Talk:Massachusetts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

State motto is missing?

I've read recently that Massachusetts's "State motto" is "By the sword we fight for peace but not peace without liberty" in latin or something like that, but that isn't mentioned in this article, and while "The spirit of America" definitely is the state slogan, I've never seen "Make it yours" before.

The state motto appears at the top of the infobox at the top of the article. AJD (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage

I'm surprised that there was no reference in the article about how Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage.

It appears in the second paragraph of the article. AJD (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sudbury valley school

I'm surprised that the Educational section didn't mention Sudbury valley school, since it's been getting a lot of media attention about it's educational system that's almost the opposite of most schools these days, and how it's in Massachusetts.

On what date did the Commonwealth begin?

In other words, when did the government stop being the Province of Massachusetts Bay? 76.102.31.185 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When you find out, your homework will be done, and you can post the information. - Denimadept (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate

The "climate" section has codes or something that arent working. Alot of the coding like stuff is messed up. I do not know how to fix this seeing as how i dont know what it is supposed to be.

--Nick Scratch 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First Europeans?

Why does this and every other article on the US or western hemisphere always start off as "the first Europeans..?" SUrly there was life before the first European. This as in US text books, make it appear as if the only people of matter were Europeans. It also shows a European only point of view. Some articles discuss the natives, but all articles should discuss the natives and only speak of Europeans as it relates to a settlement which has a name and cities originally started by Europeans. As you know or should know, many states and cities in America were founded and/or named by natives and used by Europeans. Many northern states are native in origin. I know the country as it is would not be what it is because of Europeans (not the 'ethnics,' but the Anglo/German related peoples), but it did not start with them.--71.235.81.39 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because (a) history is written by the winners, (b) Native Americans make up less than 1% of the population, and (c) European settlements left historical records, something largely absent from pre-European inhabitation. By all means, though, if you have sourced information about historical events in Massachusetts pre-1600, I encourage you to add it to the article. RGTraynor 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a source only be some book or document written by someone? You do realize that most of history is not compiled from actual written documents right?--71.235.81.39 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of history is not compiled from written documents, but it is compiled into written documents. In the article on Vinland, it is mentioned that Vinland, which the Vikings discovered and settled, may have been in Massachusetts. Einar Haugen certainly considered this a distinct possibility.[2] So, would it not be better to say 'probably the first Europeans...', and to mention the opinions that the Vikings may have settled in Massachusetts in the 10th or 11th century? Another possibility might be 'the first Europeans recorded to have...' similar to Encarta.[3] Britannica says 'Leif Eriksson and his Norsemen may have landed somewhere in the Cape Cod region about 1003.'[4] So the current wording appears to be a at least a distinct possibility, and perhaps a probability, but by no means an established fact. Coyets 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Outmigration

I think this section should be revamp or deleted. Latest census estimates shows that Massachusetts has gained 49,638 residents from 2000 to 2004 according to the latest Boston Globe article about population, quoted below.

"During the same period, however, Massachusetts gained a total of 49,638 residents, inching up to nearly 6.4 million residents, the Census Bureau said. Earlier this year, the Census reported that between 2000 and 2004, Massachusetts experienced an average annual exodus of 42,402 people. That figure is in part offset by new migrants and births, so that the net population actually increased in the first half of the decade."

Also, the Boston Globe article about how people are leaving is not based on any scientific factors, other than searching for a bunch of people who have left. Of course, they would say they love leaving. Who would admit they made a big mistake especially since they haven't lived in the new place long enough. I think that reference should be deleted.

Source: [5]

-ka1ser2 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Climate?

How about a section on the climate?

You really can't do a section on climate, weather varies way too much. Yanksox 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comment might be a joke. It is possible to describe the climate of the area, generally of course, but it may be more appropriate for such a description to be brief in this article, referring to some more appropriate article like "northeast" or some such. - Centrx 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Iggy880 16:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The weather of Massachusetts is highly varied throughout the year, and is usually dependant on the distance one is from the shore areas. As most North-Eastern, and New England states, it has a very cold winter, usually hanging within 10-20 degrees of freezing with a high chance of snow fall up to the a couple feet per snow fall. The spring and summers are fairly mild, with a chance of heat waves ranging to low hundreds. During hurricane season, the coastal areas have a tendancy to catch at least the tail end of a hurricane as it moves up the coast from Florida and out to sea, as well as a chance of flooding.

"Bay State" Etymology Wrong?

I think this history given for the nickname "Bay State" may be wrong in this article. I believe it has less to do with the actual bays in the state and more to do with the English charter that resulted in the settlement of Boston and Salem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony). One may argue that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was named from the may bays in the area (I have no idea), but it seems odd not to mention the colony or the charter at all.

Mm, you "believe" ... but do you know one way or another? What one might argue - as opposed to being able to verify - is irrelevant. RGTraynor 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, if I "knew" I would say so or edit the article directly. I was wondering if anyone else had a similar recollection, and thought I might spur a discussion that would lead to a conclusion. Hardly irrelevant given that this is a discussion forum.

Names for residents

"Bay Staters" is mentioned as the official name for people from Massachusetts, but to be honest, I've heard "Masshole" far more frequently. It's at least partially derogatory, though -- would it be inappropriate to include "Masshole" in the article? CSWarren 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've actually heard "bay stater" sometimes and "masshole" never. Frankly, unlike New Yorkers or Californians, Baystaters don't really use a term other than "Massachusetts resident" or "people from Massachusetts."—Mark Adler (markles) 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Masshole is gaining slightly in popularity, but it could be because I'm near R.I. It seems to be pretty popular there. Sahasrahla 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard masshole used in conversation. I know people that call themselves that, but it doesn't seem to be a word used in common dialogue DrIdiot 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Resident Rebukes this Garbage I am a proud Massachusetts resident... I read this page and was really quite offened...

