This archive includes threads from Talk: New England from the page's creation through April, 2006.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The New England region of the United States is located in the northeastern corner of the country. Boston is its business and cultural center and its most populous city, while natives who shy away from the political image of Boston see New London on the Thames River as a better epitomization of New England.
I've read somewhere that Suffolk County on Long Island is actually technically considered "part of New England". This seems to go in hand with the "Long Island Sound being the center" theory.
Unsubstantiated.
Please tell me how New London, on the Thames River in New England has no sort of status? When I lived in Connecticut, we did not like Mike Dukakis and Ted Kennedy but looked at Long Island Sound as the centre of New England. Do you not see how I left Boston in there, with New London as secondary? Purely hype on your part my friend. Bigelow 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Earliest settlers of New England were English refugees in a time of which they Protestedfiercely.
Makes no sense.
That doesn't tell me anything. Bigelow 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm tired of you repeating yourself but saying absolutely nothing to substantiate how you came to these conclusions with such ad hominem editing. Logical fallacy.
I added many subsections, with a few edits here and there. I think that it looks better this way, and is much more organized. Let me know if you don't like it.--AaronS 19:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it is only MORE evidence to support the reality in CT. Sorry you New Englanders...
Oh, so the New York Knicks are the authority that decides the boundaries of New England? Fancy that. One would think that the powers that be would have delegated this responsibility to a better basketball team, like the Celtics.--AaronS 17:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
>You know, it's sad when fools do not read or have no reading comprehension. Maybe it's becuase I responded to some people and I assumed that they read everything that I had written. This fool below is an example of a "raving lunatic." Where did I say that Mexico was not a part of Latin America...? Most other taken out of context or all out false quotes are just those people's POV's.
The botton line and my point is this - CT, historically, is a part of New England, but culturally and geogrpahically (I can only speak for the 203) it is a part of the NY area. Why? It could be because unlike the New England states, they all have a few things in common that CT does not share with them. They (save for Vermont) revolve around, share roads, culture, media, transportation, leadership, speaking accents, accept New England(Boston) as their culture and hardly know of anywhere else or do they see any place else. CT on the other hand, shares those same qualities, except with NY(AGAIN, I am speaking for the 203). This is not my imagination. This is not insanity(becuase you don't agree, I am insane? How childish). These are the facts of the 203 CT.
Your knowledge of New England is terrible. The only places that "revolve" around Boston are Eastern Massachusetts, Southern New Hampshire, and Northern Rhode Island -- and even that is a stretch. The only common roads are Interstate Highways, which, well, makes sense, now doesn't it? The culture of New England is also hardly homogenous. There is a vast difference in culture between urban New England and rural New England. There are also major religious differences, as Massachusetts has a large Catholic population, whereas the rest of New England is mostly Protestant (with some Puritan heritage). Leadership? Are you serious? Where does any state share leadership with another? You sound ridiculous. And finally, the Boston accent is nothing compared to the Down East accent or other rural New England accents.
Now, you claim that Southwestern Connecticut shares many things with New York City. So be it. This in no way implies that Connecticut has not always been and will now always be one of the six New England states. Sorry, buddy! The borders of New England are defined just as much historically as they are culturally, and even if many people in Southwestern Connecticut are simply transplanted from New York City, it still remains a part of New England, as does the rest of the state.
CT does not revolve around Boston. In fact, we have (now the whole state) have nothing in common with Boston (except having a downtown green) and being a part of a (former) region that once truly used to be a region with true meaning, but back in the British colonial times. Those times have been over since separating ties with the British crown and declaring this country - independent. Or course there are those who cannot let the past go. There are those who do not wich to see important pieces or a former region leave it's realm, as they need these pieces for their own survival. Even the south hates to leave it's anti-American past behind. Many state still hold onto or fly the confederate flag. A rebel flag that stood against the United States. New England is no different. It is of the past. Not an American past. It should stay in the past.
Again, you're simply raving like a lunatic. Tell me, if Connecticut's ties with New England ended with the Revolution, why did it seek to secede with the rest of New England during the War of 1812?
CT, like many states in the northeast (a true GEOGRAPHICAL region... for those who say I have problems reading... learn the difference between geography which is natural, and political, which is man-made) are bordered by mant states. Of course this makes for different parts of these states sharing cultures and what not with similar parts for neighboring states. This is not unlike the Chicago area being known fron including Indiana and sometimes Canada. CT(now the 203) is a part of the NY area in everything mentioned above. The rest of the state seems to be divided. Those who usually can see themselves as living in New England as opposed to CT, are usually NYC haters. Believe it or not, people just hate the number one for being number one. It's kind of similar to the way most of the world hates the US for being number one. There are also those who live in a small town that has a look of what has come to be known as the New England look, which is just a forest in the northeast to me. These people are not near metro areas in the state and certainly not near NYC. They usually see themselves as having things in common with RI or MA since these types of town will usually be near those borders. Then there are those who are actually from these New England states and they hate the fact that people in CT (I'll say 203 mainly, but a great deal of the state. Do you like my specifics?) do not recognize Boston as being important, could care less about anything called New England, are surrounded and live by NYC ways, travel back and forth to the city (not Boston), has Long Island staring us right in the face, are NYC sports fans who do not care about Boston sports, live independent of Boston and New England idendtity and we do not even think of these people. This pisses them off.
I'll let the above illiterate ramblings speak for themselves.
So I am saying that the 203 part of CT has no cultrual, media,ethnic, geographic(yes),political, entertainment, tranportation or ANYTHING to do with Boston or New England. When you go back and forth to NYS(as they do us), Boston not being around here, is not on our minds. This is fact. Touch base with the people. Contact thse cities and New12. Contact NY. The proof is all over the place. I am proof. You people want to keep things to your points of view. Regardless of your thoughts, what I present to you is a state of fact in the 203. You can like it or not.
The "203" is not all of Connecticut!--Azathar 00:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Guess what? New England is not Boston!
Lastly, today I went to a car audio shop near New Haven. I was talking to the guy who had on a Boston Red Sox hat while I had on a yankees hat. After talking about car stereos, he mentioned New England. Looking at his hat and his mention those bad words, I told him that I don't live in New England, I live in the tri-state area or just CT. This guy, like may of you tried to force New England on me. He said CT is a part of NE. I told him that I don't pay NE taxes. CT is apart of the United States of America - nothing more. I even bet the man some prospective stereo equipment that if he could pick up ANY map and find the words New England on it, I would give him half of that systems value if I was wrong. If he was right, I would get the systems free. He started to take me up on it, but then he forgot, he did not have a map.... He knew. He also made a smart comment about this not being NYC(typical comment from New England defenders/NY haters), but I had to remind this Red Sox fan(bandwagoner?)that Boston or any New England state is no where around here. Then I had to ask him hwere he was from, since people in the New Haven area just don't think this way. I mean, this is a part of the 203! He then told me that he was from (with hesitation) New Britain, which is up by Hartford("The Rising Star of New England"). Then it all made sense. I can tell when someone is not from the 203. We don't look to Boston down here. His hesitation also made me think that he is not even from New Britain, but from Boston or MA. Only those people like to come down here and change our culture to their New England/Boston thing. They want us, we don't need them.
Wow, you are nuts.
Call it rants if you want to, but I can back up everything that I write as opposed to just calling people names and quoting things that they never wrote and interrperting things to fit YOUR meaning. Just repsect each state and their differences. Don't force anything that is not there. It is what it is. Ok?
I think that your comments speak for themselves.--AaronS 13:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
He's a raving lunatic. Not only does he think that Connecticut is not part of New England, he believes that Mexico is not a part of Latin America. His arguments are irrational and illogical, and seem to be motivated more by his own personal delusions than by any concern for the truth -- or reality, for that matter. When citizens of Connecticut disagree with him (and they do), he claims that their mere words show that they do not in fact live in Connecticut and are attempting to fool or trick him. He has a history of meddling with the Connecticut article, as well. Apparently, he was also banned at some point.
I say that we take up a policy of ignoring him and reverting any of his edits that are not in line with, well, reality. With regard to his rabid hatred of New England, Boston, and Massachusetts, I don't think that we really need to continue arguing with him or providing explanation when we revert his POV edits.--AaronS 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
While your words are a little harsh, I agree that it seems pointless to engage him. I haven't participated in this debate in the past few days because it's rambling, and sprawling, and it's going nowhere. We should welcome properly cited claims from anyone, even N0gar. We should continue to revert his unsourced speculation (and no, none of the links N0gar posted support the claims he's been trying to insert). N0gar actually hasn't inserted his claims into the article recently. He should be thanked for that, and for using the talk page. Rhobite 21:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I too am tired of haggling with him over CT's New England status, and getting ridiculous insults back in return that I am some Boston-funded traitor or not a real Connecticut resident. I agree with AaronS's position to simply revert any poor or biased edits he makes on the Connecticut article and await the magical evidence out there that Massachusetts has suppressed that CT is really a secret part of NY. Sol. v. Oranje 23:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty bad that he thinks that the entire 203 area code represents all of Connecticut. That would be like me saying that 978 represents all of Massachusetts.--Azathar 14:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
>I am not familiar with the 978 or any MA area codes, but I thought that my above comments made my point very clear this time. I guess you New Englanders still want to think what you want and force YOUR region on us. Before anyone tries to call me crazy just because you disagree, this guy above is from MA and just wrote words that backs up my claim of them trying to force us with them. You people need us, we do not need you.
