Talk:New England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New England article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New England may be able to help!
Former FA New England is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
  1. /archive1
  2. Connecticut-Boston discussion

Contents

[edit] Yankee?

I'm removing the line about people from New England being called "Yankees." That term applies to anyone from the northeast, and I don't think that anyone uses the term to specifically refer to New Englanders. 206.15.76.98 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a mistake. Although the term is not exclusively about New Englanders, witness the international epithet "Yankee go home!" there are many colloquialisms and uses that refer to New England heritage, residents, products and culture. Probably time for some proper research and citation of sources. - Yellowdesk 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, yankee. Then again, it's a wikipedia article.--Loodog 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional population layout Section

This section doesn't read well and is POV/original research, IMHO. Could we just simple list some facts and let the readers decide about the diversity or lack there of??? I would like to remove this whole paragraph if thats ok.

As an aside, is their a section on religion? I don't think I see one referrence to Quakers or The Society of Friends??

Actually, after having read the whole article, it really needs MAJOR overhaul/better organization, IMHO. Is there a standard template for this type of article?? It just seems like it jumps around and repeats information and has too much POV....Thanks! Tom 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points. I'm pretty sure that I wrote most of that section, and have no problem with it being removed. This article is very fluffy. The fluff needs to be trimmed and replaced with encyclopaedic material. I'd be more than happy to help. --AaronS 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please edit the following article temp page so that we can revamp the article. I'm going to begin making big changes. --AaronS 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I need to go buy food/help daughtewr with Tee ball but would like to help during this comming week. I like the idea of working on a Temp page fist so we can discuss. Again, is there a "standard" page for American Regions? I haven't visited the Midwest or South or Rocky Mountains, ect but standardization would be nice if possible...cheers! Tom 15:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Check this out --Regions of the United States for ideas....Tom 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fluff removal

I am going to start with the Sports section since this should be very non-contriversial ;) j/k Tom 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC) I am going to change it to include JUST a listing of the teams....Tom 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we can include more than just team names in also including a brief discription. Behun 21:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Give it a go on the "test" page. The teams are linked so readers can just click to get more info. The teams are pretty self explanatory, imho. But I would be happy to see your breif discriptions, NPOV of course ;) Tom 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigorous Defluffication

Please comment here. --AaronS 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

I know there was much discussion about the New England flag (above), but my personal opinion is that it if it belongs in the article, it doesn't belong where it is - FAR too prominent for a flag that not one New Englander in 10,000 would recognize. I suggest it be taken out of the infobox; a thumbnail can be placed down low to show it. Having it as big as the map is overkill, though. - DavidWBrooks 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I was just following the typical infobox format. Personally, I don't think that whether or not people know of the historical flag should play a role in its placement in the article. It's not just an article containing popular information, after all. My main reason for believing that the flag should be placed in the infobox, however, is that New England was for a good many years a distinct political entity. It certainly existed as a political entity for longer than the Confederate States of America, and it definitely had more legitimacy. Note that, under the flag, it says "historical flag," too. That should clear things up enough, don't you think? --AaronS 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the caption is quite clear. I still think the infobox is a place for important information - at-a-glance kind of stuff - and that flag is quite trivial in the overall scheme of things. A judgment call, obviously. - DavidWBrooks 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
More good points. But do note that the infobox is also a place for historical information, such as the founding dates of the various New England political entities preexisting the formation of the federal republic. Allow me to simply list my reasons for wanting to keep the flag there: (1) consistency across infoboxes for both current and former political entities; (2) the article as a source of historical information that is not necessarily well-known, but still important; (3) aesthetic value (this is a web site, after all); (4) lack of any compelling reason overruling the previous three. --AaronS 13:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't have the Confederate flag (highly controversial but still much better recognized as a regional symbol) at the top of the Southern United States article. I would say the flag deserves to be in the article, but not in the infobox as it's not offficial and hasn't been for hundreds of years. BTW, we should really have an article on the Flag of New England.--Pharos 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Southern United States was never a political entity with a flag. --AaronS 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
(A sidenote: How can you say the south was never a political entity with a flag? Don't say that at Anteitam or Vicksburg! - DavidWBrooks 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
That would be the Confederate States of America, not the Southern United States. There was never a political entity called the Southern United States. There was a political entity called New England. --AaronS 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try moving the flags down to the history section for now, so we can see how it looks that way. If the result is abhorrent, feel free to revert (but perhaps we can leave it long enough for people to decide?). --iMeowbot~Meow 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the flags again -- they seem to have been put back without notice here on the talk page. This has come up before, and in short, the brief time that there was a political entity called New England under Andros is in no way equivalent to other political entities with a flag. For more on this discussion (which has gone on for a loooong time) see Talk:New_England/archive1#New_England_flags. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 15:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus on the matter. I find your rule to be rather arbitrary. --AaronS 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that AaronS has restored the flags to their prior extremely prominent place at the top of the infobox. Here are my points.

