Talk:Massachusetts/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Commonwealth

Further information: Commonwealth and State naming debate

Seen elsewhere on Wikipedia: "Massachusetts is a commonwealth" -- what does that mean & why does this article say nothing about it? -- Tarquin

Massachusetts is a state whose name happens to be "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts". It's a commonwealth because that's its name. Doesn't have any other significance whatsoever, in terms of structure of government or relations with the other states that make up the US. So it's more like trivia than anything else, which is probably why it's not here. Now, if someone writes an article on what a commonwealth is, or what The Commonwealth is, THERE it might be an interesting example of how inchoate a term 'commonwealth' is.... -- Someone else 10:42 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
The page Commonwealth suggests that this term means the same as republic. -- Chris Q 11:08 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
Massachusetts government and most established state journalistic sources are very persistent about referring to the state as a 'commonwealth' and not a state. As in "State of the Commonwealth Address", "Secretary of the Commonwealth", "Commonwealth Museum", etc. However, when discussing the state in the scope of the nation, the phrase "and other states" seems to be completely acceptable, and the state symbols are referred to as the State Song, etc.
Looking at the arrticle for commonwealth, item 2 is "a state founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good". This statement is very similar to one in the preamble of the state-- er, commonwealth consititution: "the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." That seems to be the only distinction that applies to Massachusetts -- no idea how it applies to the other 3 U.S. commonwealths of Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania; or how any other U.S. state's laws are somehow less intended for the common good.
-- KeithTyler 22:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, "state" and "commonwealth" are used pretty interchangeably up here; "state" tends to be used more often. I don't think it's much of an issue unless a lot of people are confused about the (lack of) difference between a commonwealth and a state.--Domukaz

Aw fork

What is The Commonwealth of Massachusetts all about? Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 02:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Look here, Keith, we are trying to do an article.Dave 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth - from England?

Rather a lot of the people who went and lived in the Bay Colony would have preferred that England had not recently ceased being its first Commonwealth.

Might that be the reason the state eventually took that style and continued in that fashion?


From this distance one of the striking features of the commonwealth is the presence of the FSF HQ there, and another is that recently it was the least craven state WRT Microsoft. The liberal tradition is remarked upon.

[[Medically]], the town of Framingham is one of the most carefully studied populations and much work on prevention of cardiovascular disease is at least partly based on it. Worthy of note and cross-linking perhaps?

I don't live anywhere near it, so I'll leave this here for thought. -- Midgley 09:45, 30 May 2005 (BST)

Commonwealth could be derived from England given one of two definitions of commonwealth. A commonwealth can be defined as autonomous governments sharing an allegiance, in this case the British Crown. This very well could be where Commonwealth was derived, however, in todays terms the Commonwealth of Massachusetts more fits the definition of being a goverment whose power is vested in the people.

More on Commonwealth

I don't understand why people are so adamant about removing Commonwealth from the name of Massachusetts. Would you call New Mexico, Mexico because the word "New" is just an adjective? Commonwealth has been the name since the beginning. Massachusetts was a Commonwealth before the United States Constitution was ratified.

