Talk:New England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Talk:New England/definition FAQs, & Connecticut-Boston discussion which represents the consensus of editors here.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for New England:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : economy: "but most of it has long since departed due to high operating costs in the region"
  • Wikify : Standardize refs with cite web and cite book templates


Greater New England?[edit]

I have heard this mentioned a few times throughout the internet when talking about culture. It usually references New England settlers and places out west they migrated to. Can someone define what this term means and where specifically it refers to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.193.55 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it included most of the North, depending on who you asked and when, as of course all the migration didn't happen at once. However, I haven't found any satisfactory sources. --Saerain (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Donald W. Meinig uses the term quite a bit in his Shaping of America histories, especially vol. 1 & 2 if I recall. They aren't online, not even as a Google Books preview though. I'll see if I can dig up a terse definition in one of his books. Pfly (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

After a quick look, it seems that Meinig mostly uses the term "Greater New England" only in his first Shaping of America book, which is mostly about the colonial era. While he describes the spread and influence of New England peoples and culture in the second book, he doesn't seem to use the term "Greater New England" for this. From the first book, under a section titled "Greater New England":

By 1750 northeastern North America was to an important degree a Greater New England. Such a term does not refer to a homogeneous region nor a cohesive structure: it included six political units, several economic areas, and some cultural variation; but it was a functional realm dominated by a powerful people and focused on a major center.

The major center was Boston, but he mentions important rivals such as Newport, Salem, Portsmouth, Providence, New London, and New Haven. The region's "main body", with its six major nuclei, was basically today's Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, as well as most of Long Island, the coast of Maine, fingers up the Connecticut and other rivers, and an intermixed area along the Hudson River down to towns like Newark, NJ. He also describes a larger region, "beyond the domain of New England settlement", "a sphere of strong Yankee influence, bound in many ways to Boston and its commercial system despite the strong British official presence at Halifax". This larger region extended northeast from the core New England, including the coast up to Acadia (now Nova Scotia), almost all of Acadia, and southeast Newfoundland around St Johns. A key aspect of this larger region, labelled prominently on a map in the book, if "The Banks", the offshore fisheries. Pfly (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start rumors since I've never read the term. But. Could the usage mean the old timey claims that all states had (including Connecticut, for example) well west of their current boundaries? See, for example, History_of_Connecticut#Territorial_disputes. Not sure if other states, like Massachusetts, participated in this "land grab!" This would have been fairly disconnected New England from current boundaries. Student7 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Massachsetts claimed Iroguoia (western New York) by means of a Kings charter. New York countered with deeds from the various Iroquois Nations, many obtained through the exertion of great pressure against the Nations and from outright subterfuge. It wasn't until 1786 that NY prevailed by settling more NYers on the land than MA did. MA retained a right to 230,400 acres in the Chemung Valley as a result of the agreement between the states, but sold it in 1788 when it needed money.
The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Boderland of the American Revolution; Alan Taylor; New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 2006; Pages 154-156, 165-166.
Wordreader (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

misleading Boston College caption[edit]

I propose removing the photo of Boston College or at least changing what the caption is about. The current caption: "The Old World's enduring influence over New England is evident in the architecture." The Gothic architecture found at Boston College is representative not of New England in particular but of American universities in general -- take Duke and the University of Chicago for two non-New England schools with Gothic campuses built at roughly the same time. The claim is not elsewhere made in the article that "old world" styles of architecture are more enduring in New England compared to other parts of the U.S., and I don't believe it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.116.196 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed -- that caption has always bothered me. The architecture in question is Collegiate Gothic, a subgenre of Gothic Revival architecture, a 19th-century movement. Collegiate Gothic architecture can be found all over the United States and the world, and is hardly unique to New England. It would be more accurate to say that Georgian architecture, and the Federalist architecture that followed it, exhibit 18th-century English influences on the region. First Period architecture from the 17th century is an even better example: consider Fairbanks House (Dedham, Massachusetts). All of these more accurately demonstrate direct European influences on New England architecture (in fact, at the time, it was simply European architecture). Perhaps the BC photo could be replaced by an image of the Fairbanks House. As far as I know, no Gothic architecture was constructed by the colonists; Puritans, I am almost certain, would have viewed Gothic architecture as too gaudy, too showy, and most of all, too Catholic/Anglican. --TimothyDexter (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:New-England-coin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:New-England-coin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons of New England's size other entities[edit]