1. Regarding consensus, so far only AaronS has argued for keeping the flags in the article and at the top of it. "Consensus" here doesn't mean absolute agreement, but more "the sense of the group." From this and previous discussions most people feel that the flags should be at least much less prominent, if not gone altogether.

2. I neither made a rule or ruled on the matter. I tool a bold action based on the opinions of most of the people discussing this, as well as the sense that came out of previous discussions.

3. If you look at the page that is given as a source for the basis of these flags -- http://www.midcoast.com/~martucci/flags/NEFlag.html -- it is clearly a personal website of someone named David Martucci from Maine who is musing in public about what various flags may have been, and what they meant. It also never states how or why these were every the flags of New England. Here are some significant excepts:

"The history of the Pine Tree as a symbol of New England probably predates the european colonial settlements."
"In 1629, the Plymouth Colony adopted a seal that featured a shield with a Saint George's cross on it, in between the arms of which is a scene repeated four times of a human figure on one knee holding up something in offering (sometimes described as a heart or as a flame) between two trees."
"Later, in 1639, the Massachusetts Bay settlers adopted a seal that featured an Amerindian in the center holding an unstrung bow and a down-pointed arrow (symbols of peace and the personal emblems of Samoset, who was one of the two Amerindians who had been captured by the English, taken to England and taught English and returned to New England in time to greet the Pilgrims in their own language, which they thought was a sign from God). Out of his mouth is a ribbon with the caption "Come over and help us" on it and on either side there are two trees. On the left is a Pine Tree and on the right is an Oak Tree. The Oak Tree is a traditional symbol of England; could the Pine be the traditional symbol of the natives of New England?"
"The Pine Tree has appeared on the Massachusetts Coat of Arms (Reverse) and Naval Flag; the first Seal of New Hampshire (1776); the Coat of Arms, Seal and present Flag of Vermont; the Coat of Arms, Seal, and all the Flags, past and present, of Maine."
"In 1636, following a sermon by Roger Williams (who was later ousted from Massachusetts for being too liberal and went on to found the Rhode Island Colony) condeming the cross as a symbol of the Anti-Christ, the Governor of the Colony, John Endicott, ordered the Standard Bearers of the Colony to remove the St. Georges Cross from their flags. Before this was done, however, the Great and General Court hauled Endicott in for examination, found that he had "exceeded the lymits of his calling" and punished him by forbiding him from holding public office for one full year! Then they gave the Standard Bearers permission to devise any kind of flag they wanted and, without exception, they removed the crosses from their flags. From that time on until sometime about 50 years later, the unofficial flag of Massachusetts Bay was Red with a White Canton."
"More than a generation later, the Puritans having lost some of their hold on the beliefs of the Massachusetts settlers, the St. George's cross again begins to appear on the flags. In a manuscript, "Insignia Navalia by Lt. Gradon, 1686," an illustration of the "New England" Jack appears, a white flag with a red St. George's Cross with an Oak tree in the canton. Other documents from approximately this time period show the red ensign with the red St. George's Cross on a white canton and a green tree in the canton of the cross." (Note that there is no reference or source for calling this the "New England Jack", other than this page itself!)
"When the American Revolutionary War broke out in 1775, the Massachusetts Militia Men remembered their flag and modified it by removing the Cross of St. George and enlarging the Pine Tree. This flag is depicted in the famous painting by Jonathan Trumbell of "The Battle of Bunker Hill," which he painted in 1785, after the war was over. Trumbell was an officer in the Revolutionary Army and was in Massachusetts at the time of the battle, but he did not participate in that battle."
"The Massachusetts Navy adopted a White Flag with a Green Pine Tree in the center and the motto "An Appeal To Heaven" below in 1775, probably intentionally the jack form of the New England Flag. This flag, minus the motto, was confirmed in 1971 as the Maritime Flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; a variant with the addition of a blue anchor, the State name and motto was adopted by the State of Maine in 1939 as that State's Maritime Flag. The Third New England Flag was adopted by Lincoln County, Maine as their flag in 1977. The Jack form of the First New England Flag was used by the Town of York, Maine as their flag during the 250th Anniversary of the founding of the Town on August 5, 1902."

