John Alden is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 24, 2020 Peer review Not reviewed May 31, 2020 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pnh had some legitimate concerns about the article that were too quickly ignored. Charles Edward Banks may be an "acceptable" source, but he is an old one. His cited book was published in 1929, the 2006 version that was cited is only a reprint, not an updated version. Alicia Crane Williams and Robert Charles Anderson are well-known and respected among genealogical scholars, and their research is more recent and accurate. I went ahead and copied in User:Pnh's edits without removing the Banks information. While Banks may not be the most recent or reliable, it seems he is at least very popular, so perhaps still worth including.

I think a better summary of Williams' and Anderson's conclusions are still needed here. I need to review them again myself to write a better article. Tea and crumpets ^{(t c)} 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article. It still contains the two theories by Banks, which from what I have seen in online amateur genealogies, are the most commonly copied, so I think it is significant to give a brief analysis of them here. I also added a paragraph about the Alden coat of arms. An image of this coat of arms was previously posted on this article, and I removed it, for the reasons described and referenced in the relevant paragraph. It is also commonly copied by amateur genealogists, so I think it is notable. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This fact was uncited and not verifiable but maybe it's supposed to go with another Alden or elsewhere? Leaving it here just in case. One of the children, Hannah, was the grandmother of John Adams, second President of the United States.^{[citation needed]} Jessamyn (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article states that the Mayflower left Plymouth on "September 6/16, 1620." I'm sure that's a typo, but I don't know the proper date so I can't correct it. JDZeff (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the dates and fixed them. Not sure why the typo happened... Tea and crumpets (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Calendar versus new calendar. Look it up. Date, as given, was likely correct.

Hmm. Looks like you are right. The use of old and new calendar dates is actually explained in the cited source, and I missed it: [1]

We probably should put in some explanatory notes rather than just writing in the confusing dates arbitrarily, so any reader can understand. Something like with the George Washington article. Tea and crumpets (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOS, articles really ought to be prose and lists should really be kept to a minimum. I'm familiar with the strong genealogical tradition surrounding Mayflower families, and so I can certainly understand the interest in listing notable descendants. However, most biographical articles in Wikipedia do not include lists of descendants. So this seems an inconsistency. And such a list does not illuminate the life of the subject in any way. Although not too long here, on other Mayflower passenger pages, the list of descendants can really overwhelm the page. Would suggest a separate "list of descendants" page as has already been done for William Bradford. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]