Talk:New England/Archive 3

This archive includes threads from Talk: New England from June, 2007 through November, 2009.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Region of the United States

New England is the traditional center of ethnic English ancestry and culture in the United States. The only place in the U.S. outside New England with a significant majority English ethnicity is Utah-Eastern Idaho—the traditional core of the Jello Belt region, whose proportion of English Americans is actually higher today than New England, with Utah being the most English of U.S. states with 29.0% English ancestry, followed by New England states Maine with 21.5% and Vermont with 18.4%. This population is contrastingly far more conservative than modern New England and is mainly LDS in religion, but its substratal cultural character is largely reminiscent of both early 19th century New England and Victorian England (due to later direct handcart immigration). [I can't tell if this more about UTAH and Mormons or about New England, it should be removed in my opinion] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am from Spain and I think once the children of immigrants speak English and marry Anglos they become Anglos the same way as in LatinAmerica they become Hispanics even if the majority of the population in Latinamerica is not Spanish.--83.57.50.229 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC) They are assimilated. Also the French speaking Normands were assimilated in England and the German speaking VisiGoths were assimilated in Spain. What you call "English" are by themselves a mixture of Anglos, Saxons, Celts, French, Dannish etc; And what we call (white) "Americans" are something similar but with an stronger German and Spanish ingredient.--83.57.50.229 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about two different things here which 229 reminds us of. One is assuming that culture is automatically derived from paternal names or "ethnicity." The other that the area has no influence on immigrants.

I have two relatives who appear Afro-American who however were adopted and raised by two white New Englanders. These children will realize (eventually) that they are definitely New Englanders with NE culture.

The majority culture tends to influence minority immigrants eventually. Are Boston Irish culturally New English yet? I don't know. They've lived together for a long time and have a culture of their own I think. The heavy Democratic vote in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have to be driven in part by Irish and French Catholics. The old time New England Protestants tended to vote Republican.

So there is some spillover, some assimilation, but, less than New York, a change in local culture by the immigrants.

My guess is that city culture in Spanish America tends to have a strong Spanish tilt. The Latin countryside might be more Native American and not quite Spanish, despite the language, if one can generalize about Latin countries, which is not really accurate of course. There have been many fewer immigrants to absorb over the years and a nearly constant Catholic majority which is stabilizing as well. The US isn't like that at all and not really comparable. Student7 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There we go with another latino trying to convince the white world that they are white too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduction in intrusion of lists

I made the template that displays the Professional Sports Teams in New England a "show box" list. It it is desired to be seen the reader can click on it. Otherwise, I recomment that it be a link from this page. If desired, the reader can click on the link, like all of the other lists that have been shipped off from the page. -- Yellowdesk 19:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

update to population list?

Duffy1990 has recently changed data on largest New England cities. I reverted citing that the list says explicitly it is as of 2000 and the editor has only updated the top three. Regardless, it does raise the point, now that Worcester is estimated at 199 people larger that Providence,("Population Estimates for Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2006". US Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-06-29.) if we want to update this list. This list on this page now disagrees with List of United States cities by population, which is based on latest estimates.--Loodog 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if we use the 2000 census, Worcester is second and Providence is third (Providence inched past Worcester in 2001). The list, as it stands, does not accurately represent the 2000 census or the 2007 estimates. Thus, the problem. --Duffy1990 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. The census says Providence was larger than Worcester in 2000. My impression that the ranking change happened in 2001 was mistaken. --Duffy1990 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your call. As you might imagine, we're having this problem everyplace. Not only are these new figures merely estimates for 2006, sometimes they are guesstimates and way off. If I were maintaining the cities I would raise the level of standing by one if I was in the advancing one...and ignore it if I were in the one that Census has guesstimated to be lower! Do we want to base tallies (when they are lists) on official headcounts, or on number of electric and water meters times a factor which is sometimes off? Student7 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html. Data indeed is listed as per 2000. 2000 Census: Providence 173,618, Worcester 172,648. Providence is larger every year and census every year until 2006.--Loodog 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As the rankings (Providence second, Worcester third) have remained consistent for the majority of the decade, lets stick with the 2000 rankings and census results. The latest estimates can be placed in parenthesis next to each city in the list. --Duffy1990 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cities remain ranked according to 2000, but 2006 estimates are there. In particular, Worcester and Manchester are estimated to have made some gains.--Loodog 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A little humor on Connecticut/NE

Connecticut expelled from New England. Enjoy!--Loodog 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You call it humor, I call it a wish...--71.235.81.32 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for CT west of the CT river to separate from New England anyday! I live in NW CT and I am NOT A NEW ENGLANDER!!! I AM A TRISTATER AND PROUD OF IT!!! Boston could not have any less importance to me or any of western CT! The whole concept of New England is way out of porportion. Did any of you know that CT west of the CT river was part of the Dutch New Netherlands Colony before it was EVER part of the obnoxious region formally known as "New England." And yes, I am a proud western CT native--I AM NOT FROM NY!

P.S. GO NEW YORK GIANTS!!! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.104.14 (talk • contribs)

Editor, please sign your posts with four tildas like so ~~~~. Also, please read the four months of discussion we've already had on this issue.--Loodog (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A new FA

Looking over the old FA candidacy, this article had potential. Fixes can be made. If people are willing to assist me, we could address these concerns and renominate for FA status.--Loodog 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

History

I restored the History section, which was apparently deleted by vandalism in September. However, given the length of this article, it should probably be chopped down to perhaps three paragraphs in a single section, and the details moved to History of New England. -- Beland 07:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

boundaries

Deleted the "culture" section regarding CT in tristate/new england affiliation. If we can produce an OBJECTIVE and pertinent section that provides sources regarding Connecticut and its relation to both New York AND New England (as both are equally significant)- that would be great.

Whoever continues to repost that biased, and erroneous, description of CT heavily trending toward NYC- please desist. It detracts from the rest of the overall quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnskisnow (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the nonsense about road signs an CT/NY DOT, but i'll try to make a point.

I've lived in 3 places in new England for a fair amount of time.

1. Northern-Central CT, Northwest of Hartford. 2. South-Southeast CT, 20 minutes east of New Haven. 3. Boston.

1. Living in Hartford County, most folks would definitely consider themselves "New Englanders" and their hometowns as "New England Towns." While people support New York sports teams and have an affinity for NYC, they still identify themselves and the area as part of New England. Also, in eastern CT (read: Tolland/Windham counties- inc. Storrs/Uconn, Willamantic, etc), it is, without a doubt, identifyably New England. There is very little, any, connection to New York. It is, generally, rural, and in closer proximity to Boston (and the accent leaks over the border in some form- believe it). There is very little NY/Tristate influence here.

2. New Haven and West toward Fairfield and southern Litchfield- definitely more New York Oriented, though locals don't necessarily extinguish the New England identity altogether; the closer one travels to the NY border, more felt is the NY influence. And while Boston has retains some influence (mainly in sports- red sox/patriots, etc) in this area, NYC and NYC-centric media is measurably more prevalent. New York commuters are common along shoreline east and metro north rail lines, and NY plates are commonplace. Geographically, New Haven and west to NY border is definitely more New York-oriented. A relatively small area, it is the most densely populated area of the nutmeg state.

Still, it is hard to argue that once out of the I-95 corridor, especially east and north of New Haven, that the area could be considered "Tri State"- places like Durham, Essex, Killingworth, and on to New London, Mystic, etc are pretty much textbook New England towns in one form or another, and far enough from mass transit areas which would provide greater access to the NYC metro area.

Don't confuse "New England" with Boston or New York influence. Personally, I grew up in a Boston-oriented mindset, but always considered myself a new englander from a small town in CT-- Just like folks in Maine may be influenced by boston, but not have much in common with Bostonians. Folks down on the shore in fairfield/New Haven counties have very different perspectives- and they make up the majority of folks in CT. Personally, i've always felt, along with many, that NH and Fairfield Counties "Aren't connecticut, but really part of New York" and this discussion lends creedence to that. But my opinion is that, geographically and culturally, most of CT is definably New England.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.156.46 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the definition of New England is as being directly linked to modern State boundaries is incorrect. Rather it is a region that is united though a common colonial History which resulted in similar architectural and political aesthetics. This is what truly marks the boundaries of the area. The very name New England refers to the colonial Areas first settled by the English, as opposed to New Dutch, New French, New Spanish, etc... to ignore this is revisionist.

Originally the area referred to as New England comprised a settled costal region that extended from north eastern long Island and western Connecticut, to Southern Maine and claimed dominion over all lands extending to the opposite sea, a distance unexplored. Yes there are states that now contain the New England heritage but the boundaries of such an area are not state boundaries. They are boundaries forged by geologic proximity, weather patterns, and historical connections to England. Mudsoma (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point to keep in mind when discussing the founding and early history of the region, but I'd add three caveats to it:

1. The "six states of New England," which are almost always, in contemporary parlance, defined by their present boundaries, are, except possibly Vermont, the direct successors of the historical colonies. A discussion of New England in the 1700s would benefit by following the settlement definition you offer; a discussion of New England today does not -- any more than Uruguay is appropriate to discussions of modern Spain, or Alsace is appropriate to modern Germany.

2. Building on point 1: In political, cultural and media matters, among others, the inlands of the five coastal New England states -- and the entirety of Vermont -- are more closely associated with classical New England than the "New England" areas outside the six states. Northeastern Connecticut, wilderness in the colonial period, now looks to Hartford and Boston; Cleveland, founded by Connecticut, does not. Geologic proximity or not, Brattleboro and Burlington are closer, psychologically, to New Hampshire and Massachusetts than the Hamptons are.

3. New England, as currently understood, is more than a historical phenomenon; it is a widely recognized regional division of the 21st century United States, in government, commerce, sports, media, etc. It is also the home of a specific and unique governmental structure -- weak counties and the New England town, with the strong tradition of Town Meeting. All of the foregoing exclude Long Island and the Western Reserve; all of the foregoing are defined along state lines. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To throw my 7.4 cents (adjusting for inflation) in, no source says that New England is other than these six states. Therefore, we must accept that "New England" means something different than it used to, rather than its boundaries changing.--Loodog (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.66.33 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. New England is only important to those states that are around Boston as it is the only major city in that region and is the only one with sports teams in the pros. Connecticut on the other hand, is in the New York City Tri-state region , which vandals keep changing in this article in order to promote Boston as the center of their world. The northern part of CT is allied with Boston and Massachusetts dues to proximity, but more of the rest of the state is in the NYC region. Boston propagandist can keep trying to change facts, but they are FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Southwestern Connecticut may be a satellite of New York City. It is closer than Boston, and larger, giving it even more pull. I fully agree that parts of Connecticut are in Greater New York. But New England is an official geographical region comprising all six states. "Boston Propagandists" are not changing the facts to put Connecticut in New England. It's IN New England. Chicago is the largest city and metro area in Illinois but southwestern Illinois pledges allegiance to St. Louis. This does not prevent this sector of the state from being in Illinois. New Haven and westward are part of Greater New York City while being a part of the region of New England. No one places you in the Boston metro, but you are still very much a part of the six-state region. NYC itself views you as part of it. Signs for I-95 Northbound point to New England, not Bridgeport. Like it or not, Connecticut is in New England. Quentinisgod (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense because Illinois is a state whil New England is not. There is no NE metro region and in NE, they all seem to revolve around Boston which we do not here. True signs from NY and 278 in NJ do say New England, BUT I called the NY DOT (NYC controls their own roads and signs) and they said that new England is on the signs because it points to the most recognizable region AFTER NYC region and Boston is too far to put Boston on the sign. In otherwords, CT is an obscure state. However, signs do point towrd New haven and any New England sign is gone and there are no state New England signs in CT. Regardless, CT is in the NYC metro region and we have nothing to do with Boston and we want to keep it that way. No winning Boston sports teams, no NE companies buying up businesses and putting NE on the signs, no Trojan Horse NECN forced on or cable systems, no NE people moving here, no input from Boston people nor anything will ever change that FACT! You may not like it, but it is what it is. When we cross from NY to CT, we do not feel that we are in NE and I doubt that New Englander's not from the area feel that way as well.

