Talk:New England

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Talk:New England/definition FAQs, which represents the consensus of editors here.

Region of the United States

New England is the traditional center of ethnic English ancestry and culture in the United States. The only place in the U.S. outside New England with a significant majority English ethnicity is Utah-Eastern Idaho—the traditional core of the Jello Belt region, whose proportion of English Americans is actually higher today than New England, with Utah being the most English of U.S. states with 29.0% English ancestry, followed by New England states Maine with 21.5% and Vermont with 18.4%. This population is contrastingly far more conservative than modern New England and is mainly LDS in religion, but its substratal cultural character is largely reminiscent of both early 19th century New England and Victorian England (due to later direct handcart immigration). [I can't tell if this more about UTAH and Mormons or about New England, it should be removed in my opinion] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wait a minute... Trivial arithmetic now requires third-party sourcing?! Ridiculous! 121a0012 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:OR, but the part about deliberate constitution inflation of the power of smaller states may have been unnecessary and irrelevant to this section, as I felt the Texas insertion was in the first place. With the population totals added, readers can come up with their own questions and answers. Providing population totals is no more irrelevant that providing electoral totals. Student7 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Region

"Region" is listed in the first line of this article. Far from being a bellwether, New England has been, for lack of size, nearly irrelevant except for the 1960 election. I admit there was once the phrase "As goes Maine, so goes the nation." This was switched by wags after the landslide 1936 election to read, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont!" But that just affected one state, not the entire region.

I think NE is virtually irrelevant. It's understandable that most people in most states want to think that they are "important." That's what led to the nonsense primary season where everyone tried to be first. But it is true that some states and (to a much lesser extent probably) some regions are better than others.

My state, Florida, tried to be "first" and merely loused up the race. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Florida is not a bellwether state for primaries. Swing state for general, but that is another matter.

Note that both areas, NE and Florida are at geographical peripheries. That may have something to do with it, I don't know. (And yes, so are a lot of other states "at the periphery, so that may not be it alone). Political news is not created in either place much nor are news organizations located there. Nor is Hollywood, etc.

And (I also live in NE) I don't think that objective reflection would put NE as a bellwether region either. Rather the reverse for Vermont and probably other states. I am not convinced there is a bellwether region. It used to be the South from 1932 to 1992 or so, but no longer. But certainly not New England. Just look at the record!

And remember, I "just added up electoral votes" here. That is all I did.

If you've followed my editing record, I have been quick to add where NE has excelled (health is one I remember adding). And I wasn't "quick" to add this one but felt rather forced to by circumstatnces. When an area (state) is at the bottom (well, not bottom, but simply followers), this ought to be pointed out as well.

I've got the same problem when reporting underperforming schools somewhere. Everyone wants to be told that their schools are "better than average" and the local news media (and state board of education!) cooperates by presenting "statistics" to prove just that. Unfortunately, half the schools perform in the lower half of all schools! And half of the regions of the country are not as vital (because they follow everyone else) as the upper half! Or simply don't have enough votes. NE has grown more slowly than any other region of the country since 1900. Something has to give. And it did. Clout. Student7 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying goes well beyond simple addition. Feel free to include any of it you can source. I would contest that the states have no relevance politically. They made the difference in 2000 when Gore won. Or anyway Florida wouldn't have been worth contesting without New England's votes. New Hampshire is also unique in that it's been a bellweather for every election between 1980 and 2000, even going against the other NE states in 2000, which is why its primary has such enormous relevance for a state with 4 votes. Also, you have elections like 1972, 1976, 1980, 1988, and of course, 2000, when the region didn't vote as a bloc, so the situation is more complicated than you're making it to be.

