Myles Standish is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 17, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 23, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 16, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 17, 2011, February 17, 2014, February 17, 2017, February 17, 2018, February 17, 2020, and February 17, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

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

United States: Massachusetts Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). Biography: Military 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 This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Christianity: Reformed Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Low-importance). United States History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}} Military history: Biography / British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Edited the part that said Standish Hall was still standing, believe me if it was still standing i'd be able to see it from my bedroom window now.

Couple of other things i'm not too sure about either but i'll need to look them up later. Batch

I agree both his homes, Standish Hall and Duxbury Hall at Chorley are both demolished.

For those who claim Duxbury hall still stands it was demolished in the 50s and the estate is now Duxbury Golf Course. The railway is now closed as well is the coal mine. King konger.

Is this original work? -- Zoe

Apparently not. --Brion 22:17 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Let me know if my rewording takes care of the copyright problem. -- Zoe

It should be noted that The crest of the state of Massachusetts features a raised arm holding a sword, this arm is Miles Standish's arm.

Is his name spelt 'Myles' or 'Miles'? May seem a trivial distinction, but it's points like these that make or break an article.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---It's especially important because the article goes back and forth between spellings with no distinction. Rebochan 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old reply, but the spelling was not consistent in contemporary documents (Miles in some, Myles in others), nor is it so in modern historical texts. Most texts pick one spelling and stick to it, but there is no agreement from one text to another as to its proper spelling. Before Noah Webster anyway, spelling wasn't very consistent. I will fix the document to reflect this. There should be an internal consistency in this document, and since the title is Myles, we'll go with that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous editor who added the information about his signature. The information may be quite important to this article, but we need a reference to a work by a notable historian where such facts are reported. Also, the use of the term "misspelled" is in violation of NPOV, since it implies that in the 17th century there were standard rules of orthography that were accepted. There weren't. To indicate that he himself spelled his name with a "Y" (with an appropriate reference) may be germaine to this article, but to indicate that other alternate spellings are incorrect is simply not true in holding with 17th century spelling conventions. The interchangability of I and Y can be seen in works such as John Smith, who named the site of the Pilgrim's landing "New Plimouth" and William Bradford's memoirs "Of Plimoth Plantation". Modern historical texts use either form, but "Plymouth", "Plimouth" and "Plimoth" were all "correct" in the context of the 1600's. The same is so for Myles Standish.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I think I was that "anonymous editor." I am Myles Standish of Tucson, Arizona. The only signature I have seen is the one on the Mayflower Compact. A clear copy can be viewed at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mosmd/compact1.jpg. If there are other documents that have his signature with an "i" please share. Thanks, Myles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.197.2.21 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gurblet (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Hey, my family tree says that it is Myles, it wouldn't be reliable enough to make the whole decision, but it seems like a good confirmation.[reply]

Given that Standish is "best remembered" for being a character in "The Courtship of...", shouldn't there be more about the poem in this article? I realize that the poem is basically fiction, but the fictional Myles Standish is at least as notable as the historical one. Nareek 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MILES Standish is my great great great grandfather. His name is spelled MILES. I oun his sword, it has his name inscripted on it. my grandfather is passing away so he just passed it down to me. I now am restoring it.

If he was your great, great, great grandfather, the men in your line reproduced at an average age of about 65. Not likely. You need to have a heart-to-heart with your parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standish72 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose a person has to be notable to be added to the list of notable descendants? I happen to personally know two of them and they're notable to me. Tanner Gilliland.

Benjamin Waller among others. His descendants married the Waller family. I'm a descendent of the Waller family RMSTitanicFan1912 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ile of Man" referred to in the will is more likely to refer to the farm of that name to the west of Croston, West of Chorley and within a relative distance to Croston, Mawdesley, Ormskirk, and Newborough. There is no reason why a whole, distant island would be willed within a list of small land-holdings all held together within a small area of West Lancashire. The area where the "Ile of Man" is today is still low-lying with many drainage channels. This area would have beeen prone to flooding in the sexteenth century, and hence farms would have been built on the higher ground and marooned as "islands". Local knowldege pays dividens here.

The link to the Isle of Man should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcree (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is an old post, but I thought I should mention here, as the issue may come up again, that the age of the Isle of Man Farm near Croston had been questioned. It's discussed at length in an article by Jeremy Bangs here. Apparently, the oldest evidence applying the name Isle of Man to that place dates only to the early 19th century. Like so many things about Standish's origin, it's an uncertain factor. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to my records he was born in Duxbury, Lancashire, England. Standish is my 3rd cousin 16x removed RMSTitanicFan1912 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments to make Captain Miles Standish is his name not spelt Myles according to my family tree and also I was reading this article and it says he met and married a woman named Barbara, Well her Last name was Mullins they had 6 children as you may know. I just wanted to let someone know Barbaras last name and the correct spelling of his name. thank you