I quote so extensively only to demonstrate that this page does not provide any evidence that the flags ever were any sort of official New England flag (and I did not use ellipses so that it would be clear I wasn't taking phrases out of context). In fact, the primary purpose of the Martucci webpage is to demonstrate how another flag that was developed and copyrighted for a commercial venture is not a historical flag of New England. How can we justify placing them on the page -- let alone so prominently -- when this is the case? If anything, some of these seem to be various flags used in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for different purposes over time. I propose that they be removed from the article. BCorr|Брайен 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think the inclusion of the flags in the infobox implies that they are currently important and well-recognized - just as is implied when we place the flag of a country in the infobox about that country. But they are neither; virtually nobody in New England knows they exist, and if they're displayed anywhere in public, it's a pretty well-hidden public. They may well belong in the history of NE article, or tucked (small image) into the history subsection of this article, but they do not have anywhere the importance that their visual impact currently provides. - DavidWBrooks 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering all that has been said, that works for me. --AaronS 13:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive- CT

Why did it get archived so soon...?

  • I don't know, but we're still discussing the issue over there.--Pharos 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise text

I'm not entirely comfortable with the compromise paragraph. I understand that NYC has more influence on the southwestern part of CT, but this is only something that developed in the last 100 years. Prior to the completion of the Erie Canal, Boston was considered more significant than NYC and was much more of a cultural and financial hub for the entire northeast than it is today. And it should be noted that the erosion of cultrual identity for the region can be attributed to the rise of the BosWash megalopolis in the 20th century. The paragrah as it stands doesn't demonstrate Boston's historic influence on the region. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the current wording is a bandage to deal with the immediate dispute. Ultimately, the lead needs a rewrite to remove the emphasis on individual cities in the first paragraph, and put that part into the capsule history. It is important that articles cover how things got to be the way they are, but not in a way that misrepresents the current condition. --iMeowbot~Meow 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>That is what I have asked the dude to do - take out the cities, but he INSISTS upon keeping Boston(as the center of the world. Clearly biased) in no matter what. These bastrards on Wikipedia do not know how to compromise or neogotiate. All they know is how they see things or how they want others to see things.

Please sign your posts and indent them, everybody; the conversation is so visually confusing I can't tell who is saying what, when - DavidWBrooks 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection, abuse, and archiving

It is evident that it is one user with a very large bone to pick who has been forcing through the discussion on Connecticut (now re-archived). I have no interest in quashing debate that could benefit the article, but this user (under multiple roving IPs) has frequently violated many policies and procedures from 3RR to vandalism, incivility to outright personal attacks on users with whom he/she disaggrees. I was forced to protect the article, and now, unfortunately, this talk page. There are still users who wish to disuss the issue, and I think a fresh debate by more experienced and far cooler heads will be beneficial to all involved, as well as the article at hand. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok.... I'm unprotecting this talk page for now, but if he/she returns with their disruptive behavior and roving IPs, I'll just lock it again. The article itself remains s-protected in the meantime. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, this is a reminder that there is no topic so bland that it cannot be the focus of a vicious wikipedia war. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I have yet to decide ... - DavidWBrooks 11:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno... it was really just one user creating the ruckus with everyone else trying to pick up the pieces. This really wasn't an editing war as much as one user with mis-placed priorities and way too much time on his hands throwing rocks at a tank. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