Actually, I'm orginally from New Hampshire, just live in Mass now. And you don't have to be familar with MA area codes to get my point if you were willing to be a bit open-minded about the analogy. But, let me explain it to you. MA has 5 area codes (617, 978, 781, 413, 508) that I can think of off the top of my head (they may have more). Now, you saying that 203 represents all of CT is like me saying that 978 represents all of MA. Now do you get my point? One geographical region of an entire state does not generally (since one should never deal in absolutes when it comes to people) represent the entire state. I never said that "we" )(i.e., MA, or even New England) needs Connecticut, its a matter of historically, and regionally, you are a part of the New England region, whether you like it or not. So what that you have no cultural influence from Boston or the rest of the region, thats cool. But geographically, you're in New England, whether you like it or not. You want to be a part of NY so much, sucede from CT and become a part of NY, go in front of the Supreme Court, who knows, you may get your wish.--Azathar 00:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Man, Houston and Miami are both in the south, but does one area try to dominate or force itself on the other? Does the Miami area try to force Houston to be fans of their sports, force theri businesses and hijack Comcast Cable to make sure that they get to break into another region? CT does not force itself onto New England or Boston. It is Boston that needs the boost. No hail to Boston down here.
N0gar
What's this person's deal?--AaronS 02:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Connecticut still differs from the region as it is known as the least "New England" of the states. This may be due to it's New York heritage in New Haven and Farifield Counties which does not revolve around Boston (no part of CT does), but around New York City. However, many in far away Boston often assume that CT looks to Boston for it's culture, leadership and title of being the largest city in New England, but CT has no such ties to Boston as ther other states do. This could be because the other states save for Maine and Vermont are actually in the Boston area.
I've joined in on reverting this, as well, for the following reasons:
The assumption that "no part of CT [revolves around Boston]" may have legitimacy, but sounds like an NPOV issue to me, IMHO.
Assuming this person is writing from the POV of a Conn. resident, how can they make generic statements about the assumptions of Bostonians?
Connecticut does not look to Boston for the title of being the largest city in New England... the grammar suggests that CT is the largest city; the intent suggests the fact that Boston is the largest city can be disputed.
"CT has no such ties to Boston as ther other states do" assumes a) that other states do, and b) that CT does not, both of which could be disputed by residents of any of the six states.
"This could be because the other states save for Main and Vermont are actually in the Boston area."
This leaves NH and RI. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I believe Maine is closer to Boston than is RI. Elsewise, this argument is attempting to create a "sphere of influence" that insinuates Boston is the center of such a sphere influencing NH and RI, but not CT, VT, and ME, while at the same time the rest of the paragraph would suggest that such a sphere included everything but CT. Then, we must remember that of all the New England states, Maine is the most likely to emulate Boston, since it was part of Massachusetts until 1820.
Yeah. A vague claim that Connecticut is the "least New England" state needs to be cited. It's POV otherwise. Anyway it's pretty meaningless to say things like "no part of CT [revolves around Boston]". Rhobite 07:10, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, glad I'm not the only one blown away by this guy's obsession with removing CT from New England. I feel bizarre even responding to him.Sol. v. Oranje
And what about the fact that CT made an attempt to get the Patriots, the NEW ENGLAND Patriots, to move their home stadium to their state? If that doesn't show User:N0gar that CT has some ties to New England, then I don't know what else will.--Azathar 05:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
NEW!> ANY state tries to get sports teams. CT also made an attempt to get the Buccaneers. Are they now a part of the south? The owner of the Patriots only used CT to get a new stadium. He even commented that the Patriots are back in the REAL NEW ENGLAND, where they belong. What does that tell you? Also, check this out. I put it in the wrong place before: http://www.news12.com/Home Tell me where New England is at? I keep telling you people, your books and those New England states try to pull us there, but culturally, socially, economically, media wise, transportation wise, New England is unknown to us. It hardly gets a mention here. It probably get more mention elsewhere than here. This is coming from someone living this on the scene, not an idealist. I would not come on here and make things up. I got banned for changing the articles on New England and CT into truth. Why have people edit if all they will do is change it back if they don't like it?
Of course Most states try to get sports teams, I never said otherwise, BUT, the NAME wouldn't have changed, it would of stayed the New England Patriots. And I know he was trying to use CT to get a new stadium, that was hinted at in the news as well. I never said it wasn't, I was trying to show you that not all of your fellow Connecticut residents agree with your opinion. And all your news link shows is that that particular news agency is located near the New York border.
...CT! That is a fact. Not all of CT (as I have ALWAYS stated in my edits) feel as "New Englandy" as you want to force on us because you guys need us, we do not need you. Back in the colonial times, New England meant something. In those days, it was habit to say that someone was in NE. Back then, they were still trying to take more land, so to call something NE was habit. Now, it is totally useless. It only serves as a way for the city of Boston to get a bigger TV and media market. Whenever you hear New England, you can bet that Boston is somehow involved. Boston has no use around here. Boston needs us and wants to tap into the NYC market through us. We are not the "tip of the spear pointing toward the empire." We are the empire.
Whether you like it or not, CT is a part of New England,
It WAS a part of New England when it meant something. CT is a part of the NY area. Keep New England to yourselves.
don't like it, get the US Census to change their views on it, and then come back and change it.
I am working on it...
I keep telling you people, your books and those New England states try to pull us there, but culturally, socially, economically, media wise, transportation wise, New England is unknown to us. It hardly gets a mention here.
Do you think that ALL parts of Connecticut are linked to New York. What about Eastern Connecticut (i.e., Mystic Region) that borders Rhode Island, or Northern Connecticut that borders Massachusetts (i.e., the Northeast Corner and the North-Central regions)? Maybe the part of CT where you live has practically no links to the rest of New England, but to say the WHOLE state does is inaccurate.
Again, I never said the whole CT. I aknowledge that those parts near RI and MA would have something in common with those areas. Although people in MA by the CT border have to rely on CT in order to survive. Our media and money help them out. In eastern CT, they get Providence TV stations as their main networks. Now, I am sure that you don't want to call it the RI area, but instead you will pick NE. In the 203 and really the areas surroung it, it is all NY in everyway possible. New England is seen as other states. Trust me, I am from here... You are from there and you insist on telling me how it is here.
New York City, showing the Five Boroughs (red) and the approximate area of the Tri-State Region (yellow).
This picture (on the right, of the Tri-State Region) think shows it best that the south west corner is linked to New York and New Jersey, but I doubt the rest of Connecticut is as you say.
Find where I said the whole CT. The southwest of course is in the NY area. The whole 203 is as well, but the immediate metro area is (I guess) within a half an hour from or to the city. Some maps show more of NJ and CT. The point is, you presented proof, yet I am still telling MY POINT OF VIEW? Come on! What more do I have to write and say for you people to get it? Why must my edits be turned back into generic BS? That generic BS only tells ONE POV. I thought that the purpose of editing was to bring forth additional items to an article? Why must this site keep the one-sided view of CT? Why even mention New England? That is not our exsistance. Even in WHOLE state, New England is hardly expressed, except from outside enitites. Usually from Boston or areas outside of the northeast.
Find where I said the whole CT. Just below, when you write "With all of the evidence that puts CT ouf (sic) of this New England area and into a region that most people in the state are actually familiar with," a sentence you wrote in the very same posting, managing to contradict yourself in a single act.
>Where is the contradiction? Where did I say the WHOLE CT? I speak mainly for the 203.
Right there in the quote I just provided: [t]hat puts CT ouf (sic) of this New England area . You didn't write 203 area code, New Haven, or some of Connecticut, your wrote CT. You either have a serious reading deficit or are bald-faced liar -- par for the course for a Yankees fan, I guess.
In any case, your inability to provide hard evidence, your hostile fanaticism, and your outright dissembling/lack of reading skills now puts you into the "revert on sight" category. At this point, you'll need a signed note from God Himself (notarized, of course) to be believed on anything, including the color of the sky. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
It's also shown by your attempts to remove mention of New England from the Connecticut article (as in this example of your very first edit. Stop your spinning, no one buys it. Oh, and for the record, the Yankees folded like a cardboard house in a monsoon last season, so it's too bad you have such fanatical loyalty to them that it impels you to completely rewrite geographic reality. --Calton | Talk 04:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
>This no f**king spinning, this is reality. Try going to CT and find out for yourself. I am starting to see more MA plates down these parts. They look lost and totally out of place. They also do not bring their Red Sox crap down here. They have no choice but to accept that we are not them.