Wikipedia has been so good lately that I haven't edited it years, and I sort of forgot the protocol. Anyway a few days ago I read that New England is slightly smaller than Great Britain, which I did not consider to be accurate, (since it is 80% of the size of Great Britain) so I changed it. Anyway now I'm noticing that there is a new edit making it say that it is larger than England. That is cool, and to my knowledge accurate I just didn't realize that people place an importance to compare it in size to something in the British Isles. So I thought maybe we could have a talk page about it. The new edit is quite accurate, but I wonder what the merit in comparing it in size to things is. I would say that it makes sense to me to clarify that New England is bigger than England since it takes its name and culture from there. But maybe we can tak about it too if that discussion is important. If it isn't then no one will talk about it. I don't know if I am missing something but it might be nice to talk about things. Scott Oglesby (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the page should compare the geographic sizes of either the UK or England. If someone wanted to know the size comparison they could simply look at the area of New England and do the math. It also appears Nova Scotia goes with out the size comparison to Scotland.Weebro55 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
or New Brunswick to Brunswick (Braunschweig) 92.196.63.184 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
New England from its very naming was in comparison with England--sizde issues matter very much and should be included. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yea it's not like it does any harm as long as the info is correctly sourced. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I confess that I did it, top of the head. A comparison to Great Britain, with a citation, makes more sense. "We" (I) shouldn't be the one making the comparison (deciding to make the comparison. Nor, alas, can we "vote".  :) That is WP:OR. I was just trying to come up with a comparison that "seemed" germane. Would be "nice" to have some means of comparison for non-North Americans, that makes sense. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not OR to look at the numbers and say which is bigger. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Politics section[edit]

The politics section needs some significant rewriting. I did a bit of copyediting and reorganization this morning, but there's still much work to be done. At the moment, it seems rather schizophrenic -- opening with random facts about property taxes, moving to town meetings, discussing the anti-nuclear movement, and ending with an arbitrary list of notable legal trivia (although some of these trivia could be easily reintegrated into the opening of the section). This is how I propose that the section be organized:

  • Brief overview of the political history of New England (this is where we would include the trivia like abolitionism, anti-death penalty, gay marriage, etc.; it would briefly and easily demonstrate the evolution from Puritanism to progressivism as the dominant politics of the region)
  • Town meetings (get rid of the "government" heading altogether, as well as the tax factoids, which have no place there or anywhere)
  • Elections: Overview (integrate the New Hampshire primary section into this one); Political party strength
  • Remove "Notable laws and movements" altogether, integrating the most interesting information into the rest of the section

