Talk:New England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New England article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. /archive1
  2. Connecticut-Boston discussion
  3. /archive2
  4. /definition FAQs
To-do list for New England: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: entire article
  • Wikify: MoS for units, standardize refs with cite web and cite book templates
  • Verify: economy: "but most of it has long since departed due to high operating costs in the region"

Contents

[edit] Reduction in intrusion of lists

I made the template that displays the Professional Sports Teams in New England a "show box" list. It it is desired to be seen the reader can click on it. Otherwise, I recomment that it be a link from this page. If desired, the reader can click on the link, like all of the other lists that have been shipped off from the page. -- Yellowdesk 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update to population list?

Duffy1990 has recently changed data on largest New England cities. I reverted citing that the list says explicitly it is as of 2000 and the editor has only updated the top three. Regardless, it does raise the point, now that Worcester is estimated at 199 people larger that Providence,(Population Estimates for Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2006. US Census Bureau. Retrieved on 2007-06-29.) if we want to update this list. This list on this page now disagrees with List of United States cities by population, which is based on latest estimates.--Loodog 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if we use the 2000 census, Worcester is second and Providence is third (Providence inched past Worcester in 2001). The list, as it stands, does not accurately represent the 2000 census or the 2007 estimates. Thus, the problem. --Duffy1990 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I take that back. The census says Providence was larger than Worcester in 2000. My impression that the ranking change happened in 2001 was mistaken. --Duffy1990 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your call. As you might imagine, we're having this problem everyplace. Not only are these new figures merely estimates for 2006, sometimes they are guesstimates and way off. If I were maintaining the cities I would raise the level of standing by one if I was in the advancing one...and ignore it if I were in the one that Census has guesstimated to be lower! Do we want to base tallies (when they are lists) on official headcounts, or on number of electric and water meters times a factor which is sometimes off? Student7 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html. Data indeed is listed as per 2000. 2000 Census: Providence 173,618, Worcester 172,648. Providence is larger every year and census every year until 2006.--Loodog 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As the rankings (Providence second, Worcester third) have remained consistent for the majority of the decade, lets stick with the 2000 rankings and census results. The latest estimates can be placed in parenthesis next to each city in the list. --Duffy1990 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cities remain ranked according to 2000, but 2006 estimates are there. In particular, Worcester and Manchester are estimated to have made some gains.--Loodog 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little humor on Connecticut/NE

Connecticut expelled from New England. Enjoy!--Loodog 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You call it humor, I call it a wish...--71.235.81.32 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for CT west of the CT river to separate from New England anyday! I live in NW CT and I am NOT A NEW ENGLANDER!!! I AM A TRISTATER AND PROUD OF IT!!! Boston could not have any less importance to me or any of western CT! The whole concept of New England is way out of porportion. Did any of you know that CT west of the CT river was part of the Dutch New Netherlands Colony before it was EVER part of the obnoxious region formally known as "New England." And yes, I am a proud western CT native--I AM NOT FROM NY!

P.S. GO NEW YORK GIANTS!!! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.104.14 (talk • contribs)

Editor, please sign your posts with four tildas like so ~~~~. Also, please read the four months of discussion we've already had on this issue.--Loodog (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new FA

Looking over the old FA candidacy, this article had potential. Fixes can be made. If people are willing to assist me, we could address these concerns and renominate for FA status.--Loodog 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I restored the History section, which was apparently deleted by vandalism in September. However, given the length of this article, it should probably be chopped down to perhaps three paragraphs in a single section, and the details moved to History of New England. -- Beland 07:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] boundaries

I think the definition of New England is as being directly linked to modern State boundaries is incorrect. Rather it is a region that is united though a common colonial History which resulted in similar architectural and political aesthetics. This is what truly marks the boundaries of the area. The very name New England refers to the colonial Areas first settled by the English, as opposed to New Dutch, New French, New Spanish, etc... to ignore this is revisionist.