Also, I know the Yankees folded. The Red Sox earned their title. This is not about sport sir, this is about cultural reality. There is no such thing as "geographical reality" as that reality shows north America or the northeast only. New Enland is a political ideal by Boston and those states who cannot stand on their own. I wrote before that I started to edit on this site because I see the many flaws on various topics. Maybe I need to start a site to try and get this site off the air. Maybe this site should make clear disclaimers that what is here is simply speculation, not fact. No wonder it's free! I guess you must also feel that Mexico is in Latin America and not North America huh?
This isn't about cultural reality, it's about a fanatical Yankees fan trying desperately to justify his Boston hatred by rewriting geography. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
You're one person in a state with a population of 3.4 million people, and I doubt everyone agrees with you. You're entitled to your point of view, but Wikiepedia is suppose to be as close to OPINION FREE as possible. Its suppose to be a factual encyclopedia, not NOgar's personal opinion of if Connecticut belongs in New England. --Azathar 13:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Do I have to get everyone in the state to write on this thing? I am in this state, you are not. Who knows better? Look up for replies to the rest of your comments. With all of the evidence that puts CT ouf of this New England area and into a region that most people in the state are actually familiar with. Even the CT Sun basketball team(near RI) commented that the team was right in NY's backyard. They did not say New England and they are right next to RI!
It is clear that you people only want your POV's or you just get nervous when you read something that you had no knowledge of. You need to open your mind. Everything is not black and white. Everything to the east of NY is not New England.
The claim on its face is not entirely unjustified as a description of the cultural affinities of some parts of Connecticut. Certainly if we go by (whatever the new term for) CMSAs or Nielsen DMAs, more of Connecticut (by population or land area) consists of suburbs and exurbs of New York than of Boston. However, far more still is a place unto itself, and culturally no less a part of New England than Vermont is. (Speaking as someone who grew up in Vermont with family from Connecticut, there is a legitimate gripe that Boston, and the Boston media in particular, assume that "New England" is a synonym for "Boston DMA"—this annoys people in Springfield, never mind other states.) However legitimate the complaint may be, WP is not the place to air it.
There ought to be a reasonable way to approach this. I think part of the approach should be to replace the "ten largest cities" bit in the "Population" section with a comparison of metropolitan areas, and a short list of the largest communities and total population in each state outside of any metropolitan areas. If one could find something published that talks about the cultural differences it would be worth a citation at the very least. 121a0012 01:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
>Well at least you can see where I am coming from in a way. You are in New England and you see it. I do have to slightly disagree on this New England culture thing. Talk about points of view! No one, not even this site can define a so-called New England culture. Westchester County, NY looks, feels and is enveloped by CT. We do not even feel like we have gone anywhere else when we cross that border. They feel like us, we feel like them. Westchester used to be ours anyway. Even people in the city (NYC) call it CT.
I am at least lgad that you have the understanding to see POV's of others instead of (like others) only your own.
N0gar please stop adding your opinion to the article. You're saying that the fact that News 12 covers CT means that CT is not in New England? That's silly. I've cited the US Census Bureau, you've continued to add your own poorly-worded opinion. Please stop. Rhobite 22:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
How is that silly? Do you see New England there? Is that silly or real? You asked for cites and I gave you one. When I give you more than you can handle then what? I bet that you will stick to the same story. I hate to say it, but the US Census and the CIA Factbook are indeed flawed and political. You should be able to draw from government sources and expect facts, but you get the shaft instead. You don't believe me? Just look up any country for it's people. You may see a country like Brazil or some country with a whole lot of blacks in it, only to see but so much as a precentage of the population listed. Not only that, but they rarly update anything.
I hate to say it, but the US Census and the CIA Factbook are indeed flawed and political. Of course it's political, its a agency of the US Government, which is the entity that is responsible for managing the United States of America, the country that Connecticut is a state of. Nothing more. And who mentioned the CIA factbook in this whole thing? You're just mad because the US Gov't data and sources don't agree with your PERSONAL P-O-V (and maybe that of others who live in your area code), so you quote news agencies that are local to you, that would have no vested interest in showing news from other parts of New England, or therest of the country, mind you, unless it was of NATIONAL interest, and not just local. I'll bet money that if you ask some one who is not from any of the SIX New England states (say, California, for instance, that should be far enough away), a man on the street, just walk up to them and ask them, "Name the states that are in New England." I'll bet money that they would say (in no particular order): Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island AND CONNECTICUT. Want to know why? Because its what is reality is, New England is a SIX STATE region in the Northeastern area of the United States that is slight geographically isolated, in that our next neighboring state is New York, and New York only. Ppl in the rest of the country are not going to care that the people who live in the 203 area code don't consider Connecticut a part of New England. Sorry man, but just because you are not culturally, socially, or economically similar to the rest of the region, you are geographically linked to New England, and will be probably for as long as the USA exists. And geography, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, is the primary criteria for what compromises a region.--Azathar 00:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Next writing, many sources.
I've made several edits, as well as a compromise with N0gar. I believe that the compromise is more fair and, *ahem*, literate. Let me know what you all think. You might have to dig into the article's history to see where I made the actual compromise, since I've made a few minor edits since.--AaronS 13:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Citing news agencies as legitimate boundary descriptors is inaccurate at best. DO you think the Boston news channels have sections on their website for Maine and Vermont, or even New Hampshire? No. They rely on their affiliates for those stories for the most part, and will provide links if something happens that the News Agency thinks might of interest to their viewers.
For example, a fire happens in Presque Isle, Maine. Would this be of interest to a significant amount of viewers in Boston? Probably not, so it would most likely not be reported on a Boston news website, or news show for that matter. The same principle applies here. In the southwest corner of Connecticut, where your economic ties are closer to NTC and Jersey versus Boston, of course you are going to have little to no coverage of Boston events. But, Connecticut is not just the Southwest Corner of the state. It's like saying New Hampshire is only Rockingham and Strafford Counties, and the rest of the state is unimportant. Is that what you are saying NOgar?? If so, I don't think your neighbors in the rest of the state would necessarily agree.--Azathar 14:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Connecticut is now, always was, and always will be New England, not New York. What is the issue here? The commuter culture is a limited slice of overall life in that state. My wife is 10th generation Connecticut. She is a Yankee, as is her entire family. They are proud to be New Englanders. The notion that because some residents are NY sports team fans therefore they are New Yorkers is silly. And since when did the NY metro area grow to encompass New Haven county? At best, it's a few coastal Fairfield County towns, up to about Bridgeport, and inland as far as New Canaan. Note that history, geography and temperament are against this silly argument. History - obvious and well covered elsewhere. Geography - they have brooks in CT, not kills or creeks. Temperament - frugality is celebrated, not foolish consumption. Two different regions that share a proximate relationship made possible by modern transport. You can't undo 300 years of history with 2 generations of commuter culture. Get over the notion that "we need you", you're part of us plain and simple. What is the motivation here? 66.55.200.26 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Last I checked, Hartford's new civic motto is "New England's Rising Star." Last I checked, Hartford is the capital of Connecticut. Funny coincidence. -Me 23:06, 26 December 20005 (UTC)
Naming
I am not an expert but it seems like this discussion has continued to the point of absurdity. After submitting this entry, I will be guilty of continuing the conversation. I take issue with the claim that Fairfield County is separate from New England because the argument is not supported by authoritative sources. I was raised in Ridgefield, a small town in Fairfield County. As an elementary school student, we learned of Benedict Arnold, the town's founder. His great grandfather, William Arnold, came to Providence, Rhode Island from England in 1636. Benedict later settled in London, England where he died. I think this would qualify our town as partially English in its heritage. Whether this qualifies the county to which Ridgefield belongs as part of New England, I cannot say because I don't know what "New England" means in the strictest sense. Most of the town's oldest structures are characteristic of New England-style architecture. It is true that most Ridgefielders I know are Yankee fans but I think this says little about our town's historical and cultural identity, and more about our town as it relates to modern American culture (MLB was founded more than 200 years after the first buildings where erected in my town). It is also true that NYC has grown to the point of suburban overlap, however, I would hardly say my town is a suburb of the metropolitan NYC area because that would imply that my town was a creation of such growth. Also, I don't recall being required to obtain a Regent's diploma--I consider myself a product of the Connecticut education system, an institution that is likely to have historical ties to New England. Further, it is not clear to me why the 203 area code coverage area is being used to determine the non-New England parts of Connecticut (one reason is that the area code is an invention of the 20th century). In the early 90s, the 203 area code was used for the entire state of Connecticut. Does that mean that the entire state, before 860, was separate from New England? That just sounds absurd. In this modern day, Fairfield County's culture is probably an amalgamation of New York City and New England cultures as well as parts of cultures from the areas of those who immigrated to Fairfield County and NYC from other parts of the World. I remain unconvinced that Fairfield County is not part of New England. Surely, the fact that many aspects of New England society are preserved in Fairfield County is sufficient for it to be part of New England. I'll let the experts decide. --DamianEads 06:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does "New England at its widest interpretation" mean that there are also narrower interpretations? Which are these? Fransvannes 20:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't write that, but it could arguably include the parts of Canada (Nova Scotia, etal) that were settled by English and governed by the same, but which did not revolt in 1776. There is also at least one subset: Northern New England (VT, ME, NH) jengod 20:11, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