As for irrelevance, excepting 2000, there hasn't been a close race since 1976, so if you're going to call NE irrelevant, there are a lot of states/regions that would fit the criteria. I'd venture to guess that the majority of states in the country are indeed irrelevant in most elections.--Loodog (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the second debate seemingly aimed at disrupting the editign of the article started by Student7, and it is stretching WP:AGF. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're stretching WP:AAGF. We're staying civil and I'm not contesting the edits because of who's making them. I don't see the problem.--Loodog (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess my point was that once a region becomes "predictable" as Texas, California, Massachusetts, Alabama, often are, they lose the status of "bellwether." Florida did vote for Carter in 1976 and Clinton (I think) in 1996. Not really a bellwether now I don't think. New Jersey once was for awhile, I thought. Today: predictable. Anyway, you see where this is going.Student7 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. The region has solidified into "we vote Democrat" in the last four elections, with the exception of the independent New Hampshire. But after primary season, no one comes back to make sure they've got those 4 votes. The South, the Pacific, the Great Plains, are all similarly uninteresting. It's the Midwest and the Ohio River Valley doing the talking these days. Of course, the interesting thing is how the map changes in a decade. This whole obvious Red State/Blue State thing didn't emerge until recently.--Loodog (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to renege on my understanding of "region." Outside of New England, there is no consensus on any of the other regions of the country. I was quite surprised. Anyway, this probably ought to be stated somewhere (no, not under politics! ). Not sure about a lucid reference other than there only dissonance when you try to look up anything else. There is no agreement on what constitutes "the South" for example. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as exact, no. It's still a politically predictable region, as is the Great Plains.--Loodog (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New England is, for whatever reason, the only multi-state region of the US with a rock solid, universally agreed upon definition. Probably something to do with colonial politics. This might warrant a mention somewhere in the article, perhaps. Pfly (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The only thing I could find in articles only documents regional confusion. This supports our hypothesis, but is "negative referencing." That is, lack of a definition for other regions is unfortunately not clear cut proof that none exists. Perhaps someone will run across a good reference someplace.Student7 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls

While the poll may be correct for New England, most experts confess that polls aren't much good in predicting close elections for two well-known reasons: cell phones aren't listed and have reached rather large numbers, and people are refusing to answer. The polling company, which selected its sample quite scientifically, is now stuck with processing "what's left," which may no longer be a scientific poll anymore. But they are in the business and don't really want to put too fine a point on that fact. So the term "reliable poll" may have now attained the status of oxymoron except for landslides which anyone could have predicted without the poll! Student7 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is original research. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And VOIP, I forgot that. Here's one industry seminar on solving the problem. I didn't read to the end of the article. I would imagine that they concluded that it was solvable!  :) http://www.dc-aapor.org/documents/NRWorkshopReport.pdf

But it's all over the web and in daily print media. Sorry. Not something I invented! Student7 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an interesting thing is that futures markets consistently outperform polls, with a smaller and more homogenuous sample of people. You can essentially buy shares of "Obama wins" or "McCain wins" at equal prices. Shares of the winning candidate become worth $1 and the losing candidate become worth $0.--Loodog (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Single state comparison

I don't know how much further an editor intends to carry this "if NE was a single state" analogies. If it were a single state, it would only have two senators. And probably fewer representatives as well! Compare to countries? Student7 (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my thought process. Oh, NE's GNP is $623 billion. Wait, what does that mean? Enormous numbers are useless without comparison.--Loodog (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"No mountains in Rhode Island"

This brings up a point. There is no geology entry (geologic history) in this article. And sometimes not much of one in the state entries which could be used to construct a NE one. I'm guessing that the "last" glacier (Lorentian?) did not reach Rhode Island. WP claims it got to "45 degrees" and a good portion of NE is below that. 45 degrees may work out west but not in the east, so the main article on the last glacier (no I can't now remember which one! ) will need changing. But first the NE states, then NE! Student7 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

If someone's willing to help me standardize the refs and find sources for the tags, I'd be willing to nominate this one for GA status.--Loodog (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