Thoughts? --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, why is NH the only state that leans Republican? Maine has two GOP senators. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It's what the Gallup reference says. Don't forget that Snowe and Collins are the "least Republican" (in terms of voting with party) members of the Republican caucus in the Senate -- with Rand Paul of Kentucky. It also hasn't gone for a Republican presidential candidate for over 20 years. Maine is not considered to lean either way. --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote it to mention Maine is "competive" Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
As you can see, I reorganized the sections. "Politics" is too much misunderstood in the US to have it as the highest level topic. Hating McCain/Bush and loving Obama, is not "politics" except on tv. This is (at best) elections or campaigning. Best to avoid this as the highest level topic for the whole smash. Government is the mechanics of government and should generally be non-controversial. Elections are campaigning or voting or elections results. In one article, it's a week by week poll! Whatever polls have to do with elections.
This makes it easy to sort out "politics" which is what elected government officials do (pass laws) in their spare time at the capital when they aren't out campaigning.
Writing what is happening in the present tense tends to make an article more controversial than it needs to be IMO. Saying Vermont voted 98% for Obama in 2008 is a fair statement. But saying that Vermont is the most liberal state in the country today (on the basis of that 2008 election) is inaccurate for lack of data (except for the inevitable "poll" wherever polls are in the constitution. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have thought about what to do with this section for a while. I agree with your concerns, but I think splitting the section up into major headings clutters the organization a bit. After all, government, politics, and elections are inextricably related (at least in a liberal democracy). Finding examples on which to base the New England article is difficult, since, on the one hand, New England is not a political entity; but on the other hand, it is as distinct and cohesive a US region as, say, the South. So perhaps a mixture of examples might be adequate. Here are how similar articles deal with the organization:
Here are how a couple of FAs deal with the organization (one a city, one a state):
  • San Francisco: "Law and government"
  • Oklahoma: "Law and government": "Local government", "State government", "National politics"
Following their example, it may be that a "Laws and governments" section with "Local governments" ("Town meetings" and "New England towns"), "State governments", and "National politics" subsections might be most appropriate; however, since New England is not a political entity, it feels a bit odd. The only thing that all the states share is a relative amount of American-style liberalism (social, economic, or both), town meetings, and the concept of the New England town.
Furthermore, I do not think that it is controversial to note (with credible, mainstream references, of course), that New England is and is perceived to be both more liberal and libertarian than the rest of the US, even if there are many people in New England who wished that such were not the case. A NPOV does not mean being mealy-mouthed about the politics or the perceived politics of a particular place. Here is how I propose to organize the section:
  • Law and government (here we can provide an overview that would include the notable laws and movements)
  • Local government
  • New England town
  • Town meeting
  • State government
  • National politics
  • Political party strength
  • Elections
  • New Hampshire primary
Each section would have links to their appropriate main articles (like Government of New Hampshire), and some would need to be created (like Politics of New England -- as of 2012-12-24).
In any case, I strongly feel that two things need to be emphasized: unique institutions (towns and town meetings) and unique politics (national firsts, movements, and obvious left-of-center or libertarian leanings).
What do you all have to say about this proposal? --TimothyDexter (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I can see you've given a lot of thought to this. Thank you for that.
As I've mentioned above, I have a particular aversion to the subtitle "politics" wherever it crops up. At the most academic level, "politics" is exercising "policy" by passing laws. So "National Politics" IMO, is the states 12 senators and whatever representatives voting for Obamacare or whatever they voted for that seems significant.
The media tries to say that when a campaigner utters some phrase, he is participating in "politics." But he isn't really, he's just campaigning for office. What he said may never become law nor a bill introduced, even if he is elected. Just words. So I think the tv definition should be ignored as unacademic. "Politics" as referring to campaigns and voting and elections does not seem accurate to me. "National elections" seems more appropriate for the high level subsection you proposed IMO. That way, it becomes an academic article. And therefore less controversial
The structure above does not allow for what I would term a "politics" subsection. This implies to me that politics would then be under "government" which, IMO, should be relegated to the description of common (or uncommon) government structure as exists in the various constitutions.
I think mixing "law and government" is not the best arrangement. Laws, ultimately, are "politics" in the truest form. They reflect the combination of elections and government. "And" article titles are discouraged in policy. Maybe a good idea for sections as well. The beauty of having a separate government subsection is that it is truly dull, and will have few updates. Another non-controversial subsection! Student7 (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I definitely understand your concerns. The last thing that I want is a section that needs to be continuously edited (with anything other than statistical updates). The "Law and government" proposal, however, is taken straight from two US-related featured articles. Have a look at the national politics section of Oklahoma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma#National_politics. My issue with a "National elections" section is first that it differs from the standards set by other FAs, second that there are no national elections in the US (save for the President, which is still indirect). Politicians elected to the US government are elected within their states and represent their states.
If I am not mistaken, your main concern is a section that essentially lists how the "politics" in New England differs from the rest of the country. I think that this can be accomplished in three, maybe four, sentences. It's enough to state that New England tends to vote Democratic, and that New Hampshire tends to be more on the libertarian side. More or less everything else should be in the history section (which lacks a great deal of 20th- and 21st-century history at present time). --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As you mentioned earlier, this is a region, rather than a state. It may have been in one article, but it would be the first time I saw "Law and Government" together. The major reason not to do this, is that (unusual) "law/statutes" properly belong under "Politics." It is politics at its purest form.
"Elections" - New England tends to vote Democrat, etc. Voting is elections, right?
I defer to you on history because I haven't looked at it lately, but old stuff needs to be there. I think it is clear when "Government" is "too old" - it has been superseded by other constitutional amendments. Vermont, e.g., had a cute provision for a "Board of Censors" which was much better than it sounded, to oversee what was perceived as a "weak/unknowledgeable" Supreme Court in the early days. This was dissolved in the early 19th century, I think. I'm not recommending it for the article, but just giving an example.
"Politics" should be moved when laws are superseded - e.g. several states outlawed booze in the 19th century. That was replaced by other statutes or Prohibition. I guess where generalization starts failing, is the time when "Elections" material should be moved. Majority Republican rule is clearly "History."  :) Student7 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive irregularities[edit]

All, I've found a couple of "orphaned" archives, and am working on fixing everything to be sequential. I'll put up another message as soon as I'm done. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TOC irregularities[edit]