So now we have a wider interpretation and not a narrower one. This makes "New England at its widest interpretation" even less suitable. Fransvannes 22:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What the "widest" thing means is that you can define the "New England" region in terms of those states, but in actually, the cultural region of New England is probably narrower. For example, the State of Connecticut is taken to be part of New England for demographic purposes, but the suburbs of New York City that are in Connecticut are definitely not part of the cultural New England as people think of it. Likewise the coast of Connecticut is somewhat more connected to Long Island Sound and Long Island than it is New England proper. The cultural area is somewhat fuzzy in its definition, but definitely narrower than the "official" demographic region. -- Decumanus 05:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I never understood the misconceptions regarding Fairfield County and Long Island Sound. Cross-Sound traffic is limited and inconsequential. Long Island is nothing like Connecticut geographically. Fairfield County is clearly an integral part of the core of Puritan New England, despite the fact that there are more Yankee fans than Red Sox fans. FC is more like NE than America, and is more NE than lots of New Hampshire and Maine, for instance. So please, no more questioning FC's regional loyalties. It is where the term 'Yankee' was coined, after all.--NewEnglander 18:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some might consider extreme eastern New York, from, say, the vicinity of Woodstock up to the Canadian border, including Plattsburgh, to be part of New England. After all, Vermont was *not* one of the original 13 colonies; it was calved off of New York and was briefly an independent republic before becoming part of the United States. --Sensor 04:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eastern NY was settled by the Dutch, up the Hudson Valley. NE was settled by the English, along the coasts and up the CT river. That legacy lasts to this day: what we call brooks they call kills or creeks, for example. Puritans settled in NE, Anglicans in NY, which also left an imprint on the landscape. Additionally, the Berkshire and Green Mountains are real barriers. Look at Boston Corner, NY (where NY, MA and CT intersect). Originally part of MA, this portion of the town was given to NY because it was inaccessible from the MA side. No, Eastern NY is not part of NE, although we might take the land from the border to the Hudson as a DMZ once we secede from Red State America ;)--NewEnglander 17:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
>Hello. What I wrote are not MY POV's, but the states. The probelm is, Boston is famous and you people want to speak for us. We have NOTHING in common. If you ask the average person in CT about New England, they will speak of it in terms not realting to themselves. In the 203, we really do not see it at all. I was speaking to some people about it and they said,"I did not know CT was New England." It is not us, it is you. We have everything going on in CT and we do not need Boston, while those other states need and whorship Boston. Mention Boston down here and you get the same reaction as mentioning L.A. It is far away and unknown to us. This is because it is out of our area. People in the 203 don't even travel to Hartford unless we have to. We only travel inland (Hartford areas and near MA) unless we have to. We only go near RI in order to get to the casino.
As I mentioned to the guy who keeps changing the artciles around, Boston and New England people sound the same. We do not sound like you. Our culture is NYC style. It is an insult for you to call us New England, we prefer tri-state or NY area. Most New Englanders I have spkone with in person seem to agree with me. When they are here, they know right away that this is not Boston or NE realted areas. It is NY style. We tell people that we are going to the 'city,' which is not Boston. NYC is the city that we are near. It is the epicenter of the tri-state and it is the area that we are in. This is like similar to putting Sudan as African or in the middle-east. Both cultures exsist. Both feel that the other should be in one area or the other. The part that is nearest Egypt considers itself in the middle-east even thought in the US, it is not widely thought of that way. CT sees itself in the NYC area. In NYC, that is the way it is, even if the rest of the country thinks of CT as NE, except when national TV speaks about the NYC area.
So it is about some speacial interest groups trying to pull us away from one area and put us into an area that we share nothing with. I know when New Englanders come down here, I always make it a point to let them know that this is not NE land that they are on, but CT land in the NY area. NY teams are what people cheer for, regardless of who wins. If Boston wants some piss states to revolve around it, then they can have them, but it won't be and is not us.
Your message above really is not helpful to this article. You need to cite sources and document your words, instead of trying to turn this into some pointless debate. Wikipedia isn't the right place for you to debate everyone and try to come up with some "objective truth" about how Connecticut should be classified. Rhobite 02:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
How do you know it is not helpful? That is your opinion, not fact. I had this type of endless debat in college. The professors teach the ideal, but it is hard for them to surrender to what is real. People in CT, DO NOT see themselves as New England. This is a stone cold fact. We do not pay NE taxes and there is no sign that says anything about NE, except for some businesses, but they can be from anywhere.
If it's a "stone cold fact" that CT residents do not consider themselves part of New England, then it should be easy for you to find articles which support this fact. There's no such thing as New England taxes, by the way. Rhobite 22:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
>I guess you don't know sarcasim. Ok. Articles I can find, but when I show just one that is clear cut, it is not good enough. I can get you hundreds of articlae if needed. If I do, will you leave the truth on New England and CT that I write alone? I think what I put in there is fair and balance while your is untrue and froma New England POV. Challenge me on that!
Just wandering by, but I think the nonsense that CT residents do not consider themselves part of New England can be neatly put to bed by noting that they are "served" by SNETCO, the Southern New England Telephone Company. Don't waste time arguing over this, it's competely ridiculous. - Nunh-huh 22:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
>I guess you must have been away for decades! The Phones company is SBC. SNETCO no longer exsits. It only exsisted in CT. It is only a business. Businesses can name their companies anything they want to. There are many businesses in CT called "Tri-State" something too. Your point?
Also, in Greenwhich area, the phone company is serviced by NY. Now do you want to talk about cable companies? They are the same as NY my friend with the same content covering the tri-state. You have to live here to understand. In ANY topic, a book or website does not even begin to tell you the story.
I'm wasting little of my time arguing, but it's unfortunate that we are being dragged into a revert war over this silly issue. Rhobite 22:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed! It's most odd, what people will get their knickers into a twist over. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
>Well maybe if this site were open to both sides of the story instead of just putting CT in a New England catagory and telling the lie about Boston being it's hub! Boston is no where around here! It is not our hub and has absolutly NOTHING to do with us. THIS is a serious fact that can't be denied by anyone - even people in Boston.
Less talky, more citey. A couple times now you've threatened to deluge us with hundreds of articles which prove conclusively that CT is not a part of New England. Still waiting. Rhobite 04:32, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
N0gar is quite obviously insane. Why are we even entertaining his view, here? It's absolutely ridiculous. Connecticut has and always will be a part of New England. From the Connecticut state web site's "About CT" page (http://www.ct.gov/ctportal/cwp/view.asp?a=843&q=246434): "Within its compact borders, Connecticut has forested hills, new urban skylines, shoreline beaches, white-steeple colonial churches, and historic village greens. There are classic Ivy League schools, modern expressways, great corporate offices, and small farms. Connecticut is a thriving center of business, as well as a vacation land. It is both a New England state, and suburban to New York City."
It is so very commonly-accepted that Connecticut is part of New England, that it feels ridiculous even dicussing the possibility that it may not be. All of the New England states are different, but share common histories and cultures. Maine is very different from Massachusetts; should we say that it is a part of Canada, then, instead of New England? That would be preposterous. N0gar's strange feelings towards New England do not belong in an encylopaedia article, and they certainly are not representative of the feelings of the majority of Connecticut citizens.--AaronS 14:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
>I don't think that you get it. I NEVER denied that CT is supposed to be a part of this New England. I have always stated that the 203 part, is not and does not have anything in common with New England culture wise, media wise, transportation wise or other wise! It also does not have anything in common with far away Boston, as Boston is the hub of New England, but has no influence or lifeline to CT.
The problem with you people is, you always go back ino time to support you opinions, while I am dealing with right now and the reality of the people. As you have read on that CT site, they say it is BOTH a New England state AND in the NY,NJ,CT tri-state area. What does that tell you? It tells you that they know and respect both views of the state. While it is also true that the part of CT that is more inline with New England does try it's best to 'round us up' into the New England thing, they do understand that the 203 is NY oriented and devoted. Since you looked up one place, which is typical of most people(one word that supports their view is all they need), now try looking up EACH city in New Haven and Fairfield Counties AS WELL as the cities in Weschester County, NY and then tell me what you think sir.
My point has always been that this site ONLY wants to express CT as New England period! They do not even want to entertain the other view of CT which is a reality. Do you think that the media alone speaks for the people? The people decide what they are. If you don't believe me, go to these places and see if you see anything that caters to Boston. You may see a business or two with New England in the title, but that's it. Here are some links to get you people started:
Notice how those places present themselves in relation to NY, NOT New England. That only happens when the town is very small and even unheard of in CT.
They mention New England, but can't stay away from NY no matter how far away they are. Even this (http://www.cityofspringfieldmass.com/history.htm) MA city had to mention NY. I keep telling you, they know where CT stands and they just want to get a piece of what we have. Need more proof?
I could go on and on... No mentions of New England because that is not who we feel connected to culturally. Do you get it now?