London companies compete

I reverted an edit which deleted information about the initial competing efforts of the two parts of the London Company at Jamestown and Popham. The fact that the initial effort at Jamestown was successful (due to tobacco) and Popham wasn't is significant. I feel it is worthy of inclusion, without a lot of elaboration or space wasted. Anyone who wants to read more about all that can go to the links we ahve provided. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the success or lack of same by Jamestown is germane to the New England colony. The latter stands alone in this article. The competition which ensued is definitely of interest, but it just doesn't go here IMO. Okay to mention that there was unnamed "business pressure" on the New England colony to produce, but the reasons for that can be obscure in this article. An interested reader can go to articles which specialize in just that sort of explanation. I think the article should be trimmed even more. The fact that there was a southern boundary which may have helped to define exactly where New England is today is germane. We don't necessarily care what entity was south of that line! It distracts from the main theme. Worse, once allowed, it lets in a lot of other distractions - the New England contribution to westward expansion for example which we don't care about either except for loss of manpower!!11:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I will concede the current issue; No insult intended, and I am willing to apologize for any ruffled feathers. However, I do think the fact that the first attempts were primarily to make money, and that the later, much more successful one in New England involved religious refugees could have some meaningful significance. In my writing in other articles, I have pointed out that the English colonists up north did a much better job of getting along with the natives already there than the Jamestown-based venture that wiped out the Powhatan Confederacy in less than 40 years. However, the fact that in your revision you don't even have an internal link to Jamestown remaining after deleting my earlier work in this article speaks for itself as parochial POV. Vaoverland (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Student7. What should be in this article should be very short and terse. The level of detail you're talking about is more appropriate to History of New England.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry was well written. I agree that the pre-pilgrim immigration was more mercenary-oriented in NE.

My version is deliberately parochial. I recommend parochialism for all articles. I am not as broadminded as Loodog and would prefer not to see it in New England History either. I think it belongs in some separate article which may be pointed to in both or one NE article (and probably from other articles as well). I can think of one title, but there have to be many better ones: "Early colonial competition (America)." (Okay. Pretty lame  :). Student7 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I just read over it again, and it's not relevant this article for the same reason an article about Chicago wouldn't mention the history of New York City.--Loodog (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

References

I plead guilty to "lazy man references." Are you sure they must be formatted for FA? Student7 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How about just "naming" them? I was leaving it up to the 'bot, but they don't seem to have activated it lately. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, one of the quickest ways any FA-nom article gets rejected is a quick observation of non-standardized refs. All sources should be cited with {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates, including url, title, publisher, accessdate, and, if provided, an author.--Loodog (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== Craig Parry AKA raz of llanrwst who went to ysgol dyffryn conwy in the 1990s has a sister who fucked 100s of men including me she was a gang bang ugly slag and his own family are scum.

xzxzxz

Montreal

If we're going to mention New York City's influence on southwestern Connecticut, I think that Montreal deserves some mentioning also. There tends to be the impression by many that there is nothing north of the American border however, this could not be more untrue. I feel in the same vein as New York City in regard to Connecticut, that Montreal, and by extension, Quebec's influence on northern Vermont, and even northern New Hampshire, and northern Maine should merrit some discussion. Northern New England is heavily influenced by this region. For example, many of the major broadcast stations in northern New England originate from Montreal, or advertise that they broadcast to Montreal. Many Northern New Englanders, if not a majority in some areas, can trace their herritage to Quebec. I see more Quebec license plates than Massachusetts plates in my local shopping mall's parking lot; and in my experience, there are more Canadiens fans in this area than Bruins fans. In many respects, Northern New England is more identifiable with Montreal than Boston.

192.149.109.70 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)BM

Key difference: much of Connecticut's population is an official part of the New York metropolitan area, none of northern Vermont could be remotely considered a part of the Greater Montreal Area.--Loodog (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The United States does not denote metropolitan areas outside of its own borders, nor does Canada; however, this is not to say that there is absolutely no relationship between the two. Quebec is Vermont's largest trading partner, and the border crossings are among the busiest on the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except I didn't mention it as a matter of definition; look at what I said above: no one in his right mind would consider any part of northern Vermont a part of the Greater Montreal Area.

As for the border crossing point: (1) I would be very doubtful if Canada-Vermont crossings were in the top 10 for border crossings on the continent, (2) You've provided no source for this, (3) Influence is not defined by border crossings, at least not nearly as well as commuting patterns, which is the basis for Western Connecticut being a part of the NYC metro area.--Loodog (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Plattsburgh calls itself "Montreal's US Suburb" [2]