Lastly, NYS DOT also has a sign that points to Boston and not New England coming from northern NYS too. So does that mean that when you get to CT you are in Boston? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.187.106 (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From a New Yorker's perspective, CT is most definitely New England, whether you want to accept that or not! You're a New Englander, get over it! 98.221.124.80 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Boston Picture

Is the picture of Boston computer-generated? It sure looks odd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.72.78 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Listings: Schools

The list of private or independent schools had become unreadable. I have edited the section so the interested reader may explore school articles in the same manner as the college section above it, by clicking on the link for a list of schools. This solves the "let's add one more school" problem that the next thousand editors will desire to contribute. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

King James

I've changed the reference to King James "of Britain" to "of England", since union with Scotland occurred a century later. Les woodland (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)les woodland

If you follow the link to King James it clearly states that he was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland before 1606. So even though there wasn't an official union he was still the king of Britain and Ireland. It is a very Anglo-centric view to just call him the King of England and ignore the fact that he was the king of Scotland and Ireland too. Perhaps don't use the word Britain but not to mention that King James was the king of Scotland and Ireland too is very misleading.

Jamestown

I suggest that the Jamestown stuff be compressed into one throwaway sentence. Article is supposed to be about New England not colonial history generally. That can be covered (and is covered I'm sure) elsewhere at length. We shouldn't 'require a pointer to the main Jamestown article from here. There shouldn't be the slightest hint of competitive remarks IMO!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Baseball reference

"The earliest known written reference to the sport of baseball is a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts by-law banning the playing of the game within 80 yards of the town's new meeting house" this line is incorrect as an earlier reference was found in the Sussex village of Rudgwick (England) on 9th July 2007. The written reference dated baseball back to 1755 being played by William Bray of Shere in Surrey (England). http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6286200/6286244.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&nol_storyid=6286244&bbcws=1 http://www.stoolball.co.uk/news/article.php?item=107 (scroll down to “An early mention of baseball in Surrey”) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwilliamson85 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't get the BBC media file to open. I read what it says on stoolball.co.uk, but we can't base encyclopedia articles on offhand remarks in chatty newsletters. Are there any other sources for this? --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to believe it, but the article Baseball has the following quotes with a number of footnotes which I didn't check: "Several references to "baseball" and "bat-and-ball" have been found in British and American documents of the early eighteenth century.[3] The earliest known description is in a 1744 British publication, A Little Pretty Pocket-Book, by John Newbery.[4] It contains a wood-cut illustration of boys playing "base-ball," showing a baseball set-up roughly similar to the modern game, and a rhymed description of the sport. The earliest known unambiguous American discussion of "baseball" was published in a 1791 Pittsfield, Massachusetts, town bylaw that prohibited the playing of the game within 80 yards (70 m) of the town's new meeting house.[5]" So I think it is clear that Pittsfield still has the claim for earliest in America. {Brits invented baseball! Who knew?  :} Student7 (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball did not fucking start in England!

New York

No mention of New York in this article? I thought when people said "New York/New England" it meant that New York was a part of New England. Why wouldn't it be, in any event?

It isn't. See the definition.--Loodog (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. Why does the article say something along the lines of "Boston is considered to be the cultural and historical capital of New England, though today New York City exerts strong influence on the region's southwest corner?" This is yet another attempt from Boston to make their city seem more than what it is. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not NY and CT always where they are more or less geographically? Does not NYC exerts a strong influence on the NATION? When has Boston exerted any influence on CT and especially the NYC region of the state? Lastly, we in CT do not view our SW corner as the SW corner of New England, it is the SW corner of CT OR the NE corner of the NYC Tri-state region. I know people in Boston may love their city, but it is not true and not possible that Boston could have ANY influence on CT.

In northern CT, it does since they are near the MA border and no where in the NYC area, and they have no transportation to get to NYC other than by car. They also do not pull in NYC/NJ radio stations, TV stations (except the YES Network) and other media. They also do not get any from Boston as well except for the FORCED NECN and NESN cable channels. In the north, they do deal with Boston, but mainly because of the popularity and success of it's sports teams as of late. Boston is still a great distance even from Hartford even though they have signs that say "Boston" on them and we have signs that say "NY City" down here without any MA or New England area ever mentioned.

Well, I just don't like the way the article tries to rewrite OUR history and tells the article from a Boston point of view. CT in general does not view itself as one of those New England states. Anytime it is mentioned, people are not seeing it relating to CT. Of course now that Boston sports teams are doing very well, you have some who want to jump on the bandwagon, but when the Yankees win again, they will be back on NYC. The truth is, Boston never had any influence on CT and NYC was always near CT - it did not just move there! What makes any of you think that a city (NYC) that is the love and envy of the NATION would NOT have a VERY strong influence on a state that is 15 minutes away, versus a city (Boston) that is over 3 HOURS away? Everything in CT is connected with NYC, while NOTHING in CT is connected with Boston. It is hard for the New Englander or someone from other parts of the country to understand this, but it is what it is. Subjective articles that want to infer that Boston USED to have a grip on CT is all out wrong and does a disservice to this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong with your statement. Connecticut is a New England state, plain and simple. It has always been a New England state, so calling it as such is hardly rewriting history. If anything you're trying to "rewrite history" by claiming that as incorrect. Second for someone claiming that the state disowns a connection to the rest of New England, I find it awfully strange that Connecticut was so interested in wooing the New England Patriots to Hartford several years ago. Also, the former NHL team, the Hartford Whalers, was also originally known as the New England Whalers. Third, New York is not at all the love and envy of the nation. You don't represent your entire state and the opinions of some people do not overrule facts. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The city of Hartford also advertises itself as "New England's Rising Star". [1] - Zomic13 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tparaiso (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I agree with zomic13. Boston is located in a central area of New England, and towns such as Plymouth led to the foundation of Boston. New York City was originally occupied by the Dutch-2 different cultures. Plymouth was founded by Protestants and such wanting a new religion. Also, we can consider PARTS of New York New England. Vermont was originally a part of New York state.

Well, CT was not always a New England state as it was not always a state. CT is in the NYC METRO region plain and simple. As for the tired story about the Patriots, CT was trying to get ANY NFL team, not just eh Patriots. It just so happened that the Patriots were not a good team at the time and were able to be used for a move. However, Patriots owner Kraft just used CT to get a new stadium. Never forget his quote after the stadium deal was done: "...It is good to have the Patriots stay where they belong - in the REAL New England." You only say someone like that if you felt the CT was not real, meaning in the NYC area.

Hartford as "New England's Rising Star" was already mentioned because they are near the MA border. Hartford may be the capital, but they are no where near the cultural capital of CT, that honor goes to New Haven and the rest of the 203 part of the state - the REAL CT. Is Albany the cultural capital of NY? Is Trenton the cultural capital of NJ? Boston IS t he cultural capital of MA,, so maybe you confuse your culture for ours. We are not you and you certainly are not us. We are on the NYC Metro NORTH line - no Boston here. Get the facts straight my friend.

I do know that NYS east of the Hudson seems to consider itself New England. I know that north of CT, they are Boston sports fans. So you may want to add them and keep us out of your wretched culture and corny region.

Wow. Are you kidding? New England is a legal region of the United States! You cannot change that! No one is arguing with the fact that New York City has a greater pull over the majority of Connecticut's population than Boston does. Boston is the largest city within New England, but a massive city just outside of the region would clearly have a great deal of influence over anyone near it. I know for a fact that Northern and Eastern parts of Connecticut are influenced by Boston in some way. Windham County is located between Worcester and Providence, both satellites of Boston. I'd say Hartford is split between Boston and New York, which may not be the most important city in the state but is one of the most important.

But Connecticut's proximity to Boston has as little to do with it being part of New England as Cleveland's proximity to Chicago has to do with it being part of the Midwest. Not all of New England is Greater Boston. Northern Maine is about 8 hours away from Boston but it is still very much a part of New England. If you are in the six states defined as New England, you are in New England. Even New York City considers Southwestern Connecticut part of New England. Look at a sign for I-95 North in the city. Not only is it called the "New England Thruway" northeast of the city, but signs in the city point to New England. Did you ever stop to think you could be in the Tri-State Area while being in New England? Because all sources define you as being in both. And any animosity you may have toward Boston is not going to change that. Quentinisgod (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my friend, I have contacted the NYS DOT and advised them that there is no state called New England and the signs should point to a state, which would be CT. They have agreed and the signs are gone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, NOT for use as a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, I am getting tired of these people who keep trying to lump CT into the New England region and take us out of our NY area. The artice keeps getting changed around to hide the fact that CT is in the NY area. Only in New Engand is it not known. In CT it is common place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.192.139 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Is everyone in the state of Connecticut too thick-headed to realize that they live in New England? This has nothing to do with "Boston Propagandists" as some morons wrote previously. I'm going to try and put this as simply as possible. Part of your state IS in Greater New York. But ALL of your state is part of New England. That is not me saying that. The U.S. Census Bureau defines New England as all six states. I don't care if you want to live in New England or not. You do. Why do you people argue with facts? Quentinisgod (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Too FUNNY!!! Most people from Mass I've met (or the other NE states) consider CT just to be an extension of NY. The only people seeming to want to include us in Boston's sphere of influence are those Boston TV broadcasters grubbing around for cash and, apparently, Wikipedia editors from MA with an agenda. Culturally, much of Connecticut is more like NY than MA. There's no denying it. The way people talk (with NY or NY influenced accents, yes, those people are born here), dress, socialize, behave, where they work (NYC cough cough), etc... Ya know, maybe CT should just FORMALLY quit New England, so all you snooty Boston folks can have your pure, white-washed region clean of us nasty New York area filth who apparently don't know anything about their own state and own region. It would be so much simpler. Connecticut should be considered a Mid-Atlantic state now, what half-way decent state would want to associate with snobby, racist, provincial, self-righteous New Englanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.155.92 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

WP:OR means that we cannot construct statistics for other researchers. We can report what other scholarly researchers have observed. This keeps Wikipedia from being a blog of random facts that an editor has merely observed. Facts must be reported by others before we can report them here. This gives our documentation a certain authenticity that mere random observations do not. Student7 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"If New England were one state, its population would rank 5th in the nation, behind Florida. Its land area, at 62,808.96 sq mi (162,672.45 km²), would rank 21st, behind Washington and ahead of Georgia." What do you call that? WP:OR "... unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." This is none of the above. These true, simple, uncontroversial statistics that are easily verifiable, as do NOT constitute any kind of research or opinion. I even provided a source for the number of electoral votes in case the reader can't add.