Any one born and bred here knows its the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Have a nice day :) -Tom?s Irish Hermit 22:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The heading should use the common name ("Massachusetts is a state...") because Massachusetts is the name by which the state is most generally known and referred to—the same reason the article on South Carolina begins "South Carolina is a state..." and not "The State of South Carolina is a state...". Of course everyone from Massachusetts knows the official name is "Commonwealth". That doesn't make it particularly important.
That's your opinion. Mine is different.
And that's why I'm letting this sit on the talk page for a little while, to find out whether anyone agrees with your opinion. I'd let it sit for longer, but I won't have time to come back and edit the article any later than that.
You're acting like you're the only Massachusetts native working on this article. And we're writing an encyclopedia here. What people are looking for when they look up an encyclopedia article on Massachusetts is its history, geography, government, and culture; not three paragraphs of historical background of trivia about the state's name. There's nothing wrong with putting it in the article, but it doesn't belong anywhere near the top. I'm going to re-revert back to my last edit; but first I'm going to let this sit on the talk page for an hour and a half or so to see if anyone disagrees with me. AJD 22:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tommorrow morning I will revert back to my last edit so as not to do more than three reverts a day. Yes it is important to correctly write the name of Massachusetts. What you consider trivia is to me an important part of the Commonwealth's history and culture. Just because other states are named differently why should we abandon our heritage?
I know that I'm not the only Massachusetts native working on the article. And neither are you. How do you know readers don't want to know the how the Commonwealth came into being?
"How the Commonwealth came into being" is not the same as "why it's called a Commonwealth". And who's talking about "abandoning our heritage" or not "correctly writing the name of Massachusetts"? I'm just making educated guesses as to a reasonable order to discuss topics in an encyclopedia article, based on what I think people are likely to be looking for when they read the article.
By the way, Kentucky starts it's article The Commonwealth of Kentucky. Are you going to change that page?
One can only have so many articles on one's watchlist. I'm not interested enough in Kentucky to put a lot of effort into keeping that article up. And anyway, it's not really what version of the state's name the article begins with that I'm concerned about; it's your contention that the fact that Massachusetts is officially named a Commonwealth is more important than any other set of facts about the state.
By the way, this is from the Secratary of the Commonwealth's web page:
"Massachusetts, like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky, is called a "Commonwealth". Commonwealths are states, but the reverse is not true. Legally, Massachusetts is a commonwealth because the term is contained in the Constitution." Massachusetts facts Irish Hermit 22:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the Secretary of the Commonwealth's web page were a wiki, I'd edit that. It's awkwardly phrased, confusing, and misleading. AJD 23:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another Mass. resident here. We definitely need to mention that Massachusetts is formerly known as a commonwealth, but there's no way it should be placed as the first section after the lead. It also should not be the first bolded title in the lead section - generally the article's title (i.e. the common name) should be the first thing in bold. I am also not sure we need to say "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" above the infobox. I am all for discussing the state's status as a commonwealth, but it's getting way too much placement right now. Rhobite 23:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was just tinkering and didn't see that there was a flaming hot dispute in progress. I just expanded the sentence where it was. It wasn't intended to indicate that the matter was of great importance.
IMHO the current leading sentence,
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the United States of America
is exactly right. The first sentence should contain the word Commonwealth, and should make it clear that it's just a fancy name for a plain old "state." Any other details about what the heck the Commonwealth business is all about are basically trivia, which deserve a mention somewhere in the article but which can go anywhere. The fact that both "Commonwealth" and "state" are common parlance should be mentioned, because otherwise it might be assumed that Commonwealth is just a legalism. On the other hand, the "state cops" on the "state highways" are the "Staties," not the "Commonwealthies!" Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we can move it into the History section as how the Commonwealth's constitution was written.

Another Mass. native, here. Massachusetts is a Commonwealth. Simple as that. Do we call the People's Republic of China the Dictatorship of China, because it's a dictatorship and not a people's republic? No. We call it the People's Republic of China because that is what the People's Republic of China has named itself.
Massachusetts named itself The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its government has always referred to itself as such, and still does to this day. State politicians always refer to the Commonwealth, the Globe calls it the Commonwealth, and even national media outlets refer to it as such.
Yes, Massachusetts is a state in the United States; however, it is called the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just like Iowa decided to call itself the State of Iowa.
Keep the references to the Commonwealth. --AaronS 23:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No one is suggesting removing references to Massachusetts as a "Commonwealth". The issue at hand is how much emphasis the history of the name ought to have. AJD 23:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if a paragraph-long quote from the Mass. Constitution belongs in the article either. Its only purpose is to "prove" that Massachusetts is a commonwealth, something that nobody here is disputing. I tend to oppose long quotes in encyclopedia articles, unless they're exceptionally good at illustrating a concept. I do think we should discuss the title of "commonwealth", but this time we should use our own words instead of copying text off of a Massachusetts government web site. The previous "commonwealth" section was a copyright violation. Rhobite 00:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's not copyright violation. From the Mass. government web site's Terms of Use: "All of the material posted on the Commonwealth's Websites and accessible to the public ... is public record. Most of the public record posted on Commonwealth Websites can be copied and used for any purpose. For example, all judicial opinions and all laws and regulations are public record." See Terms of Use. These are primary sources and historical documents. The writings of John Adams are in the public domain. -- inserted by Coolcaesar:the above text was by IrishHermit

If the content of Mass. gov't web sites is public-domain, it's not copyright violation. What it is is plagiarism. It should be rewritten; especially the parts which are confusing, imprecise, and poorly written. AJD 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, IrishHermit did link to the source of the text. I don't know if it could be called plagiarism, but we should make it clearer that it's copied. Rhobite 04:56, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I still think it should be rewritten: it's just clunky and confusing prose. I don't have time to do it now, but I will eventually if someone else doesn't get to it first. AJD 05:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to point out, it's common knowledge among all American lawyers that judicial opinions and laws and regulations are public record. This is because of a famous case back in the 19th century involving a dispute that occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court switched reporters. The reporter who had just lost the contract to print the Court's cases tried to claim a copyright in the volumes he had printed for the Court and the Court said he couldn't do that.

