Talk:New England/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archive- CT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Compromise text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection, abuse, and archiving 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then the concensus is to remove this phrase because we can't support it with source.  Agree.--Loodog 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared Heritage 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.--Loodog 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting 

message: 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:
====Historic====
*Boston
*Plymouth
*Providence
*Portsmouth
*Newport
*Portsmouth
====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.
====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)
replies: text: That looks good to me. Historic places might also include, though, the seaports of Newburyport and Gloucester. --AaronS 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That can't be right.  Roger Williams National Park is a national park northeast of Ohio Virgina.--Loodog 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  fluffing flufflity fluff 

message: *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)
replies: text: That looks good to me. Historic places might also include, though, the seaports of Newburyport and Gloucester. --AaronS 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That can't be right.  Roger Williams National Park is a national park northeast of Ohio Virgina.--Loodog 20:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recreational

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recreational

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about its being one of the founding colonies to the Province of Massachusetts Bay?--Loodog 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: For curiosity's sake, also see Mystery Hill. --AaronS 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think you're right: it's not notable that 'it's the only one except for the other one'. AJD 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest, Unique... 

message: 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? —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in southern NH it sucks this year - very drab, not bright at all. Most disappointing. - DavidWBrooks 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Hiding Articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New York's economic influence on New Haven

message: 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)
replies: text: Since when was New York ever considered by anyone to be part of New England? Leebo86 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New York / New England 

message: From m-w.com
Comprise: 
# : 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>
# : to be made up of <a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings -- Jane Jacobs>
# : 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)
replies: text: 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:
--Loodog 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of "comprise" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The six infoboxes for the six states 

message: Maybe we/you/I can find some sources/referrences? Thanks --Tom 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed wicked and bubbler from culture section

message: 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)
thread_title: Good article review

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 (talk • contribs) 
:Wicked serious.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Boston, Massachusetts for a somewhat more serious response to this crank.  121a0012 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note: 71.235.81.39 has posted similar remarks on Talk:New England Cable News. — jmorgan (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  CT in the Boston/New England Metro Area?  Are you serious? 

message: Please stop reinstating it with anti vandalism  bots! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gouranga (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United States of New England SPAM 

message: Added revamped education section. 
Since NE is known for educational institutions, I think that education deserves its own section instead of being a part of another section.
I have also added NE colleges that do have historical signifigance including:
Ivy League, the 5 Colleges, the little Ivy League, and the Seven Sisters. This is the only webpage where one can find all of historic colleges on one page. Bear in mind, that some colleges are repeated, but I personally don't think that's a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonian3623 (talk • contribs)  April 20, 2007
:I have taken the lists of colleges off of the page. You'll notice that they broke up the readability of the narrative, and were the largest list on the page. There are other lists that can be cited. These lists have a tendency to grow without limit, and are best merely cited rather than put on a page like this.  -- Yellowdesk 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Failing a response, a week later, I'll remove the list, since the links to the corresponding already existing lists are cited in the text. -- Yellowdesk 06:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of Colleges

message: Portland should be added to major cities i dont know why it was removed Gang14 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussion at "fluffing flufflity fluff" for why Portland was removed.  If you've read the discussion and still wish to add it, post here for discussion before making the addition.--Loodog 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Satisfied, thank you Gang14 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland

message: I read the above argument, but I feel one city from each state should be included.  For the record I'm from Mass, and don't feel Newburyport and Gloucester should both included, just choose one or refer to Cape Anne in General. Black Harry 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about Newburyport and Gloucester. (Newburyport isn't on Cape Ann, by the way.) Certainly Fall River and New Bedford are notable on the scale of Massachusetts alone, or even New England as a whole, but are they notable on a larger scale? That is, it seems to me that the list of "notable places in New England" shouldn't be merely of places which are notable in the context of New England, but of places which are notable in themselves on a national or global scale and also happen to be in New England. AJD 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i confused Newburyport with Rockport.  But still they shouldnt both be there.  As for New Bedford and Fall River, they should be there if New Haven and New London are.  Black Harry 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that the heading on that section is "historical". Myself, I don't know what the rationale for listing Newburyport and New London as of historical note is, or what the rationale for New Bedford and Fall River would be. AJD 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, reopening the discussion.  I don't think we should feel obliged to pick one city from each state just for the sake of state representation.  The point of this section is historic points of interest in New England.  Therefore I suggest we pick the places based on how important they are historically, not based on what state they happen to be in.--Loodog 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well; Boston and Providence are the two locks for this list.  Newport (RI), Portsmouth (NH), Hartford (CT), and Plymouth (MA) should also all stay, but are more open for debate.  Then we should choose from Gloucester, Fall River, New Bedford, Springfield, and Newburyport in MA; New Haven, New London, and Mystic in CT; and Portland, Augusta, and Bangor In ME. Black Harry 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personally been to Newport and I can assure you should be on the list.  Its entire tourism industry is based on its historic sights.  It has a huge selection of colonials, many of which predate the country, as well as Gilded Age mansions which people go to Newport just to see.  That's the only choice I have strong feelings on.--Loodog 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Bedford was considered by some to be the Whaling Capital of the World during the 19th century.  Fall River is home to Battleship Cove, a major tourist attraction.  Given the fact that these two cities are only 8 miles apart, I would add them to the list as one entry (Fall River and New Bedford, on Massachusetts' South Coast) but I want some sort of consensus before doing so.  And yes, Newport should stay.  Black Harry 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, New Bedford has a whaling museum, and if I recall was the departure point for the Pequod in Moby Dick.  It does have significance, but the problem is we're only considering the places we're familiar with.  Further north, there has to be more stuff we're not cognizant of.--Loodog 03:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need someone from Northern New England to chime in.  from what I can gather this discussion is between a Masshole (me) and a Quahogger (you). Black Harry 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I had this discussion before (see above under fluffity), I was assured that Plymouth, Massachusetts;  New Haven, Connecticut; New London, Connecticut; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Hartford, Connecticut   ; Newburyport, Massachusetts; and Gloucester, Massachusetts all had their place in this section.--Loodog 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, but you notice that six cities were originally listed (Boston, Prov, Plym, Newport, and Portsmouth (twice-I assume the second was meant to be Portland)).  The revised list included those, plus Newburyport, New Haven and Gloucester.   I see no mention of Hartford or New London anywhere, so I assume some Nutmegger slipped them in somehow.  And I can't think of why Portsmouth is listed twice on both lists, without assuming the second was meant to be Portland. Black Harry 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I concur.  In terms of order, we could do 1) population, 2) alphabetical, 3) geographical.  I actually prefer 3).  Now here's what I mean by it.  All these cities but Hartford are on the water, we could either start with Portland and sweep down the coast to Portsmouth, Gloucester, Boston, Plymouth, etc.. or start with Hartford, and head northwest to New London, Mystic, to Providence, Fall River, Newport, etc....  I think this way provides a nice connected overview as opposed to a seemingly arbitrary list, as well as give sense spatial relation between one place and the next.--Loodog 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with geographical, starting at Hartford.  This would somewhat follow the course of I-95 as you enter New England.  BH (Talk) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the list on the page to go in geographical order, starting at New Haven and following the I-95 corridor to Portland BH (Talk) 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities

message: Not too be a nag or anything, but while we reconsider cities, should we also rethink the recreational areas.  Personally i have no problem with those already on the list, but was wondering if the White Mountain National Forest in NH and possibly ME should be added  Black Harry 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rec Areas

message: Now all references to the NYC area or Tri-state have been taken out altogether.  Why is it that you people canno just accept what is?  The fact is that CT is in the NYC area.  Here is what should be (yet again) final proof: .  If you can actually have your minds accept anything other than your grand vision of Boston/New England, you will note the NYC TV market which includes CT.  Then in New Haven county (New Haven and Waterbury), they are on the METRO(as in New York CIty Metopolitan area)-North train station which has direct connections to NYC.  These are the only areas in the state with these commuter railroads.  All other area have no access and are not a part of the NYC area.  I bet that you will delete this too!--71.235.81.39 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. Seriously. Chill. Talking like that will only get you blocked again. You wana bash what you hate, thats fine. But keep it clean and civil. Neo16287 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That map you provided is for television markets. No one doubts the economic relationship between SW CT and NYC. Add something about that relationship to the article and I doubt it would be challenged. The map doesn't really say anything else though. Leebo T/C 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The user who left that left that comment you mentioned may be racist, but he is not a troll.  He doesn't constantly fill talk pages with unsubstantiated remarks about how wikipedia is a front for Pro-Boston propaganda.  Wikipedia policy discourages blocking after one contribution, however if that users contains his actions, he will be blocked.  However your continued trolling of this and related pages will lead to your blocking, and eventually a ban from Wikipedia.  BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 23:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: please do not make me seek a Sysop to have you blocked.  BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Conspiracy 

message: I noticed that Loodog recently added a citation for the dictionary definition of New England (which states are in it).  I was wondering if this was necessary, as the definition might fall under the category of common knowledge.  A similar question at the United States article was brought up because some thought that citing the more well-known info about the US (number of states, year of founding, etc), was unnecessary.  Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 22:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Experience has shown us that this is far from something everyone knows.  Also, we have an excellent source for this, why not use it?--Loodog 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Loodog. Keep the cite. Your average English speaking Hong Kong, South African, German or Australian or United Kingdom reader will not have such "common" knowledge. And one citation to a fact is not "overciting" -- Yellowdesk 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Citing? 

message: "...English Pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution in Europe, arrived nearly four hundred years ago...".  Would it not be fairer to say they were escaping the (to them) appalling religious *tolerance* of England? Moletrouser 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Persecution