Talk:New England/Archive 4

This archive includes threads from Talk: New England from November 2009 through December 31st 2010.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Winner take all

This paragraph was deleted as "redundant."

"As does the rest of the United States, New England has winner-take-all single-member districts for representation in the national Congress. As a result of majority Democratic support in every district in 2008, there were no opposition (Republican) members of United States House of Representatives elected in New England."

The point of this paragraph was to familiarize people in democracies where minorities are represented with the "winner take all" system in the US. There are no Republicans congresspeople from New England, not because there is no one voting Republican, but because with minorities in all voting districts, the winner was a Democrat in each one. This differs from many countries where proportional voting occurs. So a party with a minority status would not be excluded from the parliament as it is in the US. I'm not seeing this process explained in another section. Since someone made a point of mentioning that NE is completely represented by one party, it seemed reasonable to explain why. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastern States

In the 19th century this area was sometimes called the eastern states because (except for Long Island) they were east of the rest of the country. So that for the 13 colonies the East the Middle and the South. I find this interesting but don't know if there is an appropriate place to add this to the article since it is no longer in use. Nitpyck (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And, in fact, there is an "Eastern States Exposition" annually in West Springfield, Mass, aimed at New England, confirming that this name was not only used, but still used, although not often beyond this example in my experience. Probably worth a sentence if you can find ref. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

GDP comparison

A GDP comparison says that if New England were a state (!) it would rank xth below New York or whatever. Uh. There are actually six states, none of which come close. This is like saying "If I stood on my brother's shoulders, we'd be bigger than you!" Er. Yes, I suppose so. Compare to Guadalahara or someplace, but not another US state! Student7 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the type of thing NY should use in their article: "It would take all six NE states and they still would be shy..!" Student7 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We heard you before.--Louiedog (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the statement as it stands as particularly controversial or offensive. --TimothyDexter (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonym

Should the infobox include the demonym (New Englander)? Most states' infoboxes have it, so it seems like a natural inclusion, but I didn't want to add it if there was already a standard set for regional infoboxes. Qaqaq (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and add it. Also, what's up with the current order of the states? It makes no sense. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical? At least, once I move Maine. Pfly (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The OED includes "New English." Uncommon, but used. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New York

Why isn't New York included in this article? York is a town in England, so clearly New York would be included in New England. Why not? 98.248.180.183 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because New York is part of the Mid-Atlantic States as classified by the census bureau. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you need to read the definition FAQs first.--Louiedog (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If six states were one state....

We keep attracting comments that say, if effect, if the six states that comprise New England were, instead, a single state, it might begin to compare to some of the other states! NE is six states, not one state. The comparison is silly. Okay to compare with a nation, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that New England is much more cohesive as a region than any other region in the United States, save the South. Most New Englanders are as likely to identify with New England as much as their particular states, especially in opposition to the rest of the US. --TimothyDexter (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How big is 14.3 million when talking about things the size of states? Is it Texas? Is in New Jersey? How big is 72,000 square miles? Is it Florida? Is it Delaware? I liked my wording just fine, it gave states for comparison without trying to claim that New England is a state itself:

New England's population, for comparison is just smaller than that of the 4th most populous state, Florida and its land area, at 62,808.96 sq mi (162,674.5 km²), is just smaller than the 20st largest state, Washington.

I don't see why it's invalid to compare a region to state. States are good sized rulers to compare against, since in both categories New England lands somewhere between existing states, rather than be larger or smaller than all of them.--Louiedog (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a sensible (and helpful) comparison for me, and I really don't understand the controversy surrounding it. --TimothyDexter (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was in two minds when I removed the last version. That's why I suggested discussion in my edit summary. On the one hand, the wording was ok after Louiedog's edit. On the other hand, I felt that by the time so much explanation had been added to the comparison, it seemed awkward, and trying too hard to justify its own existence as a concept. Overall, on balance, I decided to take it out pending discussion. I don't feel too strongly about it either way. If you do reinstate it in the above form of words, I think it does need an additional comma after for comparison, since that's parenthetical. - Begoon (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Use something else to measure by way of comparison. Try to pick states outside of New England. lump them together and compare them with something else, apparently at random. If Texas, Mississippi and Wyoming were a state, they would be sixty-three times bigger than Massachusetts. I don't find that particularly illuminating.