The new talk page starts with number 9 on the table of contents. Are those discussions suppose to still be here or can we just fix the numbering?Weebro55 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have (hopefully temporarily) removed WP:WikiProject Vermont from the list of interested projects at the top of the page. The "to do" list for that project, which gets transcluded wherever the {{WikiProject Vermont}} template (or its "U.S|VT=yes" replacement) is used, contains a TOC-suppression instruction and eight level-two section headings, which taken together mess up the table of contents of every talk page on which it is used. Hopefully, someone here is also active in that project and can get the issue resolved. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyeditor's question no.1 - slavery[edit]

"By 1784, all of the states in the region had introduced the gradual abolition of slavery, with Vermont and Massachusetts introducing total abolition in 1777 and 1783, respectively."

This sentence needs some tweaks, but I need to quickly (lazily...) find out exactly what it means.

Does it mean;

  • all states in the region had completely abolished slavery by 1784
  • all states in the region had taken at least some steps toward abolishing slavery by 1784
  • all states in the region had "mostly" (or some similar adverb) abolished slavery by 1784
  • all states in the region were in the process, by 1784, of taking legislative steps that would lead to their complete abolition of slavery
  • something else?

Is there any particular reason for Vermont and Massachusetts being mentioned specifically? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, becuase other states took longer. Consider the word "gradual". I don't know about other states off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure slavery in Connecticut was still legal until 1820. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I added this information a while ago. If I recall correctly, Vermont and Massachusetts had both formally abolished slavery in 1777 and 1783, which means that slavery was illegal except under the federal Fugitive Slave Act (meaning that if a person had been enslaved in another state, they couldn't gain their freedom simply by moving to a free state). Other states introduced gradual emancipation, either by banning the slave trade, but not slavery itself, by legislating automatic emancipation at a certain age in the manner of apprenticeship or indentured servitude, or both. Complete *de jure* abolition throughout the region was effected some two decades prior to the US Civil War. --TimothyDexter (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As Demiurge has suggested, the sentence does need tweaking.
With the recent federal immigration law as a backdrop, it is (apparently) not up to the states to enforce federal law. They must, of course, cooperate with it, but it may not be necessary to mention the federal Fugitive Slave Law here. Be nice in several other articles. A US States type article maybe. Student7 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, states were actually compelled to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws, although those in the North did so with less enthusiasm, and engaged in active if largely unofficial resistance. I'm not familiar with the jurisprudence of the time, but it probably fell under interstate commerce and various other unfortunate antebellum constitutional protections for slavery. --TimothyDexter (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I eventually went with "By 1784, all of the states in the region had taken steps towards the abolition of slavery, with Vermont and Massachusetts introducing total abolition in 1777 and 1783, respectively." Having come here as copyeditor (although I have an interest in the subject), I don't really have an informed opinion about the relevance of the sentence here. It didn't seem out of place (logically) when reading it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyeditor's question no. 2 - Hartford Convention[edit]

"Delegates from all over New England met in Hartford in the winter of 1814-15. The gathering was called the Hartford Convention. The twenty-seven delegates met to discuss changes to the US Constitution that would protect the region from similar legislation and attempt to keep political power in the region."

The phrasing of the start of these sentences suggest that they are not related to the previous sentence, which was about the war of 1812. This means I need to ask, legislation similar to what?

A WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYPASTE check for these three sentences might also be needed, since the apparent disappearance of whatever "similar legislation" is referring to, is a possible sign that fragments of a copyvio problem might have accidentally leaked back into the text. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

From "Embargo Act of 1807 and James Madison's Nonintercourse Act of 1809.." (From the Hartford Convention article. And yes, these sentences need tweaking as well. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've changed this to improve the flow of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

Although it has a handful of historical flags, New England as a region of the United States currently has no official flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_New_England_1988.png is a proprietary flag that was endorsed by the New England Governors' Conference, but holds no official status. It does not belong in this article, especially considering its copyright status, and it certainly does not belong in the infobox. --TimothyDexter (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with its removal, although I have seen it on a few secessionist articles, it doesn't belong on the New England wikipedia page.Weebro55 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Coercive/Intolerable Acts[edit]

After some thought, I changed the term from 'Coercive' to the 'Intolerable Acts'. Although the laws were named in Britain the Coercive Acts, Coercive Acts redirects to Intolerable Acts on Wikipedia. Also, non-English Wikipedias favor 'Intolerable Acts'. It would seem that history has favored the colonists' nomenclature. --TimothyDexter (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation error[edit]

In the "Notes" section:

29 ^ Cite error:. . .