It's also hardly a WP:CRYSTAL ball to report polls for upcoming elections, especially with such wide margins.--Loodog (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Polling is prediction. Along with the electoral vote it appears to be an attempt to create controversy where none should exist. Wikipedia is not terribly strong in reporting the past. We have enough trouble with the Crusades, which were along time ago.

We have no idea what is happening today despite breathless newscasters who try to tell us but forget to tell us where they screwed up yesterday. If polling were an exact science you wouldn't need daily newscasts. Newscasters would come on Sunday. Tell you what was going to happen the rest of the week. Then not come on til the following Sunday! Polling is awful. You like polls? Try this one:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/05/aol-straw-poll-june-5-june-13/

And, as an experienced editor, you should know that Wikipedia does not accept blogs.

A scholarly reference must say what you are trying to say, more maybe, but no less. "Enhancing" a reference is violating WP:OR. That is the job of the people reading this, not writing it. We provide the dots. They connect them. If we connect them, they have nothing to do. Student7 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text "Collectively, New England has as many electoral votes (34) as Texas." is simple math and not WP:OR; it is a statement that can be verified by multiple reliable sources so it doesn't need a cite. Also, reporting polls is fine if the polling company has an established reputation and/or the polls are referred by reliable sources. WP:Crystal refers to editors or non-notable third party speculation; polls and notable third party opinion about future events is acceptable if reliable references are provided. JRSP (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point of my link, which shows we clearly DO report polling data.

And whether this the source is a blog or the New York Times is irrelevant here because you're forgetting the reason for reliable sources. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Do you honestly doubt that New England has 34 electoral votes? Or do you need more sources?--Loodog (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he needs some more sources! -Zomic13 (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Being ironic won't help you solve your disputes folks, so please keep away from this and be respectful of your fellow editors. Also, please be aware that although citing polls is OK, synthesizing poll results is original research unless that synthesis is made by a secondary reliable source, so please check if the claim is clearly stated by source and if the source is reliable. In case of doubt about reliability, you can ask at WP:RS/N. JRSP (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Irony may not solve anything, but it sure is fun. Anyways, there are two issues being discussed and they've become blended together and hard to distinguish in the above conversations. The first is the listing of New England as having 34 electoral votes (which is what the ironic list of sources is for). Student7 has been arguing that we can not list the number of electoral votes as it is original research. We're arguing that it is hardly original research as it is easily citable by a number of sources. The second debate is regarding polling data. I personally do not know much about the issue with that, so I can't really say much about it. -Zomic13 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's settled now anyway.--Loodog (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Trivial arithmetic now requires third-party sourcing?! Ridiculous! 121a0012 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:OR, but the part about deliberate constitution inflation of the power of smaller states may have been unnecessary and irrelevant to this section, as I felt the Texas insertion was in the first place. With the population totals added, readers can come up with their own questions and answers. Providing population totals is no more irrelevant that providing electoral totals. Student7 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Region

"Region" is listed in the first line of this article. Far from being a bellwether, New England has been, for lack of size, nearly irrelevant except for the 1960 election. I admit there was once the phrase "As goes Maine, so goes the nation." This was switched by wags after the landslide 1936 election to read, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont!" But that just affected one state, not the entire region.

I think NE is virtually irrelevant. It's understandable that most people in most states want to think that they are "important." That's what led to the nonsense primary season where everyone tried to be first. But it is true that some states and (to a much lesser extent probably) some regions are better than others.

My state, Florida, tried to be "first" and merely loused up the race. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Florida is not a bellwether state for primaries. Swing state for general, but that is another matter.

Note that both areas, NE and Florida are at geographical peripheries. That may have something to do with it, I don't know. (And yes, so are a lot of other states "at the periphery, so that may not be it alone). Political news is not created in either place much nor are news organizations located there. Nor is Hollywood, etc.

And (I also live in NE) I don't think that objective reflection would put NE as a bellwether region either. Rather the reverse for Vermont and probably other states. I am not convinced there is a bellwether region. It used to be the South from 1932 to 1992 or so, but no longer. But certainly not New England. Just look at the record!

And remember, I "just added up electoral votes" here. That is all I did.

If you've followed my editing record, I have been quick to add where NE has excelled (health is one I remember adding). And I wasn't "quick" to add this one but felt rather forced to by circumstatnces. When an area (state) is at the bottom (well, not bottom, but simply followers), this ought to be pointed out as well.

I've got the same problem when reporting underperforming schools somewhere. Everyone wants to be told that their schools are "better than average" and the local news media (and state board of education!) cooperates by presenting "statistics" to prove just that. Unfortunately, half the schools perform in the lower half of all schools! And half of the regions of the country are not as vital (because they follow everyone else) as the upper half! Or simply don't have enough votes. NE has grown more slowly than any other region of the country since 1900. Something has to give. And it did. Clout. Student7 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying goes well beyond simple addition. Feel free to include any of it you can source. I would contest that the states have no relevance politically. They made the difference in 2000 when Gore won. Or anyway Florida wouldn't have been worth contesting without New England's votes. New Hampshire is also unique in that it's been a bellweather for every election between 1980 and 2000, even going against the other NE states in 2000, which is why its primary has such enormous relevance for a state with 4 votes. Also, you have elections like 1972, 1976, 1980, 1988, and of course, 2000, when the region didn't vote as a bloc, so the situation is more complicated than you're making it to be.

As for irrelevance, excepting 2000, there hasn't been a close race since 1976, so if you're going to call NE irrelevant, there are a lot of states/regions that would fit the criteria. I'd venture to guess that the majority of states in the country are indeed irrelevant in most elections.--Loodog (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the second debate seemingly aimed at disrupting the editign of the article started by Student7, and it is stretching WP:AGF. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're stretching WP:AAGF. We're staying civil and I'm not contesting the edits because of who's making them. I don't see the problem.--Loodog (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess my point was that once a region becomes "predictable" as Texas, California, Massachusetts, Alabama, often are, they lose the status of "bellwether." Florida did vote for Carter in 1976 and Clinton (I think) in 1996. Not really a bellwether now I don't think. New Jersey once was for awhile, I thought. Today: predictable. Anyway, you see where this is going.Student7 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. The region has solidified into "we vote Democrat" in the last four elections, with the exception of the independent New Hampshire. But after primary season, no one comes back to make sure they've got those 4 votes. The South, the Pacific, the Great Plains, are all similarly uninteresting. It's the Midwest and the Ohio River Valley doing the talking these days. Of course, the interesting thing is how the map changes in a decade. This whole obvious Red State/Blue State thing didn't emerge until recently.--Loodog (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to renege on my understanding of "region." Outside of New England, there is no consensus on any of the other regions of the country. I was quite surprised. Anyway, this probably ought to be stated somewhere (no, not under politics! ). Not sure about a lucid reference other than there only dissonance when you try to look up anything else. There is no agreement on what constitutes "the South" for example. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not as exact, no. It's still a politically predictable region, as is the Great Plains.--Loodog (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

New England is, for whatever reason, the only multi-state region of the US with a rock solid, universally agreed upon definition. Probably something to do with colonial politics. This might warrant a mention somewhere in the article, perhaps. Pfly (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The only thing I could find in articles only documents regional confusion. This supports our hypothesis, but is "negative referencing." That is, lack of a definition for other regions is unfortunately not clear cut proof that none exists. Perhaps someone will run across a good reference someplace.Student7 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear student7, I am Trevor Paraiso and am a highly ranked member of the National Commitee on Historic Events and their Markins (Not the real name). I live in massachusetts and agree with your point. But don't write in the NE section if you don't know a damn thing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tparaiso (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls

While the poll may be correct for New England, most experts confess that polls aren't much good in predicting close elections for two well-known reasons: cell phones aren't listed and have reached rather large numbers, and people are refusing to answer. The polling company, which selected its sample quite scientifically, is now stuck with processing "what's left," which may no longer be a scientific poll anymore. But they are in the business and don't really want to put too fine a point on that fact. So the term "reliable poll" may have now attained the status of oxymoron except for landslides which anyone could have predicted without the poll! Student7 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is original research. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And VOIP, I forgot that. Here's one industry seminar on solving the problem. I didn't read to the end of the article. I would imagine that they concluded that it was solvable!  :) http://www.dc-aapor.org/documents/NRWorkshopReport.pdf

But it's all over the web and in daily print media. Sorry. Not something I invented! Student7 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an interesting thing is that futures markets consistently outperform polls, with a smaller and more homogenuous sample of people. You can essentially buy shares of "Obama wins" or "McCain wins" at equal prices. Shares of the winning candidate become worth $1 and the losing candidate become worth $0.--Loodog (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Single state comparison

I don't know how much further an editor intends to carry this "if NE was a single state" analogies. If it were a single state, it would only have two senators. And probably fewer representatives as well! Compare to countries? Student7 (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's my thought process. Oh, NE's GNP is $623 billion. Wait, what does that mean? Enormous numbers are useless without comparison.--Loodog (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"No mountains in Rhode Island"

This brings up a point. There is no geology entry (geologic history) in this article. And sometimes not much of one in the state entries which could be used to construct a NE one. I'm guessing that the "last" glacier (Lorentian?) did not reach Rhode Island. WP claims it got to "45 degrees" and a good portion of NE is below that. 45 degrees may work out west but not in the east, so the main article on the last glacier (no I can't now remember which one! ) will need changing. But first the NE states, then NE! Student7 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Laurentide ice sheet did indeed cover all of New England, including Rhode Island--you can see a map of its extent here:[2]

I'm not qualified to write a geologic section, but I agree that such a section would be useful. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nom

If someone's willing to help me standardize the refs and find sources for the tags, I'd be willing to nominate this one for GA status.--Loodog (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

London companies compete

I reverted an edit which deleted information about the initial competing efforts of the two parts of the London Company at Jamestown and Popham. The fact that the initial effort at Jamestown was successful (due to tobacco) and Popham wasn't is significant. I feel it is worthy of inclusion, without a lot of elaboration or space wasted. Anyone who wants to read more about all that can go to the links we ahve provided. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the success or lack of same by Jamestown is germane to the New England colony. The latter stands alone in this article. The competition which ensued is definitely of interest, but it just doesn't go here IMO. Okay to mention that there was unnamed "business pressure" on the New England colony to produce, but the reasons for that can be obscure in this article. An interested reader can go to articles which specialize in just that sort of explanation. I think the article should be trimmed even more. The fact that there was a southern boundary which may have helped to define exactly where New England is today is germane. We don't necessarily care what entity was south of that line! It distracts from the main theme. Worse, once allowed, it lets in a lot of other distractions - the New England contribution to westward expansion for example which we don't care about either except for loss of manpower!!11:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I will concede the current issue; No insult intended, and I am willing to apologize for any ruffled feathers. However, I do think the fact that the first attempts were primarily to make money, and that the later, much more successful one in New England involved religious refugees could have some meaningful significance. In my writing in other articles, I have pointed out that the English colonists up north did a much better job of getting along with the natives already there than the Jamestown-based venture that wiped out the Powhatan Confederacy in less than 40 years. However, the fact that in your revision you don't even have an internal link to Jamestown remaining after deleting my earlier work in this article speaks for itself as parochial POV. Vaoverland (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Student7. What should be in this article should be very short and terse. The level of detail you're talking about is more appropriate to History of New England.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry was well written. I agree that the pre-pilgrim immigration was more mercenary-oriented in NE.

