Jump to content

Talk:History of Massachusetts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I have noticed that this article was requested, and I was wondering if a redirect the the article "Massachusetts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusettes) would be a good idea? Thank you. -Demosthenes- 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questia

[edit]

Questia is a commercial on-line publisher of out of print books. Its site has not just full bibliography but the first pages of every chapter of every book. This is invaluable in its own right and essaential if a person is deciding to get the book by library-- or purchase access for 99 cents on Questia. Keeping readers blind about free www info is a bad idea and contary to the Wiki spirit. We are not selling cigarettes here. Note that MANY wiki articles has ISBN numbers for books (which are of use only in purchasing the book), and many list publishers. In the intellectual world of encyclopedia we have to rely on publishers, and a hostile attitude just weaken Wiki and makes it less useful. Rjensen 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work you've done on the Massachusetts and History of Massachusetts articles. My biggest concern about Questia is whether the information on the History of Massachusetts article were original work or cut-and-paste from copyrighted articles. If this is not the case, then my next concern is that the reference is being used for advertising. Regardless of the quality of Questia (which I do not at all doubt-- they seem like a great resource), then the lists of resources which you provide (which, again, I appreciate) can be included without the like to Questia. It would be equally inappropriate, for example, to include a link to a book via Amazon, when instead a proper bibliography would merely list the bibliographic info. See, e.g., Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/archive1#advertisements on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the ISBN numbers are also useful for free library borrowing. --Mark Adler (Markles) 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no advertising here. The Questia name doesn't show anywhere in Wiki. (Only is users click through do they get it.) I have no relationship whatever to Questia. I recommend the FREE SERVICES they offfer because they are enormously helpful to users. Note that Wiki often says book xxx is published by Macmillan (in that case the company's name does appeal on Wiki). I think this linking is less intrusive and much more useful, because--take a look--Questia lets you read the first page of every chapter. Other links to sources like JSTOR are also valuable--our users otherwise do not know they can read this material online. By the way the mini-essays I am writing is entirely my own (based on the books I list in the references). I have been writing history books and articles for 40 years --am retired now--and love the work. Rjensen 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, specifically prohibiting external links to Bookstores. Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal background. Remove the Questia links from this and all pages you've edited. —Mark Adler (markles) 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qustia is not a bookstore, it's a publisher. It offers very valuable FREE information, which books stores do not. Such as table of contents and first page of every chapter. Users cannot easily get this information. Blanking it hurts our users.Rjensen 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to concur with Markles. The Questia links are not appropriate. It is not a FREE SERVICE, it is a commercial site. (Sure, you can look at limited excerpts from the books....but you can do that at Amazon as well). ISBN numbers should be used. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine

[edit]

It says on List of U.S. states by date of statehood that Maine was formerly part of Massachusetts before 1820. Should this be noted here? -- Astrokey44|talk 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are other tidbits in Massachusetts#History which may or may not be mentioned here. -- Beland 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pilgrims/Puritans

[edit]

The article is misleading in separating the original Pilgrims from the Puritans: "The Pilgrims were soon followed by Puritans..."

The Pilgrims were simply the first group of Puritans that came to Massachusetts, by way of Holland. Others that followed after 1630 were generally from England. But the they were all considered Puritans. (See Philbick's book: Mayflower, pages 8-10.)

The "Pilgrims" were NOT puritans. They were Separatists. Every school child in Massachusetts knows this simple fact. A Puritan seeks to purify the established church making it over anew. A Separatist seeks to create a new church separate from the original. The former feels the established church can be saved. The later feels the church is unredeemable and therefore cannot be. When the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony absorbed the Plymouth Colony the Puritan church forcefully absorbed the Separatists many of whom escaped east towards Cape Cod or South to Rhode Island. I should know, I am descended from twenty four of the passengers of the Mayflower, most of whom were Separatists. (See William Bradford's book: "Of Plimoth Plantation" and beware of revisionists who do imperfect research)

I dont' know if this is the right place to say this, but in the introduction, it mentions the "Puritan's narrow views". I'm obviously not a Puritan myself, but think that the word "narrow" seems a little biased. Sure it may be a fair description, but there were plenty of Puritan's who were definitely not narrow minded. Just thought maybe the word (and other occurrences of it) could be changed to maybe, illiberal as that may better describe the scenario. Just a thought.Greenbluewhales (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Puritans, that is the leadership of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and their ilk most definitely were narrow minded. They executed three of my ancestors for the crime of being witches when in fact two were falsely accused in a climate where one was guilty by virtue of accusation and one was simply a misunderstood healer, an art women were prohibited from engaging in at the time. In other parts of the world all three would have been revered. And yes, I am biased but also truthful. There was a reason why they came to Massachusetts. They fled out of fear of persecution as the majority in England also thought they were narrow minded but their ilk soon murdered their king and took up the reigns of government and thus gained sufficient power to force their narrow views upon the rest of the people. By then they had established the colonies and found that remaining was more profitable than not. What started out as a quest to establish a theocracy ended up as a path to wealth and by the 18th century puritanism had all but been abandoned in New England.