As I am trying to get this article ready for featured status, I have ask that it be peer reviewed. In the meantime, I have been adding as many references as I can, and cutting fluff. All help and discussion is appreicated! --AaronS 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone through a lot in the past month, and is looking great. :) Thanks to those who have been helping. --AaronS 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shared Heritage

In earlier revisions of this article, the second paragraph started with the following:

"New England is the most well-defined region of the United States, with more uniformity and more shared heritage than other regions of the country."

This has obviously since been removed, but I wonder if anyone would oppose a very minor revision of the the second paragraph to re-introduce the idea and reenforce its importance to the region's identity.

This is a very rough draft, but something to the effect of:

New England is the oldest clearly-defined region of the United States, noted for possesing a stronger distinct identity and shared heritage than other regions of the country , and is unique among U.S. geographic regions in that it is also a former political entity.

Thoughts? --Gromitjc 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that that is probably true, but it would be difficult to find a reference supporting it. --AaronS 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot about the shared nature of the look and feel of New England you can't really cite through sources. I'd say put it in.Loodog 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's quite true. Perhaps we can say it without making the additional claim that it is "stronger than other regions," which might not be NPOV. --AaronS 01:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Particularly since I don't think it's true: the Deep South has at least as distinct an identity and shared heritage. Deeper, I think. - DavidWBrooks 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true too. The nation as a whole is a diverse heterogenous area with smaller regions that are fairly homogenous by historical context, architecture, and social organization and attitudes... e.g. Midwest, South, Rust Belt, Mid-Atlantic. I suppose it's unwarranted to claim New England has a stronger identity, though its is undisputedly the oldest. As for it being a former political entity, when?--Loodog 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at the political history in the infobox. United Colonies of New England, Dominion of New England, etc. --AaronS 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for not promoting

Hi all,

I have not promoted this article because of problems with the article's writing. There are two single-sentence paragraphs in the lead and an unfinished single sentence initiates the History section. Please fix these problems before renominating.

Cedars 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Loodog 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fluffing flufflity fluff

Someone take an objective look at the "Notable Places" section. It started as a few sentences and now everyone wants his/her own state's natural splendor explained in more detail. This is not wikitravel. The "Notable Places" section as truly an article of Notable Places in New England becomes less and less useful as we each add more fluffy travel-brochure-descriptions to it. Everyone please offer here what are the absolute most salient sites in New England. We'll agree on them, and stop adding things.

I suggest:

[edit] Historic

  • Boston
  • Plymouth
  • Providence
  • Portsmouth
  • Newport
  • Portsmouth

[edit] Educational

I think it suffices to only mention the Ivies with links since they are a very historic New England thing. There are fine other schools, but on a regional level, these partially define New England IMO.

[edit] Recreational

  • Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine skiing
  • Cape Cod and Islands

And please no sandy beaches of [insert state here]! All coastal NE states have great sandy (freezing) beaches.

Anything missing, add it here.--Loodog 05:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Historic places might also include, though, the seaports of Newburyport and Gloucester. --AaronS 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Under "Educational" I'd be inclined to add the Five Colleges area of greater Amherst. And under "Recreational", certainly Acadia National Park should be included. Under "Historical", maybe something like "Revolutionary War sites in the Greater Boston area" (to encompass Concord and Lexington, for instance)? ...We had a similar problem, by the way, in the "Important Cities and Towns" section of the Massachusetts article; we ended up just removing the section entirely. AJD 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Five Colleges history. While I'm sure they're all great schools, I don't know what's particular to them that should be in a New England article.--Loodog 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Just the fact that there's such a large number of highly-rated colleges in such a small area. AJD 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AJD on Acadia National Park; as the only national park northeast of Ohio/Virginia, its inclusion is a must. Also, New Haven deserves inclusion on the historical list. It's the first planned city in the US, its plan is still, largely, intact, and its city green, at the center of that plan, is the best-known example of its kind. It was the site of the Amistad trial in 1839 and the Black Panther trial in 1970. On top of all that, it's home to the nation's third-oldest university - a university that has its own historical significance. Etc etc. Maybe you can tell that I'm biased, but I do think I'd support its inclusion even if I hadn't lived there. --Oconduibh 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That can't be right. Roger Williams National Park is a national park northeast of Ohio Virgina.--Loodog 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Roger Williams is a national memorial, not a national park. Check out Wikipedia's page: List of United States national parks by state. Oconduibh 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised list:

[edit] Historic

  • Boston & area
  • Plymouth
  • Providence
  • Portsmouth
  • Newport
  • Portsmouth
  • New Haven
  • Newburyport
  • Gloucester

[edit] Educational

Ivies, Five Colleges of Greater Amherst

[edit] Recreational

  • Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine skiing
  • Cape Cod and Islands
  • Acadia National Park

Again, RISD, MIT, Tufts, Boston College, Northeastern, Brandeis are great schools, but I'm intentionally leaving them out lest we accrue an interminable list.--Loodog 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed the "Notable Places" section to what we agreed upon here. Feel free to copy edit, though any additions should be discussed here first and run by everyone or else I suggest we just delete them. If there is a serious problem with keeping the section standardized, we might have to remove it altogether.--Loodog 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For everyone's consideration: The Amoskeg millyards in Manchester, NH are in the National Register of Historic Places and are the birthplace of the Segway. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems that everyone just keeps adding, adding, adding, prep schools and colleges, etc., etc. I know everyone wants their particular places listed, but geez, this article just continually gets bigger, and bigger, with less and less useful information between the lists and lists. Oh, well, just an opinion. I'm sure if I went to Hopkins Grammar School, I would insist that it be included in ANY New England article. </rant off> Isoxyl 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Making distinctions is what editing is all about, though. Wikipedia isn't always very good at it. - DavidWBrooks 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


The problem with wikipedia is that any place featured on wikipedia will have people from that place editing it.--Loodog 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The intro section of this article gives the impression that the Pilgrims were the first Europeans in New England. Since European exploration of New England and interaction with its inhabitants pre-dates 1620, isn't such explicit language inappropriate? -Acjelen 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true. There are 80 Frenchmen who spent a winter in Maine in 1604, and 100 English settlers in 1607 who returnd to England the following year, but these were both ephemeral encounters that ultimately had no impact on the region. Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock was the first permanent and successful settlement by Europeans of New England, and it did have lasting effects in the region. For completeness we could mention these other encounters too, but I think it's not worth the length added to the article since they ultimately didn't influence modern-day New England.--Loodog 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
But what of the depopulation of the earlier inhabitants of coast? Tisquantum's kidnapping and time spent with the English? These certainly had a great and lasting impact on the region. I wonder what influence the Pilgrims have on modern-day New England. -Acjelen 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
How about its being one of the founding colonies to the Province of Massachusetts Bay?--Loodog 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt the significance of the Pilgrims to the history of the Northeast and to American myth, but you mentioned modern-day New England. -Acjelen 05:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
For curiosity's sake, also see Mystery Hill. --AaronS 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope that preceeding civilizations do not take it personally that we today find it "mysterious" that they erected structures for marking the seasons. Also, while the people the first Europeans encountered did not build in stone, it does not follow that earlier groups did not either. That Mystery Hill was built by groups in New England prior to the Algonquian-speakers seems more likely than Greeks. -Acjelen 05:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Oldest, Unique...

"It is the oldest clearly-defined region of the United States, unique among U.S. geographic regions in that it is also a former political entity."

I'm not sure what to make of either of these claims. What is a "clearly-defined region"? Virginia was clearly defined in its charter, older than any New England charter. And, unique in being a former political entity... what about The South / CSA ? Republic of Texas?