Although many annotated codes and case reporters in law libraries do contain copyright notices, those are notice of what is called a "thin copyright," meaning that the copyright protects only the annotations contributed by the publishers, and the specific design of those particular books, and not the actual text from the legislature or judges.

I personally think that the paragraphs inserted by IrishHermit are a bit wordy but otherwise they're fine as currently placed under the Law and Government section.

--Coolcaesar 02:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that works on the Massachusetts state website were freely usable. Most other states don't license their work in this way, so I assumed that Massachusetts was the same way. I agree, the paragraphs are a bit wordy and quote-heavy but they're acceptable.
Offtopic, some laws actually are copyrighted. Many laws are written by companies and licensed to state and local governments. The Mass.gov notice is correct, these companies hold the copyright and the text of the law is not freely distributable. This practice made Slashdot a few years ago.. Rhobite 02:52, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Uh...in that case the copyright holder lost

I think I know which case you're talking about. In Veeck v. SBCCI the 5th Circuit ruled for Veeck on rehearing en banc. The cite is: Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).

It sounds like you're not familiar with the holding in the case. The 5th Circuit held that SBCCI has a federal copyright in its model codes, but not in the law. So Veeck was free to copy the model codes up to the extent that they were the law of the towns of Anna and Savoy (and if the towns had adopted a given model code in whole, he could copy all of it as long as it represented the law and he indicated it as such).

He was not free to copy any parts of the code that had not been adopted as the law, but because SBCCI failed to raise that argument in the district court (that is, the argument that Anna and Savoy had not adopted the model code at issue in whole), the argument was held to have been waived.

The point of Veeck is that private creators of model codes have a copyright in them only insofar as such codes have not been adopted into law. Once a piece of a model code is adopted into law, then that that piece loses federal copyright protection (to the extent that a reproduction of that text is a reproduction of the law).

--Coolcaesar 03:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know how that case turned out. Thanks for the info. Rhobite 03:43, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Important cities and towns

I agree that city/town's have their own significance rather than just population. Even the List of Cities and Towns of Massachusetts on the bottom of the page doesn't include all of them. Being part of Boston during the birth of our nation, I added Revere back in.--Anonymous

Why should population be the only indication of a city/town's importance? Places like Gloucester and Andover should not have been removed from the list.--AaronS 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Population isn't the only indication of a city or town's importance. Famous historical events (like Plymouth, Salem, Lexington, Concord), major academic centers (like Amherst), and major tourist destinations (like Provincetown) are also important. Really, I think I put the population cutoff too low: I'm not convinced that Brockton, Fall River, and New Bedford really belong on the list. The basic criterion is, how likely is it that someone who isn't from New England would have heard of the town? Gloucester and Andover clearly don't meet that. AJD 17:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that most non-New Englanders would know of Gloucester, the setting for The Perfect Storm, and Andover, the home of Phillips Andover. Furthermore, I think that "important cities and towns" should reflect cities and towns that are important to Massachusetts, not simply famous places. If most people already know of these places, why would they need an encyclopaedia to know that they exist? --AaronS 20:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

More on Important cities and towns

The "Important Cities and Towns" list is getting unwieldy. I'd like to prune it down if we can agree on criteria. Proposal: include the three largest cities (Boston, Worcester, Springfield); cities and towns that have notable historical importance (Plymouth for the Pilgrims, Salem for the witch trials, Concord for the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Lowell for the textile mills); and cities and towns that have present-day cultural significance (Cambridge and Amherst are famous for the colleges and universities they contain; Provincetown is known nationwide as a gay mecca, usually in those exact words). Any others that are at this level of significance?—that is, places that people from outside Massachusetts would consider to be among the significant and well-known cities and towns of Massachusetts? I'm sure that Pittsfield and New Bedford are fine places, but they don't have a whole lot of importance to people from outside New England. Comments? AJD 05:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why people like to make lists without brief comments on each item. I think the list should be reformatted into a bullet list format with a short explanation of what is notable for each city. For large cities that are included simply as being large, include the population. I'm not sure that cities on the list should be removed, because that usually gets contentious. Speaking as someone who has not put any of the cities on that list, I can nevertheless see some pretty solid claims for the inclusion of many. Here's a first cut.