1) I live in Vermont and I doubt that Montreal is more important to Vt than (say) Massachusetts (which takes most of Vermont's dairy produce BTW). 2) Not applicable to the rest of NE and therefore not this article, but most importantly, 3) emphasizing places outside of New England is contra-indicated. The article is about New England. Student7 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I've lived in Plattsburgh, New York, 20 minutes from Canada and 70 miles from Montreal (closer to Montreal than any town in Vermont except Alburg). The limit of interaction we got was that the Canadians would come down Sundays to shop in the malls and they'd cross the border to buy cheap gas. There was far more interaction with Burlington than Montreal, including commuting. Montreal was background.--Loodog (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1) There's no dispute that Vermont is a state of many regions, The town of Alburgh, is literally seperated from the rest of the USA by Lake Champlain, and connected only to Quebec. The Upper Valley Area probably doesn't have as strong of a connection to Quebec, than it does New Hampshire; Bennington to Albany, and Brattleboro to Keene. The original statement regarding Montreal, is that Northern Vermont is more closely associated with Montreal, than Boston. 2) I believe the original statement was in reference to New York City being associated with SE Connecticut. New York is not part of New England however, it is included in this article. Why should New York get such esteem while it is not in New England, and Montreal (which also is not in New England) can't?. If we're going to allow a city outside of New England be emphasized (which is in fact, contra-idicated), why not make a whole list of them? Woodstock, NB is more influential on Houlton, ME; Magog, QC is more influential on Newport, VT; Glens Falls, NY is more influential on Castleton, VT. 3) The point of whether Region X is within Metropolitan Region Y is moot. Not all of Maine is within a metropolitan area, however this article is making the claim that it is closely related to Boston, than anyplace else. That reasoning excludes a large portion of the area that this article claims to represent. I'm sure citizens of Houlton, ME visit New Brunswick much more often than they do Massachusetts. 4a.) Commuting patterns are (in terms of the US Census anyway) defined by border crossings-crossing from one census tract to another. People from Connecticut cross the border into New York, that's how it's measured. So, a reasonable person could conclude that border crossings are a legitimate method of measuring traffic flow. 4b.) Whether or not Vermont Border Crossings are in the top 10 or not isn't important. The statement was one of relativity, it did not claim that Vermont border crossings are among the top 10. There are several border crossings, even the 20th most busy is still substantial. The proposed BMHSR high-speed rail line addresses the issue that the Highgate Springs border crossing is busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you were nice enough to enumerate your points, I'll respond to all of them:

1. Yes, Alburgh does represent a particular and singular case of not being in much contact with most of New England, but you would actually go through New York to get to Montreal while driving the rural 1hr 10mins to get there.
2. I'll refer you to the contentious debate had on this issue. It was consensus we agreed upon because a good amount of people legitimately complained that in Stamford, or Bridgeport, for example, they root for NY teams, commute to NYC for work, read NY newspapers, periodicals, watch NY broadcasts, news, and media. These people (rightfully) thought it absurd to be part of a region whose traditional influence was Boston. There are three counties in Connecticut that are a part of the NYC metro area, they're a part of the NYC commuter belt. NY is a city of 8,000,000 people, the city proper of which is 20 densely populated miles away from Connecticut. Contrast with 2,000,0000, 80 rural country miles and an international border away.
3. Yes, it's true most of NE is not a part of Greater Boston, but you will find intangible cultural reminders of Boston in Maine such as the accent, cuisine, architecture, and government practices (such as town meetings). Things which make New England, at all definable as a region.
4. a) Border crossings do not define commuting patterns. Daily border crossings during daytime hours do. b) (1) You still provide no source and (2) How "busy" something is can only be even talked about in relative terms.

Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for how much border traffic there is? Any of the New England to Canada crossings probably do not even come close to the level of employment interchange between southwestern Connecticut and the NYC area. If you compare tourist traffic alone between Connecticut and New York, it may be comparable to say Vermont to Quebec traffic. But this tourist flow is dwarfed by the daily worker flow in both directions between the NYC area and Fairfield County (in the tens of thousands every day). This is why the NYC area has special mention as a major influence on a small part of the region. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't have traffic but article today said there is $4 billion worth of commerce between Vermont and Quebec. Both directions total. I suppose Vermont does have more than any other NE state. But that info (therefore) belongs in the Vermont article and not here. Student7 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in Montreal, and I work in downtown Montreal. I'd say about 10% of the my coworkers are from Vermont or New York. If I walk down Sainte Catherine Street (which is one of our major pedestrian streets), there are tons of Vermonters, New Hampshire-ites (sorry, I couldn't find out how to call a person from New Hampshire from the Wikipedia article)and New Yorkers; sometimes it feels like there's more of them than us. VTrans [[3]], and the AMT [[4]] offer commuter buses several times a day to Burlington, as well as Montpelier, and White River Junction (and they are packed); and there's been talk of extending the commuter rail to Burlington. I'd say if need warrents a commuter service to and from Vermont and Montreal, there must be a substantial amount of commuters. Montrealers (the ones I know anyway) consider Grand Isle, Chittenden, Franklin, Orleans, Essex, Lamoille, and Washington Counties in Vermont, and Franklin, St. Lawrence, and Essex Counties in New York, as part of the 'Montreal Area'. You see it on the regional tourist maps all over the place. When I can, I do most of my shopping in Burlington, and Plattsburgh, and when I fly, I try to fly out of Burlington Int'l [[5]] or Plattsburgh Int'l [[6]].192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Jean

Also, I don't know where the 80 miles came from, but the Vermont is 42.9 miles away. As for the $4 billion worth of commerce, I don't know if that's true, but Vermont is a small state, $4 billion must be a large portion of the state's income. No wonder they love us192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Jean

You speak of how NE has many tangible ties to Boston, which I don't doubt-I love Boston, but there are tangible ties to Montreal as well. I live in Vermont, and I have an OPUS card,in my purse, and I'm sure if I ask my girlfriends, they'll have one too. I do not have a Boston accent, although I think it's cute, I in fact, speak french-like in Montreal. I go to the supermarket, and people are speaking in french. Quebec also has town meetings, my town's sister town, Saint-Georges has one, I went to it. If I remember from my history classes, Vermont was once part of New France. I work in a bank, about half of our patrons are Quebeckers. There are cultural ties to Quebec everywhere in this state.192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Steph

Anectodal evidence is not sufficient. You may be right but we need to cite sources. Is the level of employment interchange really high enough so as to consider parts of Vermont a suburb of Montreal and parts of Quebec as suburbs of say Burlington? --Polaron | Talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We appreciate that Quebec influences Vermont, but the basis for the inclusion of NYC is the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Connecticuters who daily go to NY to work, creating one of the ugliest and most congested routes in the country. Rather than proposals for commuter rails, we have the 384 miles (618 km) third-busiest commuter rail system in the country, reaching as far as New Haven and Waterbury (one third of the distance across the state), with some of the busiest stations being in Connecticut. The two are simply incommensurable, and differ by orders of magnitude.--Loodog (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While Metro North is the third largest commuter rail system in the country, Metro North includes New York State as well as Connecticut. The New Haven line, from the wikipedia article on it has 110,000 commuters daily. It's true that Vermont doesn't have a commuter rail to Montreal-yet, it's commuter bus system is present. The WRJ-Burlington-Montreal line (which is the entire width of the state fyi) carries a little less than 25,000 (acording to the website Jean provided for us). I didn't look at the numbers for the Newport bus line, as it doesn't directly connect the Northeast Kingdom to the Montreal area. In terms of total numbers, Connecticut has more commuters, but Connecticut has about 5 times the population of Vermont anyway. So proportionately, the 110,000 commuters in the two counties (Fairfield and New Haven) Metro North serves is: 6.5% of the populatioin of the counties. The 25,000 commuters in the four counties in Vermont (Franklin, Chittenden, Washington, and Orange) that VTrans serves is 8.9% of thier population. 192.149.109.70 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Michael Martin

