# Talk:Massachusetts

Hello @Cran32: What makes you think forestry is not economically relevant? Additionally this is not very detailed information. I was concerned we need more detail. 2 sentences is not sufficient for such a potentially devastating tree pest. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Forestry might be relevant, but the presence of the Asian long-horned beetle in two places in Massachusetts does not warrant an entire section. And while I understand that the presence of beetles could potentially threaten some sectors of the economy, that is far too niche for this article. If there is an Asian long-horned beetle apocalypse that destroys half of the state's agriculture or something then it would absolutely be noteworthy enough to include, but that is not the case. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
ALB does cause an agricultural apocalypse everywhere it goes and that is why Boston and Worcester responded as harshly as they did upon the first detection. That's why I provided a [[]] to the ALB article and a citation (Branco). They explain all this. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It could be an issue in the future in Massachusetts, yes, sure, but...it isn't. Two infestations does not make this notable enough for inclusion, let alone its own section. It hasn't caused any economic impact, so it has no relevance to the economy section. Massachusetts has a monkeypox case right now, and monkeypox could turn into an epidemic, but it hasn't, so monkeypox isn't relevant to this article, either. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You soi distant—I say, that's a good one—history writers perennially state the secondary and skip the fundamental facts.
When did Massachusetts become a state?  I don't see that stated.
All I see is:  In the insert at top, it was a province before statehood.  Well, that'd be a legitimate fact if you stated when it became a state.  Instead, what does the next item say?  Massachusetts was admitted to the Union in 1788.  It's a non sequitur.  And it invalidates the provincehood fact, because you're not telling us when provincehood ended and statehood began.  As it stands, you are saying it was a province until 1788.  Is that true?  If so, explain how, when the Declaration called us "free and independent states" in the 1770s.
I don't mind bringing up subtleties.  But I am sick of complaining about fundamental omissions, dozens of Wikipedia articles in and dozens out.  Tell us the year Massachusetts changed from a province to a state.  If in 1776, state it.  If not until admittance to the Union in 1788, state it.  If the picture is more complex—e.g., we were all unofficial states until made official when admitted to the Union—state it.
Jimlue (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's complicated. It was known as the Province of Massachusetts Bay until 1780, when it became the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under a new constitution. It became independent from the UK in 1776, as one of the United States. I have added these intermediate events to the infobox for clarity. What it means to be a state in the United States changed from something close to "independent state in an alliance" to "federated non-sovereign state" over time with confederation in 1781, and union in 1789. The infobox is too small to explain that, so I am hoping that anyone who is interested in that level of detail will find History of the United States. (But I'm open to more suggestions for this article.) Thanks for asking the question; the task of encyclopedia writing is indeed never-ending. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Trainsandotherthings: WP:UNDUE doesn't seem to pertain to this edit. How is UNDUE related here? Invasive Spices (talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings and Invasive Spices: The entire paragraph about strawberry diseases was also added by Invasive Spices.  It is also seems out-of-scope, talking about strawberry bugs. I have had other discussions with this editor about adding unrelated details about bugs and crop diseases to articles, see Talk:Atascosa County, Texas#Economy and Talk:Starr County, Texas#Economy. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes and I and another editor have repeatedly had to remind you that economic information about a location is relevant and commonly found in articles. I did try to get along with you[1]. — Invasive Spices (talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello again Magnolia677. It's especially strange to remove high level overview information like The UMass Extension Fruit Program provides information to support growers. as in this edit. Also removing the anchor for UMass Extension Fruit Program instead of at least moving it above the section header makes the redirect less usable. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It is absolutely UNDUE because it is giving disproportionate detail to a minor aspect of the subject. I know you have a fascination with agriculture and pests, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to be going into detail in an article about an entire state. This is fit for an article specifically about agriculture in a state, as when I previously pointed you to Agriculture in Connecticut, but it is far too much detail for this article. There's a lot of information to be conveyed about Massachusetts to the reader, and sentences about which cover crops do well in the state, or an entire paragraph about strawberry pests, is way too much detail. On articles like this, it is vital to follow WP:Summary style and not get bogged down in details. For these reasons, the edit you added is inappropriate for this article. Agriculture in Massachusetts is presently a redirect but feel free to start an article at that title and include the information in that edit there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is already almost 12,000 words. There's no room for excessive detail on cover crops, or any other minor aspect of the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
UNDUE is a redirect to WP:NPOV, I assume you don't think I am introducing ideological bias.
WP:Summary style is a good place to start but... did you read it? The first paragraph makes my point: WP:SPLIT is sometimes appropriate. However, if there is no other place for relevant information, it goes in the appropriate article until SPLIT is necessary. Agriculture in Massachusetts is still a section here so it's not the same situation as Agriculture in Connecticut (which, just to recap, I didn't know existed because there wasn't a [[]] to it at the time).