So, they don't mention New England...by mentioning New England? CT is both part of New England and the NY Tri-state...yet your edits remove both? None of this is very sensible; if you want to see how one blends CT's New England status with NY influence, why not check out the wikipedia article for New Haven, which handles the issue well and doesn't devolve into conspiratorial hysterics. Until then, stop editing CT Sol. v. Oranje 23:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
>I did check out New Haven. That should tell you what I write is true. There is nothing that deals with New England there, except colonial history. One should not have to dig deep and look at New Haven when one can look up CT or New England and should be able to get these facts. This is why I edit...
My edits have always been to INCLUDE the 203 part of CT as not revoling around New England as people who have never been to CT see m to think. My edits have been taken down because they do not express the one sided view of CT. This site is full of shit. I had to edit this because sadly, too many lay persons accept everything on this sites as actual fact, end of story. This is why I started to edit to show all of the facts, not just one side, but this site loves just one side and the most popular views. Imagine kids in CA doing a research paper on CT. They look here and all that they can see about CT is New England. You also see that CT is on the other side of NYC, so you may want to learn about that relationship, but all you get is New England. Sudan is near Egypt. Everyone knows about Egyp and a little about Libya, but someone may want to know how Sudan relates to Egypt. If you read popular views, you would think that Libya, Palestine and the so-called middle-east have more in common with Egypt than Sudan does. Do you understand my point? Sudan has more in common with Egypt than the other countries. CT has more in common (socially, media wise, etc.) with NY than New England. At least the 203.
The 203 does not represent all of Connecticut. --Azathar 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
POV: Most New Yorkers don't like people from CT. LOL.
New England: America & Australia
I absolutely understand moving this page (New England is a pretty important region in Australia), but you should have asked for some kind of consensus on the new name. "American New England" just sounds awkward, and it's not a term any American would recognize. If you have "New England (Australia)," why not "New England (United States)"? Either way, you should have discussed it here and asked for other opinions. Moncrief 05:04, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
I see now this page has been moved back to "New England." (I'm not surprised). We do have to acknowledge that there is a region called New England in Australia also, but perhaps this New England trumps it with merely a disambig reference at the top of the page, much like London goes right to London, England. Moncrief 05:06, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
OK, that's good enough for me (see my London example above, which is the same set-up). Whether it's good enough for the person who unliterally moved this page, I don't know. But he or she needs to communicate before doing something like that. Moncrief 05:11, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Whay does the map put the Aleutian Islands in red, indicating that they are part of New England? Can anyone fix this?
Do you want links? I can give you tons of proof from OUR persepctive in CT. (link)http://www.news12.com/Home Try that for starters. Tell me where the New England is?
What is this comment doing here, N0gar? Aren't you capable of putting your comments in the relevant area? Regardless, news stations are always going to cover a certain region. In New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts, for example, there are Quebecois channels and news stations. Are those states now part of Quebec, and not a part of New England, because of the French-Canadian influence? Your "logic" escapes me.--AaronS 17:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm familiar with that flag. However, the colonial definition of New England has been rendered anachronistic by the modern definition as one of the regions of the U.S. The page as it written reflects that fact. It is, moreover, no really no more or less "British" than the other original colonies and the name has a complicated history. The "parallelism" with "Nova Scotia" is by name only, really. In fact, Nova Scotia is one of the least British of the colonies in a sense that it has a long French history that other colonies do not have. The flag you cited is part of the history, but is not representative of the region today, but rather its history. It is only "official" as a U.S. census region. -- Decumanus | Talk
Nahhh; the Wikipedian "powers that be" have already decided that New England is never going to secede; look back in the history of this article. Someday, though, I hope we surprise them. ;-)
That web site claims that the Flag of New England was decided upon by the six governors of New England in 1998. It is therefore official. Should we put it on the page?--AaronS 21:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There appears to be some abiguity over which flag is the Bunker Hill and which is the Plymouth Colony flags, both known invariably as the "Flag of New England." See this article for a further discussion: http://www.midcoast.com/~martucci/flags/NEFlag.html --216.236.252.235 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Not Really a Flag of New England. As stated in above link (Flagspot's New England flags page, the governors approved a motion to adopt the flag as the 'official emblem of the New England Conference'. They did not make any claims as to its legitimacy as an official or authentic flag of the six state region, nor did they adopt it as the official flag of the region."
Should there be a separate article on the New England flag? Having three flags, two of which(besides one colour) are identical, makes for a congested look. The third, and final, version of the flag should suffice. Either a new Wiki article on the New England flag...it's history and evolution, or refer to the source http://www.midcoast.com/~martucci/flags/NEFlag.html
Tthe flags are very out-of-palce in this article, and despite the various explanations of there being "official" flags, this really isn't about New England as a region, but about the history of various flags used by different entities called "New England" or about New England. There is no New England flag anymore than there is a Southwestern United States flag. Someone could do a separate article about the flags, but the graphics and captions simply don't belong here. BCorr|Брайен 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true. I live in Boston and have seen the New England flag in a number of contexts, including municipal and state buildings. I'll be happy to post a few pictures when I get around to it, but the flag is indeed current and should be used in the article. 24.63.125.223 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Confederacy
I removed that part about the small government philosophy being associated with the Confederacy. Succession did not equal small government, at least not the way implied in this paragraph, which is about the modern political situation. It's well established that the Confederacy had a strong central goverment (in a sense an illegal one formed without consent of the state legislatures), had the first income tax, and was run from a very centralized position by Jefferson Davis. The modern south has more of the philosophy of small government, but its important not to fall for the retro misconception that the Confederacy was fighting for the values of modern day libertarianism. It was much more complex than that. -- Decumanus 16:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Removed parts
This was removed from the section "Historical significance" and is put here in the hopes that something can be salvaged from it. It is mostly impertinent to this article, inappropriately informal for an encyclopedia, and just downright false. There are many falsities and misleading ambiguities. The paragraph I let remain should probably be reworked too and likely the entire article should be reviewed for accuracy by someone more competent than I.
Before its division into [[[Nova Scotia]] had encompassed Acadia and broken off as formerly the northern third of New England shortly before the American revolution (to experience a post-war swell of United Empire Loyalists). The colonies of New York and New Jersey remained the southern terminus of New England culture. The confusion about the northern border of Virginia and southern border of New England resulted in the coalescence of the Mid-Atlantic colonies with chief influence from Pennsylvania instead. This occurred as a result of the post-war conditions; the corresponding powers of New England and Virginia were compromised in the Mid-Atlantic states to avoid a power struggle and stay strong against any other monarchy from Europe which might have desired to undo the efforts of the Revolution. Before its division into [[[Nova Scotia]] had encompassed Acadia and broken off as formerly the northern third of New England shortly before the American revolution (to experience a post-war swell of United Empire Loyalists). The colonies of New York and New Jersey remained the southern terminus of New England culture. The confusion about the northern border of Virginia and southern border of New England resulted in the coalescence of the Mid-Atlantic colonies with chief influence from Pennsylvania instead. This occurred as a result of the post-war conditions; the corresponding powers of New England and Virginia were compromised in the Mid-Atlantic states to avoid a power struggle and stay strong against any other monarchy from Europe which might have desired to undo the efforts of the Revolution.
New England generally went about its own business and rivalries remained between the two regions This continued to the point where after the formation of the nation, they would butt heads with Virginia during the American Civil War as the Union.
This was removed from the "Politics" section because it is incoherent, self-contradictory, misleading, without context, and otherwise needs a lot of work. The rest of this section that was left in also may need some work:
New England started as a chiefly Federalist political center, contrasting with the Democratic/Republican Virginia, with the Mid-Atlantic states in between burgeoning a collusion of the two. To a certain extent, New England remains the mecca of progressive, pro-federal political idealism, in contrast to the conservative, small government Virginian philosophy espoused by much of the modern Republican Party and its ideological influences, such as Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless the stereotype is often misplaced. New Hampshire, for example, is considered the quintessential "small government" state.
When the federalist party disbanded, New Englanders primarily joined the Whig and then the Republican party. With advent of the death of the liberal wing of the Republican party, most New Englanders joined the exodus to the Democratic Party, although New Hampshire remains a Republican stronghold.
This is from the section "Further reading". I don't see a problem with the book itself, but it is inappropriate for it to stand alone, as it is very specific:
William Moran, Belles of New England: The Women of the Textile Mills and the Families Whose Wealth They Wove, St. Martin's Press, 2002, hardcover, 320 pages, ISBN0312301839
Generally, there is some other reworking of the article that must be done because the article should be specific to the region in general, and not say much or anything about things that are specific to one colony, state, city, region, etc. - Centrx
Angles, Saxons and Jutes?
The article said:
The primary settlers of New England were Angles, from an area northeast from London, and not Saxons or Jutes of the Virginia land.