The South was a former political entity so the sentence will have to modified (one of only two or something). That New England was for a time a unified political entity is important to its history and formation. Texas is not a region of the United States. -Acjelen 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete this line for being vague and confusing, but hesitate. I'll try to rephrase it somehow. If I make unwanted changes, just revert them.. Pfly 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't conflate the South and the CSA; they aren't the same thing. And, you're quite right, Texas is not a region. The sentence is accurate, as it stands. --AaronS 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In thinking about it, I can't see a way to rephrase this confusing sentence and am inclined to delete it. Please revert it if want, and rewrite it if so! Pfly 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Define "region" as necessarily an amalgam of states and you have it, though that's true about the south being both a multi-state region and a former political identity...--Loodog 03:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
But the text linked to List of regions of the United States with "unique among U.S. geographic regions".. and that page has many regions listed that are not amalgams of states, like Appalachia, which includes parts of many states but only West Virginia entirely; and many other examples that don't correspond to state lines very well. And that makes sense to me.. must regions correspond to state lines? New England may be unique is being the only region well-defined as corresponding to state lines! :-) Pfly 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hiding Articles

How come the Connecticut/Boston/New England discussions have to be hidden away? It is almost as if you would like to hide that reality. Not that I would be surprised since the New England artcile is nothing more than Boston propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.43.8 (talk • contribs) .

Must...not...reply....
The fall foliage in New England this year is quite nice, isn't it?[1] —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in southern NH it sucks this year - very drab, not bright at all. Most disappointing. - DavidWBrooks 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not so good yet down in Nashua, but it's pretty nice in Manchester, and there are definitely more reds than last year.—Malber (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm up in Hanover, and it's pretty blah. By the way, isn't fall bittersweet? And isn't the beginning of spring so exciting? Ah, seasons... --AaronS 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not native, and where I grew up (California) we didn't really get a change of seasons; just dry all the time except for two weeks of rain. So autumn is my favorite season. The thing I don't like is that it is so short and stick season is so depressing. I have terrible hay fever allergies, so I don't appreciate spring as much as some do. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

David, I wonder if things aren't just delayed a bit, perhaps as a result of global warming? But in any case, if you drive out on Broad Street towards Hollis, New Hampshire, you'll see at least a few maple trees that are really quite glorious!

Atlant 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one born and raised in New Hampshire that absolutely abhors autumn foliage and the season in general? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York's economic influence on New Haven

In the Urban New England section reference is made to New York having an important economic influence on New Haven County. I edited this to say New Haven proper since counties are not well-known in Connecticut (aside from Fairfield) and because most of the towns in New Haven County do not send large numbers of commuters into Manhattan (which the paragraph implies). My edit was reverted with reference to Waterbury and Ansonia. That seems to be stretching the point, and certainly Meriden and Wallingford could not be thrown in. I see a few options. Fairfield and New Haven Counties is too broad, and in the case of New Haven County, a bit obscure. The census PMSA's don't do any better (omit Waterbury, include Meriden). Fairfield County and New Haven (my first try) is both gratingly non-parallel and omits Milford, among others. Southwestern Connecticut comes closest to being right without being wrong. I'll make that change now, but maybe we could find a better wording. Jd2718 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Counties are well known in CT, they just don't have any power, but they do have jurisdiction. Counties in CT act as counties in other states just without police, a county executive and signs that identify counties. Other than that, the county system and identifiers are all over the state.

I don't know what "they don't have any power, but they do have jurisdiction" means. Counties in other states have governmental function, usually have their boundaries marked, etc, etc. Jd2718 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New Haven does have many commuters into NYC as it is on the Metro-North line. In fact, New Haven is a key city for a gateway into NYC. Danbury is to remote. Waterbury is not the place that anyone wants to be, but both handle NYC rides from north-central CT and for those who are not in the NYC area in CT to travel to those two cities to get to NYC via train. New Haven is the stop for all points north and east. It's connection to NYC is the only reason why people go to New Haven. If you ever go there, you will find the train station is the single most busy spot in New Haven.

