impossible to interpret the movie as a quest for answers rather than an attempt to create answers. That is to say the film does not attempt to understand the motives of the 17th century Brownists, 19th century Masons, 18th century Founding Fathers, etc.; it seeks to interpret all of their actions as fulfilling "God's plan". Facts that seem to agree with that theory are highlighted, those at odds with it are ignored. While this makes for an emotionally rewarding viewing experience for those who agree, it is not scholarship and, to the extent that it conflicts with mainstream academic discourse, it is WP:FRINGE. To help wrap your head around this, pick a Michael Moore film. You'll find that he also lets his selected experts talk. This does not make his films reliable sources for various subjects. Some of the "experts" he uses may have works to their names that would be reliable sources in some instances, but the films themselves are not reliable sources for anything other than basic facts about the films themselves.
 * If you feel there are reliable sources presented in the film for this or any other subject, feel free to find reliably published works by those sources to add to the discussion. If you disagree that the film represents producer/actor/high school graduate/tract publisher Cameron's interpretation, you will need to take this through some form of dispute resolution. The film is to work of a producer (Cameron) and the people he selected. It is not a reliable source in this article and, IMO is most accurately presented as "Cameron's interpretations". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The people mentioned so far are not "experts" in the field of history. The selection of presenters in the film, selection of questions to examine and final editing of the material is Cameron's. (Herb Titus? An "expert"? Wow, just wow.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Granted Titus may not be a expert in history but it's certainly not a stretch to conclude that he is an expert in the field of law.... So I'm not sure why you have to once again be sarcastic about the subject. IMO this type of attitude should not be allowed on wikiedia. You were doing fine keeping your emotions in check with you first reply. No that would not suffice, you just had to get that jab in. I will be reporting you for what good it will do. You obliviously have an opinion that conflicts with that of Cameron and noted historian sue allan (history expert) Are you atheist?

I see the whole problem here, well besides you forcing your will/opinion into the article. The fact that the film doesn't line up with 'mainstream academic discourse' see that word mainstream that's where the problem is. Mainstream academia is clearly pointed out to have used unreliable sources to draw it's conclusion that all the signers of the Constitution were atheist. . ie the book by the 2 professors that has zero sources...

The other problem we have here is the fact that you put so much emphasis on having a college edu./ government edu. First by the way you want the whole world to know that you have a phd (self esteem issues)and second by the way that you continuously point out that Cameron has only a high school diploma. We got it the first time... Do you not understand that your edu is a government edu. which in the eyes of many merely points out that you are programed so to speak. Your edu. does not give you all version of history, only the ones that line up with acceptably government versions of history. Which we know today to have many of the facts of history wrong.. and you or your parents paid for you to be government-ly programed. Many would be ashamed of that fact... ie. We/I were never taught that there were 8 presidents before Washington in high school. Yet it is a fact.. So in conclusion one of the points that the film makes, your a victim of. A government or skewed version of historical events. No different then what was being done under the rule of King James...

Please refer this discussion to someone other then yourself. Because I'm afraid that because you have self esteem issues and you obliviously are not a christian (last time your went to church?) you are forcing your will into this article. The money you hold in your hand daily says in God we trust. Must be that the government accepts the notion of God. Did they not teach you this when you were government-ly programed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.47.77 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel Titus is a reliable source for mainstream and/or scholarly thought on this 19th century Mason monument, please explain what material you wish to add and provide a reliably published source for the material. If you feel there are aspects of our policy, WP:V, that should not apply here, please explain why.
 * Your guesses about my education, religion, self-esteem, what I may or may not know, etc. are off-topic and completely inappropriate. Please discuss content, not editors.
 * I repeatedly point out Cameron's complete lack of credentials as he is the producer of the film in question. Cameron is not a meaningful authority on much of anything, other than to present simple facts about himself, his movies, his ministry and such.
 * I'm not sure who you want me to refer this discussion to. If you feel the film and/or Cameron are a reliable source for this article, I would suggest you take the issue to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you feel I am violating Wikipedia's guidelines or policies, you'll need to be more specific for me to be of any help. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summer, you are a proven top notch wikipedia editor with nothing to prove. particularly to some AWM who won't even register. Let it go. Carptrash (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

And we're back. Cameron is not a reliable source for matters of history discussing 18th century, wealthy land owners extracted from a monument built by 19th century Masons to honor 17th century Brownist refugees. The people he interviews (tour guide/novelists, lawyer/birthers, etc.) are also not reliable sources for such history. If Cameron's movie interviewed leading scholars on the "Founding Fathers", 19th century Masons and 17th century Brownist refugees, the movie would not be a reliable source: Cameron and his production company are the source of anything they publish. The film is Cameron's interpretation of the intent of 18th century, wealthy land owners (with many Deists and agnostics in the mix) extracted from a monument built by 19th century Masons to honor 17th century Brownist refugees. The presentation in the movie is not the intent of the Masons, the "Founding Fathers" or the Brownists, it is Cameron's distillation of sources he has selected to present a particular point of view. We need not (indeed cannot) discuss whether or not his presentation is representative of those sources nor whether those sources are mainstream scholars in the field of history. Rather, we present the material for what it is: A film by Cameron presenting his interpretation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Then let's completely neutralize it. Have it say that the Monument is featured in a by Kirk Cameron. And leave it at that. That would be undeniably factual. Danielgilbert828 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Monument to the Forefathers. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070929133531/http://mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/rmp/rmp-forefathers.htm to http://mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/rmp/rmp-forefathers.htm

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) 00:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)