Can someone who knows how to format citations repair this? Thanks. Wordreader (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede has been bungled[edit]

Some well-meaning soul has added a bunch of (more or less un-formatted and) uncited information to the lead about English-ness. I would fix it myself, but I haven't the time. I think that the lede was more or less perfect before these changes. Anybody interested in restoring it? --TimothyDexter (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Before 1707, there was no Britain, so English is actually correct. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There most certainly was a Britain before 1707 and it is the same Britain now. Britain is the name of the island, not of any political group. 131.111.85.79 (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No doubt about that! My main issue was and is that the information that was added was not sourced, and did not appear in the body of the article. --TimothyDexter (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

New English?[edit]

I just noticed this addition to the demonym list. Is "New English" an actual term that is used? I have only ever heard "New Englander" and "Yankee" as a demonym for this region. If no source is found I propose its prompt removal from the list. Weebro55 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What states are in New England?[edit]

There's a text list, obviously but there isn't the one thing I most expected to find on this page - a map showing the various states clearly. The only map there is isn't labelled with state names, and colours them all the same! I hope this can be fixed 131.111.85.79 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Population[edit]

The Historical Population table seems to have an error in 1940. Consider: 1930, 8,166,341 people, 10.3% of USA's population 1940, 8,437,290 people, 3.3% of USA's population 1950, 9,314,453 people, 10.4% of USA's population Pre-1930 and post-1950, the population percentage is also near 10%. Since America didn't triple in population between 1940 and then 1/3 population by 1950, the 3.3% is almost certainly an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talkcontribs) 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should be headed differently. The percentage represents the increase over the previous census. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

History[edit]

History between 1850 and 2000 is missing. -- Beland (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The history section is already a little meandering (if exhaustive) and has been difficult to keep trimmed. I think that the section on the 19th century ("early United States") could be scaled back a bit to provide some space for the 20th and 21st centuries. Things that should be discussed include: deindustrialization in New England and resulting unemployment, the transition to a modern post-industrial economy (colloquially referred to as the Massachusetts Miracle), the growing importance of Greater Boston on surrounding states' economies (notable New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and southern coastal Maine), rising immigration from Latin America and Southeast Asia, and, of course, the slow shift from being a Republican stronghold to being a Democratic one as a result of the former's Southern Strategy. All of these points need proper sources, which will take some time. I'm open to suggestions, examples, and thoughts. --TimothyDexter (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
good ideas for recent history. But let's keep the old history too, for it's been well studied by man historians and the recent material is mostly journalism. I strongly recommend expanding the History of New England article. The history section here should be a brief summary and now it's full of very minor details on colonial era. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Budget balancing[edit]

A New York Times citation explained the cuts Vermont (only) was discussing: "the planned cuts would ... scale back programs that help elderly people stay in their homes and avoid moving to nursing homes. On Friday, the Senate approved a budget plan that would ... raise taxes on health care providers."

This is for one state only.

These do not sound like "nice, easy" cuts.

I'm not sure what the final result was. Knowing Vermont, I'm sure that they eventually balanced their budget. I used the NY Times article as a source in justifying the statement that four of the top ten states in the union that were having trouble balancing their budgets, included Vermont. The article seems to justify that. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut?[edit]

Many people do not consider Connecticut to be a part of "true" New England. I am uncertain, myself, but am a bit concerned as to how to proceed, vis-a-vis the Wiki entry and its integrity. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.175.34 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

See /definition FAQs. --Polaron | Talk 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm developing a survey about regional definitions right now that will, among other things, produce statistics on the inclusion of New York and (western) Connecticut in "New England", partially driven by the significant disparity between the consensus on wikipedia and the use of the term in America at large. It will be months or years before it's got enough data for me to publish, but once I do then I'll have a source to cite in this argument.Sparr (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

CT is in the NYC region, later for New England. They are too far away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.74.10 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Flag of New England[edit]

The flag that currently heads the small statistics box (white canton with a red st. George cross, and a blue field with six stars) is not a regional flag. It's was designed at the behest of a private citizen, in the 80's if I'm not mistaken. Needless to say it has absolutely no historical precedent and is certainly not the 'Flag of New England'. So far as I can tell, only the New England Governors' Conference (NEGC) uses this flag. There's a decent wiki article about the flags of New England, I suggest a more appropriate (not to mention historically accurate) flag be chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.178.130 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Would anyone object to changing the IPA pronunciation for the region's name back, so that it reflects the more common (in New England at least!) pronunciation of New as "nu" rather than "nju"? cf the IPA we give at the entry for New Hampshire. New England's dialects, like those in most parts of the U.S., tend toward yod-dropping after alveolars. I see that user 198 inserted the yod back at the beginning of the month, but it seems like a mistake to me. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done You're correct, "new" does not have a yod in the local pronunciation.