There is no question that there are New Haven residents who commute to NYC. But the question was about New Haven County. New Haven as a gateway to New York City may be unverifiable, as is the contention that Union Station is the busiest spot in New Haven. I assume that there are studies of the purpose of travel to New Haven; it would be interesting to learn how much of that was on the way to New York, but it is certainly not the only reason for travel there. I find most of this quite doubtful. Jd2718 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what you should have changed was any New England influence on modern CT. Mainly in the south and west. I have fought the fight to get that false line about Boston being a cultural, financial and whatever else hub for all of New England. That has finally come off which is great. Now this site can start sorting out the article as far as New England is concerned and no more Boston propaganda or any propaganda promoting and idea instead of reality. --69.177.130.84 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now someone just changed it back. I guess that are trying to be wise.--69.177.130.84 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York / New England

How about a paragraph discussing the cute quaintness in the way New Englanders insist vehemently that New York is not part of New England? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.248.160 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

You know, this debate doesn't hold a candle to the map debate over at Midwestern United States. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be no doubt about it. New York is simply not a part of New England. Zomic_13 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when was New York ever considered by anyone to be part of New England? Leebo86 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's a very good reason that New York is not considered part of New England. At the time that the "New England" label was first applied, modern New York state was the "New Netherlands" and NYC was "New Amsterdam". --Dunkelza 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CT is not part of this "New England" either!--71.235.81.39 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The definition of "comprise"

From m-w.com

Comprise:

  1.  : to include especially within a particular scope <civilization as Lenin used the term would then certainly have comprised the changes that are now associated in our minds with "developed" rather than "developing" states -- Times Literary Supplement>
  2.  : to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings -- Jane Jacobs>
  3.  : COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation -- William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women -- Jimmy Carter>

New England does not make up the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, etc... Those states make up New England; therefore, New England is comprised of the states of New Hamphire, Vermont, etc.. Next time someone changes this, point them to the talk page here.--Loodog 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The usage "is comprised of" is a widespread misuse, unfortunately represented by the third definition above. "Comprise" is not a synonym for "compose." Correct usage: New England comprises six states or New England is a region comprising six states. But enough of that...--orlady 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Debate: the use of 2 versus 3. "is comprised of" is also valid. See above sentence in 3: "about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women" from m-w.com, which of course you could also write as "women comprise 8 percent of our military".

I went back to m-w.com; they have since added the following footnote which may explain the confusion:

“ usage Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up. ”

--Loodog 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The six infoboxes for the six states

I don't see the point of incorporating the six infoboxes for the six New England states into this article. I don't think they add information value to the article (readers presumably come here to find out about the region, not about the towns of New Hampshire or the regions of Connecticut), but they do definitely add length and bandwidth demand. Furthermore, the inconsistency of the format between the states looks bad when they are all arrayed together. I recommend deleting these infoboxes from this article.--orlady 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed wicked and bubbler from culture section

Maybe we/you/I can find some sources/referrences? Thanks --Tom 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only heard anecdotal interpretations of the origins of these words. I wonder if a scholarly source for such a fact even exists? Either way, they definitely were original research. Leebo86 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would expect the literature of North American dialectology (e.g., the Dictionary of American Regional English) would have something to say about this. 121a0012 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

I've reviewed this article for Good article status. The article has come a long way, and is very comprehensive. Unfortunately, it does not meet the good article criteria on several points. Overall, it is pretty well written, but there are still many areas where the prose needs cleaning up (e.g. the last sentence of the second paragraph of the LEAD is kind of awkward, 'uniquenesses' in the first sentence of the economy section, and a few others). The article needs a good copyedit before being promoted to Good Article status in this respect. You might also want to review the manual of style, particularly the section dealing with wiki-linking dates for proper date formatting.

The images overall look very good, and as far as I can tell, tagged correctly. The editors might want to look at their placement and sizes to see if they can optimize them in relation to the text layout; for example, the image of the first coins struck in the colonies is to the right of the text describing the plymouth council, and the article text associated with this image is in the section below the image, which is a bit awkward.