Vikings

[edit]

It's said that Vikings were first Europeans in Massachusetts? Around years 1000-1200? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.123.209 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's said that space aliens built the pyramids. That does not make it so. There is absolutely no credible evidence that Norse explorers made it as far as New England let alone Massachusetts though there is strong evidence they made it to Newfoundland and possibly Nova Scotia. The Sagas don't give the exact year of Leif Ericson's discovery of Vinland but most likely it was between 1001 and 1010 and certainly well before 1075 the date of the earliest written saga that mentioned him. Leif Ericson supposedly claimed that he had heard from another Norseman that they had seen land west of Greenland prior to 999 though no further details were mentioned. Also supposedly a couple of men had been shipwrecked on land west of Greenland some time prior to Leif Ericson's discovery of Vinland but again, no further mention of details are made. There certainly was contact between Europeans and indigenous people of New England long before the Mayflower came to Massachusetts. In 1602, Bartholomew Gosnold arrived in Maine (originally part of Massachusetts) intent on starting a colony based on fishing and found there indigenous people in possession of European made goods indicating they had traded with Europeans in the then recent past. No one knows for sure exactly when the first European visited Massachusetts but almost certainly it was as early as during the 110 years between Columbus and Gosnold. There is also a claim by some Portuguese historians that João Vaz Corte-Real may have discovered land in North America around 1473 and the best guess as to where is claimed to be around Newfoundland though he named the place "New Land of the Codfish" which some might interpret implying Cape Cod though there really isn't any evidence to support that. In fact, there is no solid evidence that he ever explored more than a few hundred miles into the Atlantic Ocean let alone made it as far as the Americas. Such claims were made mostly by his family after he had died and after Columbus first set foot on an island in the Caribbean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:FF00:8E:75F7:9E61:F857:54F3 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omits the Organization of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

[edit]

The date the Province ended is shown as 1774. Another source states that a Provincial Congress was formed in that year. The reader is left in limbo except some references to the "Commonwealth". What kind of government was that? Was it controlled by the British or the Colonists? The term Commonwealth implies that it may have been an independent state between 1774 and admission to the Union. 76.102.31.185 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date contradiction in Revolutionary Massachusetts: 1760s–1780s

[edit]

Something is wrong here. Either the dates are incorrect, or the text has the logic backwards. (My cursory look at a few online sources indicates the text is probably backwards -- the Parliamentary declaration preceded Lexington & Concord, since it (among other things) would have enabled Gage to use (more) force.)

With the local population largely opposing British authority, troops moved from Boston on April 18, 1775, to destroy the powder supplies of local resisters in Concord. [...] In response, on February 9, 1775, the British Parliament declared Massachusetts to be in rebellion, and sent additional troops to restore order to the colony.

Also, I believe the actual battle took place on April 19, even if the troops actually left Boston late on the 18th.

Magicpiano (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hooker

[edit]

The article implies that Thomas Hooker left the Massachusetts colony to found Connecticut over religious toleration, as did Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. I don't believe there is any evidence of that. Although Thomas Hooker wanted to extend suffrage to all Puritans, there is no evidence that I know of, that he dissented on any religious views with the Oligarchy/Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Massachusetts

[edit]

Any interest in creating a Timeline of Massachusetts article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here is a source:

  • Federal Writers' Project (1937), "Chronology", Massachusetts: a Guide to its Places and People, American Guide Series, Boston: Houghton Mifflin – via Hathi Trust {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- M2545 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Massachusetts - Captain John Hull (18 December 1624 – 1 October 1683)

[edit]

All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".