Massachusetts cities and towns of historical or cultural importance include:

  • Amherst (center of the Five Colleges region); lifelong home of Emily Dickinson
  • Barnstable (the major city of Cape Cod)
  • Boston (largest city and state capital)
  • Cambridge (location of Harvard and MIT)
  • Concord (home of Thoreau, Emerson; site of first battle in the American Revolution)
  • Fall River (location where Lizzie Borden took her axe and gave her father forty whacks)
  • Lowell (historically important mill town; birthplace of Jack Kerouac)
  • Lynn (dunno about this one; Lynn, Lynn, city of sin...)
  • New Bedford (historically important whaling port, figuring in opening chapters of Moby-Dick)
  • Northampton
  • Pittsfield (where GE began; current location of GE corporate headquarters; location where Melville wrote Moby-Dick)
  • Provincetown (gay mecca)
  • Salem (witch trials; historically a port rivalling Boston in the early 1800s; birthplace of Nathaniel Hawthorne)
  • Springfield (location where basketball was invented by James Naismith)
  • Taunton
  • Worcester (location of Robert Goddard's pioneering rocket experiments)

Don't know what you'd say about Northampton other than also being in the Five Colleges area. Northampton has been prominent in gay rights; several(?) of the Goodridge(?) plaintiffs live there. Lynn is where GE makes jet engines, and Taunton is something of a semiconductor and electronics center. Dpbsmith 14:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You could always include the birthplace of the American Navy, if you can determine which town it was. KeithTyler
Taunton is the birthplace of the Liberty and Union Flag. This is the red flag with a small British flag in the upper-left and the words "Liberty and Union" across it. It was once a major silversmithing city, and has connections to Robert Treat Paine. That's all I know about it, however. Not sure if any of that would qualify. Sahasrahla 08:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
Quincy Massachusetts should be added to this list. --jenlight 16:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
In one sentence, what makes Quincy a "town of historical or cultural importance?" I can think of some possibilities, but what did you have in mind? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is Northampton there? Rmpfu89 22:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. It's not my list. I took the list that was there and added short comments for those towns about which I could think of something obviously notable. Any list of "towns of historical or cultural importance" is going to be ssubjective. Northampton is the location of Smith College and historically has always have a reputation as an "arts town." If I'd been making a list I probably wouldn't have put it on, but now that it's on I probably wouldn't take it off. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How would people feel about adding a list of principal cities as listed by the Office of Management and Budget (from here)? At least this way, we can have a list of important cities without worrying about people adding random entries. The principal cities as listed by the OMB are:

  • Amherst Center
  • Athol
  • Barnstable Town
  • Boston
  • Cambridge
  • Fall River
  • Fitchburg
  • Framingham
  • Gardner
  • Greenfield
  • Leominster
  • New Bedford
  • Newton
  • North Adams
  • Pittsfield
  • Quincy
  • Springfield
  • Waltham
  • Worcester

Note that these are more for their current importance rather than any historic/cultural influence. --Polaron | Talk 01:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd strike the section altogether. Like many other such sections on Wikipedia, it's liable to inevitable creep from everyone convinced that his or her town ought to be on it, and for anything short of census data is inherently POV. RGTraynor 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the difficulty in maintaining such lists so I don't have a strong feeling one way or another. In any case, the list I posted is the one used by the US Census Bureau. --Polaron | Talk 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty random list, really, and just breaks down along the lines of the decades-old arbitrary "metro areas" defined by the OMB. Certainly I'd take with a huge grain of salt any list that included North Adams, Athol, Barnstable, Waltham, Framingham, Newton, Gardner and Leominster and left out Plymouth, Northampton, Quincy, Lowell, Lawrence and Provincetown. RGTraynor 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, I would be skeptical of a list that left out Plymouth, Noho, and Taunton, and I would agree it could raise POV issues. Might be best to scrap the list. Sahasrahla 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

State map

The state map is provisional, it is planned to be like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. States/mockups. Especially for small states one can see very little of the state on the US map. - Patrick 19:59, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Higher education POV-fest

The Ivy League university Harvard University is arguably the most famous university in the world; Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Worcester Polytechnic Institute are top engineering and science universities; Amherst College and Williams College in western Massachusetts are top liberal arts colleges; Wellesley College, Mount Holyoke College, and Smith College are top women's colleges; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Berklee College of Music are but two of the specialist institutions that are at the top of their fields.

When I read this, I experience a rising tide of nausea and an intense desire to do something humiliating to the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the student body of all those "top" schools.

Particularly Harvard. Most famous university in the world. in the world? Harvard is more famous than that twelfth-century pile of dreaming spires in England? I think it will take more than an "arguably" to fix THAT statement... VE*RI*TAS indeed. Dpbsmith 03:46, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC) P. S. "Harvard University" gets 2,560,000 Google hits; "Oxford University" gets 3,730,000. And FWIW "Yale University" gets 1,670,000 and "Cambridge University" gets 2,930,000. Dpbsmith 15:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OTOH, 32,500 pages link to www.harvard.edu, while 31,900 link to www.ox.ac.uk. -KeithTyler

This argument seems to have been settled with the US News & World Report rankings criteria. While that criteria is debatable, I removed Emerson since it is not on the US News list.