Copyediting[edit]

Just letting everybody know that I'll be copy-editing the entire article today--so, expect some revisions! --TimothyDexter (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Demographics section -- too big?[edit]

The section on the demographics of New England has become quite long/large. Not that it isn't chock-full of interesting information. Following what we did with the History of New England, I have created a separate article (Demographics of New England) and pasted the section into it. That way, I think that we can begin to trim down this section to the most relevant details while linking readers to the more in-depth article. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with slimming the section. --TimothyDexter (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Accent[edit]

"The often-parodied" accent? Why is this the way it's introduced? It's actually, in certain places, often spoken. Why introduce an accent based on the way it is mocked? To me, this is not only not impartial, but absurd, unnecessary, and unhelpful in helping to explain and discuss this accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancrisism (talkcontribs) 06:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It has to do with the fact that many people in other parts of the United States have an inferiority complex and do not understand the greatness that is New England. Such things happen when another area of the country lacks culture; they will mock those that do have culture because it makes them feel better about themselves. See bullying for more information. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New York[edit]

Why isn't the state of New York mentioned as part of New England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.125.204 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Because New York is not in New England. --TimothyDexter (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Critics about flag design[edit]

Our forefathers were blind and drunk to accept that random collage as a flag. :/ Ok, I respect it, keep it in museums, but come on... are we blind? Do you call that thing a flag? Seriously! no offence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.189.37 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How dare you insult the flag of New England. It perfectly represents what New England is. Well, perhaps not the version used in the article, but one of its variants is no doubt more suitable. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Flag"[edit]

First, please do not make such significant changes to the lede, and then revert other editors' good-faith edits, without attempting to discuss those changes here. I can certainly understand the reasoning behind removing an historical flag from the infobox, but the fact that it is an historical flag doesn't seem to me to be a useful point. New England has never been in and of itself a political unit as a part of the United States, and yet it has several flags that are often used to represent it on a regional level, one of which is the red ensign/pine tree flag. This is not uncommon in other countries in which former regions are no longer politically meaningful but are nevertheless recognized as existing. Consider ancient counties as an example.

The flag is not meant to suggest that New England is a distinct political unit within the United States (although it is recognized as a clearly defined region on the federal level and has been for centuries), but rather to provide the reader with additional historical information. We might as well not mention the population of New England since 'New England' as such does not conduct its own census and its regional population is determined by adding together its constituent states'. We might as well also remove information about its geographical area, since that too is determined by state borders and nothing else. One might ask why there is an article about New England at all, since 'New England' according to some (extremely, even absurdly) rigid definitions has not existed since at least 1776.

Yet it seems obvious to me (and to most, I would add) that New England does exist, has a population, has an area, and yes, has an historical flag that serves as the foundation for various important regional representations. --TimothyDexter (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit: As a possible compromise, allow me to suggest that we create a mosaic of historical flags so as to indicate that no one flag is the sole or actual flag of New England. --TimothyDexter (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we change the flag in the lede to the more historically accurate "pine-tree" ensign, that is a red flag, white canton, and pine tree superimposed. While there's certainly some historical controversy over the color of the revolutionary flag, it's well documented that the English navy used a red ensign with the cross of st. george - New England mariners would have flown that precise flag or some variation of it. The current flag in the lede is commonly known as the "bunker hill flag", but today symbolizes either the neighborhood of Charlestown or the battle itself. It is most definitely not the flag of New England. If any flag is to be shown, it should be the one described above - this is well-attested historically, is the flag of Lincoln Country, ME, and even currently hangs in Logan Airport. Why does this blue flag keep popping up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.43 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable source provided the claim that this is the flag of New England. I've looked into it and it appears to be a fake-- It was not used by anyone in last two centuries And was never adopted approved or claimed to be representative of New England. Rjensen (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't a fake if it was used at some point. Seriously, man, I don't know what your beef is, but New England has had a great many flags, and we had ought to indicate that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moasic?[edit]