"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage (mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations."[1]"

Yet some deny Hull's existence. Or, they think Johnny Appleseed (included on this page) is more important. Theonomad (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://historyofmassachusetts.org/massachusetts-bay-colony-charter-revoked
People are not denying the existence of John Hull the mintmaster. People are taking issue with the fact that your contributions are poorly sourced, or that they are for some reason misplaced (in the cases I've seen, it's usually because you're straining at the scope of the article, or adding more than is really necessary). Mention of Hull is I think appropriate here, so I will focus on the matter of sourcing: the information you quote above is taken from a blog published by a free-lance journalist. Can you find sources that say the same things that were written by reputable historians? Magic♪piano 21:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Beatrice Brooks' work, "The History of the Colony of Massachusetts" is well researched and written. She relies primarily on the sources:  Barth, Jordan and Edward Randolph himself who was dealing with the King.

Randolph, Edward. Edward Randolph: Including His Letters and Official Papers from New England, 1676 – 1703. Vol II, Prince Society, 1898. Barth, Jonathan Edward. “‘A Peculiar Stampe of Our Owne’: The Massachusetts Mint and the Battle over Sovereignty, 1652-1691.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 3, 2014, pp. 490–525. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43285101Jordan, Louis. “Chronological Listing of Documents and Events Relating to the Massachusetts Mint.” Coin and Currency Collections, University of Notre Dame, coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/MAMintDocs.chron.html “Pine Tree Shilling, United States, 1652.” National Museum of American History, americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1082064The Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay. Boston, T.B. Wait and Co, 1814.

By contrast, the paragraph on the "Massachusetts Pound" found on Wikipedia is atrocious.  It makes me ashamed for the writer.  Doubly so for those that it's fine.  No matter what you think of me, John Hull, the mintmaster, the first Treasurer has a place in the "History of Massachusetts".   Theonomad (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that Ms. Brooks appears to be transparent about her sources. Have you vetted those sources, and do you agree that her writing is an accurate reflection of them? If you have, why not cite her sources here, instead of relying on her? If you have not, how do you know she is taking proper care with her materials? Further, why should I (or other editors who have reverted you) rely on your assertion that she has? (This is why Wikipedia prefers peer-reviewed secondary sources -- it cuts through all of this sort of work.) Magic♪piano 15:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting far afield of the true issue. That is: John Hull's existence, importance to the history of MA, veracity of the current copy and whether there's room for improvement on the current copy on Wikipedia. While I've no complaints against Appleseed and Gorges, the "Hull Mint" is ten times as important. Theonomad (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so important, you can prove it with reliable sources. Magic♪piano 16:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Who's more important to Massachusetts history, John Hull or Gorges"? Rhetorical question.

I don't think you're real interest in a reliable source. I think your interest in "winning".

THIS:

"All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".

"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage (mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations."[1]"

OR THIS: A laughable paragraph:

"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684." hahhahTheonomad (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a professional historian but just from reading the previewed first page of the Barth reference Theonomad provides above (this one), it does look like some mention of the Hull Mint is merited on this page. I think what's holding it back here is that the text that has been proposed to be added to the article is awkward and fails to show the subject's importance to the wider history of the colony. "... Until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical" is weak sauce compared with the lead sentence of the Barth article: "... a remarkably bold and unparalleled expression of de facto colonial sovereignty", and later on that first page, "prominent political figures in Massachusetts Bay interpreted their colony's coining of silver not simply as an act of economic expediency but as a gesture of political autonomy. Conflict erupted when the officials of a restored English monarchy came to recognize the effrontery ...".
The proposed text needs a thorough rewrite to (a) focus on the Hull Mint as an expression of autonomy; (b) describe how contemporary political figures (both in Mass. and England) saw it; (c) place it in the context of Massachusetts', and America's, increasing growing political identity which would ultimately lead them to revolt. It's also unkind to the reader to bring up that Hull was accused of treason, punishable by death, and that Massachusetts' government may have been prosecuted for overstepping its authority (quo warranto), without following up on these accusations. Was Hull ever tried or convicted or hanged? What action did the monarchy end up taking, and why? ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 17:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think you're real interest in a reliable source. I think your interest in "winning"." Kindly do not ascribe motives to me. It is rude. I'm actually trying to help you understand why you are running into problems here (mostly from other editors, not me). Magic♪piano 17:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wasnt trying to be rude. You are helpful. Hull was in the 58 in 1683. Prime of life. He purchased a boatload of property in 1682. All of a sudden in 1683, wham! dead and the mint is closed. Sanderson hightailed it to New Hampshire. "... Until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical" arent my words - Jordans I believe, the reference is temporarily lost. Being the first Treasurer and establishing a mint I thought, were noteworthy. I will say, I'm not married to the copy. The "Massachusetts Pound" does seem like its a Wikipedia invention. Theonomad (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Massachusetts Pound" is fictional as it relates to currency; a wiki invention if you will. Vote all references to the "Massachusetts Pound" be removed. Move to insert the following paragraph: "Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage (mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations."Theonomad (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A two shilling note, issued in Massachusetts in 1741
Are you seriously trying to suggest that this (image to right) is a Wikipedia fiction? If not, then pray tell what is it? Magic♪piano 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Magicpiano, I'm saying that piece of paper was issued in the 18th century. There's no reference to a "Massachusetts Pound" on it. I was researching "Massachusetts Pound" - dog related. Besides, I am from NE, lived in Boston and its the first ive heard of it. But, every 3rd grader in NE had heard about the pine tree shilling and that it was indeed the "History of Massachusetts. Theonomad (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I actually agree with you that the "Massachusetts pound" might be a bit of a fiction, but it is undeniable that this document was treated at the time as currency, and there probably existed similar ones with both the words "Massachusetts" and "pound" on them. Considering the impact currency issues had on colonial politics and economy (see elsewhere in this article, and articles on various colonial governors), it is a ripe subject for its own article. Under what sort of heading should we write about things like this document? (Clearly, some editors thought "Massachusetts pound" would be a suitable proxy for this.) Magic♪piano 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial Massachusetts currency notes perhaps? Theonomad (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Massachusetts - Captain John Hull (18 December 1624 – 1 October 1683)