Emerson College is a highly-respected film school. I wouldn't rely on USNWR rankings for any of our decisions -- they're crap. --AaronS 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a traditional liberal arts college, though. I don't think it should be included alongside Amherst, Williams et al. Rhobite 17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Emerson is the only school in the nation devoted exclusively to the communicative arts. Certainly that makes it noteworthy?146.243.4.157 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New England Town

Suggestion: excise the section explaining the "New England Town" style of political division, and extrapolate it into a New England town article to be included by reference (and for other states). Thoughts? KeithTyler

I like that idea. Would that include a discussion of how New England townships differ from those in the rest of the country? RickK 00:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the explanation could be expanded upon, or perhaps with examples; and it could mention the trend in New England states to abolish county government (the concepts are related IMO, even though county abolition is a recent idea). And it could include a discussion/comparison of how new towns are formed in such a structure (i.e. by secession). Some history of the system would be deserved, too.
I have to say, after living in New England all my life, and then moving to the West Coast, the concepts of "county land", "county law", and "county police" were completely alien and astonishing to me.
KeithTyler 01:05, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I too like the idea of creating a new article for New England Town. It's interesting how this contrasts with the rest of the country.

Acegikmo1 01:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I think some of it is covered in the township article. Rmhermen 01:34, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not. It is covered a bit in Town, though. I don't know how the word "township" got involved, because "township" is not at all what the section I'm referring to is talking about. KeithTyler 19:04, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
I believe the meanings of "Town" and "Township" differ enough from place to place that the two concepts are hopelessly intertwingled. I don't have time to check ANY of this, but I think that a New York State "township" that is rather like a New England town. Meanwhile, in the Western states that look all squared off from the air, you have "range-and-township" and townships are just square numbered chunks of land... but like a New England town, the land is fully subdivided into townships and every piece of land belongs to some township. In other words, if you describe a New England town I believe there are people who might pop up and say, "Oh! that really should be called a township". Or then again, maybe not. Dpbsmith 19:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, because IMO Massachusetts does not look at all 'squared off' from the air (though there are lots of straight lines; but that's more likely a convenience in boundary-drawing than in someone drawing a grid on the shape of the state).
Moreover, New England cities are known to "perambulate the bounds" once a year to make sure that the boundary markers with neighboring towns have not been moved (nowadays just a ritual more than an actual concern; New Englanders are big on ritual, especially the historic and fun-and-pointless kinds). If everything was gridded off, you'd think that boundary disputes would not become an issue. So something tells me that the boundaries of cities and towns in the new england town system has more to do with separating settlements (i.e. territoriality) than it does with just dividing up available land.
When I say "New England Town", I don't mean "town form of government", which may have some similarity to the civil township definition; but I mean the method of arranging cities and towns within the state land, which is distinctive to the rest of the country. I'm not even sure that New York's design is quite the same thing.
KeithTyler 20:10, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Legal holidays

The "legal holidays" section says "Massachusetts has several state holidays" and then presents a list which contains exactly one state holiday. I'd recommend throwing out the entire section, mentioning Patriot's Day somewhere else in this article, and adding Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day to the Suffolk County article where they belong. AJD 04:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mass. General Laws Chapter 6 contains over 100 legal state holidays. Section 12C makes Bunker Hill Day a state holiday, and 12K makes Evacuation Day a state holiday. They're only really paid attention to in Suffolk County, but they're still state holidays. Easier than trying to put down all the ones that are completely ignored. Good Friday... eh... that's a tough one. Just my two cents. Sahasrahla 08:31, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

minor note: I've moved the Evacuation Day page to Evacuation Day (Massachusetts) due to a similarly-named holiday (or rather, former holiday) in New York. Don't worry, I'm taking care of the redirects.--Pharos 07:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Taxachusetts"

I think we should mention this often-cited nickname of the state, because it shows more of the state's character. Anybody else? --Mjklin 21:07, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

  • I disagree. It's a decades-old detail of local politics. It's rarely used outside the state, and it's rarely used anymore inside the state (it was only used by Republicans, e.g. to attack Dukakis when he was governor, and they don't use it anymore because we've had Republican governors for about a decade). It's not of much interested to anyone outside the state who isn't involved in state politics. For evidence of rarity of use, if we make some searches of The New York Times, we find:
    • "Massachusetts" is mentioned 29 times in the last seven days, or about 1500 times per year
    • "Bay State," exact phrase, is mentioned 36 times in the years 2000-2004, or about 6 times per year
    • "Beantown" is mentioned 14 times in the years 2000-2004, or about 3 times per year
    • "Taxachusetts" is only mentioned 4 times, less than once a year
    • Of the four times it is mentioned, two are in the context of its no longer meriting its former moniker; one is former Republican state chair Healey warning that if the Democrats had their way the state might return to being Taxachusetts, and one is a Florida politico saying that Kerry will have to fight the "Taxachusetts" label. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the first time I heard it was a reference made on The Simpsons. Mjklin 04:33, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

If one checks http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html they will find that the individual tax rate in Massachusetts ranks as one of the lowest. I tried to find the exact rating but no luck so far. I remember it being 39th for some reason but I am not sure. Certainly this slur does not belong in any description of this fine Commonwealth!