I appreciate what you're saying, but how busy a connection is not weighted on the size of the communities served. If we started doing that, we'd start concluding that Interstate 95 between Stamford and NYC was less busy than Interstate 89 between Montpelier and Barre. Large populations are the reason for high traffic. So, if we go by your statistics which you haven't provided sources for, the mass transit connections in NY are more than 4 times as busy. Pile on top of that congested traffic from multiple 6-lane Interstates and the comparison isn't even worth considering.--Loodog (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that 25,000 figure (can you link to the source?) and suspect it is an annual ridership for the entire transit system which you're comparing to a daily ridership. Again, if you can source your figures and show that that a reasonably large fraction of employed Vermont residents do in fact work in Canada or that a reasonably large fraction of the employment in Vermont is accounted for by Canadian residents, then you may have a point. Worker flow data from [7] does not seem to support your assertion. Grand Isle county has the largest proportion of its employed residents working in Canada at 0.7%. Other counties are even smaller or at zero. If you are aware of other data, please make us aware of it. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand where those employment figures are coming from on that site. I just filled out my census survey, and it doesn't ask anything about what country you work in; it asks you what US county you work in, but not what country. Also, Jean linked us to two sources for that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the Census Bureau is probably making up those figures just to spite you. Anyway, for each county, you add up the total number of employed residents and calculate the proportion listed under Canada. You can also do this by town where you might get slightly higher figures. And no, there was no direct link to the figures you mentioned. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston is the cultural heart of New England, no matter where one lives, Also, not by coincidence, all TP roads lead to Boston except I-91. Therefore the Boston connection belongs in this article. Having said that, I agree with the comment that for northern Vermonters, Montreal is the nearest really large city. Still, most of us visit as tourists in a foreign country which is why we are found in the downtown area where no "real" Quebecois would go!  :)

I know the point is moot but, it's just kind of urking me: all roads lead to Boston except I-91 isn't entirely accurate, US-4, US-7, I-89, I-189, and VT-289 don't go to Boston and those are pretty much all of the freeways in Vermont; except for a stretch of I-93 for like 10 miles with one exit in the NEK, which does go to Boston. FWIW, Vermont just kind of sits off to the Northwest of New England, not really having much to do with any big cities (except for the four corners of the state)~~Bradley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There were two ideas above 1) Vermonters do visit Quebec, but as tourists. 2) In New England, most all roads lead to Boston, to the point that a Vermonter can't get to Albany easily at all though it is "right next door. (I know, you live in Rutland and it's real easy. I mean the rest of the state). This is not mere happenstance. The roads were designed that way. If I have the option, I go to Hartford and then cut over to New York, not really the most direct way. On most other roads, 93, 89, 95, I'm going to be "channeled" into Boston. The roads were designed by politicians, doing, as politicians always do, preserving the status quo - Boston's dominance over the rest of the region. But I don't think there was too much squawking at the time. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else. I live in Rhode Island. Eventually you can be channeled into any city, all these highways are part of a network. I was just saying that there aren't any highways in Vermont that I know of, that go directly to Boston. If you look at a map of the highway network, the highways radiate from major cities and Vermont just appears to be in the hinterland between a few of those cities. I'm not arguing for or against the Montreal, New York, or Boston things, it's just an observation.192.149.109.60 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Bradley

While we are on this topic, I would like to observe that for more than Interstate reasons, Hartford is a second "center" for New England, and no, I'm not discussing "culture" this time. Just economics. Anyway, it seems to me this way for Vermont.Student7 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me on the $4 billion commerce figure that they may not have any way of separating what comes over the border by initiating state. So if it comes over from Vermont, maybe they assume that Vermont generated it when more likely it was NH or Mass.

I don't like the idea of putting Montreal (or Albany for that matter) in this NE article. Could have another article as inter-regional commerce maybe. Student7 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see from all this disscusion that many people don't want Montreal included in this article because it is not in New England, which I agree but; if we do that, should we not remove New York from it as well? Or is New York in New England?192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Tom Kidder

One point, I don't agree with the comment that no "real" Quebecois would go to Centre-Ville, Montreal. I don't have the figures to back it up, but aren't many of the businesses, as well as apartment buildings in Montreal there? I mean, what are all of those tall buildings for? (the term downtown is a bit confusing anyway, since on the island of Montreal, downtown is relative to where you are at the moment, I'd call the part of the city with Rue Ste. Catherines Centre-Ville). Just my two cents.