The Sports section is largely incomplete. It is really just a list of sports teams, and not written in prose format. The list of sports teams is probably best moved to a separate, linked page (e.g. 'List of Sports Teams in New England'), and expand the article section on sports. The list AND the sports teams template seems horribly redundant; I think you could safely ditch the template, as it doesn't seem to be doing much of anything other than adding space.

The notable places section is also really just a list. Consider writing this out in prose form. There's also a list of notable education sites which seems to duplicate information that's already under 'culture: education'.

The content of the 'references' section are not references. This is a list of books for 'further reading'. The title of this section should be changed to 'further reading'. The 'notes' section should be changed to 'references', as these are the inline citations (references) that the article cites. Many of these references only provide the URL and no other information. Full citation information (author, title, publication source, date of publication, date of URL retrieval) should be provided for these. Please refer to WP:REF for guidelines on how to format references.

There's also an original research tag in the article that needs to be fixed prior to GA status.

Fix these issues and give the article a good copyedit, and I think this is ready for Good article status. Dr. Cash 08:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CT in the Boston/New England Metro Area? Are you serious?

Aside from the clear cut BS and Bostonians delusions of grandeur, please tell me what part of CT is in the Boston metro area? I would like to know. You guys in Philly, as well as Boston (I feel that you two have something in common, historically) need your own Identities. Philly needs to stop trying to put itself in with NYC just because it (Philly) is near NJ. NYC already has it's NY/NJ/CT region. Similarly, Boston needs to stop trying to force CT into it's New England region headed (self appointed of course) by itself. CT is not what you would like it to be. All of you stores (with Boston sports propaganda in them) cannot take it away from NYC. You two cities need to get a life and stop trying to leech off of cities that have nothing to do with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.81.39 (talk • contribs).

Wicked serious. Thanks. ju66l3r 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts for a somewhat more serious response to this crank. 121a0012 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a cut-and-paste of the common from the Boston Talk page. I don't see in this article where Connecticut is considered part of the Boston metro area - which would be, I agree, silly. The CT-isn't-part-of-New-England talk has been pretty well worked over, though. - DavidWBrooks 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: 71.235.81.39 has posted similar remarks on Talk:New England Cable News. — jmorgan (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What happend with the reference of CT being in the NYC area? Why did you take out such a truth? The article in that regard was perfect. It satisfied me enough not to question it again.--71.235.81.39 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this, under the Culture section, or something else that's missing? : "Connecticut is a cultural paradox, compared to the other states in the region. The southwestern part of the state is largely suburban ... and as part of the New York metropolitan area, is culturally tied more with New York City than the rest of the New England region." - DavidWBrooks 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I guess I was reading too much, too quick. Thanks.--71.235.81.39 06:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy?

I was just reading this and it states that "New England is isolated from the rest of the US." Is that so? The ONLY truth to it would be New York blockin it from the rest of the US, but NY being there would make that line invalid. You could also say that just about any other part of the US is isolated from the rest of the US as all of the US does not border all of the US! For the most part, this whole article seems as if it is written from a separatists point of view. They make it appear as if New England is some special place unique in the US and the world, as if it's a separate country within the US. We know this to be BS. How come we never hear of a "New England agreeing to be one with the union army" during the civil war? Such arrogance and too many assumtions are being made regarding New England.

In fact, to even have section about the economy of an alleged region which does not exist is kind of odd. New England is not a state, so how could these individual states have a single economy? I know it was not mentioned to be single, but it is implied that there is a sharing of the wealth and that there is a single economy. This needs to be cleared up.--71.235.81.39 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have some sort of emotional subtext in all of your comments, and your language ("BS") is frequently intemperate. Perhaps this isn't the best place for you to make your contribution to Wikipedia?
Atlant 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that it is since this is title "discussion." With a title like that, what would I think should take place here?--71.235.81.39 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer your original question, it comes straight from the US government page--take your complaint up with the federal government, please.--75.67.189.21 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Also: over 1 million Google U.S. Government Search hits for the "alleged region which does not exist" (does this mean that it's non-existence is alleged?) 'new england'.[2]--75.67.189.21
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_England_3fea.html"