The "Bay State again from the Gay State"

"Massachusetts will be forever known as the birthplace of homosexual marriage. From the Bay State to the Gay State." - Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/14/gay_marriage_appeals_move_to_federal_court/ I think the sentence about this name should be reinserted. Schwael 21:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it shouldn't. The fact that Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage is important. The specific anti-gay rhetoric this has evoked from a local pol is unimportant. The phrase has not caught on, neither in Massachusetts nor anywhere else. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC) P. S. I don't even think this level of detail (slogans used by local anti-gay politicians) is appropriate for the Massachusetts paragraph in the Same-sex marriage article. Notes on Philip Travis and his efforts in opposition to same-sex marriage would, however, be appropriate for the Rehoboth, Massachusetts article. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

'The same sex marriage plan was overturned by Governor Romney in 2006. Making all the above posturing a mute point!' September 14, 2005: The second convention to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage (but permit civil unions) was held, which would allow the issue to go to a popular vote in 2006. This time, the amendment was defeated soundly, 157-39, and thus will not be put before the voters. Supporters of the defeated act plan to introduce a new amendment that would ban same-sex marriage while not providing for civil unions. Governor Romney supports a union between a single man and a single woman and had repeatedly vetoed any bills that said otherwise.

First sentence

Massachusetts is a state of the United States of America, part of the New England region.

This sentence is unclear and makes it appear that the United States of America is part of the New England region. Not the reverse. -Tom?s

Straw poll: what is the most appropriate name for this article?

I think this is a dead issue. See below.

Note: if you are not familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, please read them first. Keeping in mind the policies

  • "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things,"
  • "Each U.S. state shall be called by the common name of the state, e.g. Texas, California,"

please vote for the most appropriate name for this article. (Any other names can be created as redirects to the most appropriate name).

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Massachusetts (the present name)

  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Schwael 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC) The policy should be followed, especially since the state is probably a more commonly requested article than the tribe etc. Perhaps disambiguation should go at the top of the article.


Note: the reason for this poll is that a user unilaterally moved this article to a new name without discussion. This article should not be moved until a) consensus is reached as to what the name of the article should be, and b) (if it is to be moved) people have agreed as to who will do the work of updating existing links to the present name. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He should have discussed it but he done it. I like it. Massachusetts alone covers everything else, including the tribe. For the links, just put in a couple of redirects. The public will gradually catch up on all the links.Dave 22:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a dead issue. It's been quite a while since the question of moving it was raised, by one particular user who was very insistent on the "Commonwealth." Unless someone has strong feellings on the matter, I'll delete this entire section in a day or so. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

From Wikipedia: Naming Conventions, Two of the nations where English-speaking people live are the United Kingdom and the United States, as an example of using the article the. You wouldn't write that, "People live in United Kingdom" or "She visited White House". The state is routinely refered to as "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" in state documents, stae web sites, the news. Since 1780, we the people have refered to our state and government as "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

Like it sez, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. " Irish Hermit

  • User:IrishHermit, please look at the straw poll above, read the policy pages on naming articles in general and articles on states in particular, cast your vote in the straw poll, and wait to see what the consensus is. Until we have consensus to move the article, please don't move it and please don't edit the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is currently a redirect to Massachusetts. I'm considering a block if you continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the Wiki page on editing: "Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold!"