My version is deliberately parochial. I recommend parochialism for all articles. I am not as broadminded as Loodog and would prefer not to see it in New England History either. I think it belongs in some separate article which may be pointed to in both or one NE article (and probably from other articles as well). I can think of one title, but there have to be many better ones: "Early colonial competition (America)." (Okay. Pretty lame  :). Student7 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I just read over it again, and it's not relevant this article for the same reason an article about Chicago wouldn't mention the history of New York City.--Loodog (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

References

I plead guilty to "lazy man references." Are you sure they must be formatted for FA? Student7 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How about just "naming" them? I was leaving it up to the 'bot, but they don't seem to have activated it lately. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, one of the quickest ways any FA-nom article gets rejected is a quick observation of non-standardized refs. All sources should be cited with {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates, including url, title, publisher, accessdate, and, if provided, an author.--Loodog (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Montreal

If we're going to mention New York City's influence on southwestern Connecticut, I think that Montreal deserves some mentioning also. There tends to be the impression by many that there is nothing north of the American border however, this could not be more untrue. I feel in the same vein as New York City in regard to Connecticut, that Montreal, and by extension, Quebec's influence on northern Vermont, and even northern New Hampshire, and northern Maine should merit some discussion. Northern New England is heavily influenced by this region. For example, many of the major broadcast stations in northern New England originate from Montreal, or advertise that they broadcast to Montreal. Many Northern New Englanders, if not a majority in some areas, can trace their herritage to Quebec. I see more Quebec license plates than Massachusetts plates in my local shopping mall's parking lot; and in my experience, there are more Canadiens fans in this area than Bruins fans. In many respects, Northern New England is more identifiable with Montreal than Boston.

192.149.109.70 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)BM

What kind of point is that? You only find a good number of Canadians fans in Vermont and northwest Maine and New Hampshire. Once you get to Bristol County, Barnstable County, and Plymouth County in Massachusetts you don't find a reallistic Montreal Canadiens fan base. When you are in southern Rhode Island and Conecticut, you have a much better chance finding Devils, Islanders, and Rangers fans. And they hate the Canadiens too! What Eastern Confrence team does not hate them? Tparaiso (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the argument that there are more Yankees fans in SW Connecticut works for the New York City argument and there being more Canadiens fans in Vermont doesn't work for the Montreal argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Key difference: much of Connecticut's population is an official part of the New York metropolitan area, none of northern Vermont could be remotely considered a part of the Greater Montreal Area.--Loodog (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The United States does not denote metropolitan areas outside of its own borders, nor does Canada; however, this is not to say that there is absolutely no relationship between the two. Quebec is Vermont's largest trading partner-10% of Vermont's GDP are exports to Quebec, and 38% of Quebec's are exports to the Vermont Border. [3] and the border crossings are among the busiest on the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about these embedded discussions within an already existing discussion. I find them confusing, but I could not find any indication of trade in the document you pointed to which was a mutual expression of two c-of-cs. The actual figures we have in the Vermont article suggest more like a 20% GDP from Vermont. 38% from Quebec sounds really high. With the St. Lawrence, Quebec does quite a bit of international trade and with states west of Vermont. I am very surprised at the high figure, though traffic has picked up a lot from the north, no doubt about that! Maybe the rest of New England?

If you have another reference with the figures you mentioned, I would like to look at it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe the poster said "to the Vermont Border" for a reason. Maybe 38% goes through Vermont. Also, if you google Quebec-Vermont Corridor the first hit takes you to numbers that look like those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Except I didn't mention it as a matter of definition; look at what I said above: no one in his right mind would consider any part of northern Vermont a part of the Greater Montreal Area.

As a matter of definition; Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont are part of New France-whose center of power undoubtedly rests in Montreal, they are just as much part of New France as Fairfield County is part of the Tri-State Region.

No one in his or her right mind would consider any part of northern Vermont a part of the Greater Boston Area either. When you get down to it-northern Vermont has more to do with Montreal than Boston; so why say that Boston exerts more influence on northern Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont when it doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The New France remark is a good one and needs further exploration. There had to be some reason the French were fighting the British in New England!

Northern Vermonters on the eastern side are rapid Red Sox fans. The turnpikes were constructed, politically, I suppose, 91 leads to 93 which easily leads into Boston. The people in the northeast corner definitely do not look either to Montreal (even if French) or to Albany or any other place (except sometimes Burlington, inside the state) for culture. Since colonial times, the roads being nearly impassable through New Hampshire, stagecoaches from Boston to Montreal came through northeastern Vermont.

Culture is a tricky thing to measure, but when I want to go to a rock concert I go to the Bell Centre, not Memorial Auditorium in Burlington or the Garden in Boston. If I want to see some fine performing arts, I go to Place des Arts, not the Wang Center in Boston, or-I have no idea where I'd see the symphony in Vermont. This is kind of anecdotal evidence, but the lack of venues in Vermont speaks numbers for itself, Montreal has the advantage of a larger scale of economy than Vermont in that respect.

Not to carry this too far, I will grant you that it is more reasonable for people in the Burlington area (and Burlington metro area) to go to Montreal than Boston for anything cultural except plays, perhaps. And that is a large portion of the people in Vermont. However, eastern Vermonters don't go to Montreal. Some go to Sherbrooke to shop but that is about it. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC

I do agree that many people in the NEK go to Sherbrooke more often than Montreal (perhaps we could say that it is to the same extent that Rhode Islanders visit Providence more often than Boston, but still are within the sphere of its influence), but I feel it would be wise to ere on the side of conservatism and only include first tier cities.

For serious flying, northeastern Vermonters go to Manchester (sometimes Burlington), with Boston admittedly a reluctant backup - not flyer friendly - or Hartford. A very very few people on the western side of the state might choose to fly from Albany. But never from Montreal with the border nuisance, currency exchange and poor connections. Even though Montreal is closer.Student7 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Border nuisance? I'll admit it's annoying to stop at the border crossings for 90 seconds but, Canadians come to Burlington Int'l and Plattsburgh Int'l all the time; they even market themselves as "Montreal's U.S. Airport"[4]. Also, I-91 leads to Autoroute 10 which easily leads into Montreal.

The ancestors of eastern Vermonters came from the rest of New England (usually New Hampshire) with the exception of the French who have mostly intermarried since their immigration.Student7 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's still a pretty large exception, open a phonebook in Vermont and you'll see.

My last name would be among those you would label "French" but we haven't spoken French for several generations. Intermarriage. My brother married a woman whose first language was French. The kids don't speak Canadian French, however (waited until high school so they could learn to speak it "properly"!). Student7 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC

I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to label anyone. It was my intention however, to draw a cultural portrait of Vermont, and in doing such, some generalities must be made. The point was that the largest portion of Vermonters identify themselves as french canadian, which I would gather did not immigrate from New England. Of course all other minorities outnumber french canadians slightly, but French Canadians are still the largest portion nonetheless.

My point was that the French-Canadians have so largely assimilated that they are no longer easily able to maintain cultural ties with Quebec as they did a generation ago. They've lost the language. They do not "act" culturally different from New Englanders except for often being Catholic. That is pretty much it. An annual gathering of French-Canadians where French was spoken. dances performed, etc. died to everybody's chagrin, but people had stopped supporting it. And they support the Boston Red Sox like everyone else!  :) Student7 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC

There are pockets of "flatlanders" (that term is used lightly) and there are pockets where the majority of people actually do speak french throughout northern New England. I'm not sure if Nashua, New Hampshire is considered northern New England now but, people in the North Country certainly do act different culturally from southern New Englanders (also, religion is a huge part of ones life if one chooses), ask anyone who moved north from Boston or New York, they moved there because people do not act like southern New Englanders or New Yorkers. Nobody in Montreal dances la bastringue and wears fleur des lis blouses in the streets anymore, they're westernized into some semblance of what makes sense to them, just like most of the rest of North America (albeit they do have that certain "Je ne sais quoi"). I'd have to pose the question that if one could find anglophone French Canadians in Montreal, why can't they be found in Northern New England also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.69 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about New France. Mostly on paper. Some trappers overlapping with English trappers. No colonists. That was eventually the problem - no support in the area. French had a lot of trouble getting colonists which eventually doomed their control of Canada, to say nothing of New England. Student7 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

former part of the above discussion, interrupted by insertion of new remarks above them

As for the border crossing point: (1) I would be very doubtful if Canada-Vermont crossings were in the top 10 for border crossings on the continent, (2) You've provided no source for this, (3) Influence is not defined by border crossings, at least not nearly as well as commuting patterns, which is the basis for Western Connecticut being a part of the NYC metro area.--Loodog (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Over 2 million border crossings occur at the three U.S. border gates that exist in the vicinity of the BMHSR Corridor: Champlain-Rouses

Pt., New York, Highgate Springs, Vermont and Richford, Vermont."--Boston to Montreal High Speed Rail Feasability Study, Rydership Analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Plattsburgh calls itself "Montreal's US Suburb" [5]

1) I live in Vermont and I doubt that Montreal is more important to Vt than (say) Massachusetts (which takes most of Vermont's dairy produce BTW). 2) Not applicable to the rest of NE and therefore not this article, but most importantly, 3) emphasizing places outside of New England is contra-indicated. The article is about New England. Student7 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I've lived in Plattsburgh, New York, 20 minutes from Canada and 70 miles from Montreal (closer to Montreal than any town in Vermont except Alburg). The limit of interaction we got was that the Canadians would come down Sundays to shop in the malls and they'd cross the border to buy cheap gas. There was far more interaction with Burlington than Montreal, including commuting. Montreal was background.--Loodog (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1) There's no dispute that Vermont is a state of many regions, The town of Alburgh, is literally seperated from the rest of the USA by Lake Champlain, and connected only to Quebec. The Upper Valley Area probably doesn't have as strong of a connection to Quebec, than it does New Hampshire; Bennington to Albany, and Brattleboro to Keene. The original statement regarding Montreal, is that Northern Vermont is more closely associated with Montreal, than Boston. 2) I believe the original statement was in reference to New York City being associated with SE Connecticut. New York is not part of New England however, it is included in this article. Why should New York get such esteem while it is not in New England, and Montreal (which also is not in New England) can't?. If we're going to allow a city outside of New England be emphasized (which is in fact, contra-idicated), why not make a whole list of them? Woodstock, NB is more influential on Houlton, ME; Magog, QC is more influential on Newport, VT; Glens Falls, NY is more influential on Castleton, VT. 3) The point of whether Region X is within Metropolitan Region Y is moot. Not all of Maine is within a metropolitan area, however this article is making the claim that it is closely related to Boston, than anyplace else. That reasoning excludes a large portion of the area that this article claims to represent. I'm sure citizens of Houlton, ME visit New Brunswick much more often than they do Massachusetts. 4a.) Commuting patterns are (in terms of the US Census anyway) defined by border crossings-crossing from one census tract to another. People from Connecticut cross the border into New York, that's how it's measured. So, a reasonable person could conclude that border crossings are a legitimate method of measuring traffic flow. 4b.) Whether or not Vermont Border Crossings are in the top 10 or not isn't important. The statement was one of relativity, it did not claim that Vermont border crossings are among the top 10. There are several border crossings, even the 20th most busy is still substantial. The proposed BMHSR high-speed rail line addresses the issue that the Highgate Springs border crossing is busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you were nice enough to enumerate your points, I'll respond to all of them:

1. Yes, Alburgh does represent a particular and singular case of not being in much contact with most of New England, but you would actually go through New York to get to Montreal while driving the rural 1hr 10mins to get there.
2. I'll refer you to the contentious debate had on this issue. It was consensus we agreed upon because a good amount of people legitimately complained that in Stamford, or Bridgeport, for example, they root for NY teams, commute to NYC for work, read NY newspapers, periodicals, watch NY broadcasts, news, and media. These people (rightfully) thought it absurd to be part of a region whose traditional influence was Boston. There are three counties in Connecticut that are a part of the NYC metro area, they're a part of the NYC commuter belt. NY is a city of 8,000,000 people, the city proper of which is 20 densely populated miles away from Connecticut. Contrast with 2,000,0000, 80 rural country miles and an international border away.
3. Yes, it's true most of NE is not a part of Greater Boston, but you will find intangible cultural reminders of Boston in Maine such as the accent, cuisine, architecture, and government practices (such as town meetings). Things which make New England, at all definable as a region.
4. a) Border crossings do not define commuting patterns. Daily border crossings during daytime hours do. b) (1) You still provide no source and (2) How "busy" something is can only be even talked about in relative terms.

Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC

Why do people keep saying that all of New England sprang from Boston or because of Boston? The first settlement in Vermont was French, not English. Jacques Cartier came down the Richelieu to the Champlain Valley, not colonists from Massachusetts. Vermont pretty much established itself before any immigrants from the south arrived.

Do you have any sources for how much border traffic there is? Any of the New England to Canada crossings probably do not even come close to the level of employment interchange between southwestern Connecticut and the NYC area. If you compare tourist traffic alone between Connecticut and New York, it may be comparable to say Vermont to Quebec traffic. But this tourist flow is dwarfed by the daily worker flow in both directions between the NYC area and Fairfield County (in the tens of thousands every day). This is why the NYC area has special mention as a major influence on a small part of the region. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't have traffic but article today said there is $4 billion worth of commerce between Vermont and Quebec. Both directions total. I suppose Vermont does have more than any other NE state. But that info (therefore) belongs in the Vermont article and not here. Student7 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in Montreal, and I work in downtown Montreal. I'd say about 10% of the my coworkers are from Vermont or New York. If I walk down Sainte Catherine Street (which is one of our major pedestrian streets), there are tons of Vermonters, New Hampshire-ites (sorry, I couldn't find out how to call a person from New Hampshire from the Wikipedia article)and New Yorkers; sometimes it feels like there's more of them than us. VTrans [[6]], and the AMT [[7]] offer commuter buses several times a day to Burlington, as well as Montpelier, and White River Junction (and they are packed); and there's been talk of extending the commuter rail to Burlington. I'd say if need warrents a commuter service to and from Vermont and Montreal, there must be a substantial amount of commuters. Montrealers (the ones I know anyway) consider Grand Isle, Chittenden, Franklin, Orleans, Essex, Lamoille, and Washington Counties in Vermont, and Franklin, St. Lawrence, and Essex Counties in New York, as part of the 'Montreal Area'. You see it on the regional tourist maps all over the place. When I can, I do most of my shopping in Burlington, and Plattsburgh, and when I fly, I try to fly out of Burlington Int'l [[8]] or Plattsburgh Int'l [[9]].192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Jean

Also, I don't know where the 80 miles came from, but the Vermont is 42.9 miles away. As for the $4 billion worth of commerce, I don't know if that's true, but Vermont is a small state, $4 billion must be a large portion of the state's income. No wonder they love us192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Jean

You speak of how NE has many tangible ties to Boston, which I don't doubt-I love Boston, but there are tangible ties to Montreal as well. I live in Vermont, and I have an OPUS card,in my purse, and I'm sure if I ask my girlfriends, they'll have one too. I do not have a Boston accent, although I think it's cute, I in fact, speak french-like in Montreal. I go to the supermarket, and people are speaking in french. Quebec also has town meetings, my town's sister town, Saint-Georges has one, I went to it. If I remember from my history classes, Vermont was once part of New France. I work in a bank, about half of our patrons are Quebeckers. There are cultural ties to Quebec everywhere in this state.192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Steph

Anectodal evidence is not sufficient. You may be right but we need to cite sources. Is the level of employment interchange really high enough so as to consider parts of Vermont a suburb of Montreal and parts of Quebec as suburbs of say Burlington? --Polaron | Talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We appreciate that Quebec influences Vermont, but the basis for the inclusion of NYC is the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Connecticuters who daily go to NY to work, creating one of the ugliest and most congested routes in the country. Rather than proposals for commuter rails, we have the 384 miles (618 km) third-busiest commuter rail system in the country, reaching as far as New Haven and Waterbury (one third of the distance across the state), with some of the busiest stations being in Connecticut. The two are simply incommensurable, and differ by orders of magnitude.--Loodog (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While Metro North is the third largest commuter rail system in the country, Metro North includes New York State as well as Connecticut. The New Haven line, from the wikipedia article on it has 110,000 commuters daily. It's true that Vermont doesn't have a commuter rail to Montreal-yet, it's commuter bus system is present. The WRJ-Burlington-Montreal line (which is the entire width of the state fyi) carries a little less than 25,000 (acording to the website Jean provided for us). I didn't look at the numbers for the Newport bus line, as it doesn't directly connect the Northeast Kingdom to the Montreal area. In terms of total numbers, Connecticut has more commuters, but Connecticut has about 5 times the population of Vermont anyway. So proportionately, the 110,000 commuters in the two counties (Fairfield and New Haven) Metro North serves is: 6.5% of the populatioin of the counties. The 25,000 commuters in the four counties in Vermont (Franklin, Chittenden, Washington, and Orange) that VTrans serves is 8.9% of thier population. 192.149.109.70 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Michael Martin

I appreciate what you're saying, but how busy a connection is not weighted on the size of the communities served. If we started doing that, we'd start concluding that Interstate 95 between Stamford and NYC was less busy than Interstate 89 between Montpelier and Barre. Large populations are the reason for high traffic. So, if we go by your statistics which you haven't provided sources for, the mass transit connections in NY are more than 4 times as busy. Pile on top of that congested traffic from multiple 6-lane Interstates and the comparison isn't even worth considering.--Loodog (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that 25,000 figure (can you link to the source?) and suspect it is an annual ridership for the entire transit system which you're comparing to a daily ridership. Again, if you can source your figures and show that that a reasonably large fraction of employed Vermont residents do in fact work in Canada or that a reasonably large fraction of the employment in Vermont is accounted for by Canadian residents, then you may have a point. Worker flow data from [10] does not seem to support your assertion. Grand Isle county has the largest proportion of its employed residents working in Canada at 0.7%. Other counties are even smaller or at zero. If you are aware of other data, please make us aware of it. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand where those employment figures are coming from on that site. I just filled out my census survey, and it doesn't ask anything about what country you work in; it asks you what US county you work in, but not what country. Also, Jean linked us to two sources for that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the Census Bureau is probably making up those figures just to spite you. Anyway, for each county, you add up the total number of employed residents and calculate the proportion listed under Canada. You can also do this by town where you might get slightly higher figures. And no, there was no direct link to the figures you mentioned. --Polaron | Talk 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at those figures. It seems a little strange to me that it says that nobody in the town and city of Barre commutes outside of town to work...I mean I do, and I know I put that I work in Burlington in my census survey. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in Barre who doesn't work in town. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what file you're looking at and how you're reading the data but the worker flow files listed by residence town says 72 people who live in Barre city work in Burlington and 52 people who live in Barre town work in Burlington. A total of 4,857 residents of the combined areas of Barre town and city work outside the town and city. --Polaron | Talk 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean after I did a little more sleuthing. What's odd though, when listed by residence town in one file, it does say that; when I do the inverse (workers commuting to Barre) Barre isn't listed at all as a workplace town. It's the inverse in the other files. I noticed the same thing for some towns, but not for others; what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Excel file sorted by workplace town, it's on rows 5401,5402 (for Barre city) and 5476,5477 (for Barre town). You may have been confused by the file being sorted by county name first before town name, i.e. it's not alphabetical by town throughout the file. --Polaron | Talk 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston is the cultural heart of New England, no matter where one lives, Also, not by coincidence, all TP roads lead to Boston except I-91. Therefore the Boston connection belongs in this article. Having said that, I agree with the comment that for northern Vermonters, Montreal is the nearest really large city. Still, most of us visit as tourists in a foreign country which is why we are found in the downtown area where no "real" Quebecois would go!  :)

I know the point is moot but, it's just kind of urking me: all roads lead to Boston except I-91 isn't entirely accurate, US-4, US-7, I-89, I-189, and VT-289 don't go to Boston and those are pretty much all of the freeways in Vermont; except for a stretch of I-93 for like 10 miles with one exit in the NEK, which does go to Boston. FWIW, Vermont just kind of sits off to the Northwest of New England, not really having much to do with any big cities (except for the four corners of the state)~~Bradley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There were two ideas above 1) Vermonters do visit Quebec, but as tourists. 2) In New England, most all roads lead to Boston, to the point that a Vermonter can't get to Albany easily at all though it is "right next door. (I know, you live in Rutland and it's real easy. I mean the rest of the state). This is not mere happenstance. The roads were designed that way. If I have the option, I go to Hartford and then cut over to New York, not really the most direct way. On most other roads, 93, 89, 95, I'm going to be "channeled" into Boston. The roads were designed by politicians, doing, as politicians always do, preserving the status quo - Boston's dominance over the rest of the region. But I don't think there was too much squawking at the time. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else. I live in Rhode Island. Eventually you can be channeled into any city, all these highways are part of a network. I was just saying that there aren't any highways in Vermont that I know of, that go directly to Boston. If you look at a map of the highway network, the highways radiate from major cities and Vermont just appears to be in the hinterland between a few of those cities. I'm not arguing for or against the Montreal, New York, or Boston things, it's just an observation.192.149.109.60 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Bradley

While we are on this topic, I would like to observe that for more than Interstate reasons, Hartford is a second "center" for New England, and no, I'm not discussing "culture" this time. Just economics. Anyway, it seems to me this way for Vermont.Student7 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hartford comment kind of got my interest. I Found this [11], it kind of shows the economic areas, including those of New England. Maybe we could discuss the five CEAs in New England, rather than just Boston, and New York. It doesn't deal with transborder areas though.

