This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plymouth, Massachusetts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	Plymouth, Massachusetts was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 1, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept December 17, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

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). Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

To-do list for Plymouth, Massachusetts: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-10-15 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Image of Plymouth Town Hall Done, Better Image of Plymouth Flag Done, Image of Plymouth MBTA station Done, Free Use image of Jordan Hospital (NOT the image currently used on the hosptial's article) Done, Image showing a map of Plymouth and possibly its larger localities, and any other images that would add to article (all preferably not fair use images) Done Cleanup : Introduction Done Expand : Introduction Done, 19th century History, Healthcare Done, Transportation Done, Mayflower I Done, Neighborhoods in Plymouth, Massachusetts Done, Manomet, Massachusetts, South Plymouth, Massachusetts, West Plymouth, Massachusetts, Cedarville, Massachusetts Verify : Every section (more footnotes needed) Done, particularly History Done, Points of Interest Done, and Notable Residents sections Done Other : Create articles for Plymouth North High School Done, Plymouth South High School Done, Plymouth Cordage Company Done, Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company, Plymouth County Correctional Facility Done

Tbe caption accompanying Dick Gregory's photo states that he has been a resident of Plymouth since 2005. That is not true. He has been a resident since the early 1970's, though I don't recall the exact year. I went to what was then Plymouth-Carver High School with his daughter Michelle, who graduated a year after I did, she in 1977, I in 1976. Perhaps the Old Colony Memorial newspaper has that information in its archives. Ed 02:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the information from Dick Gregory's wikipedia article, but is appears it is slighly misleading, as it states "as of 2005". I just assumed that that meant he had lived there since 2005. Apparently, its just bad wording, and I assumed incorrectly. I went ahead and changed the caption, but a reference would be great. Maybe new information should be placed on Dick Gregory's article as well. Raime 05:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You referenced wikipedia as a reference source for a wikipedia article? That's actually kinda funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown, Virginia is considered to be the first permanent settlement in the U.S. by historical consensus. The fact that it was very briefly abandoned in 1610, a decade before the settling of Plymouth, isn't really relevant to the discussion. If you're looking for the oldest continuous English settlement, that would be Hampton, Virginia, which was continuously settled since 1610, which is obviously before Plymouth, Mass. However, Jamestown is considered the oldest "permanent" English settlement despite the brief abandonment. Plymouth itself doesn't make the claim of being the oldest permanent or continuous English settlement, neither should this article. Lb34 03:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "historical consensus" you mean the consensus of Jamestown-pushing public relations flacks, you'd be right, but no one disputes it was settled before Plymouth. Plainly it was not permanently settled, however. As far as Hampton goes, its own article states "The former Native American community of Kecoughtan settled in 1610 in the Virginia Colony forms the basis for Hampton's claim to the oldest continuously occupied English settlement in North America." A claim, eh? By contrast, no one "claims" that Plymouth has been continually settled since 1620; it's incontrovertible fact. That is in fact what Wikipedia is about: stating fact, as opposed to reflecting common (but false) belief. A whopping lot of people think that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree too, but that's not stated as anything other than an offhand myth in his article.  Ravenswing  05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jamestown even still an actual town with actual people living there? I can't find any information that it is (though I haven't looked hard, it shouldn't BE hard if anyone lives there). It's extremely easy to find information on Plymouth, and this article mainly talks about as it is currently, but there is no non-historic information on the Jamestown article. If there isn't anyone living there, than that would make Plymouth the oldest continuous English settlement, would it not? --DraconianDebate (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown hasn't been an actual town for a couple centuries, no.  