I guess that's a lot of BS? Irish Hermit 02:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should read and understand what the linked page at be bold says before saying its BS. older≠wiser 02:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Be bold, yes; be reckless, no. Just because you can edit doesn't mean that you can ignore the opinions of other editors, or the policy pages, which in most cases represent well-established consensus. You cannot dictate or control the content of Massachusetts or any other page. Please try to work with the rest of us. Articulate your views, say your say, and if it is clear that you're not convincing others, do not try to impose your views on the rest of us. It won't work and it will just get you and everyone else irritated. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Sources not cited

Wikipedia:Cite sources has a lot of information on citing sources. Now, I notice that a lot of information on the Massachusetts page is not cited. Things such as the wealthies town in MA, percentages of people belonging to a religion, IQ of state residents compared to residents of Mississippi :) Should those be commented out until the original posters or someone else can cite the sources for those facts? Irish Hermit 02:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Although I happen to agree with you that the "wealthiest" and "IQ" items are iffy and should have their sources cited. The percentages of people belonging to a religion is probably U. S. Census data. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not disrupting, I'm editing.  :) Irish Hermit 02:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the smiley.
Don't bite my finger, look where I'm pointing.
If you wanted to be truly helpful, you could check the page history for Massachusetts, find out who contributed those items, and ask them on their Talk pages where they got the information. If they don't respond within a reasonable period of time, then, yes, it might be in order to remove them. Or you could see whether you could verify this information yourself.
I'm signing off now. I'll probably be checking in tomorrow. I don't want to have to revert a mess of foolishness. And I've never blocked anyone before and I don't want to bother to figure out how it's done. From the town that is called "The Crown Jewel of the Commonwealth," I bid you goodnight. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's call a truce. But one thing you should bear in mind: When you look at the information on how to edit pages, change names, move pages, etc. you are encouraged to do so. Wikepedia makes it easy, and it's easy to find that information. Things like Request For Votes, Straw Polls, etc. are not evident when you start reading pages on editing. Phrases like edited mercilessly and be bold lead one to jump right in!

Look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page(the help below the edit box) and Help:Contents (the help link on the main page) from a newcomers viewpoint. Plenty of information on how edit. Nothing at first glance on consensus, votes, etc. So what happens when you edit? Someone changes it back, get on your case about not knowing the rules.

So what does that look like to someone like me? It looks like this is a private playground and when someone comes along and makes his own decisions on editing he's asked to leave the playgound. I've been told to go away by people here bcause they didn't like my edits.

Now, I'm not saying anything bad about the folks here, but look at your help pages and my edits. Nothing I read there told me to not do what I did in editing. Rules on formatting, polls, etc are buried.

Perhaps the administrators, or those who talk to them, should think about a clearer and easier to explain these things.

Also, it appears that if two people are editing a page at the same time and one of them (me) goes back a few pages in his browser and saves again it over writes the other editor. And when I removed the redirects that I created (after getting complaints about them) I got complaints about the removal!

All the best, Tom?s Irish Hermit 04:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A truce? This isn't a war, just a spirited discussion. You could be right that the "community" aspect of Wikipedia isn't made clear to newcomers. Everyone feels that there are way too many policy pages and that nobody can possibly be expected to be familiar with them, especially not when beginning.
IMHO the guy who told you to "go away" was overreacting.
But it isn't a "private playground" (your words). It's a public playground. Continue to "be bold," but if you get a reaction from another Wikipedian, then don't just bull ahead, discuss it. The general idea about "being bold" is if you can't figure out whether it's right to try something, then try it. But if you get a reaction from another Wikipedian saying it's not right, pay attention. Maybe you're right, maybe he's right, but it's time to stop and discuss things.
You've now found out you can move a major article like Massachusetts. OK. But it sholdn't have been moved, so I moved it back. Not a biggy. When you overwrote the redirect and continued editing at The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you gave the impression you were being defiant, and some people yelled a bit. Still not a biggy. But now that you know that a lot of us think this article needs to stay where it is, and that the redirect at The Commonwealth of Massachusetts needs to stay as a redirect, you need to accept that until you can convince us otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Irish Hermit 12:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Average IQ

IrishHermit called my attention to this factoid. It seems to have been added recently by an anon 68.193.103.52. Full text, before Ajd trimmed it, was:

The average IQ of Massachusetts is 111, tied with New Jersey for the second higest avergage IQ in the nation. The state with the highest is nearby Connecticut, which has an average IQ of 113, and Mississippi, whose average IQ is 85.

I'm thinking that it should be removed from the article and left here on the Talk page until and unless someone can give a credible source for it. What do others think? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Besides not citing a source, it appears to violate the NPOV rule in that it sounds that MA residents are "smarter" than other state's residents. Sutble dig at Miss? Irish Hermit 12:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not so subtle. Which is why Ajd trimmed it. It currently reads just "The average IQ of Massachusetts is 113, the highest average IQ in the nation."
However, suspecting it might be a hoax, I just tried Googling on Average iq by state hoax and the first thing that popped up was this Snopes urban legend page. So, it's a hoax. It should go. Would you care to do the honors? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Consider it done! :) Irish Hermit 13:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Translation of "Massachusetts" into English

I believe that the correct translation is "large hill place." If anybody has any sources proving otherwise, please provide them.--AaronS 23:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is Blue Hill Place.

