Talk:Plymouth Rock

Uninformative

• so, how big is it? --86.129.6.182 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Caption

I feel that the picture caption doesn't do the story of Plymouth Rock justice. While many people are probably disappointed with the Plymouth Rock as a landmark I don't believe this should outweigh the fact that this was the proported landing place of the Pilgrims...a group of people who could be said to have had a profound impact on the development of American law, culture, history and identity. 69.174.212.154 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Tom Johnson

The rock itself is disappointing, but it's more disappointing that there is zero chance that this rock was the site of first footfall on this continent by pilgrims, and that everyone knows this, yet the place is promoted, deceptively, as if the story were true. - Nunh-huh 09:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the disappointment with its size; Plymouth Rock is not famous for being large, it's famous because we like to pretend it's where the Mayflower landed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.214.130 (talk • contribs) .

That part does need some work, it's all based on a single sound bite from a single source. The decent references I've found about disappointment really refer to pre-1920 incarnations of the monument. I just looked at it a couple weeks ago with this article in mind, and it really doesn't seem that small or remote either, access is actually pretty good. I should take a camera over there some time and get a picture with people in it for scale. --iMeowbot~Meow 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Theophilus

This sentence seems wrong, but I have no evidence: "In 1991 an attempt was made by Col. Theophilus Cotton and the townspeople ..." -- should that read 1791, or are there still Theophilus's today? Neil 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me. Reverted. AJD 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms"

The "Criticisms" part of this article isn't apropos: it's not about criticisms of Plymouth Rock at all; it's just about how difficult it is to get to Plymouth from Boston, which is of no interest. There are criticisms of Plymouth Rock—it's uninteresting to look at; you can't get close to it; and it's probable that it has no real historic significance. Shouldn't the "Criticisms" section of the article be about those? AJD 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You're right - I hadn't noticed that. I've removed it. Here it is for reference:

• * * Criticisms * * *

Many tourists visiting New England find Plymouth "out of the way" as it is located in Southeastern Massachusetts, about a 45 minute drive from Boston. However, it is a primary location for those wishing to travel between Cape Cod and Boston. For those traveling without a car, the MBTA runs very few trains to Plymouth and many find local public transportation to be poor. The local bus transportation system - GATRA - runs from the train station to the downtown area.

Thanks! --AStanhope 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion of whether or not this rock is the "actual place" where the Pilgrims first set foot in America, a quote from Bill Bryson is used. I admire Bryson's writing tremendously, but he is a comedic essayist not a historian by any means, and to call him a "journalist" would even be a stretch. I would find a quote from a legitimate historian to make this point. I apologize if I have put these remarks in the incorrect place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:600:BF5:898C:9BE:F370:D5F2 (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Faunce

One of the important quibbles about the Plymouth Rock is whether the boulder so identified really was the first touchdown of the pilgrims. Faunce was 94 when he was carried to the seashore in a sedan chair, when he supposedly pointed out the rock which his father had pointed out to him nearly 90 years earlier. But Faunce's father hadn't been on the Mayflower but arrived approx 20 years afterward. So a good deal depends on your estimate of the clarity of the sight and memory of an extremely old man who was depending on the details and truthfulness of a story that he had been told as a very little boy. 71.178.242.140 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No one with any sense believes Plymouth Rock really was the first touchdown of the pilgrims. If our article suggests it is, it needs rewriting. - Nunh-huh 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• When I came upon this article the sentence mentioning Faunce broke off and was incomplete. I have done some research and filled in that gap. It is true that Faunce was 95 when he was carried to the site, etc., but he had lived his entire life in Plymouth, and had, in his youth, undoubtedly met several of the original Pilgrims - and he claimed that they had personally pointed out the rock to him, and that he had. throughout the years, shown the same rock to his children and grandchildren. This is more than just remembering something he was told only once and only by his father and only when he was a very little boy. Doubts may persist (e.g., how come nobody else in town had a similar father-to-son identification of the rock?) but Faunce's uncontroverted testimony could be accepted in court. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That sentence had been vandalized in this edit; I've restored the missing portions. - Nunh-huh 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so great a work.” (William Bradford)

“Now as the people of god in old time were called out of Babylon civil, the place of their bodily bondage, and were to come to Jerusalem, and there to build the Lord’s temple, or tabernacle…so are the people of God now to go out of Babylon spiritual to Jerusalem…and to build themselves as living stones into a spiritual house, or temple, for the Lord to dwell in.” (John Robinson)