This seems like the result of a misunderstanding. By the time that the American colonies were established, there were no longer Angles, Saxons or Jutes in England; these tribes had, hundreds of years before, merged to form the English. So I removed it. Gdr 19:12, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Good job, I've been wanting to fix that. It may be best to describe the social and geographical positions of the people before moving to the colonies. For instance, many of those from New England had been from East Anglia and the Fens, or as it is properly called, Lincolnshire. Generally, this does sort of mirror the settlement patterns of the Danish invaders in the 9-10th century England. That place was called the Danelaw, on the edge of Christendom, with many heathens not exposed to Roman Christian style government. Boston is a place in Lincolnshire, as is Stamford. Cambridge is from Cambridgeshire. Besides that, I have seen online descriptions of New England settlers from Eastern England, which is a general description, obviously. Eastern England is where most of the religious dissenters were from at the time of settlement, so there's no beating around that bush. I have also seen that some have said the Tidewater areas of the southern colonies were from the old Saxon aristocracy. In any event, New England emerged as the north east as much as Durham and Northumbria were for England. The Prince Bishops of Durham had real religious power and control and that is generally where the pressure for reform of the Catholic Church came from, aside from the Isle of Lindisfarne which is where much monastic treasure was developed. In this geopolitical sense, Massachusetts was formed of the same stuff and was a theocracy without a division of Church and State. Maine is the border region that had to define the edges of the northeast of America much as Northumbria had done for England. In America's case, it was the border with Nova Scotia, as opposed to England's with Scotland. This is all well understood with the arrangement of New York being less so in the north east, much as Yorkshire was to the Earldom of Northumbria. Pennsylvania was an early location for the capital, which would mean the rebelliousness of the East Anglian areas had relocated in America, due to the acquisition of New Netherland. There is a deep connection between British-American temporal geopolitics and if you know the data enough, you'll begin to understand why certain places in America are quite a bit remniscient to others in England on their sociopolitical level. This includes the Civil War's division of North and South, or the Manifest Destiny's East and West, reflective of how England itself was formed. Whether it may seem apparent to you or not, people during that time, despite modern rebellions to cast away the old, were relentlessly tied to old traditions and habits included in their settlement and formation patterns. Kenneth Alanson 01:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What a suprise. It was Kenneth Alan who added this rubbish in the first place. See [1]Mintguy(T) 08:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for a fight on every topic. I decided to leave it because I was afraid you'd revert a proper edit once again. I was tired and didn't remember all to the subject at the time, so sue me. I certainly have expounded upon the issue here, and to no error in my words. You haven't been following my statements nor have you really responded to them on the whole, just been on a tirade against me. Go away and leave me alone please. I do not follow you around everywhere and claim fallacy wherever I see it. I am not an ad-hominem, monomanic OCD panicker. I am not the only person with mistakes. I'm sick of your whining. Go ahead, block me again for the freedom of speech when it's you who are stalking me you idiot. Kenneth Alanson 09:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The origin of the settlers of New England is certainly encyclopedic, and it's not surprising that they should have named their new towns after the old towns they came from. So something about this topic belongs in the article. But don't use the terms Danelaw/Angles/Saxons; they are anachronistic in this context. Write "East Anglians" and "people from Lincolnshire" and so on. Gdr 23:49, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
I understand what you mean; however, there was a real historic difference between those from the New England colonies and those from the Virginia colonies. Although there may be the same placenames in both places, it would only mean that those people who founded the settlements in America had held certain lands and titles, regardless of their heritage in those places, when back in England. For instance, York Pennsylvania vs Yorktown Virginia; they may be the same derived name York of Yorkshire, but the complexities of who owned what titles and holdings back in England was not so static after the Middle Ages. People of the middle class had already begun to shift their lands into different hands, so it may be difficult to discern just exactly what an accurate demographic should look like. I think that solidifies the knowledge of the difference in sociopolitical style, and my intent was to show more of a tangible background shared in both groups chartered by King James I. Without such an arrangement, we wouldn't have had the Civil War, for instance. Of course the Dutch, Germans and Swedes got in the middle of the two, but it was more than that, I am told-that it's roots are in time before the Tudors reigned even(although, of course they had solidified by that time into recognisable factions of society). There obviously was something of a drift between the two groups of colonies due to their natural divide, and I believe that we must have some good description of this. Maybe it belongs in a Civil War article, but I'm not sure if it should rather be described in both the colonial formats and the Civil War or what. Please offer some insight as how to go about this, because the differences were real, even for Cromwell-his family was Saxon aristocracy and the authors of his history surely point that out. How are we to deny a face to these people? New York was founded by King James II's men, just as much as Maine had been by Gorges' family, although his was from Somerset and it had at one time been called Yorkshire due to King James II, then Duke of York's decision to have it renamed after him. Maybe it is best to show what social class these people are from? It is frustrating and I'm sure it seems anachronistic, but can we say that all the Mercians of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy were Angles? Could we say that all those in the Danelaw were Danish and not English? That's an inherent problem whenever we label a group in which the people themselves don't announce who they are to recorders and historians. Kenneth Alanson 01:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't figure out what you're saying here. Can you rephrase? Gdr 11:53, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
I think that this article deserves a description of the background to these settlers in England, more than simply their location, because all these characteristics are what led to the Civil War, from this end at least. There was a real clash with those of the Virginia colonies due to this, which was deeper than their situation in America. Kenneth Alanson 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can we get a geography section in this article?
For instance, New England apparently has fjords known as "fiards". 24.255.40.174 11:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism
I'm a little confused by the vandalism policy. While it has been a few days since he or she has struck, 24.105.165.20 has made some malicious vandalism recently, forcing two reverts. Should something be done about this? Has something been done?
I'd like to thank User:Rfl for reverting the anonymous deletion of the 'graph on modern-day N.E. secessionism. I attempted to do so last night, but Wiki locked the databases for their upgrade just as I was beginning the reversion. N.E. secessionism may not be a big force yet, but it's certainly real and worth mentioning in an encylopaedic article about the region.
No. Every region in the world has secessionists, simply saying that they exist is not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. At the same time, if they have no power and no effect then there is no more business mentioning them than there would be mentioning the people in New England who want to turn the region into some anarcho-syndicalist region or to join the region with Greenland. At the same time, if the secessionist movement is not indeed region-wide, rather than simply having a little force in a certain town of Maine or whatnot, then it also has no business being mentioned in an article on the whole region of New England. - Centrx 02:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you should await some other opinions before imposing your opinion on the commuity as a whole. - Atlant 20:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed the part about secession in the article before I had looked at the discussion page, as it seemed so eminently inappropriate for inclusion in this encyclopedia article and had been added by someone who was not a regular contributor to this article. In light of my comment from the 24th, what substantial reason is there for including this part about an unevidenced and inconsequential movement in an encyclopedia of fact? - Centrx 19:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You'll find that more often than not now, especially in New England, the history of the New England secessionist movements is being integrated into American history curriculums. The movement was strongest during the Revolutionary War and the Jefferson administration. This modern incarnation, however, I have heard little-to-nothing about.
Information in this article that does not actually apply to the region as a whole ought to be removed. So, for example, there is really nothing special about the New England region in terms of education; all but two of the colleges/universities listed are in Massachusetts, and those two are in separate states themselves, so it is more accurate to say that the high educational institutions are a feature of the state of Massachusetts rather than the entire region. There are many other sections like this, where the section spends most of its time delineating the differences between the parts of New England rather than the similarities, because there really isn't that much similarity in what it is talking about. So, with those parts removed, the article would be focused more no the historical aspects of the region as a whole, as the parts of the region continue to differentiate. - Centrx 22:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seeing the educ. inst'ns as not representing the region is the actual myopia. They are concentrated in the region, and the fact that the best of them are so concentrated in Mass. does not change that: New England as a whole is concentrated in CT & MA (& to a lesser extent, RI & southeastern NH) ; looking at the map is just confusing you with the relatively empty space in northern New England.
Of course, when you do shift focus to land rather than people, the emphasis belong on a wonderful place of fall-color-producing undernourished hardwoods, mountains, and wilderness; dunno if that's adequately covered --Jerzy(t) 10:47, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
It's unproductive to be insulting so; your insults are baseless and your allusions inane. Simply because there are several institutions that are in the total region does not mean that those institutions represent the region or that they are a characteristic of the region. The fact remains that the concentration of these institutions is far greater when a region of Connecticut and Massachusetts is the region considered, so that it is more accurate to describe these institutions as "of Connecticut and Massachusetts" rather than "of New England". You assume what you are trying to assert, the validity of "New England" as an educational region. By your reasoning, that there are educational institutions present in an area would indicate a concentration of them in that area, so that one the same text in this article on this topic could be used for an article on "southern New England" or "Northeast U.S.". These features which you think are of New England are much more of Massachusetts or Connecticut, so that any discussion of them in this article ought to be brief and refer to the Main article of Massachusetts or Connecticut. I am not confused by the demography of New England, rather it is simply not useful to think of qualities of eastern Massachusetts as being qualities of all of New England, and the very population disparity which you think means that "New England" is somehow concentrated in the south of it means instead that the qualities which you think are of New England are in fact not at all. - Centrx 20:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
United in 1776
Grade-school over-simplified history, i think:
The colonies were not formally united again until 1776, when they became part of the United States.