The -et is a locative ending. A locative is a marker used in many languages to denote "place where" or "at". The closest translation you can get is "at the big hill." There is no blue or place in there. Whenever you translate you have to make the translation make sense in your language. Thus "big-hill-at" would not be an appropriate translation. You just try and paraphrase the intended meaning. I don't see that "large hill place" adds anything to the ones that are there now. For references I give you sources cited by my reference, which is after all hard to get. My ref is the Bond work cited in the article. He, who is a local historian, in turn cites R.A. Douglass-Lithgow, Dictionary of American Indian Place Names in New England, and John C. Huden, Indian Place Names of New England. Thank you so much for raising the question. Anything in such a visible place ought to be right.Dave 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request

The history of Massachusetts is long and interesting enough to deserve its own article, I think. -- Beland 07:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Quincy Massachusetts

The city of Quincy is historically relevant. It is the birthplace of John Adams, John Quincy Adams and John Hancock. Also the two presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams are buried in Quincy. THeir tomb rests in United First Parish Church. Quincy is also home to America's first commercial railway - the Granite Railway and the first blast furnace. http://www.discoverquincy.com http://www.ci.quincy.ma.us/ - the official homepage of The City of Quincy --jenlight 16:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

And let's not forget Dunkin' Donuts! Twin Bird 17:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Who would have ever thought the day would come when they would bake the doughuts centrally and truck them out to the stores? Bill Rosenberg must be rolling over in his grave. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Just think of all the morning sleep Fred sacrified. - Keith D. Tyler 22:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's Barnstable?

In the Massachusetts box, Barnstable isn't on the list of towns, or even cities. (I'm almost sure it's a town, for the record.) Twin Bird 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Pre-Settlement" section?

It seems like the current "Early settlement" section is no longer primarily about that, but about the native peoples who initially inhabited Massachusetts. Not sure how it should be devided up tho... Schwael 20:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. I just pruned it down and made a first cut at making organizational sense out of it. I don't see it as too long, really. There is a whole lot of material connected by links and probably ought to be more, as the fledgling United States is right there in Massachusetts Bay Colony. For example there need to be links to the witchcraft incident and some reason why Andros was ousted. There are many much longer articles; for example, see the ones on Charles I and II. As for the natives, you can't separate them from early Massachusetts. I actually had to add a sentence about Thanksgiving! What an appropriate time of year to do that. To talk about settlement and mean only the English is to ask for sensitivity trouble. What, the Indians didn't settle Massachusetts? But I grant you times before the English ought to be covered under the Algonquians. As far as I can see, there is no more than the brief statement as to who was here and where, which seems legitimate. Thank you very much for noticing that the article needs more work. I invite you to solidify your ideas. I do not think we should be too timid about this even though it is a high profile location. Just jump right in. If we go too far wrong the editors will straighten us out.Dave 22:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Acting Governor

Is Massachusetts (now that New Jersey has amended its constitution), the only US state ,that leaves it's Governorship vacant, when the elected Governor dies, resigns or is removed from office? the Lieutenant Governor only becoming Acting Governor,Mightberight/wrong 15:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

Governor's Title

The title of the Governor of Massachusetts is His Excellency. I believe that we should keep that in this article. Please reply if you have any objections, and state your reasons. Thanks.--AaronS 02:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, please note that it seems that most articles on Wikipedia about states/nations/governments use titles when referring to leaders when such titles exist (see: United Kingdom, Canada ).--AaronS 02:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, AaronS, my bad. I admit I was feeling a little cranky when I axed the title. You can put it back.
But at least mention there that it's the Governor's official title and not just ...and the current governor is Mitt Romney.
Maybe something like, "... and the current governor (officially titled His Excellency) is Mitt Romney.?
And while we're being official, his formal name is Willard Mitt Romney. But, sheesh, don't put that in!  ;) --Mark Adler (Markles - talk) 02:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Markles. I'll put it back. Personally, I think that "... and the current governor (officially titled His Excellency) is Mitt Romney" is a little clunky, so I'd prefer to put, simply, "His Excellency Mitt Romney". Maybe we could explain in the politics section that all Massachusetts governors have such a title. In fact, that sounds dandy to me. I'll do that, assuming that it's alright with you -- if there's a problem, I'm of course open to more dialogue. Thanks for your comments.--AaronS 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. When I'm governor, I can be excellent, too. --Mark Adler (Markles - talk) 03:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to know. I know it's a silly title, and I happen to think that Mitt Romney is anything but excellent, but I'm a stickler for tradition, especially when they're centuries-old, unique, and interesting. Apparently, all New England governors have the title Excellency.--AaronS 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)