Has anybody studied the possibility that "Plymouth Rock" was placed or commissioned by surviving Pilgrims (Separatists) possibly decades later in Plymouth to to serve as a boundary marker, memorial, Thanksgiving Stone (as the Bible calls an Ebenezer Stone). This possibility is born out of William Bradford and Pastor John Robinson's own words describing the congregation as being symbolized as stones. Daniel 2 also describes a heavenly community represented by a stone as ending the earthly system of rule by king. I believe that the Pilgrims believed that they were that stone in Daniel 2 and they left Plymouth Rock as an eschatological marker for future Christians to know the times they were in. Because of spending years and years practicing keeping a low profile in England and Holland and even in the New World this memorial would have gone unannounced. Buttressing this low profile would have been the damage that was done to Christendom early in Amsterdam and by one Leiden resident who made bold declarations about being the foundations of the "Earthly Kingdom Of Christ" riots ensued after their announcements. As residents of both Amsterdam and Leiden these events would have been well known to the Pilgrims causing them to avoid announcements like this.

This would also explain Faunce's story because the stone was placed to memorialize the arrival of the Pilgrims in Plymouth probably covering or in front of the place that the Pilgrims landed on after disembarking from the Mayflower. It also explains why a beach totally devoid of boulders would have a 200 ton rock on it. The Pilgrims would not have carved a 1620 in the rock because according to Biblical tradition these rock s must be uncarved by human hands.

To verify this matter a geologist or person knowledgeable in these matters should search the locality of Plymouth to determine where such an uncarved boulder could have been dragged from. Also maybe an unexplainable non-descript expenditure in accounting records of Plymouth Plantation or the church or residents. Also a study verifying that such an undertaking could have been done with 17th century technology. This would be slightly different than the research done on Stonehenge because these rocks were quarried. Plymouth Rock would not have been quarried (for reasons I stated earlier). WMNye — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMNye (talk • contribs) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

No contemporary references?

Via ticket:2010111110013194: was it not mention in William Bradford's 1623 thanksgiving proclamation? -- Jeandré, 2010-11-14t10:09z ^{[donation needed]}

Yeah, it's mentioned in the document commonly described on the Internet as William Bradford's 1623 thanksgiving proclamation. But that was written in the 20th century, not in 1623. It's not a contemporary reference; it's demonstrably spurious, and a laughably inept forgery. See Governor Bradford's Alleged Thanksgiving Proclamation, Thanksgiving on the Net: Roast Bull with Cranberry Sauce- Nunh-huh 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Plymouth Rock: a 'Plymouth Rock' asteroid mission

Might need another top-of-article redirect, or maybe a disambiguation page: "Under the new plan, Orion vehicles would primarily serve as escape ships for space station crews, and they could play a role in future deep space exploration. Lockheed has seized upon the latter possibility, drawing up plans to send several linked-up Orion capsules to an asteroid — a potential manned mission called "Plymouth Rock." Here is the link to the MSNBC article that mentions the project, quoted above. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in the lede need to go

The lede is supposed to be a summary of referenced material in the body of the article. The first quote is from an unreliable 19th-century source that presents a mythologized version of the rock's role in history, with no context provided for the quote. For example, during what historical period was this myth taught as fact? The Bill Bryson quote is equally uninformed, as it presumes that the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower directly on to shore (they used a shallop). Finally, the two quotes juxtaposed to one another suggest that there is some sort of raging controversy. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Plymouth"

The usage of Plymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox is confusing

The infobox implies that a boulder going by the name of Plymouth Rock was built in 1920 in the Classical style. At first glance this had me wondering if it was some subtle form of vandalism, since it didn't seem to make any sense. It was only when I scrolled to the bottom of the article that I found a picture of the structure housing the rock, and realised that this is what the text in the infobox was actually referring to. I think there's a problem here in that the infobox is trying to describe two different things at the same time - the rock itself and the building it lives in - and I'm not sure how best to fix it... but something needs to be done to make it clearer. 78.145.112.103 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetical comma