Rebekah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahhodges (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have two separate narratives going on. The "Who was Myles Standish" section appears to be a second bio and, rather than being a separate section, it seems to me that information should have been interwoven within the existing article. The "Who was" section also has some serious problems with unreferenced and questionable facts. I'm contemplating an overhaul of this article that would string together a single narrative of Capt. Standish's life, BUT...I don't want to embark on major changes without some feedback on this. Any thoughts from previous contributors? Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hearing no objections, I suppose I'm going to go ahead and work on a major overhaul, which I think this disjointed article really needs. I hope to start making changes in the next few days. Bear with me as I work on it. And, of course, any suggestions, contributions, help, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been debated for more than a century and may not ever be completely resolved. There is no primary source evidence to show exactly where Standish was born, which is why I had listed his birthplace as "Unknown." I will admit that "unknown" is probably improper given the fact that there really seems to be a growing (I might even say overwhelming) consensus that Standish was born in the vicinity of Chorley, Lancashire, England. I've personally spoken to authorities on both sides of the Atlantic on this one. I think the Rector of the St. Laurence Church in Chorley (which has Standishes interred there) put it best on their website when he writes, "The research of the St Laurence Historical Society has not yet provided any absolute proof as to the birthplace of Myles Standish. However, as of 2007, it does seem able to state that the balance of probability is now that Myles Standish was probably born in Lancashire and had some significant association with Manor of Duxbury, Chorley, that branch of the Standish family being worshipers at St Laurence Church."(For full article by John Cree, see here). So, that said, I think it's appropriate to list his birthplace as Lancashire, England. Perhaps even something like "vicinity of Chorley, Lancashire, England." But I did remove "Duxbury" because that was the name of a manor hall and not a town or city. Even though it seems clear that Myles Standish was somehow related to the Standishes of Duxbury Manor, it really would be a tough one to prove that he was born IN Duxbury Manor. Historical Perspective (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm going to take a step back from what I wrote above. As I'm in the process of writing up a more extensive biography of Standish to go on his Wikipedia page, I've been reading many sources. One of the most extensive explorations I've been able to find regarding Myles Standish's birthplace is Myles Standish, Born Where? by Pilgrim scholar, Dr. Jeremy Bangs. In this article, Bangs (former curator at Plimoth Plantation and current director of the Leiden American Pilgrim Museum) concludes that none of the current theories on Standish's birthplace can be conclusively proven. So, while I happen to lean toward the Lancashire camp, I think the article needs to reflect the fact that absolute, irrefutable, definitive proof does not exist. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, in the unlikely event that any curious readers/editors are wondering, I should record my rationale for not including a "notable descendants" section as many of the articles for Mayflower passengers do. First, WP:MOS specifies that lists should really be kept to "works by," "see also," "notes," "references," and "external links." Otherwise, articles really ought to be prose, not lists. I suppose there are some examples of lists within articles that help to shed light on the subject of the article, but I really don't think that massively long lists of descendants helps to understand who Myles Standish was. I've noticed that some of the other Pilgrim biographies have gotten bogged down in awfully long descendants lists. I think this is unwieldy and unfortunate. I suppose my point being that I feel this article should be a biography and not a genealogy page. I think if someone wanted to create a List of Myles Standish descendants, that would probably be the better place. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great job on bringing this up to snuff. As the primary editor at Plymouth Colony when it was being brought through the FA process, I really enjoyed reading this article and seeing its recent changes that brought it to FA standards. Congrats to all of the primary editors here. With 2 articles down, maybe we are on our way towards a featured topic? Anyhoo, the William Bradford (Plymouth governor) article is in fairly sorry shape. Maybe that one next? --Jayron32 04:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I spent a lot of time on this in March and enjoyed doing it. And I received a lot of help as it went through FA. Likewise, I came across the Plymouth Colony page and was very impressed. Good work there. In fact, the example set by that article is part of what motivated me to give Myles Standish an overhaul. I think working towards a featured topic is a brilliant idea. I agree that Bradford could use some work. Plymouth Rock and Mayflower Compact also strike me as articles needing work that could be added to the topic. How to proceed? I've never worked on a featured topic before. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article makes reference to Massachusett - the Indian Tribe - not the State of Massachusetts. See the Wiki article Massachusett people so please do not change the spelling. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited "zero-revert" essay notwithstanding -- it is, after all, an essay, not a guideline or policy -- this information is not about the subject; it's a capsule background of Plymouth Colony. As such, anyone interested in Plymouth Colony can easily click the link in the lead. The only parts of this section pertaining to Standish involve his connection with the Pilgrims (which is already mentioned in the lead) and the statement that there was no evidence that Standish formally joined the Separatists (which is also already mentioned in the lead). This is Standish's article, not Plymouth Colony's, and per WP:CONTENTFORK -- which is an official content guideline -- this information doesn't belong in the article. Ravenswing 00:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with you on this revert but I find it to be very unprofessional of you to be sarcastic about it. To expect a series of articles not to have some historical repetition is unrealistic. You are making the assumption that every Reader is going to read every article on the subject or that they have a greal deal of knowledge on the subject matter before they read the article. There is also context where some repetition from related articles is necessary to a particular article or articles. As for you remarks, a simple revert with a good edit summary is more civil and professional. What we may or may not know on a subject is immaterial to what should be entered in an article. We should presume that the reader knowns nothing about the subject matter and to proceed accordingly. Wikipedia articles are, afterall created for Readers of Wikipedia, not for other editors.Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mm ... I would expect, if you view good edit summaries with reverts as particularly valuable, for you to have supplied one beyond a bare link to an unofficial essay as explanation for your own revert. As far as the rest of your comments go -- we'll leave aside the incivility of taking offense at a rebuttal -- if you disagree with the provisions of WP:CONTENTFORK, I encourage you to advocate changing or deleting it on its talk page.