A country analogy may be edifying. If New England were a country it would be bigger than x, or have a larger GDP than Y. This is often done by way of analogy. Might be useful for someone writing about Texas to say that n New Englands would fit inside it, but how useful for NE?

I am concerned about people drawing weird analogies in other articles, if this idea spreads. If the Cubs and the Mets joined forces, they could beat the Yankees, based on the top stats of their respective players. Fantasy Baseball. The above seems like Fantasy Geography. If Fantasy Geography idea spreads, we may have sufficient problems that we won't have to be concerned about Fantasy Sports. Student7 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A more appropriate comparison would be to some other region. Six New Englands (or whatever) would fit inside Western United States. A regional comparison would be fine and appropriate IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing regions is useless. All you get is "it's smaller than all the other examples."--Louiedog (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, your last point kind of defines the problem. Why be so keen to make a statement that it's big compared to something else, if, in reality, it isn't, and you have to make the statement convoluted and self justifying? As an outsider, reading an article about New England, it doesn't make it any more interesting to me. A statement like - "taken as a region, it's population density is higher than State x" might sound better - but I'm ambivalent about even that, because then you're almost implying it's cramped, people wise, and that takes away the appealing slightly rural/historic image I have of it. Just an outside point of view. - Begoon (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC) edited to add - sorry, I just noticed there is already a statement about pop density vs US as a whole, after I posted this...

"Why be so keen to make a statement that it's big compared to something else, if, in reality, it isn't", it's not being keen on it being bigger than something else so much as comparable and in between common points of reference. You don't define cups in terms of tons for the same reason you don't define a barge's mass in ounces: they are not comparable units.

If I told you I had a set of 3 blocks: A, B, and C and I wanted to describe to you the volume of a fourth block D and D was smaller than blocks A, B, or C, I could just say, "D ranks 4th between blocks A, B, and C". All this tells you is that block D is somewhere between the smallest block of A, B, and C and 0, you don't even get order of magnitude information out of that statement. Suppose instead, I look at an alternative set of blocks, or even a set of other objects: {E, F, G} so that D is intermediately ranked within that set, then the statement "D is between E and F in size" is FAR more useful because you have a lower AND an upper bound.

If I said, "Joe Pesci is shorter than Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, and Christian Bale." it's not as useful as comparison as saying, "Joe Pesci is shorter than Tom Cruise, or Mel Gibson, but taller than Danny Devito." Again, a LOWER and an UPPER bound.--Louiedog (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pile on to this the lack of objective definition for a "region". Does the Rust Belt count? Jello Belt? Is New England not a region because it's a part of the larger Northeastern United States? How would you rank them?--Louiedog (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, I don't feel very strongly about it. I was merely trying to explain why I personally think it feels a little awkward. I'm not invested enough to delve into all those lovely puzzles above. I know how comparisons work. - if you feel this comparison is valid I certainly have no objection. I've just given my outsider's take on how it can appear. - Begoon (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy section

I was the one who wrote (most) of the economy section several years ago under a different account. The entirety is drawn from the U.S. Department of Commerce, including the claims about exports. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20020919185248/http://www.buyusa.gov/newengland/background.html. That should clear up citation concerns. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This section, as a whole, also needs some housekeeping. Perhaps all the statistics would better be suited to an Economy of New England article? I'm not sure. I added sub-headings for clarity, but it might be overload. Thoughts are welcome. --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

Are we striking the right balance between the urban and rural parts of New England in the images we choose to present? Worcester, New Haven, Providence, and the like are fine cities, but surely we could do more to highlight the rural, natural beauty of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, no? --TimothyDexter (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exit numbering

Was having a discussion with a NE Editor in another article. can't remember which one. Got this from yet another editor, "Distance-based numbering became mandatory in the 2009 MUTCD (Section 2E.31, page 32). Originally, I heard that all states have to comply with the change by 2020; however, the list of compliance dates on page 41 of the Intro and TOC PDF makes no mention of it" Will try to move this when I find correct place. Student7 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture

Thanks to Timothy Dexter for all the great "Economy" updates. I did question one statement though. "Due to its predominately rocky soil and cooler climate, New England is not a strong agricultural region." I do appreciate the truth in "rocky" and "cooler." Not sure how to compare agricultural areas. The agricultural strength is in having great soil and plentiful rainfall. I do not know a reliable way (metric) for comparing agricultural areas, but it seems to me that NE should wind up pretty high up for attributes. The problem today is mostly from efficiency which has eliminated the need for vast areas of land and the fact that the region has developed in other ways economically. Not sure the statement is "self-evident." Can you furnish a citation? Student7 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article for that statement, and I can't quite be bothered to find one at this point in time, although I would be grateful if somebody else were to do so. As for measuring agricultural productivity, the numbers speak for themselves. If you're referring to the inherent agricultural potential of the region, i.e. it *could* be strong if it wanted to, then I think that a better measure is the length of the growing season.

I'm fine with removing the statement until a reliable source can be found. --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect (no proof) that the area is self-sufficient in most fresh produce ("in season"  :), except fruit. Of course, all areas import food, so hard to measure that way, I admit. Student7 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I also assume as much, although certain kinds of produce require growing seasons so long that they couldn't possibly be grown in New England. Days of sunlight is another important matter. Certainly, I wouldn't trust Maine oranges.

Of course, it's not really essential to judge New England as an agricultural region in this article. --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Most liberal?

A paragraph observes, "The region is one of the most liberal in the United States and it voted for the Democratic Party Presidential nominee in the 1992, ...." Right now this is WP:OR. It is not supported by any reference and is mainly an "observation" by someone living there. Observations are not supposed to be part of an encyclopedia. Including "justification" for the remark does 'not render the statement non-or! I am not convinced that the area is more liberal than SF, or Oregon or any place out west or NYC or whatever. It needs an outside, reliable citation. Student7 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

SF and NYC are cities, not regions. Cities are almost always more liberal than urban areas. Oregon has large swaths of "redneck county" (as does New England). Considering the extent of socially liberal laws, social welfare, and voting patterns of the New England states, the statement seems like an obvious one to me. --TimothyDexter (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement says "one of the most liberal...", and then goes on to justify it with several rationales. The question is whether it's useful to have such a vague generalisation or not. Possibly not, and the OR point is well taken. The question to be answered is whether it's worth citing, is citeable, or should just be removed. I reverted the removal once, because it seemed a reasonable statement on the face of it, but on reflection, the points you make are good - and I wouldn't be opposed to either: removal, or citation  Begoon^talk 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reinserted the request for citation. I don't object to the comment. Just wanted to see a scholarly citation, not an "observation." Student7 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but it seems more like conventional wisdom than observation. Calling New England liberal is like calling California sunny. In any case, as I suspected, a 5-minute trawl through Google gave me at least three references from three different newspapers.

It's obviously fair to say that New England is not uniform; New Hampshire is socially liberal but fiscally conservative, for instance. Certain things make New England, on the surface, more "liberal" than, say, New Jersey or California: gay marriage, social welfare, moderate to low prisoners per capita, abolition of capital punishment (and near-abolition where it still exists), lax drug laws, and so on.

I do hope that the references address your concerns. --TimothyDexter (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken on New England being compared with another region and not a city or state or something. But even making an "observation" that California is "sunny" does require verification/citation. Not everyone is from the US that reads this. Second, Northern California climate varies somewhat from Southern California. It might not be that homogeneous. All "observations" require citations in Wikipedia. Otherwise they are WP:OR. The more "obvious" they are, usually the more they need a citation. The citation normally is a hard to find because it is difficult to pin down the actual fact despite the urban myth. We are encyclopedic, not bloggish. Student7 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are citations for this in the body of the article. I think that it is a salient point to have in the lead. It's not cited in the lead, since per Wikipedia's standards, nothing should be cited in the lead, as it should already be addressed (and referenced) in the body of the article. --TimothyDexter (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eurocentrism in the History section