Ravenswing  13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you've been carrying on this fight for years. "Tall Ships of Duxbury" is a 20-page, 150-year-old book about local Mass. ships. It is not a historical source broad enough to encompass all colonies. You have 3 reverts now. Jamestown is currently the name of a township, as it has been since 1607, which includes a lot of real estate outside the island settled in 1607. The island was abandoned due to flooding but the Englishmen simply moved from the Island to the mainland, still in the township, and it's still called Jamestown. Hampton was settled in 1610, Newport News in 1613, New Bermuda in 1611...there were 11 settlements in the area which sent delegates in 1619 to the House of Burgesses in Jamestown, making 12. So there are at least 12 Virginia settlements older than Plymouth, and the population of Virginia was 6000 when the Mayflower landed in Mass. Please give up your foolish soapbox tirade. You are clearly wrong here, dude. DigbyDalton (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravenswing recently added 3 new references backing up his claim that Plymouth is the oldest continuous English settlement in the US. I took some time to verify one of them, namely, page 12 of the paperback "Every Day Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony" by Dow. Using google books, which gives a scan of several pages in that book, including page 12, I found nothing whatsoever pertinent to the topic. Page 12 is all about a ship called the Talbot and says nothing about Plymouth at all, it's age, or anything pertaining to the topic. I will now try to dig up some of the other references. Adding references which do not in fact back up statements constitutes vandalism. DigbyDalton (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings on the debate, but I would suggest assuming good faith and giving RG a chance to provide more details on the source. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I went onto google books to see if they had scans of the other 3 references, but unfortunately, the books are too obscure for even Google to have made previews. I'm going to have go to the Library and find hard copies of these books. All 3 of these books are listed in the Library system of the city of New York, which does not guarantee I'll find hard copies. My opinion is that User:Ravenswing is acting in bad faith here, adding false references in obscure books hoping that we will not bother to verify them, just to back up his claim. His use of expressions like "Jamestown-pushing public relations flacks" (above) give me the impression that this User has an axe to grind and should have his editorial pen removed, at least from this article. I'm leaving now for the library and will let you know what I find. DigbyDalton (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with questioning, but it would nice to hear RG's response before throwing these accusations out there. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't put my hands on the Dow reference, but I did pull up Google Books and Digby's right that the page referenced does not support the statement; I'll have to go through page-by-page, but I took down the ref pending more accuracy. As far as the Potter reference goes, I'm at a loss to imagine what makes Digby think it's a "150 year old" book, other than that the full title of it is "Tall Ships of Duxbury: 1815-1850" - it was published in 1982 - and suggest he improve his own fact checking. On the alleged "obscurity" of my references, I cited the ones I found to support the statement, but I gather that Digby would equally attempt to impeach references from widely recognized texts, as long as they delivered facts with which he disagrees; see below.

  As far as axes to grind goes, though, Digby's used choice phrases on my talk page such as "But this is just a myth taught in public schools in Massachusetts," "What a joke," "definitely trumped up by Mass. historians distorting the truth," "Plymouth, like the Mayflower, are more legend than history," "Well you're wrong and arrogantly so." "Carrying on the fight for years?" Perhaps I'm confused: when was this supposed to be a Virginia-vs-Massachusetts fight? I'm certainly not barging down to articles on Virginia towns seeking to rewrite them, a task best left to the editors who regularly update and oversee them. Looking them over, though, there's really nothing TO rewrite, because articles such as Hampton's and Newport News' make no contrary claim; it is clear that the areas involved plantations which (often but not always) encompassed the areas of the modern-day towns. Now if the sticking point is the word "settlement," I'm happy to change the word in the article to "town," which is completely incontrovertible - Plymouth had municipal government from Day One, and the Virginia settlements had nothing of the sort at the start.  Ravenswing  18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back and reword the phrase "First incorporated English municipality" then I have no problem with it." I'm not going to argue about how you added the Dow reference yesterday yet today you can't put your hands on it, or that the other reference I found in the library was false (I stopped at one). I really don't care so long as the facts in the article are CORRECT. I have no axe to grind other than that the facts be correct. THAT is my axe to grind. The Hampton and Jamestown articles have the facts correct, as does the House of Burgesses article which mentions several Virginia towns being older than 1619. If you make that small correction in Plymouth, then Wikipedia will be accurate again, which is all we care about. DigbyDalton (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is, or has ever, said a word about "oldest." It's always been "oldest continually occupied." Jamestown was plainly settled before all the rest, but founders on the "continuously occupied" bar.  