Hartford? The sixth-largest city in NE with a population of 125,000? I'm going to need some swaying to place Hartford ahead of Providence, Worcester, Springfield and Bridgeport.--Loodog (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

These economic areas are not defined with respect to the size of the central city. Providence and Worcester are part of the sphere of influence of Boston while Brideport is in New York's. Springfield is a node in the Hartford Economic Area. Hartford is a separate area because it is outside the Boston and New York zones, i.e. not too much cross commuting or it's in a different media market. --Polaron | Talk 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the argument that Hartford is not a part of the Springfield Economic Area based on the former's larger MSA population? In any case, the word "independent" or "distinct" is needed in front of the "center".--Loodog (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the Port of Montreal? Virtually all goods in Northern New England are shipped through the Port of Montreal. This area is known as the "Bi-National Region" or more formally, the "International Northeast Economic Region (INER)" Concerning this, if I could decide between Boston, New York, and Montreal for which market Burlington would be a sub-market "node" to I'd have to say that it is Montreal. Economically the money in region flows to Montreal; in terms of media, I don't know of any broadcast stations from New York or Boston that service Burlington, but I can name a bunch from Montreal, and the Habs games almost always air over the Bruins, or Rangers, or Islanders.

We have a similar problem with other articles which are defined geographically. San Diego and Tijuana. Detroit and Windsor. In northern Vermont there is a lot of cross-border commerce. I think it calls for a joint article e.g. "San Diego Tijuana commerce". Okay, a bit lame. Takes some thinking and discussion. But right now, places that are not at least partially contained in a given article that is geographic in scope should get minimal mention no matter what their economic or cultural impact. Otherwise, article pollution results in a lot of related geographic article. "I live in San Diego so I can visit Tijuana and Los Angeles." i.e. the only reason to have the article is show adjacency to other geographical areas, a silly premise IMO. 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me on the $4 billion commerce figure that they may not have any way of separating what comes over the border by initiating state. So if it comes over from Vermont, maybe they assume that Vermont generated it when more likely it was NH or Mass.

I don't like the idea of putting Montreal (or Albany for that matter) in this NE article. Could have another article as inter-regional commerce maybe. Student7 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see from all this disscusion that many people don't want Montreal included in this article because it is not in New England, which I agree but; if we do that, should we not remove New York from it as well? Or is New York in New England?192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Tom Kidder

One point, I don't agree with the comment that no "real" Quebecois would go to Centre-Ville, Montreal. I don't have the figures to back it up, but aren't many of the businesses, as well as apartment buildings in Montreal there? I mean, what are all of those tall buildings for? (the term downtown is a bit confusing anyway, since on the island of Montreal, downtown is relative to where you are at the moment, I'd call the part of the city with Rue Ste. Catherines Centre-Ville). Just my two cents.

I totally agree with Student7's comment that we have another article, or articles about inter-regional commerce. New York, and Montreal, and Albany, and heck why not Woodstock, NB should be included in it. Either that or qualify the statement that spawned the New York and Montreal debates to something like "Boston is the New England city, which is the cultural, and ecconomic hub of the region." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.60 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. It's that you have shown no sources that indicate a strong socio-economic integration between northern Vermont and Montreal approaching the level of Southwestern Connecticut and New York City. I don't doubt there is some influence from Montreal but not to the level at which New York City exerts influence over a part of Connecticut such that many residents in that area no longer consider themselves as part of New England. --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, everything named "New England [noun]" has it headquarters in Boston, then similar cuisine, sports teams, media domination, literary tradition, the fact that 1 in 2 New Englanders are a part of Greater Boston combined statistical area. 1 in 7 New Englanders are a part of the New York metro area. 0 in 20 are a part of what any reasonable person would consider the Montreal metro area.--Loodog (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a petty thing to be arguing about. We can argue till our faces turn blue; let's not tell people what sphere of influence they're part of-let's leave that up to them-it seems like a pretty subjective thing to measure in terms of numbers. Boston, New York, and Montreal (aparently) mean different things to different people. I think we all can agree that New England is a very diverse region with many cultures influencing it. 1 in 2 New Englanders are in the Boston Metro, 1 in 7 are in the New York Metro, and 1 in 6 are "none of the above" are we going to delineate everything until New England is reduced to a bunch of metro areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked for qualification. I provided. We ask for sources establishing any kind of serious commuting between Montreal and Vermont. Barring this, we're just going to assume that one of the most heavily traveled corridors on the continent is several orders of magnitude busier than an international border crossing in rural lands.

Until you show sources, you're just sitting there with your tires spinning.--Loodog (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we had got to sources yet. We were questioning whether Montreal or New York. both outside NE, should be there at all. Easy to omit Montreal since it isn't in there yet. A bit harder to eliminate New York. As the editor says, is the region just a conglomeration of metro areas centered outside of NE? Not a good idea for a geographic article. Maybe another kind of article. That is what I thought we were discussing. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's been settled whether or not we include New York. Anon is trying to bootstrap that result into including Montreal as well, which has no basis unless a source shows comparable daily transit between Montreal and Vermont.--Loodog (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (what? I thought I signed)

Have you people nothing better to do? Like maybe actually improving the article, rather than having pointless arguments about the color of the bikeshed? FWIW, I would agree with the claims that Montreal is an important influence on northern Vermont (having grown up there) -- but this influence waxes and wanes with economic and political conditions on either side of the border. (And I'll also agree that the people I grew up with didn't care a whit about Boston: we didn't see their sports teams, get their newspapers or TV stations, or think of it as "the big city".) However, even if this influence can be quantified, unless it is of demonstrable significance to the region as a whole, it doesn't belong in this article. Traffic counts alone, by contrast, could demonstrate this level of importance for New York. Information about Vermont's economic relationship with Quebec clearly does belong in that article. 121a0012 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Montreal, but since we've been discussing it here, why not bump the material about New York to Northeastern United States if not there already. If it is there, why is it here? Could be a "see also" from here. I know, this is a problem that doesn't exist and has been solved, but I don't agree with the solution. Nor do I have a article yet that would include Montreal. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. I think it's a good idea. If we could do something to appease the Montreal camp as well that would be great, but I don't know of any articles regarding "Vermontreal". I suppose it would their perogotive to write one. Maybe the Canada-U.S. Border article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.60 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For sure, a good amount of this information could be useful for the Vermont article.--Loodog (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There has to be already articles that solves geographic overlap by defining a new article that envelops both places. We need eventually need a "Twin" states article with NH-Vt coverage that can't really be effectively addressed in either state's article. I'm not quite up to a "Quebec-VT-NH-?" article yet cause I don't know where to start or stop the scope of the article. I would get a better feel for that after having worked on a "twin" states article for a few months. Student7 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys probably know about this but it was news to me. There is an article Atlantica (trade zone). This is a proposed zone but it does include the areas we've been talking about. I don't know if we could get away with a "pre-history" section in the article or not.  :)

I think Atlantica and the Binational Region are not one-in-the-same. I found this cooperation agreement for the Quebec-Vermont binational region, which details the economic region in more depth. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.70 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also Atlantic Northeast which is current, all right, but doesn't include Montreal unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am FROM CT and instead of arguing about New England hate for New York City and their trying to force CT into their region, why don't you leave CT out of the article and that would solve your problem? In the NY area part of the state, we don't deal with New England nor do we care about them. We are firmly in the NYC area in every sesne of the word including the most important aspect - geography. No Boston around here. You arrogant New Englanders need to stop trying to speak for our state and leave us alone and we will keep leaving you alone and your city of Boston. We represent that NY/NJ/CT Tri-State area only! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a state can secede from New England!  :) But we need a scholarly source to indicate that is has done so. If one (probably need more than one) can be found which I kind of doubt. The business about sports teams is fairly irrelevant to culture BTW. I can favor Liverpool in association football (soccer) without being English. Culture is fairly basic like attitudes. New Englanders with the exception of immigrant Irish and Italian are not big huggers - probably the worst in the country in fact. They tend not to interrupt people when talking - again the least interrupting in the country. Both (and there are others) are way more basic than following a bunch of guys in varying states of dress running around on television.Student7 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How can a state secede from a...region? A state can only secede from the nation that it is in. You people up in New England are truly dellusional to think of yourselves as a country. Such arrogance. You people have the nerve to hate on NYC because it is #1 - where you wish Boston were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the french are pretty well known for being big huggers and kissers and for interrupting people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.28.179 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I live on the west coast. I'm ashamed to admit that my friends and I all thought that Vermont was actually in Canada until we met some folks from Vermont. I've heard of Vermont, but I always assumed it was in Canada. I don't know why, maybe because they're always spoken together in the same breath. I don't know if this expresses a view of the culture of Vermont, or an ignorance of the country I live in, but a lot of people have this impression as well. If the majority of the people I know think this way, it gets me thinking that there must be a reason why we think that. If someone could actually find a source to back this up, if at all possible, that might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.67 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Boldfacing

Boldfacing is not standard in infoboxes nor anyplace else that doesn't contain the article name. It is unecsarily distracting IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Every city article infobox has bolded descriptors, for example.--Loodog (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

WP:ITALICS is quite clear that one should be circumspect with boldfacing in areas other than headers and I suggest that the boldface be removed from the infobox. Other city article infoboxes having bolded descriptors is not a good argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. As an aside, and this is an unasked for aesthetic opinion, it doesn't look all that nice either. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to remove the bold, we should go all the way; you left bold in the other infobox. I just don't think it reads as well without the bold.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pilgrims POV: Fleeing religious persecution, or an exiled extremist religious cult?

I have tagged the statement "fleeing religious persecution" with , since from the European point of view, the pilgrims were an exiled extremist religious cult. The pilgrims were Puritan extremists who sought to enforce their strict moral code on others, similar to Sharia law. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what their religious beliefs were. If they were fleeing religious persecution, they were fleeing religious persecution. There's no POV in that statement. You're trying to insert some greater question as to whether it's a worthwhile religion to follow which is POV.--Loodog (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No joke. Forced exile is, um, well, a form of persecution. --82.242.72.237 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being written from the pov of New Englanders, often the descendants of these people. The immigrants felt they would have a better life here. We have always said they were fleeing persecution, but they were dissidents in a culture that did not permit this type of dissonance. We tend to report things pov on today's pc list. This is not good editing IMO. History needs to reveal itself and not be "reported" as does today's slanted media. The Puritans dissented. They would not coorporate with legal authority. They moved to Netherlands and ultimately to North America. BTW, their civil state government collected money for their (successor) church right up until the early 1820s or 1830s. So much for the separation of church and state! That was not today's pc either! Student7 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination

There's been good work done and refs have been standardized, so I've nominated this article for GA status.--Loodog (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted NY image link

There was formerly a link to a photo of a purported New England village. However, the photo is of a town in New York, which is not part of New England. It was a nice photo, but there should really be a photo of an actual New England village -- not a photo of a village that LOOKS like a New England village. FoamParty (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Historic Places

Alright, I don't know where I'm supposed to do this, so whatever.