Originally the area referred to as New England comprised a settled costal region that extended from north eastern long Island and western Connecticut, to Southern Maine and claimed dominion over all lands extending to the opposite sea, a distance unexplored. Yes there are states that now contain the New England heritage but the boundaries of such an area are not state boundaries. They are boundaries forged by geologic proximity, weather patterns, and historical connections to England. Mudsoma (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point to keep in mind when discussing the founding and early history of the region, but I'd add three caveats to it:
1. The "six states of New England," which are almost always, in contemporary parlance, defined by their present boundaries, are, except possibly Vermont, the direct successors of the historical colonies. A discussion of New England in the 1700s would benefit by following the settlement definition you offer; a discussion of New England today does not -- any more than Uruguay is appropriate to discussions of modern Spain, or Alsace is appropriate to modern Germany.
2. Building on point 1: In political, cultural and media matters, among others, the inlands of the five coastal New England states -- and the entirety of Vermont -- are more closely associated with classical New England than the "New England" areas outside the six states. Northeastern Connecticut, wilderness in the colonial period, now looks to Hartford and Boston; Cleveland, founded by Connecticut, does not. Geologic proximity or not, Brattleboro and Burlington are closer, psychologically, to New Hampshire and Massachusetts than the Hamptons are.
3. New England, as currently understood, is more than a historical phenomenon; it is a widely recognized regional division of the 21st century United States, in government, commerce, sports, media, etc. It is also the home of a specific and unique governmental structure -- weak counties and the New England town, with the strong tradition of Town Meeting. All of the foregoing exclude Long Island and the Western Reserve; all of the foregoing are defined along state lines. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To throw my 7.4 cents (adjusting for inflation) in, no source says that New England is other than these six states. Therefore, we must accept that "New England" means something different than it used to, rather than its boundaries changing.--Loodog (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.66.33 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Picture

Is the picture of Boston computer-generated? It sure looks odd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.72.78 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listings: Schools

The list of private or independent schools had become unreadable. I have edited the section so the interested reader may explore school articles in the same manner as the college section above it, by clicking on the link for a list of schools. This solves the "let's add one more school" problem that the next thousand editors will desire to contribute. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King James

I've changed the reference to King James "of Britain" to "of England", since union with Scotland occurred a century later. Les woodland (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)les woodland

[edit] Jamestown

I suggest that the Jamestown stuff be compressed into one throwaway sentence. Article is supposed to be about New England not colonial history generally. That can be covered (and is covered I'm sure) elsewhere at length. We shouldn't 'require a pointer to the main Jamestown article from here. There shouldn't be the slightest hint of competitive remarks IMO!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Baseball reference

"The earliest known written reference to the sport of baseball is a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts by-law banning the playing of the game within 80 yards of the town's new meeting house" this line is incorrect as an earlier reference was found in the Sussex village of Rudgwick (England) on 9th July 2007. The written reference dated baseball back to 1755 being played by William Bray of Shere in Surrey (England). http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6286200/6286244.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=6286244&bbcws=1 http://www.stoolball.co.uk/news/article.php?item=107 (scroll down to “An early mention of baseball in Surrey”) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwilliamson85 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't get the BBC media file to open. I read what it says on stoolball.co.uk, but we can't base encyclopedia articles on offhand remarks in chatty newsletters. Are there any other sources for this? --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to believe it, but the article Baseball has the following quotes with a number of footnotes which I didn't check: "Several references to "baseball" and "bat-and-ball" have been found in British and American documents of the early eighteenth century.[3] The earliest known description is in a 1744 British publication, A Little Pretty Pocket-Book, by John Newbery.[4] It contains a wood-cut illustration of boys playing "base-ball," showing a baseball set-up roughly similar to the modern game, and a rhymed description of the sport. The earliest known unambiguous American discussion of "baseball" was published in a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts, town bylaw that prohibited the playing of the game within 80 yards (70 m) of the town's new meeting house.[5]" So I think it is clear that Pittsfield still has the claim for earliest in America. {Brits invented baseball! Who knew?  :} Student7 (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York

No mention of New York in this article? I thought when people said "New York/New England" it meant that New York was a part of New England. Why wouldn't it be, in any event?

It isn't. See the definition.--Loodog (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. Why does the article say something along the lines of "Boston is considered to be the cultural and historical capital of New England, though today New York City exerts strong influence on the region's southwest corner?" This is yet another attempt from Boston to make their city seem more than what it is. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not NY and CT always where they are more or less geographically? Does not NYC exerts a strong influence on the NATION? When has Boston exerted any influence on CT and especially the NYC region of the state? Lastly, we in CT do not view our SW corner as the SW corner of New England, it is the SW corner of CT OR the NE corner of the NYC Tri-state region. I know people in Boston may love their city, but it is not true and not possible that Boston could have ANY influence on CT.

In northern CT, it does since they are near the MA border and no where in the NYC area, and they have no transportation to get to NYC other than by car. They also do not pull in NYC/NJ radio stations, TV stations (except the YES Network) and other media. They also do not get any from Boston as well except for the FORCED NECN and NESN cable channels. In the north, they do deal with Boston, but mainly because of the popularity and success of it's sports teams as of late. Boston is still a great distance even from Hartford even though they have signs that say "Boston" on them and we have signs that say "NY City" down here without any MA or New England area ever mentioned.