I totally agree with Student7's comment that we have another article, or articles about inter-regional commerce. New York, and Montreal, and Albany, and heck why not Woodstock, NB should be included in it. Either that or qualify the statement that spawned the New York and Montreal debates to something like "Boston is the New England city, which is the cultural, and ecconomic hub of the region." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. It's that you have shown no sources that indicate a strong socio-economic integration between northern Vermont and Montreal approaching the level of Southwestern Connecticut and New York City. I don't doubt there is some influence from Montreal but not to the level at which New York City exerts influence over a part of Connecticut such that many residents in that area no longer consider themselves as part of New England. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, everything named "New England [noun]" has it headquarters in Boston, then similar cuisine, sports teams, media domination, literary tradition, the fact that 1 in 2 New Englanders are a part of Greater Boston combined statistical area. 1 in 7 New Englanders are a part of the New York metro area. 0 in 20 are a part of what any reasonable person would consider the Montreal metro area.--Loodog (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a petty thing to be arguing about. We can argue till our faces turn blue; let's not tell people what sphere of influence they're part of-let's leave that up to them-it seems like a pretty subjective thing to measure in terms of numbers. Boston, New York, and Montreal (aparently) mean different things to different people. I think we all can agree that New England is a very diverse region with many cultures influencing it. 1 in 2 New Englanders are in the Boston Metro, 1 in 7 are in the New York Metro, and 1 in 6 are "none of the above" are we going to delineate everything until New England is reduced to a bunch of metro areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked for qualification. I provided. We ask for sources establishing any kind of serious commuting between Montreal and Vermont. Barring this, we're just going to assume that one of the most heavily traveled corridors on the continent is several orders of magnitude busier than an international border crossing in rural lands.

Until you show sources, you're just sitting there with your tires spinning.--Loodog (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we had got to sources yet. We were questioning whether Montreal or New York. both outside NE, should be there at all. Easy to omit Montreal since it isn't in there yet. A bit harder to eliminate New York. As the editor says, is the region just a conglomeration of metro areas centered outside of NE? Not a good idea for a geographic article. Maybe another kind of article. That is what I thought we were discussing. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's been settled whether or not we include New York. Anon is trying to bootstrap that result into including Montreal as well, which has no basis unless a source shows comparable daily transit between Montreal and Vermont.--Loodog (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (what? I thought I signed)

Have you people nothing better to do? Like maybe actually improving the article, rather than having pointless arguments about the color of the bikeshed? FWIW, I would agree with the claims that Montreal is an important influence on northern Vermont (having grown up there) -- but this influence waxes and wanes with economic and political conditions on either side of the border. (And I'll also agree that the people I grew up with didn't care a whit about Boston: we didn't see their sports teams, get their newspapers or TV stations, or think of it as "the big city".) However, even if this influence can be quantified, unless it is of demonstrable significance to the region as a whole, it doesn't belong in this article. Traffic counts alone, by contrast, could demonstrate this level of importance for New York. Information about Vermont's economic relationship with Quebec clearly does belong in that article. 121a0012 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Montreal, but since we've been discussing it here, why not bump the material about New York to Northeastern United States if not there already. If it is there, why is it here? Could be a "see also" from here. I know, this is a problem that doesn't exist and has been solved, but I don't agree with the solution. Nor do I have a article yet that would include Montreal. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Boldfacing

Boldfacing is not standard in infoboxes nor anyplace else that doesn't contain the article name. It is unecsarily distracting IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Every city article infobox has bolded descriptors, for example.--Loodog (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

WP:ITALICS is quite clear that one should be circumspect with boldfacing in areas other than headers and I suggest that the boldface be removed from the infobox. Other city article infoboxes having bolded descriptors is not a good argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. As an aside, and this is an unasked for aesthetic opinion, it doesn't look all that nice either. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to remove the bold, we should go all the way; you left bold in the other infobox. I just don't think it reads as well without the bold.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims POV: Fleeing religious persecution, or an exiled extremist religious cult?

I have tagged the statement "fleeing religious persecution" with , since from the European point of view, the pilgrims were an exiled extremist religious cult. The pilgrims were Puritan extremists who sought to enforce their strict moral code on others, similar to Sharia law. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs were. If they were fleeing religious persecution, they were fleeing religious persecution. There's no POV in that statement. You're trying to insert some greater question as to whether it's a worthwhile religion to follow which is POV.--Loodog (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

There's been good work done and refs have been standardized, so I've nominated this article for GA status.--Loodog (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)