Beyond that, I make no assumptions that people will read this article knowing (say) the history of Plymouth Colony in advance. I do assume that rather than regurgitating every bit of information I think a reader might possibly want to know (which surely would include the Plymouth and Pilgrim articles, at the least), an interested reader can simply click on the appropriate hyperlinks for any side subject he sees about which he wishes to know more ... a skill set which we'd consider basic for any user of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I agree with you in theory on your revert, and, I was not the editor who initially entered the information into the article though I reinstated it. I did that because your massive revert was unprofessional, especially since it was given a featured status. A good editor would have used a scalpel, you used a shovel. Mugginsx (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on ... it's not that you disagree that the material doesn't belong in the article (although if that's the case, why were you arguing the other side?), it's that what ... I didn't put in an edit summary candycoating it in sweet enough terms for your liking, so you reverted a reversion with which you agreed on that basis alone ... and you're characterizing that as "unprofessional?" This from the fellow who reverted twice as much material from the Robert Cushman article, on July 14, without any edit summary at all? (In point of fact, looking at your last 500 edits in articlespace, you provide edit summaries less than a quarter of the time. Do you consider that, by your standards, professional?) Ravenswing 08:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the problem and planned to come back later and read each line and keep what was important and take out what was not. I had and have other projects I am doing. I do not have time or the inclination to look over all of your edits and come back to you with further criticism. I don't believe you should have indiscriminately removed a large amount of material on what others have determined to be a featured article. Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with American Ancestors and they have NO last name recorded for Barbara but I see someone has already removed it. The reference is at http://www.americanancestors.org/pilgrim-families-myles-standish/ .

Mullins. Myles Standish is my 3rd cousin. Hearried Barbara Mullins in Plymouth RMSTitanicFan1912 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was also the namesake for Boston University's Myles Standish Hall and the former hotel of the same name. Should this be in the Legacy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtentindo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an interesting article in People 30 years ago about how difficult it was for one of Myles' direct descendants to live down the name. Might be worth including here somehow ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After all, the term in the introduction is capitalized to infer a specific group of pilgrims. Using Mayflower Compact would enable the reading to easily access from very useful and specific context for Standish's constituency. Jyg (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Other links in this article point to "Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony)" which currently redirects to "Pilgrim Fathers." Not sure why the first one points to the more general "Pilgrim." I've made the change. There is currently an open discussion on the "Pilgrim Fathers" talk page about renaming that article back to "Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony)" or "Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)."--Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jyg (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Plimoth Plantation 2002.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it justified to call Nathaniel Morton's 'short passage... in his New England's Memorial' "possibly the best source" regarding Standish's origins, when, as is clear from the excerpt from Standish's will provided just above this statement, Morton merely used this document (which, originating with Standish itself, either ought to itself constitute "possibly the best source" or alternatively be looked at as of dubious veracity), down to the exact wordings "surreptitiously detained from" (him) and (his) "great grandfather being a second or younger brother from the house of Standish"? It just seems that either Standish's will itself ought to take this position as "possibly the best source", or not, if he is considered unreliable in his claims; just because Morton represents another person writing ABOUT Standish doesn't make what he writes particularly more reliable, seeing as all he did was slightly rewrite what Standish included in his will. Just a thought! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.203 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've edited accordingly. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that Myles came from Chorley since one of the areas in Plymouth in America is called Duxbury, possibly named after his ancestral home, you can't say that that's a coincidence. Even Chorley is throwing 400 years of Myles Standish's Mayflower Journey in 2020. He didn't come from the Isle of Man, however he might have visited it.ChampionCynthia (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say what his parents names were any reason why? 185.130.156.202 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disambiguated the link to Douglas to Douglas, Isle of Man as there is only one place on the island with that name. This was reverted with an edit summary asking me to discuss this here. Douglas links to a dab page so I do not understand the objection to disambiguating the link.— Rod ^talk 10:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a more recent edit changing this to Chorley so my comment is no longer an issue.— Rod ^talk 10:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]