Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts

Had this edit been only of dubious factuality or of dubious relevance, I might not have reverted it immediately. However, given not only the situation but the fact that he himself states Dedham was only one of a "number of [...] New England commmunities" where this was the case, it is not relevant enough to Dedham to justify its inclusion here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, it's only "dubious" to you, because a) you don't live nearby (but I do) and b) you haven't studied local history for years (but I have). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is "dubious" to me because you are following exactly the pattern you accused me of: "vindictive [...] by a disgruntled editor who has been in a revert war with me and is stalking my edits". And even were it accurate information, as it would clearly be if you would, say, cite your sources, it is still information that you yourself say is accurate for a number of New England communities -- only one of which you have added this information to. If you were to document the assertion and add it to an article on the history of the region, I would have no objections. But you have shown ample evidence that you are acting in bad faith, and this is just more of [the same; you are editing not to produce a better version of Wikipedia, but to harass. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, you are really overdoing it here. As for my Dedham source, it's this book here, my original edition hardback copy of which I gave to a local history scholar 8 years ago and do not have at hand to cite. Also, for several years, before I moved, I was on a first name basis with certain Sacco family members whose grandfather was Sacco's brother - so please don't tell me about Dedham History.

Even so, you really ought to read that book if you are interested in a clear, accurate picture of that time period in Massachusetts and Dedham in particular. Please note the particular book I am pointing you to has few reviews, because frankly, not many people care about Dedham from those days. In fact one reviewer, who gave only "2 stars" due to it being "un-interesting" was still compelled to say "For anyone looking for the most complete view of early New England, this is it".

Now as to why the parish factoid belongs in the Dedham article: Well that's simple - most of the towns going west from Dedham - right on out to Millis, Medway and Mendon - all originally split off from Dedham many years ago. Dedham was the core town from which much of the area sprung. This is along the lines of how Norwood split off from Westwood in 1872 (and Westwood was previously part of Dedham). And frankly, if you don't understand the parish issue in Eastern Massachusetts from the older era, you can't ever get a correct grasp of why the "no establishment of religion" angle was later important and what it actually originally meant. But of course, based on how alert and critical I see that your mind is (judging from your sharp, yet trenchant comments about me on the Arb 3 request page), I am guessing you already know the true history of the financial/religious issue behind part of the Establishment Clause. Could it be then, you are biased towards the modern liberal bent which seeks to hide the truth about America's religious heritage? Hmmmmm... We shall see, we shall see.

Suffice it to say then, since I have given you the source and I have justified it's inclusion, I am reverting you. Have a nice day.

PS: Please use this link if you want to read some of that book online for free. The "arrows" at each side of the cover image, allow you to move forward and backwards.

PPS: My wife's great aunt, whose family has lived locally (to the Dedham general area) stretching back over 350 years is almost 100 (she actually had a retired Union Civil War officer as a neighbor as a child) and has shared oodles of interesting factoids about this area with us. Suffice it to say, the local historical societies are jammed with facts and details which never get into books. The parish aspect of Dedham however, did make it into a book and is a very important part of American History. You sell yourself short, if you ingore it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These are the Google search results for "Establishment clause" and "Dedham". Nowhere do they indicate support for the theory that Dedham was somehow notable among the communities where this practice that was eventually overturned by the Establishment Clause was to be found. Your claim that it is proven because you read it in a book that you've now given away is insufficient. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the type of argumentation that I refer to as Beating a dead horse. The issue has been proven (see above). Simply because you cannot confirm it via Google, does not mean it's not sound and true. Frankly, for us to not be constantly at each others throats, it's going to require you opening your mind somewhat, sometimes. Please read the book and then tell me if the context of those times do not make clear that the parish system wasn't a substantial part of the rationale for much of the impetus for the "no establishment of religion" clause. Would you like to put a small wager on it? How about the loser on this point quits the Wiki for one year? I'm game if you are. Also, I see now that my follow-up question on your talk page just now is premature. Please consider it stricken. Also, your "Googling" could stand improvement. Here is a seach for Religious Freedom "Dedham" note that it returns as the #3 link, this which is informative, though not precisely on point. It does however have this interesting statement on it "Relatively little known outside the rarefied circles of colonial scholarship is the fact that it was a popular movement in the late 1630s that demanded the explicit codification of the colonists rights.". Anyway, Feldspar, if you would stop leaping to adverse conclusions, I might be willing to agree to a negotiated truce between us. Let me know if you are interested. Also, this link which also turned up among the 4,120 hits via my Google, seems to address the point I raise more closely. Please read this passage there "The word town denoted ecclesiastical and civil boundaries. Parishes are not mentioned as ecclesiastical divisions, and the distinction between the two was not known in old Colony and Massachusetts records. Instead, provincial statutes use precinct, parish and district indiscriminately for ecclesiastical as well as civil purposes. It is only after the Revolution that the term parish begins to be used in a strictly ecclesiastical sense, when its inhabitants began to be considered a "body corporate" and when the parish itself had to be divided. This second type of territorial parish or precinct consisted of contiguous lands, otherwise the term poll parish was used. The third type which sprang up had no reference to lands and estates and was commonly called a religious society.". Touché, no? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex apparently pretends to interpret the fact that I have not used my third revert as "yielding". To clarify the point, then, here is my third revert. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, did you even READ this link? It addresses and satisfies every one of the historical fact issues you raised. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I read it, the text which Feldspar (and others) keep reverting is perfectly valid and correct. I am restoring it. 216.153.214.94 15:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text which 216.153.214.94071404 keeps reverting is not "perfectly valid and correct." No practicable verification has been offered for it. Anyone who reads the cited sources and compares it with the text that has been inserted by other editors and myself will realize that everything which has been verified has, in fact, already been included in the article. The claims which go beyond what we have verification for, which 216.153.214.94071404 keeps putting in, cannot be taken at face value, as they originate with an editor who has -- to put it mildly -- a problem with truth, especially on any article regarding politics. One doesn't have to look any further than this talk page itself to see that; just look upwards. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)