The history section seemed to focus mainly on the happy colonization of the region by hard-working English Puritans eventually culminating in our glorious Revolution, much like what I learnt in elementary school in Massachusetts. I added some more information on indigenous people, giving them their own heading (not sure why they didn't have one in the first place), with references. The entire section still seems to meander a bit too much, and is cluttered with miscellanea. Also, it's probably too long. Clearly, a large part of it needs to be transferred to the History of New England article, which itself needs some housekeeping. I'd like both to revise this section and that article, but Wikipedia's in-browser editor leaves little hope for beautiful prose, what with the tags and formatting cluttering everything. (It's hard to organize one's thoughts.) I hope eventually to edit it in Notepad, so as to have a bit of breathing room, but I certainly wouldn't mind if any other cheery editors beat me to the punch. --TimothyDexter (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

following this suggestion I have moved most of the historical detail and readings to the article on History of New England where it fits better. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! --TimothyDexter (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Non-"geographic

This was not a typographical error; it was meant to highlight the fact that New England isn't necessarily defined geographically (although, today, it is obviously coextensive with the six states). It's not "the South," "the Mid-Atlantic," "the West," etc. -- it's the only region of the U.S. recognized by the U.S. that isn't defined, nominally, in geographic terms. Pertinent, if we're going to be talking about New England's "unique" and "defined" nature, no? --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You have helped the article a lot by your editing.

I am quite confused by your statement. For me, New England is the only area that is clearly defined geographically. Nearly all of the other areas of the country argue that their state, or a nearby state, shouldn't be in the listing. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that the name, "New England", is not geographically descriptive, unlike for example, Northeastern United States, Mountain States, or East North Central States. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, but Student7 does point out an important ambiguity. That's why I added "recognized by the U.S.," because, technically, the other regions are defined in some terms by the federal government, regardless of how their residents feel.

As a counterexample, the West Coast is pretty clearly California, Oregon, and Washington. --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But some people include Alaska and Hawaii. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Town meeting

I added the word "often" (back) because town meetings are at least in my state dying as a form of government. Some towns such as Monroe, Connecticut are most certainly still run this way, and things like school budgets aren't passed without referendum. However, other towns such as Stratford, Connecticut have scrapped town meetings for representational government, making them (at best) a place to debate issues about the town before they (rarely) appear on a ballot on election day. It isn't direct government anymore, and therefore it isn't a town meeting. Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Markvs88. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, towns are free to change their form of government without needing to reincorporate as a city. In Massachusetts, this is also true in practice but there is still some legal distinction between traditional towns (with a town meeting) and the so-called towns with a city form of government (some laws treat these towns as cities). --Polaron | Talk 22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Learn something new every day. It is not true in Massachusetts, however: the state constitution clearly enumerates the procedure. No town in Massachusetts has a city form of government, but some are still stylized as towns, e.g. "The City known as the Town of Amesbury." --TimothyDexter (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, legally these "towns with city form of government" are cities, which Wikipedia also treats as such. But see discussions at Talk:Braintree, Massachusetts and Talk:Winthrop, Massachusetts for some differing opinions. --Polaron | Talk 23:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

USRegions template

Does anyone else find the USRegions template, {{USRegions}}, at the bottom of this and a number of other pages, overly long and complicated? I asked about it in some detail at Template talk:USRegions#Too long, confusing, off-topic?, but have not received any replies. Pfly (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG! What a mess! No I hadn't looked at it before. It can be of nearly no use to anybody in that format. Needs "tidying up" that is for sure. At least lines separating the sub-categories or something. Words at side need to start with caps. "court" should be maybe "Justice"? Keep someone busy for awhile. A start might be to truncate it severely while working on the rest? Give everyone's template invocation something to link to. But it is nearly worthless as it is.

If you are willing. my thought is to explain what you propose to do on the template discussion page. After a week of not hearing anything, just do it. (And wait for the screams!  :) No. No one can be actually looking at this. Not possible IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So I'm not crazy? Well, you inspired me to get out the axe. It had been well over a week since I posted my list of questions, so I just started cutting away at them. Didn't mean to cut it down all at once, but there it is. From the history it seems that the bulk of the additions were done early in 2010. Maybe there won't be any screams. I guess I'll see. There's more cleanup to do, like the caps you mentioned. Thanks for replying, I just needed someone to say it wasn't just me being dense! Pfly (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)