I don't know if I agree with the placement of George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush as notable New Englanders. As a life-long New Englander, I don't know that they should be considered NE'ers, even though they may own property in Maine. They relate more to Texas, especially GWB.--Azathar 04:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They're a lot more New Englander than Texan, sad, embarrassing for us, but true. Poppy is clearly a patrician New Englander who just went south for money, and Dubya loses his Texas drawl anytime he's not in front of the Faux News cameras.
I understand what you mean, but GWB relates more to Texas, unlike his dad, GHWB, who was always coming back to Kennebunk for vacations, GWB heads back to Texas.--Azathar 05:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
But even GWB likes to go back to Kennebunkport and zip around the bay burning up gasoline in the Cigarette boats with his dad (at least once a year, I think). And W was born in New Haven, right? The Texas Pig Farm is just a stage set.
Were you to visit the areas surrounding Walker's Point in Kennebunkport, I fear that some irrational Bush-haters would be quite surprised just how beloved the Bush family is in that area. Of course, there are also a requisite number of haters, as well. —This unsigned comment was added by Bbozsik (talk • contribs) .
Population
I was looking for the population of New England and couldn't fine it so I added up the state populations and added to the population section.
-Eurytus
Thanks! By the way, an easy way to sign and timestamp your "Talk" contributions is to just include four tildes: ~~~~. When you save your edits to the talk page, the tildes will be converted into your signature and the current timestamp.
I've edited the comments about HP Lovecraft to reflect that the fictional place names in his stories ("Arkham", "Kingsport", et al) are fictional names for real towns, and secondly, that his use of New England as a setting is more likely due to his being a Rhode Island native and nearly lifetime resident.
New England culture: European, European-derived, or unique?
A small debate is currently going on in the article about whether New England culture is "European" or "European-derived". While I understand what both of the debaters are trying to say, I think I'd say that compared to Montreal, Quebec City, or even most of the cities in Ontario, New England culture has become far more recognizably American than European-anything.
Perhaps what we ought to talk about is how the culture "was shaped by the obvious influences of the early English (and to a lesser degree, French and Dutch) settlers" followed by "distinct waves of immigration from other European countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Germany".
The culture is European, the dialect is European, the architecture is European, the history is European, etc. etc. Calling it "decidedly European" only emphasizes these facts; considering that New England is a part of the United States, it should be obvious that we're not treating it as an extension of Europe. Boston, Massachusetts is recognized as being one of the most "European" cities in the United States. New Englanders of European descent cling tightly to their heritage, be it Irish, English, or French, so much so that some actually speak Gaelic and French. The Eastern New England accent comes from an incomplete transition from 17th-century British English and modern British English, due to the heavy British influence on the region. The architecture is, for the most part, a mix of colonial and Georgian. The geography resembles that of England and Ireland.
Moreover, the population of major New England cities, especially Boston, includes a significant portion of Europeans who are not American citizens or Europeans who have become American citizens.
Furthermore, the title is really saved from dispute by the phrase "the overall feeling." We're talking about something abstract, here.--AaronS 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
Well, being from CT I would have to assume that what you New Englanders write is truth from your own perspectives.
A needed edit=
"Today, although the region has attracted many Jewish and Asian-American residents, it has a far smaller proportion of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans than the rest of the country"
I disagree with this statement, especially when talking about Connecticut. While it does have a large amount of Jewish-Americans in some areas, it has a large amount of Blacks and especially Hispanics compared to the rest of the region. Connecticut has almost as much Blacks as Massachusetts and Hartford is the most Hispanic city east of the Mississippi river and south of Florida. This statement above noted probably applies to MA but not Connecticut or Rhode Island.
Also, while growing quickly, Asians are still too small in CT, RI, or MA (outside Boston area) to be considered a large amount.
Massachusetts is as ethnically diverse as CT and RI. Boston, for instance, is 25% black, 7% Asian, and 14% Hispanic. Connecticut is only about 3-4% "less white" than Massachusetts. And, Boston has a bustling Chinatown.--AaronS 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
I think someone has to put an end to whoever from Boston College is putting pictures of BC and a dubious "Oxford in America" claim in every possible article they can stretch BC into. I's getting obnoxious to see the same picture and ridiculous claim again, and again, and again. I'm removing it with the hope that someone finds something else to feature a picture of.
If you have reason to doubt the veracity of the "Oxford in America" title of the BC master plan, state your case. Otherwise the picture and caption are very pertinent, and offer a tangible example of New England's unique cultural contributions. --192.80.65.235 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
New England Stereotypes
too many people think New England is just small colonial towns
it isn't
a good deal of the buildings are post colonial
and there are more thing that are sterotyped
Dudtz 7/23/04 11:00PM EST
In my opinion, the constant referencing back to many New Englanders having a Boston accent is not entirely accurate. Living in New England my entire life, (Connecticut, Boston, southern Maine), it is without question that many metro regions and states all have quite distincts accents). The New Haven region has a clearly distinct accent to Boston. Southern Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire do as well. Rhode Island, while it may be similar in some respects to Boston in terms of accent, clearly has its own mini-dialect and accent. I think it would be fair to say that many areas of New England educate students in "accentless" English. I don't mean that they are devoid of accents altogether as that is relative to other areas. Unless you pull a person from Boston, I believe most people with little knowledge of New England would have problems placing the accent. Bbozsik 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, if you lived in the "New Haven region," I am sure that you found out that the people do not see themselves as New Englanders. You people put the label on us, not we. All of that New England talk is for the real New England people. There is no accent and no common culture. No one in the 203 part of CT considers him or herself a New Englander. If they do, then they are not from here.
BLOGS
What is the consensus on having a section for a listing of New England blogs? --Kipple
One link to a list somewhere else would be good. Andycjp 21st August
'Open-minded' generalization
This, I think, is a bit too much of a generalization:
The region has remained consistently openminded towards other backgrounds, a tradition which has continued from the abolitionist days of William Lloyd Garrison and Charles Sumner to the region's recent controversial legal battle in regarding relationships between homosexual couples.
This may be how many New-Englanders view themselves, and if so we can report that as a fact. Reporting that it is actually true as a fact, however, is more problematic: It's an opinion, and not necessarily a well-substantiated one. The history of discrimination against the Irish, Italians, Poles, and Greeks in Boston continuing up through the 1950s would attest otherwise, to choose one example. --Delirium 03:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, if we're keeping the statement at all, it would have to read "New Englanders consider themselves openminded..." and even then, what makes New Englanders believe themselves to be more tolerant than any other part of the country? I vote to remove the line altogether and maybe replace a flowery word like "open-minded" with a more factual one like "liberal" or "socially progressive" if we want to reference abolition and homosexual unions, which are specific factual examples.Loodog 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Boston Celtics popular?
Since when are the Boston Celtics popular? I barely hear anyhting about them, and I live in eastern Massachusetts. I mean, all I ever hear about are the big teams, like the Lakers and Utah and such, I never hear about the Celtics anymore.... years ago, when Bird was here, they were a bit more popular.--Azathar 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A whole big ole string of vandalism
I reverted a whole group of vandalized edits. In the process, I'm sure i reverted some legitimate edits. Please check history when editing to make sure no vandalism carries over with you edit.--Kevin 03:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
John Wheelwright
Why was Wheelwright removed from the notable New Englander's section of the article?--Azathar 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Notable Persons
I think the Notable Persons section is getting a bit long. I'd like to possibly put it into a sub-article, or at the very least, rearrange it into a table that would make better use of the space. Let me know if you agree, and which option you think should be used: the sub-article or the table. --Dymero 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree it is way to long it shouldn't be more than a handful of them in the artical. It should be moved to a new list and link back. That is my 2 cents worth anyway. 03:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Marc29th 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I created the new article. Behun 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A bit fanboyish?
And that's all I have the say.
Oh, also, I consider myself a neutral observer, I'm not from the USA and I wasn't even aware a region called New England existed there. I came to this article from a John Tukey(the statistician) memorial site which had numerous references to New England.
I agree that it is a bit fanboyish. It needs more references, and to cut down on the cruft. Anybody interested in helping out? --AaronS 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Controversy....
"Is New York state part of New England? As its name would suggest, along with "New" Hampshire, its proximity to the rest of New England and the date of its founding, as well as the fact that parts of Manhattan are widely regarded as an essentially New England in nature, New York State is part of New England."
This really made me laugh, then I remembered this is wikipedia and not uncyclopedia... New York is definately not considered part of New England... Rangeley 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Controversial
What's really laughable is how New Englanders insist that "New" York isn't part of New England, when, obviously, it is.
What, is "New" Mexico also part of new england now? The "new" means absolutely nothing, New York has a different heritage and history then that of new england, in addition to its different culture and background. Rangeley 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
New York has never been considered part of New England. For one thing, New York was originally a Dutch colony that was later taken by the English, while the original settlers of all the New England colonies were English. thx1138 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
From Controversy to Idiocy in a New York Minute
Ahem: Hampshire and York, in England. Mexico, er, in Mexico.
New Hampshire = New England
New Mexico = New Mexico
New York = Not New England
That's what we call cognitive dissonance, hon.