[edit]

Wikipedia mentions the "Massachusetts Pound".

"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684."

99% of people have never heard of the "Massachusetts Pound". Besides, its not compelling and badly edited. Plus, the argument that its not even true can be made. People want to hear about the pine tree shilling and the mint in Boston in 1652 not some silly piece of paper issued in 1778. Theonomad (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonomad: regarding today's edits, I've reverted them because though I think the Hull Mint deserves to be in the article, this particular edit isn't the solution. It's essentially the same text you've tried to add to this page and others in the past, with no improvement. You ask subsequent editors to "don't delete - see talk page". But anyone who reads this talk page will see no consensus in favor of making this edit, nor any explanation of why the text being added is better than the text that was reverted before. My suggestions are:
(a) The text to be added should be written in encyclopedic language and tone, and tell a full story. Quotes should be used sparingly and attributed when they occur. (b) As I wrote above on Oct. 20, the text should state more about why the Hull Mint is important to Massachusetts history, why the colonists thought it important to start a mint ("currency was also an issue" does not provide enough explanation to a casual student of history), how it was controversial (not simply that it was considered treason -- why was it? And did the colonists think they were committing treason at the time?), how it ended, and what role it played in the colony's path to independence. (c) Citations should be to "reliable sources" (i.e., independent sources with some editorial control -- not a blog, regardless of how well-respected or qualified the blog writer is). (d) The edit deleted an entire paragraph for no stated reason. I'm OK with losing the "Massachusetts pound" sentence, for reasons you and Magicpiano discussed above, but you also deleted a link to the Navigation Acts and a cited fact about sheep production (another step, like the mint, toward economic self-sufficiency and presumably a step toward independence). ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that the Hull mint deserves about two sentences of mention here. This article's scope covers four hundred years of history. The business about Edward Randolph and the king doesn't need to be here (especially as an extended quotation), nor do the details about what exactly it produced (beyond the well-known pine tree shilling). What it was, who founded it and why, what it made, how long it lasted. Magic♪piano 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole History of Massachusetts page needs to scrapped in my opinion. The Navigation Acts should have at least a paragraph or more here being that they were for a century. Sheep? haha! I wont be spending anymore time here - inventing the "Massachusetts Pound" and Appleseed, but not Hull etc.; I'm done doing my research and this Wikipedia thing - I thought I'd have more fun doing it. Arguing with "editors" over this or that copy but ignoring fact, truth and import tries my patience. Theonomad (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if volunteering to build a wiki doesn't work for you, Theonomad. Writing history is more than finding sources -- it's also weeding the relevant from the irrelevant, and presenting those facts in a readable and coherent fashion. Doing so in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia does require some patience, and not all of us have it. Should you find yourself in the future with enough time and patience to take a crack at rewording this passage, your contributions will continue to be welcomed to the extent that they meet Wikipedia policies. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. That means you sometimes have to work with people who approach matters differently than you do, and have a different perspective, and that you don't always get what you want or feel is right. Sorry that doesn't work for you. Magic♪piano 00:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Massachusetts&oldid=1194747271"