Ravenswing  22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Jamestown *Fort* was abandoned when it burned but the town that was built outside the fort has been continuously occupied since the earliest times, it was already there in 1611 when Pocahontas married Rolfe in Jamestown, outside the fort. The town of James is still there. Even still, Hampton, Newport News, New Bermuda, Virginia Beach, Middle Plantation (Williamsburg) have all been CONTINUOUSLY occupied since before Plymouth. And Jamestown was incorporated as a town in 1619 so your wording is wrong, the town of James is older than Plymouth. I think if you want to word your claim accurately, you might try "Plymouth is the oldest town in the USA that I like." DigbyDalton (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown's own article states "Jamestown ceased to exist as a settlement after the transfer of Virginia's capital to Williamsburg in 1699, existing, today, only as archaeological remains ..." Newport News was not founded, as a municipality, until nearly the 20th century. The lead sentence on the Middle Plantation article is "Middle Plantation in the Virginia Colony was the unincorporated town established in 1632 that became Williamsburg in 1699." New Bermuda doesn't appear to be significant enough to have an article. And so on and so forth. Are you even paying attention to the articles about the cities which causes you're championing?  Ravenswing  17:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown never ceased to exist. There have always been farms and houses there, as there are now, and it has always been called Jamestown. The population has never dropped to zero, which would have to happen for it to cease to exist. Newport News was not founded when it was incorporated as a city. Incorporation as a city has nothing to do with date of settlement, which was 1613, and it appears on maps as Newport Niews. Before it was a city it was a village and before that a town and before that a settlement. Your claim was that Plymouth is the oldest settlement. Dates of incorporation as cities are meaningless when dating settlements. For example, Albany, New York was settled in 1614, incorporated as a town in 1624, incorporated as a village in 1664, and incorporated as a city in 1686, but SETTLED in 1614. That's before Plymouth, by the way. Middle Plantation was settled before being named as a town. There were 6000 English people, and even some black people, in Virginia at the time of the arrival of the Mayflower at Plymouth, in many settlements which did not have names, and many that did. What you are doing it twisting logic into a bunch of hand-waving arguments to make it look like these settlements don't count. This place had no name, that place was unincorporated, the other place was "just a plantation" and plantations don't count. But you know what? They are ALL settlements. Virginia had dozens of settlements before 1620. Or you can say Virginia itself was a settlement. It doesn't matter what you say, Plymouth was not the oldest anything. It's just a bunch of Massholes tooting their own horns about what a "wicked cool" place Massachusetts is, just because the Red Sox never win the series. The fact is, Massachusetts has "short man's disease." DigbyDalton (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you're ready to discuss improving articles, without gratuitous insults which blast holes through WP:CIVIL and which has characterized your postings for over a week now, we can do that.  Ravenswing  06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. You lost all credibility with me and everybody else when you attached at least two, and probably 4, bogus references to a fact that every schoolchild knows is wrong, after reverting the fact more than 3 times. Now repeat after me. Jamestown is the oldest continuous English settlement in the US and Hampton is the oldest English town in the US. Now you're on the same page as everybody else. DigbyDalton (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia was the first permanent English settlement in North America. From 1583 to 1588 attempts had been made by Sir Walter Raleigh and others to establish colonies on the coast of what is now North Carolina. The only result was the naming of the country Virginia in honour of Queen Elizabeth. But glowing accounts were brought back by the early adventurers, and in 1606 an expedition was sent out by the London Company, which was chartered with rights of trade and settlement between 34° and 41° N. lat. It landed, at a place which was called Jamestown, on the 13th of May 1607, and resulted in the establishment of many plantations along the James river. The purpose of the company was to build up a profitable commercial and agricultural community; but the hostility of the natives, unfavourable climatic conditions and the character of the colonists delayed the growth of the new community. John Smith became the head of the government in September 1608, compelled the colonists to submit to law and order, built a church and prepared for more extensive agricultural and fishing operations. In 1609 the London Company was reorganized, other colonists were sent out and the boundaries of the new country were fixed, according to which Virginia was to extend from a point 200 m. south of Old Point Comfort, at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, to another point 200 m. north, "west and northwest to the South Sea." The government of the country was in the hands of the London Company, which in turn committed administrative and local affairs to a governor and council who were to reside in the