Well, I just don't like the way the article tries to rewrite OUR history and tells the artiicle from a Boston point of view. CT in general does not view itself as one of those New England states. Anytime it is mentioned, people are not seeing it relating to CT. Of course now that Boston sports teams are doing very well, you have some who want to jump on the bandwagon, but when the Yankees win again, they will be back on NYC. The truth is, Boston never had any influence on CT and NYC was always near CT - it did not just move there! What makes any of you think that a city (NYC) that is the love and envy of the NATION would NOT have a VERY strong influence on a state that is 15 minutes away, versus a city (Boston) that is over 3 HOURS away? Everything in CT is connected with NYC, while NOTHING in CT is connected with Boston. It is hard for the New Englander or someone from other parts of the country to understand this, but it is what it is. Subjective articles that want to infer that Boston USED to have a grip on CT is al out wrong and does a disservice to this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong with your statement. Connecticut is a New England state, plain and simple. It has always been a New England state, so calling it as such is hardly rewriting history. If anything you're trying to "rewrite history" by claiming that as incorrect. Second for someone claiming that the state disowns a connection to the rest of New England, I find it awfully strange that Connecticut was so interested in wooing the New England Patriots to Hartford several years ago. Also, the former NHL team, the Hartford Whalers, was also originally known as the New England Whalers. Third, New York is not at all the love and envy of the nation. You don't represent your entire state and the opinions of some people do not overrule facts. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The city of Hartford also advertises itself as "New England's Rising Star". [1] - Zomic13 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

WP:OR means that we cannot construct statistics for other researchers. We can report what other scholarly researchers have observed. This keeps Wikipedia from being a blog of random facts that an editor has merely observed. Facts must be reported by others before we can report them here. This gives our documentation a certain authenticity that mere random observations do not. Student7 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"If New England were one state, its population would rank 5th in the nation, behind Florida. Its land area, at 62,808.96 sq mi (162,672.45 km²), would rank 21st, behind Washington and ahead of Georgia." What do you call that? WP:OR "... unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." This is none of the above. These true, simple, uncontroversial statistics that are easily verifiable, as do NOT constitute any kind of research or opinion. I even provided a source for the number of electoral votes in case the reader can't add.
It's also hardly a WP:CRYSTAL ball to report polls for upcoming elections, especially with such wide margins.--Loodog (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Polling is prediction. Along with the electoral vote it appears to be an attempt to create controversy where none should exist. Wikipedia is not terribly strong in reporting the past. We have enough trouble with the Crusades, which were along time ago.
We have no idea what is happening today despite breathless newscasters who try to tell us but forget to tell us where they screwed up yesterday. If polling were an exact science you wouldn't need daily newscasts. Newscasters would come on Sunday. Tell you what was going to happen the rest of the week. Then not come on til the following Sunday! Polling is awful. You like polls? Try this one:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/05/aol-straw-poll-june-5-june-13/

And, as an experienced editor, you should know that Wikipedia does not accept blogs.
A scholarly reference must say what you are trying to say, more maybe, but no less. "Enhancing" a reference is violating WP:OR. That is the job of the people reading this, not writing it. We provide the dots. They connect them. If we connect them, they have nothing to do. Student7 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the text "Collectively, New England has as many electoral votes (34) as Texas." is simple math and not WP:OR; it is a statement that can be verified by multiple reliable sources so it doesn't need a cite. Also, reporting polls is fine if the polling company has an established reputation and/or the polls are referred by reliable sources. WP:Crystal refers to editors or non-notable third party speculation; polls and notable third party opinion about future events is acceptable if reliable references are provided. JRSP (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point of my link, which shows we clearly DO report polling data.
And whether this the source is a blog or the New York Times is irrelevant here because you're forgetting the reason for reliable sources. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Do you honestly doubt that New England has 34 electoral votes? Or do you need more sources?--Loodog (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think he needs some more sources! -Zomic13 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Being ironic won't help you solve your disputes folks, so please keep away from this and be respectful of your fellow editors. Also, please be aware that although citing polls is OK, synthesizing poll results is original research unless that synthesis is made by a secondary reliable source, so please check if the claim is clearly stated by source and if the source is reliable. In case of doubt about reliability, you can ask at WP:RS/N. JRSP (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Irony may not solve anything, but it sure is fun. Anyways, there are two issues being discussed and they've become blended together and hard to distinguish in the above conversations. The first is the listing of New England as having 34 electoral votes (which is what the ironic list of sources is for). Student7 has been arguing that we can not list the number of electoral votes as it is original research. We're arguing that it is hardly original research as it is easily citable by a number of sources. The second debate is regarding polling data. I personally do not know much about the issue with that, so I can't really say much about it. -Zomic13 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's settled now anyway.--Loodog (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)