The big, bold text repeating information from the main Flag of New England article seemed really out of place for an infobox by the lede. How about we have a mosaic of flags associated with the region? It seems like the interesting information to highlight is the history of flags that have at times been used to represent the region. In any case, I've changed the subtitle to be a link to Flag of New England. This way, people can read the article for more information, while the text does not suggest (inaccurately) that there is some particular or official "flag of New England." --TimothyDexter (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You could do that, or you could leave it at the neutral one currently given. Either way, I take no issue with your choice. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's all the same to me, as well. For some reason, it (at least recently) seems to be a source of non-constructive (albeit well-intentioned) edits. --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
My beef is that is it a fake flag that was never used for New England. TimothyDexter provided three sources all of which said that the New England flag had a cross of St. George on it, which this flag does not have. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then put the one with St. George's cross back, it makes no difference to me. The link is to flags of New England, anyways. Regarding your claim on the red ensign flag, my hunch is that the cross, which represents England, would have been removed sometime during the American Revolution and likely preceding the War of Independence. It's not a "fake" flag, any more than any other might be, since the region never had an official flag as such. In all the flags of New England, there would seem to be some commonalities: (1) red (or rarely blue) ensign (representing the East India Company), (2) white field (often with the cross of St. George, representing England), and (3) the pine tree (always, representing Massachusetts). I don't think the cross is necessary, but if you think it is, I won't stop you from putting it there. It seems very trivial to me... --TimothyDexter (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The red ensign with the St George's Cross is a good compromise then. Rjensen is right that "New England" has never existed as a unified political entity outside of the short-lived Dominion, but that doesn't preclude the fact that banners and ensigns have been used prior to the Revolution to distinguish Yankee merchants from those of other ports. The major issue when I commented was that the "blue flag" was displayed - which is completely wrong as a regional symbol. The red ensign (of the three variations) is less wrong if you will and if any flag is to be displayed it should be that one. I happen to like the one with st georges cross superimposed on the canton so I'm fully satisfied with what's there now. However, something should be there and it shouldn't be the blue flag nor the governors' council flag which is private and in no way represents the cultural region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.43 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject New England?[edit]

Where the devil is WikiProject New England? There are WikiProjects for all of the parts of New England, but not for New England itself? This is a travesty if I've ever seen one! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC) BUMP

Where do I propose the creation of this WikiProject? It simply needs to exist! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

New England has a Border?[edit]

How can you claim that this so-called region has a border? This place does not exist, so how can it borders? Let's stop the idealism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.74.10 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on New England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on New England. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New England. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

False Article. Connecticut is in the New York City Region - not the Boston Region.[edit]

This article is full of it. It attempts to give the unsuspecting reader the impression that "New England" is some homogeneous, cohesive, private sector of the US that shares a common culture, market, way of life and is centered around Boston. This cannot be further from the truth! I can only speak for CT, which is in metro New York City! We have ZERO to do with Boston as Boston is way too far away for us to be concerned about. We can reach the Bronx in about 10 minutes and Times square (depending on how you go) in no more than 25 minutes. For Boston? Try about 3 HOURS!

Boston sports teams are out of market teams to ALL of CT and Boston media is not our. Contrast that with NYC and NJ TV stations being LOCAL to CT, then you can get a better idea of why we are not concerned with Boston. In fact, I and sick and tired of Boston and it's states in it's surround region always trying it's best to make sure to include CT - we are no where near you and we are happy we are in metro NYC. Boston is small and far away - who cares? CT and so-called New England is just a name, CT is in in a true region which is NYC. I go to NYC everyday, while it would take much gas, time and tolls to get to Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.201.227 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You must not have read Talk:New England/definition FAQs. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
New England is a mostly homogenous, cohesive, distinct part of the US that shares a common culture and way of life deriving from centuries of history. A small part of Connecticut is indeed in the NYC metro area, but that's only one part of one of the six states of New England. Also, many of your statements are not accurate. There are many people living in Connecticut, including its capital of Hartford, but also New Haven and many other cities and towns, who watch Boston sports and root for Boston teams all year long. You are projecting your very limited experience of Connecticut onto the rest of the state. --TimothyDexter (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
It is possible for a state to fall in more than one category. Thus Connecticut is part of the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State Area but is also the southernmost state in New England. Incidentally it's misleading to say only a small part of CT is in the NYC metro area; while that may be true geographically, the majority of the state's population live there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I always thought of the Tri-State area in the NY/NJ/CT sense as referring to NYC and suburbs. I don't think New Yorkers have Hartford in mind. Stamford and to a very great extent New Haven, yes. --TimothyDexter (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the last sentence of the lede[edit]