colony. Before the arrival of the "government" and their shiploads of settlers the original colony was reduced to the direst straits. Captain Christopher Newport (d. 1618), Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers, the new authorities, reached Jamestown at last with 150 men, but finding things in such a deplorable state all agreed (June 10, 1610) to give up the effort to found a colony on the James and set sail for Newfoundland. At the mouth of the river they met Lord Delaware, however, who brought other colonists and plentiful supplies; and they returned, set up a trading post at what is now Hampton and undertook to bring the hostile natives to subjection. In 1611, 650 additional colonists landed, the James and Appomattox rivers were explored and "plantations" were established at Henrico and New Bermuda, and Newport Niews in 1613. In 1617 Virginia fell into the hands of a rigid Puritan, Captain Samuel Argall. The colonists were compelled on pain of death to accept the doctrine of the trinity, respect the authority of the Bible and attend church. This rigid regime was superseded in 1619 by a milder system under Sir George Yeardley (d. 1627). Twelve hundred new colonists arrived in 1619. At the same time negro slaves and many "indentured" servants were imported as labourers. At the beginning Virginia colonists had held their land and improvements in common. But in 1616 the land was parcelled out and the settlers were scattered along the shores of the James and Appomattox rivers many miles inland. Twenty thousand pounds of tobacco were exported in 1619. The community had now become self-supporting, and the year that witnessed these changes witnessed also the first representative assembly in North America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, a meeting of planters sent from the plantations to assist the governor in reforming and remaking the laws of the colony. In 1621 a constitution was granted whereby the London Company appointed the governor and a council, and the people were to choose annually from their counties, towns, hundreds and plantations delegates to the House of Burgesses. The popular assembly, like the English House of Commons, granted supplies and originated laws, and the governor and Council enjoyed the right of revision and veto as did the king and the House of Lords at home. The Council sat also as a supreme court to review the county courts. This system remained unchanged until the revolution of 1776. But in 1624 the king took the place and exercised the authority of the London Company. Before 1622 there was a population of more than 4000 in Virginia, and the many tribes of Indians who were still the proprietors of the soil over a greater portion of the country naturally became jealous, and on the 22nd of March of that year fell upon the whites and slew 350 persons. Sickness and famine once again visited the colony, and the population was reduced by nearly one-half. These losses were repaired, however; the tobacco industry grew in importance, and the settlers built their cabins far in the interior of lowland Virginia. This rapid growth was scarcely retarded by a second Indian attack, in April 1641, which resulted in the death of about 350 settlers. By 1648 the population had increased to 15,000.

DigbyDalton (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Pre-colonial" section, the naming of Plymouth is credited to Captain John Smith; in the "Colonial" section is says the town was named by the the settlers. Which is correct? Geoff McCauley (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plymouth, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070313050311/http://www.mass.gov:80/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Law+Enforcement+%26+Criminal+Justice&L2=Law+Enforcement&L3=State+Police+Troops&L4=Troop+D&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=msp_divisions_field_services_troops_troop_d_msp_field_troop_d_station_d7&csid=Eeops to http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Law+Enforcement+%26+Criminal+Justice&L2=Law+Enforcement&L3=State+Police+Troops&L4=Troop+D&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=msp_divisions_field_services_troops_troop_d_msp_field_troop_d_station_d7&csid=Eeops

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Plymouth, Massachusetts. 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/20070426131601/http://www.plimoth.org/education/teachers/timeline.php to http://www.plimoth.org/education/teachers/timeline.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Law%20Enforcement%20&%20Criminal%20Justice&L2=Law%20Enforcement&L3=State%20Police%20Troops&L4=Troop%20D&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=msp_divisions_field_services_troops_troop_d_msp_field_troop_d_station_d7&csid=Eeops
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.curry.edu/Academics/Continuing%2BEducation/Locations/Plymouth%2BCampus.htm
• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 12 May 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) 06:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix infobox, but link to flag of Plymouth redirects to the one of Plymouth in UK. Nomenon (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the official name of the Plymouth & Brockton is the "Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company." It is NOT "Plymouth & Brockton Bus Company." This has started to become edit warring. Ravenswing 04:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]