The problem here is that there are indeed parts of articles that are more or less filled out, but that's unavoidable. I often find that because Wikipedia has reached a large number of articles, people start pointing out that something or other is odd looking in the final product.
There is no final product.
If I have to find an example then the paragraph beginning In 2020, the state legislature overrode... is especially odd and could be removed on that basis. However I would never suggest doing so because it's really a very controversial subject which is waiting for expansion and splitting. In this case I could split Agriculture in Massachusetts but I don't want to do so because I don't have enough stuff yet. It's still only two paragraphs which could be merged to one paragraph depending on one's preferences. But if you'll support my doing so, and will oppose deleting as too small a stub, I will do that now anyway. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You failed to notice what others have noticed when you wrote, "if there is no other place for relevant information". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Since you seem to be struggling with reading comprehension, let me point out the relevant passages from WP:UNDUE that you edit ran afoul of.
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
NOTPAPER is not a license to include any and all information indiscriminately. I recommended creation of a dedicated article for Agriculture in Massachusetts because it would most certainly pass GNG [2] [3] [4] [5]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes I certainly am having difficulty understanding. I see now that you really do mean I am favoring a particular ideology but I don't understand why. TAOT what POV am I pushing here?
What recent news event have I written about?
not a license to include any and all information indiscriminately. Of course not. I'm not saying that. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Did you not read what I said? The issue is that you've including excessive detail on a minor aspect of the subject. It's not about you favoring an ideology, it's that you're giving disproportionate coverage to a small part of the overall subject. The policy I'm quoting from is general, and not every example given directly applies to this situation. The key point is An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject which is what your edit did. Undue weight means disproportionate attention to a small aspect of the subject as a whole. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say this to you. Detail about cover crops is not appropriate for this article, as it is a very minor detail. It would be acceptable in a standalone Agriculture in Massachusetts article, because while cover crops in Massachusetts are a tiny detail as far as Massachusetts is concerned, they're a more significant part of Agriculture in Massachusetts.
I'm not accusing you of bias or a political agenda, but of difficulty in determining when information is of relevance to the article you are adding it to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Redirect -> stub done. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You state there are so-and-so number of cities.  Well, article "List of municipalities in Massachusetts", which you link to, states another number.  A count of term city in its Type column agrees with its figure, not yours.
Whoever is wrong, fix it.
Jimlue (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who "you" is supposed to be; Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively by many editors. This article had two numbers, one of which is out of date. I dropped that, so the two articles are now in sync with the updated number. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There's been some debate about the inclusion of "Masshole" with the last discussion being around 7 years ago, and seeming to be in agreement for its inclusion. I think it's fair to find a common solution given that it's been argued since 2006 lol. I think it should be included, especially because it has been used relatively frequently in recent news articles, has been included in the Oxford English Dictionary, and the 2nd definition on the Wikitionary page says "(Massachusetts, slang, usually self-referential) Any resident of Massachusetts." It seems a bit strange to me to have the definition be an ironic usage that refers to residents of Massachusetts but not include it here.
I don't see why to exclude it given it's growing usage, even if "unofficial".  Pacamah (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pacamah: Do you think "Michigoose" and the many other extremely informal ones listed on the List of demonyms for US states and territories should be included in the infoboxes for their respective states? Needforspeed888 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe tbh. There are a few which have Merriam-Webster definitions[6], and a few which also list colloquial demonyms on their state's page as well: Arkansas, Connecticut, Ohio, Oklahoma, among others. It doesn't seem like there's any set rules of guidelines for what to add and what not to add, but I do think that as long as there is sufficient evidence for it being used, the inclusion should be warranted. I cited Kentucky, which has a Merriam-Webster definition but doesn't have it on the page, but in my opinion they should have it. If we look at the Google Trends [7], Corncracker has more searches than Kentuckian, and they have a dictionary listing (though intriguingly, Wikitionary doesn't list the definition). Using this same method for the Mass nicknames, [8], Masshole is the clear favorite. With the Merriam-Webster (and Wikitionary) entry, other pages having colloquial nicknames, preferred usage on Google, and frequent usage in news and media, I don't see why to not add it. The last actual discussion of this was in 2014 and before that in 2006, and it seems that since then (specifically post-2014) Masshole has been used fairly regularly. [9] Pacamah (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It's a commonly known term which is able to be cited, as you have shown. It's mean, but it is relevant information and used internally and externally. I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Ralphusmcgee (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Will have to get more input for inclusion. Thus far all we have is junk sources and some Google Matrix. Moxy🍁 03:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
That an IP created the term on Wiktionary doesn't make it a notable demonym. That OED includes it doesn't make it a notable demonym. In fact, OED says it is used less than once in ever 100 million words. Regardless, tertiary sources aren't going to support inclusion here. The term is of course derogatory, and without significant secondary sources that discuss the usage of the demonym in more than a passing manner, inclusion here isn't going to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The term "Masshole" has been directly covered: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect State 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 1 § State 6 until a consensus is reached.  Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)