An editor is insisting upon removing the second part of the last sentence of the lede because it "seems" like original research: "...although the terms of this identity are often contrasted, combining Puritanism with liberalism, agrarian life with industry, and isolation with immigration." This clause seems to me to be a pretty clear summary of how New England cultural history is described in the body of the article, in particular (but not only) the section on culture. The article describes the cultural roots of the region's early Puritan settlers; it also describes the shifting changes in politics and economics away from Puritan conservatism and towards social and economic (classical) liberalism as well as progressivism. It describes the rather clean distinction between urban and industrial eastern and southern New England and rural western and northern New England; in the history section, the region's transition from a mainly agrarian and maritime economy towards an industrial and post-industrial economy is made abundantly clear. Finally, the region's geographic and political isolation is referenced many times in the body of the article, along with the waves of immigration from nearly every other continent on Earth. These are all contrasting ideas and terms, and the article makes it clear to any reader, I would think, that these contradictions form a part of a culture that is nevertheless distinct from other regions in the United States, which have their own contradictions that nevertheless form their own general contours.

I'd like to invite discussion here of how to improve this clause, if necessary. It seems obvious to me that removing it from the lead (and especially leaving the "strong sense of cultural identity" part in the first clause) creates an imbalanced and biased picture of a "unified" New England culture. --TimothyDexter (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of the information per se, but I fail to see anywhere in the article that specifically states that New Englander culture is a fusion of these disparate elements. It reads more like a conclusion an editor reached on his or her own after reading the article, which constitutes original research. You can see how somebody unfamiliar with the region (particularly non-Americans such as myself) would be confused, particularly as a proper citation is provided for the first half of that sentence but not the second.
The argument has also been made that citations are not necessary for the lede, in which case I would question why the other footnotes are there in the first place. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If your issue is with the suggestion that this constitutes a "fusion," then I recommend that "although the terms of this identity are often contrasted, combining" be changed to "although the terms of this identity contrast." Then the reader can decide whether or not this constitutes a fusion of contrasting terms. That being said, I feel that the fusion logically follows from the identity; if there is a New England culture, and if this culture includes contrasting notions, then it follows that the culture constitutes the combination of these contrasting notions, whether they are "fused" or not (and the article does not suggest that they are--there are indeed points of conflict). I also have no qualms with any editor attempting to better the lede by providing more concise or accurate summaries of the article. That is an editorial decision and does not in any way constitute original research, in my view. The fact that there are other citations in the lede does not mean to me that every statement requires a citation; in fact, I would be fine if the sentence on the Salem witch trials were removed, since they aren't mentioned again the body of the article (although that seems to me to be more a weakness in the article than the lede, since it was an important historical event for the region that had a lasting impact). --TimothyDexter (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The point of disagreement here appears to lie in the fact that I consider editor summarisations as original research if they lack footnotes to back up that editor's conclusions, either in the lede or elsewhere in the article (I don't object to having uncited statements in the lede if they are included elsewhere with a citation; see for example Paul Kruger). I would hasten to add that if this impression of cultural elements is adequately conveyed by the article, there's no need to tell the readers that. Let the facts speak for themselves.
I hope you can see why from my perspective the fragment in question needs to be sourced or removed.
Your perspective, on the other hand (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that editor summarisations don't need to be cited at all, do not constitute original research, and indeed should be consistently encouraged.
I propose that rather than alter the wording we retain the summarisation as is, but add a cited reference. If the assertion that "...although the terms of this identity are often contrasted, combining Puritanism with liberalism, agrarian life with industry, and isolation with immigration" is readily apparent, then locating a source to back it up should be rather straightforward. This way, the summarisation stays up, but is also adequately cited and consistent with the first half of the sentence. --Katangais (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New England. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph skips a century[edit]

The article states: "After the Glorious Revolution in 1689, Bostonians overthrew royal governor Sir Edmund Andros. They seized dominion officials and adherents to the Church of England during a popular and bloodless uprising.[41] These tensions eventually culminated in the American Revolution, boiling over with the outbreak of the War of American Independence in 1775."

Just a minute - there is nearly a century beteen these two events. Is the paragraph over-simplifying? If not, some additional explanation is needed. 86.158.154.70 (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New England. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)