I added Worcester to the Historic section of Notable Places, which makes mention of "historic parks," because Elm Park is the FIRST public park in the United States. I think that qualifies; I'm adding it back. Quentinisgod (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:New_England/archive2#fluffing_flufflity_fluff for the reasons we didn't include every city in New England that predated 1700.--Loodog (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that Worcester, the second largest city in New England, is a very significant and historic city. Not only that, but the criteria given for the listed cities are "historic buildings, parks, and streetscapes." Does the first public park in the country not qualify as "historic?" How about the American Antiquarian Society on Salisbury Street? Or the simple fact that that its founder, Isaiah Thomas, published the Massachusetts Spy and first publicly read the Declaration of Indipendence] here? Or educational facilities such as the College of the Holy Cross founded in 1843 (the oldest Roman Catholic college in New England), Worcester Polytechnic Institute founded in 1865, and Clark University founded in 1887? Or the Over 250 inductions to the National Register of Historic Places?

I'm going to add Worcester again, and before you delete it, I want you to tell me why Worcester is not worthy of being considered one of the "historic" cities of New England. Quentinisgod (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a bystander here, but I think the entry should also contain a reason for the city being there so readers don't have to guess, like "Had first public park in the US" or something. Not sure that qualifies Worcester, however. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can find is Elm Park is one of the first purchases of land for a public park. Public parks easily predated 1854 in this country. Boston Common for example dates to 1634 and the New Haven Green dates to 1638, and only escape the above label by virtue of the land not needing to be purchased. Nothing else you mention, though part of Worcester history, date to before the nineteenth century. When you start looking at things like Harvard, founded 1636, the cobblestone streets of Portland, or the pre-Revolutionary houses of Providence, Worcester becomes another unneeded addition to an already lengthy list. We discussed the entries to be added to prevent an unending list. I've been to Worcester and I remain unconvinced its streetscape exemplifies what's historic about New England.--Loodog (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do NOT readd material which has been established as contested. This only serves to aggravate a dispute and cause revert wars. Wait until consensus is reached on the talk page before making contested changes.--Loodog (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I read your discussion. It seems to me you just added stuff a couple of years ago with little debate and decided nothing else would be added. It seems Hartford simply appeared there in the second incarnation of this debate as there is no explanation as to why it belongs there. I've been to Hartford and see nothing any more historic about its streetscape than Worcester, with half the Nationally Registered Historic Places, and without a two-hundred-year-old learned society with thirteen former Presidents as members which collects all written records of the history of the United States. What gives a city such as Hartford more historic significance than Worcester?

And this only supports what Student7 said. There is no reason for these statements of these cities being "historic" not to be backed up by something concrete. A "list of historic cities in New England," without an explanation as to why they are historic, has no place in an encyclopedia. It seems to be little more than opinion. Quentinisgod (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, to add a qualifier behind each city, except there's nothing specific to put beside a city like Portland, which is a place people go for its old-timey cobblestone look. We were going for which cities demonstrate the historic look of New England, rather than just a list of things to see. As for Hartford in particular, I've only driven past it so I have no strong feelings on whether it merits inclusion.--Loodog (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have strong feelings on the inclusion of: Boston, Providence, Portland, New Haven, Newport, Salem, Gloucester, Newburyport, and Portsmouth.--Loodog (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

From the handful of times I've been in Hartford, I can honestly say that aside from just Worcester, there are nine or ten cities and towns I would include before it. What about the entire Route 2 corridor around Boston (Lexington, Concord, Arlington, and the like?) I know it says "surrounding area," but I don't think that does justice to the many towns and cities within twenty miles with separate historic charms. These places are quite old, with many remnants such as cobblestone and cemeteries from these old times, stacked with national history that occurred there, and with museums, statues, and memorials to represent it. And the smaller towns and cities of Pioneer Valley such as Greenfield, Amherst and Northampton? For that matter, what about all of Cape Cod? This is a major vacation spot for everyone in the BosWash megapolitan area BECAUSE it is "old-timey."

Maybe Worcester isn't the best candidate for the most "historic" place in New England. But lets face it. New England is New England because it is filled with places like this. I don't see a reason for an encyclopedia to include a list of eleven that are the "most historic-looking," without even giving reason. As much as it may seem true, saying "Portland is old-timey," is an opinionated statement. This list should either be lengthened, including as many cities and towns as are necessary, and giving FACTS as reasons why they are historic, or simply thrown out in favor of a paragraph or two saying why New England is a historic region citing specific EXAMPLES such as colleges like Harvard, cobblestone streets in Boston and Portland, statues, and cemeteries. Because an encyclopedia is no place for a list of cities that a few people decide are "more historic" than others without an explanation as to why. Quentinisgod (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, not supporting Worcester, it would seem desirable to construct the list so article can't be accused of WP:OR. Nice to have a footnote or something IMO. Boston is "obvious" to us, but maybe not to other readers. But like Loodog, hate to see this list get out of hand with everyplace being "historic." Student7 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, specific buildings or instutions aren't what we're driving at, but I do see your point about the arbitrariness of the cities chosen. The "Notable Places" section is supposed to give streetscapes that highlight the region's shared heritage and culture. The only blatantly screaming pieces of evidence for inclusion I can think of are:

1. Beacon Hill, Boston for its hilly narrow cobblestone streets and raw abundance of historic tourist sites
2. Providence, Rhode Island, which has the largest contiguous area of buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the country.
3. Newport, Rhode Island for its designated historic districts such as Newport Historic District (Rhode Island)
4. Portsmouth, which made "Distinctive Destination" by the National Trust for Historic Preservation
5. Salem, the waterfront was the first designated National Historic Site in the country
6. Gloucester, for its impressive list on the NRHP.
7. Portland, for Old Port

--Loodog (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But without listing ALL the cities that are historic and the reasons that they are, there is no reason to have this list. As it stands now, a "list of historic cities in New England," without even brief reasons for inclusion, is little more than speculation. The reader must go to the page of the city and read its contents to see why it is a historic place. And in cases other than Boston, this will come to little avail. The page for Portland, Maine gives no explanation as to why it is historic.

My point is, without listing all of the historic cities and giving reasons, this list is just a list of cities and towns that a few editors determined were more historic than the others. I opt for a paragraph stating what is historic about New England, complete with sourced examples from various cities and towns. This is no more of an original research than an unexplained list. Quentinisgod (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While I like the idea of doing this by "count," I wouldn't want to be the one doing the counting! Maybe someone else has done it for us? That would be nice! I don't disagree with Loodog's list. I only know of Salem, Newport and Boston on my own. Take his word for the others. So I agree with both of you on the points you've each raised. Student7 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The explanations next to these certainly help. If expanded upon, the list will seem less unnecessary. Not to continue to try and make the case for Worcester, since I am still more in favor of the paragraph form, but there are 31 Nationally Registered Historic Places in Gloucester, and over 250 in Worcester, so if that is a usable reason, Worcester makes it. Quentinisgod (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we could scrap Gloucester and make that the threshold for inclusion: sourced information verifying a contiguous historic collection. That way we don't have to sit and count buildings which might be scattered through a large area.--Loodog (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The best option might be to find a single, reasonably authoritative source that lists "historic towns" of New England. It so happens there is a book called "Historic Towns of New England" [13] published in 1899 but whether it is meant to be exhaustive or authoritative is unclear. --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea, though we'd need an updated source. Many cities historic in 1899 lost a lot in the 50s and 60s.--Loodog (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the "authoritative source" better than a count, actually. A lot of places are registered as "historic" are older than 100 years or so but aren't really that interesting IMO. Some owner just thought it "might be a good idea" to have the government tell them when and how to paint their house. National Landmarks, however, are a bit more serious.Student7 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. The number of "National Historic Landmarks" as well as historic sites administered by the National Park Service in a given city/town could be used to determine which get included in the (hopefully short) list of historic places. I'll try and gor throughthese official lists in the next few days to come up with a list (unless someone beats me to it). --Polaron | Talk 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside of Boston (53), its immediate suburbs (the remaining majority in Massachusetts), Newport (22), and Providence (12), there don't appear to be any cities or towns with great numbers of National Historic Landmarks. Salem has 8, Portsmouth has 8, Portland has 6, Augusta has 4, Gloucester has 2, Worcester has 2, Newburyport and Plymouth each have one. The Connecticut page is unavailable. I'm not sure this is a good basis for which cities and towns are historical, as places such as Plymouth, so clearly ripe with history, are not well represented here. Quentinisgod (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit that size and number of buildings in the Landmark may make a difference. Starts to get difficult after awhile. I kind of like Boston and Newport. If we include Salem, we would have to include Portsmouth by count alone. I am surprised at Providence. Ah well. Kind of hard to omit Plymouth isn't it? I;m getting subjective and WP:OR again. (Where's that scholarly reference whn you need one?  :) Student7 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my count: Boston 55, Newport 22, Cambridge 19, Providence 12, New Haven 9, Salem 8, Quincy 7, Portsmouth 7, Portland 6, Hartford 6, Concord 6, New Bedford 6. All the rest are 5 or fewer. --Polaron | Talk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Best places to live

I don't mind having this section here. I trust "Money" magazine, more or less. Nevertheless in 2006, Burlington, Vt., was rated the ninth-best city to live in. The criteria were health, quality of life, and fitness.ref:"Best and Worst Cities for Men", Men's Health, January/February 2006, page 129. While I am reluctant to try to place this in the "best" mentions since it apparently didn't even appear there at all, I am a bit surprised. Will keep my own counsel until I hear otherwise!  :) Student7 (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Industrial revolution

An unregistered user has correctly pointed out that the Industrial revolution arrived here via Great Britain. More importantly, the Revolution was fought (in part) over keeping the colonies subservient to GB in manufacturing. GB did the manufacturing, the colonies grew the food and used the money to buy manufactured goods. This policy, ruthlessly enforced, was resented. Don't have a footnote right now. Anybody? Student7 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Largest Lakes

I deleted Quabbin Reservoir (Massachusetts) and Candlewood Lake (Connecticut) from the list of the largest lakes. Each of them is the largest lake in its respective state, but our wording implied that they were the fourth and fifth largest lakes in New England, which is not true--Chesuncook Lake is larger in terms of surface area than either Quabbin or Candlewood, and at least a dozen Maine lakes are larger than Candlewood in terms of both surface area and volume. Besides, Champlain, Winnepesaukee, and Moosehead are all naturally-formed bodies of water, and lumping them in with artificial bodies of water (such as Quabbin and Candlewood) without explanation is somewhat misleading. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Coastal New England

It's true that Vermont has the smallest population, but to say it's the "least populated" is a little misleading; a casual reader might take that to mean "least densely populated," which Vermont actually isn't--Maine's population density is much lower than Vermont's, because so much of Maine consists of uninhabited forest land. I've replaced "least populated" with "least urbanized," which is true--Vermont has the lowest urban population ratio of any state in the USA.

I also moved Newport from the list of "urban centers" to the list of "smaller cities," since it's smaller than Gloucester, which is on the latter list. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro revision needed?