Are you aware of what defines New England? It isnt the name of the states. Vermont, for instance, is french for Green Mountain. Maine is named after the French Province of Maine. And what is more, Conneticut, and Rhode island have no clear naming reference to anything that I can think of.
Do you consider 'New Jersey' to be New England? Jersey is part of the UK, and thus it is obviously an english name. Because guess what, it isnt in New England either. New York City was first called New Amsterdam and settled by the dutch, and does not share the history of New England. It was not considered part of New England in the 1600's, and it is not today. Do a quick google search for images of New England, you will find absolutely none showing New York as part of it. Nor will you find New Jersey included either. Another key part of New England is its government system, Town Meetings in particular. These do not exist in New York. Look, start presenting facts to back yourself up or else you have no basis to overrule the obvious consensus at wikipedia. Rangeley 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, whoever this anonymous editor is should take a look at Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. And I think that Ben Franklin probably had the right idea: New England and New York are distinct, according to Franklin.--AaronS 13:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The funny part is that you New Englanders keep speaking of a history, culture and region. This is all news to me. I am still trying to figure what these are. It seems as if the history, culture and region revloves around Boston. This is just another reason why CT is no a part of your region, history or culture.
How is New England's history different from that if the reast of the northeast? Last time I checked, the Washington D.C. area and the whole northeast had what many people like to believe is a New England look, if not more so. You people call it a New England look, I call it European colonial.
I've lived in Plattsburgh, right next to Vermont, and no one even suggested the thought of New York being a part of New England. Additionally, it's pretty clear that the average person does not consider New York to be a part of New England, and since we define things based on what most people accept as definition, New York stays out of NE.Loodog 19:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"New England" puritans take themselves, and their "most well-defined region," way, way too seriously. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.109.215.104 (talk • contribs) .
It's worse than that: Many of us feel our region might be better-defined by an international border separating us from the rest of Bushworld.
Wouldn't that be nice! --AStanhope 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You New Englanders need to STOP grouping CT into YOUR ideal. We do not feel the same way that you do. You guys have nothing going on up there so you look to Boston and a New England title to give you an identity. We in CT are near New York City and we stand alone so we do not need you or identitfy with you, so stop trying to pull us into your little group. —This unsigned comment was added by 66.159.145.77 (talk • contribs) .
If you live in Connecticut then you're a New Englander in spite of your protests. Welcome aboard, fellow New Englander! Ain't life grand? --AStanhope 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop it you dictator. I told you what I am and it's not a New Englander. That is YOU people, not us. This is the problem that I have, you people are ALWAYS trying to tell us in CT who we had better be. This is why when you New Englanders come to the 203 part of CT, you look like outsiders with your Patriots and Red Sox stuff on your cars. Some of you moved here, registered your plates to CT plates and pretend that you are a CT citizen repsenting Bostonm which you see as New England. You don't fool me because we can look on your car and see where you bought it from and it is from up in New England and not the 203 part of CT. You guys are in shock that we in the 203 part of CT do not feel the same way the you do about New England. Sorry, but that is the way it is. We cannot help it if we are near the #1 city in America and you want us to somehow be a part of your region with a lower lever city.
It's OK, brother. We still love you. You're still one of us. You can take a boy out of New England but you can't take New England out of the boy. All roads lead to Boston. --AStanhope 19:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No in CT the roads don't. We have signs in the 203 that say New York City. No Boston signs down here. New England was never in this boy so it cannot be taken out. I read your page and I saw that you are from MA, which explains and proves my theory that you guys want to force YOUR vision on us because you need us. I also see that you are into science fiction, which explains why you keep telling me CT is a part of your region. Come down here for a day or two. Listen to people on the streets. Listen and try to hear the words "New England, Boston, Providence," or anything that is common in New England. Instead, you hear things such as "the city, Queens, Stamford, Brooklyn, METRO-North, Merrit, sound, Tappan Zee, GW, JC, BX." If you don't know what a lot of that means, then you are now starting to understand cultural differences.
Since Connecticut wants out, you can have New York. Problem solved!
We already had it and will proudly keep it! Now if only you people can kep you 'special' group called New England to yourselves, the country will be a lot better place. You people act like you are in another country.
The main article should read "one of America's most ill-defined regions" based on this discussion.
Christ, no one is arguing that Connecticut is unaffected by the New York metropolitan hub or that Boston has more sway on Stamford than New York does. The definition of New England isn't "what's affected by Boston". We all acknowledge that New England is not isolated from the rest of the world by a mountain range or an ocean. If you go to northern Vermont, all the signs and radio stations are in French, yet we know it doesn't make Vermont a part of Canada. The definition of New England as given by any dictionary is these 6 states, no more, no less.Loodog 04:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is when New Englanders want to take things too far in thinking that all of the so-called New England states are on the same page. Also, Boston as the largest city seems to think that New England must mean THEIR sports teams and anything that invloves THEM, invloves us. Believe me when I continue to tell you that CT is as much a part of New England(they way New Englanders are a part of New England, cuturally) about as much as Sudan is a part fo the middle-east, or 'known' for being in the middle-east. Think about that one.
Well, anon... We've just held a town meeting here and it doesn't look good for you. By UNANIMOUS agreement we've decided to continue to keep Connecticut as part of our regional group. I'm sorry, anon - that's just the way it goes. Nobody was willing to let go of Connecticut. Too many fond memories, perhaps. (I also think that some people in the junta see Connecticut as sort of a Trojan Horse through which we can exert additional influence over New York City - while presumably extracting some wealth from it at the same time.) Don't feel bad about this - it can't be helped. History is filled with examples of regional/imperial will being forced upon an unreceptive or even hostile people. In time, however, you will learn to assimilate and your children and your childrens' children won't even be aware of the once-mighty Connecticut-New York City bloc. Such is life. --AStanhope 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
And I'm sure there are parts of eastern Connecticut that similarly would not consider themselves culturally part of the Connecticut you've described, yet they are in the state. States/countries/regions rarely describe isolated homogeneous areas, particularly in the absence of physical geographical barriers.Loodog 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
one of the least diverse parts + unclear sentence
"Today, although the region has attracted quite a few Jewish and Asian-American residents, it remains one of the least diverse parts of the nation and has a smaller proportion of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans than most of the rest of the U.S. Connecticut and Massachusetts have higher minority populations than the rest of New England, while Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are largely populated with people of European descent. " with parenthesis removed.
It remains one of the least diverse parts of the nation? I can name more states than are in New England that are less racially diverse. What basis are we using for comparison?
New England's minorities/total population vs. The Rest of the Country's minorities/total population
New England's minorities/total population vs. that of other similiarly-sized regions in the country
Diversity of individual New England states vs. diversity of individual non-New England states?
Personally, I think of "least diverse parts of the nation" as being the Midwest or Great Plains states, or the non-coastal Western states.Loodog 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The above is true if you combine states statistics together. It is untrue in the case of CT. We do not look like New England. I learned that driving from Canada back into CT. With my Yankees plate on my care with my CT late, they looked shocked and amazed. They looked as if I had declared war.
CT has a lot of hispanics, Asians and blacks. Not to mention mixed people also. With the new legislation, a whole lot more homosexuals are coming too. I may indeed have to move to Westchester County, NY.
Rhode Island: 18.1% minority
Massachusetts: 18.1%
New Hampshire: 5%
Vermont: 4%
Maine: 4%
Connecticut: 22.5%
and just for comparison
New York: 38%
I'd say Connecticut's diversity isn't uncharacteristic of New England as a whole. It is, however, conspicuously different from the northern states.
As the sentence stands now, it's misleading and useless, as it generalizes a collection of things and then points out where the generalization doesn't hold, which happens to be half of the time. Obviously, racial diversity and population go hand in hand, yet we wouldn't write something like, "Today, the region remains one of the least urbanized parts of the country." just because the northern states are more rural.
I move to change the sentences to something a bit clearer such as:
"Today, northern New England remains one of the least racially diverse parts of the nation, being populated primarily by those of European descent, while the southern states have minority levels comparable to the rest of the nation."Loodog 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You would also have to realize and accept that CT does not see itself from a New England perspective. Once you accept that, then you can leave us out.
I've changed the sentence in the article.Loodog 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Regional population layout Section
This section doesn't read well and is POV/original research, IMHO. Could we just simple list some facts and let the readers decide about the diversity or lack there of??? I would like to remove this whole paragraph if thats ok.
As an aside, is their a section on religion? I don't think I see one referrence to Quakers or The Society of Friends??
Actually, after having read the whole article, it really needs MAJOR overhaul/better organization, IMHO. Is there a standard template for this type of article?? It just seems like it jumps around and repeats information and has too much POV....Thanks! Tom 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of your points. I'm pretty sure that I wrote most of that section, and have no problem with it being removed. This article is very fluffy. The fluff needs to be trimmed and replaced with encyclopaedic material. I'd be more than happy to help. --AaronS 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please edit the following article temp page so that we can revamp the article. I'm going to begin making big changes. --AaronS 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
pooooooooooooooooopppppppppoooooooooooooooooo
Vigorous Defluffication
Please comment here. --AaronS 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