Okay, so there's an editor active on this page who has four times reverted my correction of a straightforward comma error. On one occasion, this reversion was snuck in with the removal of some very convenient vandalism. This time, the edit summary reads "MOS is wrong---sorry". The MOS is not, in fact, wrong; but that is perhaps neither here nor there. It is the MOS, and this page is not a private garden for the cultivation of rare and unusual grammars. Of course, the editor knows perfectly well how futile a crusade to change the style guidelines would be, and prefers apparently to zealously protect a handful of pages from passing literates. I don't care how long this worthy has worked at a major publishing house, or how sincerely he or she believes that you don't have to close a parenthetical if all it contains is the name of a state. "MOS is wrong---sorry" isn't going to suffice. I invite, but do not expect, a better argument. Regulov (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right, and reverting 10 edits over a comma was certainly excessive. However, I'll admit in this case the closing comma made for somewhat choppy phrasing, with 3 commas in the span of 6 words. How about shifting a word to require one less comma? "... the Pilgrims first disembarked from the Mayflower at Provincetown to explore Cape Cod, Massachusetts, more than a month prior to arriving in Plymouth harbor." This might be a way to satisfy MOS and standard comma-pairing logic and the comma-averse editor simultaneously. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing satisfies me. Regulov (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it still retains the problem. "More than a month prior" is part of the same clause, as you will see if you simply remove the words that are causing this entire comma issue, thus: "the Pilgrims first disembarked from the Mayflower more than a month prior to arriving in Plymouth harbor." No comma is required here. We add in extraneous details "at Provincetown" and "to explore Cape Cod", but neither of those details requires a comma. The false comma is being introduced because the MOS erroneously calls for it to "balance" the comma separating Cape Cod and Massachusetts. I'm sorry, but the MOS is blatantly wrong on this ludicrous requirement, somehow thinking that if we have one comma, we need to have a second one.

There are numerous other problems with this passage, such as "first disembarking", which is akin to "when he first died". I will endeavor a copy edit which removes all of these absurdly insignificant points of contention.

Finally, @Regulov:, I must warn you not to start a verbal combat with me. Your arrogance and condescension I am willing to ignore, but direct attacks such as "protecting articles from passing literates" will bring you the rather disconcerting discovery that you are significantly less literate than you realize. —Dilidor (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Adjusting the sentence was indeed the right strategy, rather than endlessly edit-warring against the MOS. Happy Thanksgiving to all. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor. I get it. This is important to you, and you're used to winning arguments with brute vocabulary. You aren't ignoring my arrogance and condescension any more than I'm ignoring yours; you can stow that. Again, though, "I'm sorry" doesn't get you there. Maybe you're right, but I haven't seen an argument. The MOS is correct, Dilidor. In many cases, if you have a first comma you do indeed need a second one, and this is one of those cases; one of the simplest, in fact. My library overflows with supporting examples, and I find it difficult to believe yours doesn't. If, as I suspect, you inhabit the same universe I do, where MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA echo the practice of most English newspapers and publishers, doesn't that make you either Cassandra or a crank? What am I missing? I'm not an idiot, so explain it to me. Regulov (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem: "the practice of most English newspapers and publishers." It's Plymouth Rock. We use American English. That's what you're missing. —Dilidor (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't accept that. I did not mean English in the narrow sense. I am familiar with American English. The distinction is not relevant. Can you cite support? Even a cursory search turns up abundant and unanimous support for my position. I am not trolling you; I honestly think this must just be a longstanding grammatical blindspot of yours, and I know if I were in your position I'd want to correct it, even if it meant losing face. If it helps, I am over my annoyance and don't think any the less of you. Regulov (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Allow me, please, to point out that the use of, or decision to refrain from using, a comma, is in any case nothing to do with grammar, and everything to do with punctuation.

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

It was vandalized earlier this year. [1] Shouldn't the article mention this? --172.58.44.153 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Why is this rated low- or mid-importance? Isn't it a major part of US history? --172.58.44.153 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Panorama

Whereas, despite its inclusion in this article, there is no view of the Rock in this photograph. Even the thing that supposedly is in it, is actually "behind some trees". Couldn't some kind soul who lives in the area just pop out and take a snap of the subject for inclusion in the article?

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Split in two

Why does it say the rock: "... split in two, however, so the bottom portion was left behind at the wharf and the top portion was relocated to the town's meeting house"; yet all photos of the rock clearly show it split down the middle. As it reads now, it sounds as if the rock was split horizontally (laterally) with a top portion and underlying bottom portion, like an oyster shell. The line should read that it split vertically down the middle, with one side portion left behind at the wharf and the other side portion relocated to the town's meeting house. Maineartists (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)