We say that In the 19th century, [New England] played a prominent role in the movement to abolish slavery in the United States, hosted the first pieces of American literature and philosophy, was home to the beginnings of free public education, and was the first region of the United States to be transformed by the Industrial Revolution from Great Britain. Are we really claiming that "the first pieces of American literature and philosophy" were "hosted" in New England in the 19th century? Emerson and Thoreau didn't spring directly out of the forehead of Zeus--the New England literary/philosophic tradition goes back to the 17th century and includes such well-known figures as Anne Bradstreet, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, and Phyllis Wheatley. We could say that in the 19th century New England hosted "a philosophical and literary renaissance"--that would be a pretty uncontroversial claim, since the term "New England Renaissance" is well established as referring to the mid-19th century Boston/Concord intellectual scene. Or does anyone else have a different wording to propose? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Population

Demographics was all moved to a separate article. Would it be possible to have a summary here? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Birth rate

Neither the article, nor the forked one either, mentions birth rate. Vermont's is the second lowest in the country which is starting to create problems in schools (teachers required in rural areas, but fewer students to justify = lowered "efficiency"). Are other NE states experiencing the same problem? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned someplace, most likely in the (currently missing) summary of demographics and in the main article? Student7 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Albion

An editor has been quite persistent in adding New Albion information to this article. I do understand that Albion is a pseudonym for England. But why must we then add all New Albion stuff here? I don't understand the importance to this article. The editor is unregistered and leaves no edit summary. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a registered editor, thanks for the personal attack. For your information, the reuse of old colonial names in different locations is quite commonplace in American history. For instance, Carolana. Think of Roanoke as the original Virginia, but it is now in North Carolina. Catterick (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So we should put "New Mexico" and "New York" here too? Actually Albion is a pseudonym for Great Britain, not England. And, yes, there are a lot of "News" in America.

The New Albions were named with England in mind, especially the very first, under Queen Elizabeth, who was not Queen of Scotland. The Virginia and Carolina articles make mention of previous versions. Explain your hang ups about this and get it off your chest. It's all right. You just need a pat on the back and told you're a good person. Calm down. Catterick (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic

im going to add attleboro, mass in the historic section Tparaiso (UTC)

This is a contentious issue that has been discussed heavily before. Please see this and this. I'm reverting to the status quo for now but please do discuss why Attleboro should be added. --Polaron | Talk 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

new england

consisting a few of the original 13 colonies of england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.137.244 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, please read Talk:New England/definition FAQs.--Loodog (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole article sucks!

WP:SOAPBOXING. No specific improvements for improving article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is written to suggest that New England, from Maine to CT is one region with everything in common and a shared society. This is false and more propaganda. CT is in the NYC region and many attemtp by New England businesses (Stop & Shop, Marshall's, Shaw's, Hood and now People's United bank) keep trying to do their best to spread their propagnada in CT. New Haven has nothing in common and no attachment to Boston and people do not travel from Boston to CT as it is impractical. OUR region in CT is the NY/NJ/CT region and CT is the home of the YES Network for the Yankees. Can it get any clearer? I live in New Haven. Although it's true that many people in New Haven are obnoxious NYC wannabes like yourself, New Haven is in New England, as evidenced by all of the home-grown businesses and people who state as much. --82.242.72.237 (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay Marriage?

At this point, every state in New England except for Rhode Island has passed legislation allowing gay marriage in the state (excluding Maine, 'waiting' for a veto). How come there is no mention of this in the article? To me, this is a very important part of New England culture, especially seeing as Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to preform gay marriages.

Four min of jay (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article. See New_England#Notable_laws.--Loodog (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Culture wars

WP:SOAPBOXing with no substantive sourced arguments. Please see Talk:New England/definition FAQs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For some time now, we have witnessed people attempting to say that Conn was "really" (whatever that means) part of New York. A recent contribution tries to define this with a little more precision. But most of us suspect that New England has about as fixed boundaries and any region of the country. If we are to define some parts out, what about defining new parts in? How about New York near Vermont? It is very "Vermonty." You can hardly tell one from another in dwellings, for example. And no, I don't know "what teams they follow" as if that were significant! Then there are the old Tory villages just over the line in Canada. Shall we define them in as well?Student7 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC) There are no fixed boundaries. When New England began, it only included MA and then CT came along with New Haven/Long Island. That was during ye olden times. Now we are living in the modern era and CT is and has always been in the NYC metro region - no doubt about it and New England is not wanted around here. You guys keep buying businesses and trying to "New Englandize" us with the latest wave of propagand in the form of the People's Bank (bought from CT by New England investers) road sign advertisings that feature the words "New England has spoken" at key points all along the state, especially once one enters from NY. It makes no sense since the bank is only in CT and NY! Clear propaganda. CT is not part of NY no more than NJ is, but CT IS in the NYC metro region as NJ is and NOT in the Boston metro region. Their is no New England metro region and that region is too far away for us to be concerned with no matter what other forms of propaganda they come up with. If it were not for NECN forcing it's way onto CT cable systems mno matter if we watch it or not (New England does not even watch it!), we would get no Boston media. Cable is the only way that it can reach CT as we are not in their region. As for VT. It used to be a part of NY and it is not in the Boston metro region as well as CT is not. This is why the 2nd district court has us with NY and not Boston as those New England states are in the Boston region. So we need to be clear on this. If it takes 3 or more hours to get to Boston from the NYC area, how could Boston have anything to do with CT? The only thing they have done is to buy up businesses and fill them with Boston propaganda to give the illusion of New England and Boston acceptance. If you have to do that, it must mean that you are not wanted - or needed.--76.28.89.86 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC) In response to the above (hidden) comment, like it or not, Connecticut is part of New England. Take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau's definitions of the region. Contrary to what is implied by the above-poster, the NYC Metro Area and New England are not mutually exclusive--the NYC Metro Area includes parts of New England (southern Connecticut) and the Mid-Atlantic (southern New York and northern New Jersey). Further, being part of New England does not make a region part of or beholden to Boston. Boston and its metro area are part of New England, but they are not synonymous with it. Finally, consider the example of Philadelphia--it's metro includes portions of northern Delaware and northeastern Maryland. However, Maryland is south of the Mason-Dixon line, and, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Delaware is not part of the Mid-Atlantic, yet both are part of the Philly metro regions. 72.81.126.113 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Why hide key points? Is this "editing" or censoring..?

Music

Here is an observation about "notable" music groups generally, but including this article: people can't be notable for an area unless they are known outside the area. Therefore Mitt Romney, Senator Dodd, etc. could not be mentioned here because they are (were) important only to the state which elected them and not elected to office "beyond" New England. Yet people try to insert punk rock groups that appeal to a few thousand people, way way less than these political bigwigs. Most modern music "notables" are anything but notable. Most of us have never heard of them. I have heard of Romney and Dodd, however. I suggest omitting music groups entirely. Student7 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addtion

I propose to add the following to the lead: ..."and Westchester County, New York where, in a recent survey (reliable footnote) 75% of viewers admitted watching the Boston Red Sox and in the households polled, 47% preferred the Boston Pops to the New York Metropolitan Opera.{reliable footnote)"

Student7 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Show

1. The source where you pulled this from and
2. The source that explains that liking the Boston Pops and Red Sox are sufficient criteria to be in New England.

--Loodog (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you want to claim other regions in our Tri-state area! Soon you will want it all and the whole US! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New England and sports

Just ran across an interesting article in "Men's Health" that purports to measure sports interest in the country. Hartford stood fourth from the] bottom! So some Hartford people may support NY sports, but if this article is accurate, not nearly so many of them as to make much difference one way or another. Hartfordians, measured by US standards, are indifferent to sports! Student7 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Western boundary line

A kind of nice smooth boundary defines the western extent of New England. I wonder about the history of that western boundary, or if it is (much more simply) an assertion of New York's eastern boundary. Either way, it should probably be in history, shouldn't it? Student7 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The history is described in the book How the States got their Shapes by Mark Stein. It does have to do with New York's eastern boundary, but the details get complex as each state negotiated with New York separately. There are various bends and non-north-south lines, each with its own bit of diplomacy. The essential idea, mostly adhered to, more or less, was a boundary 20 miles east of the Hudson River. Can write more on this later. Pfly (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What boundary would New England have? There is no state called New England so it cannot have a boundary. You people new to stop it. When the Yale killing happned, people knew the NYC media and CNN, but a 7 out of MA and some RI along with NECN, no one recognizes.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk • contribs)

76.28.89.86, please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tildas like so ~~~~. As for your comments concerning the boundary of New England, I would direct you to the definition FAQs if you wish to understand the above discussion of the New England boundary.--Louiedog (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of an island: "a piece of land surrounded by water". If you get in a boat and start at New York City, go up the Hudson River, through locks into Lake Champlain, up the Richelieu River, through locks, and go easterly up the St. Lawrence River, you'll arrive at the Atlantic ocean. Now head south to New York City. New England must be an island; it's completely surrounded by water. In fact, you can't get to New England from New York State in a car without either crossing a bridge or taking a ferry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.152.61 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Except the Hudson River doesn't separate New York from New England. You can walk from New York to New England across dry land.--Louiedog (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention Quebec and New Brunswick. Pfly (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The example you showed was not an example of walking from NY to New England, it was an example of walking from NY to CT! Again Boston, New England IS NOT a state! CT is not in New England proper and no part of CT is in a Boston metro region and there is no New England metro region - hello! Also, an island IS land completely surround by water - BUT it cannot have rivers in it or archipelagos which are little chains of islands, which goes against calling something an island! It is also not supposed to have lakes either, but exceptions can be made in that regard. So, that elaborate excuse to make New England (once again) appear to be something that it is not (a separate region/state/metro area/culture) falls flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An island can't have rivers on it? Where'd you come up with that? Ever heard of the Thames? As for islands not having lakes, there are not only islands with lakes, there are islands whose lakes have islands, and islands whose lakes have islands that have lakes. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Immigration

Someone changed the immigration pattern in colonial days to "England" instead of "Europe." This was reverted. I kind of liked the change. Nearly 100% of the settlers through 1640 or so, were, indeed, from England, largely Puritan "fugitives" as it were. Student7 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Colleges and Universities

Do you think it would be wise to create a List of Colleges and Universities in New England in addition to the individual lists for all of the New England states? Since many New Englanders commute interstate or move with some frequency among the six states, it may be helpful to compile such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.191 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had the idea that there really should be an article, not mirrored in the rest of the country, "Education in New England." While it would be highly derivative from Massachusetts, there would be some contribution of Middlebury, Dartmouth, Colby and others. Education is so much higher than in the rest of the country. Not always like the natives think though. While they probably exceed all other regions (or used to), this cannot be assumed nowdays. Massachusetts, yes. But white states preening themselves by comparing themselves to states with heavy minorities need to compare equals against equals. Whites against whites and minorities vs minorities. They will not come out nearly so highly. But still worth an article IMO. This would include (as mentioned) colleges and universities. It would link to the larger "List of colleges and univers in NE." Student7 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd point deleted

Someone had a ref and statement about thinking the whole country was forested by looking at New England. Well, this was sort of true up to the Mississippi anyway. The ref did not support any of this. New England was not more sparsely settled than any other area. The first governon of Virginia expected to see the Pacific Ocean from the top of the Cumberlands! So the point is a bit oddly taken. Not sure where this was going anyway so I deleted it. Student7 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5