1. We are the "Bay State" not ... "Bay Staters"

2. The Gay Marriage was taken off the books here and so the immature slurs are stupid... As for my wife and I, we don't care if someone is or not.

3. We would punch anyone who called us "Massholes"

4. We have no State Doughnut being "Boston Cream" anymore than "French Fries" are the National Food of France. Please check your references better for this article. I will surely keep a watch on it and have many more friends from my state keep a watch on it. --merlinus 23:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 23:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

5. We have been called the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from colonial times and thats not about to change soon.

Mass Resident supports this Garbage

I am also a Semi-Proud citizen of Massachusetts, and I hear Masshole quite alot.--71.232.85.127 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.229.42 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 

-- I am also a Mass resident and there is a new name going around for a resident, a "Yah-Dood" because that is what we say to each other a lot, i.e. ; you going the bah? Yah dood.

-- I thought Masshole was just used for Massachusetts drivers who are, um, not nice? Pam

Like any other group, Massachusetts residents are grouped based on the worst that people from other areas encounter. I heard the term "masshole" from a bunch of Maine residents, apparently based on how people from Massachusetts behave when vacationing in Maine. - Denimadept (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

We need a new article, History of Massachusetts.--Mark Adler (Markles) 11:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We should have a thumbnail History in the main article and a long detailed History article that is separate. Rjensen 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you've done such a great job expounding on the section, how about you tackle the splitting? -Mark Adler (Markles) 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks--OK, I will get to work on it Rjensen 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the slavery ruling and rephrased that line, which may be enough before reading the main History article. I marked the edit 'm' in a technically incorrect way and maybe it isn't minor either. Revising the prepositions in Geography is minor, I know. 64.48.73.24 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Try to focus on facts in the very begiing of the article: Why not instead name our states flower "Mayflower" Its Motto: "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty" Its state bird "The Chickadee." Its Highest Point: Mt. Greylock; 3491 feet... Its loose and ungainly and one would have to push a dozen links and read a lot of garbage to learn the most minor facts about Massachusetts. (By ANONYMOUS poster-- please use ~~~~, and proper section headings.)

Oldest deliberative body

The Massachusetts Senate is the second oldest democratic deliberative body in the world.

Surely this can't be right? It can hardly be holder than the Icelandic Althing or the British Parliament? --Pinnerup 13:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Parliament was not always democratic, although I am not familiar with the Althing. --AaronS 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Althing is definitely older, founded in the year 930. --D. Webb 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help if the date of the senate was given, so one could check this claim of "second oldest". Unless "deliberative" has some special meaning, I don't believe this claim. The House of Burgesses is older, and the Parliament of England should count, even if it changed a lot over its long history. The Althing is often cited as the oldest democratic body. I'm not sure about the Parliament of Scotland, but it is certainly old. In any case, the claim here really should give the date of the MA Senate's founding, and the oldest democratic body to which the senate is supposedly second to. Also, I assume the claim is supposed to mean "still existing body". Anyway, quite skeptical.. how about the claim be substantiated or removed? Pfly 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oop, the linked to Massachusetts General Court gives the founding date as 1630, so there's that at least; still skeptical on the claim though. Pfly 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found a source for the claim; none other than the MA Secretary of the Commonwealth website: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cismaf/mf1b.htm -- which says "The Massachusetts Senate is the second oldest democratic deliberative body in the world." -- but nothing else on the topic. The MA League of Women Voters website, http://www.lwvma.org/govlegislative.shtml says: "The Massachusetts Senate is the second oldest democratic deliberative body in the world. It has been deliberating since the creation of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter, more than three centuries ago. The British Parliament is older."

However, I'm still skeptical. There are many older democratic assemblies, especially when you include sub-national bodies, as Massachusetts is. Not only is there the Althing, but other possible contenders like Løgting, Tynwald (Tynwald is usually said to be the oldest Parliament in continuous existence in the world), General Council of the Valleys, the Virginia General Assembly (which like the MA Senate has colonial roots, in this case the House of Burgesses), the Canton of Glarus, Appenzell Innerrhoden, as well as various subnational bodies like New England town assemblies (Salem, Massachusetts, for example), Dutch local assemblies, various Scandanavian local bodies, etc etc -- while the Parliament of the United Kingdom dates only to the 1707 Act of Union, so if it is supposed to be older than the MA Senate, in the form of the Parliament of England one assumes, then one should also take into account the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of Ireland.

So maybe, I thought, the word "deliberative" is the key, but in looking into it (starting with Deliberative democracy, Deliberative assembly, Representative assembly, Thing (assembly), List of types of democracy, and so on, it seems to me that either the term "democratic deliberative body" is too narrow even for the early MA Senate to count, or it is broad enough for all the above listed assemblies to count.

So, unless someone can enlighten me, I will probably change the text to something like "the MA Senate claims to be the 2nd oldest...", with a link to their website, and leave it at that. Pfly 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day Parade?

"Every year, Boston has a St. Patrick's Day Parade that in recent years has tried to be ethnicly inclusive."

What kind of namby-pamby BS is this? First of all, 'South Boston' is where the St. Patrick's Day parade takes place. No Bostonian would refer to it as "Boston." Secondly, the parade is a celebration of Irish heritage...and there have been no efforts on the part of organizers to make it "inclusive" of other ethnicities.

This comment should be remove, as it reflects neither factually nor in spirit, the topic in question.

First of all, 'South Boston' is where the St. Patrick's Day parade takes place. No Bostonian would refer to it as "Boston."

It is Boston. I, and I am certain most people, don't care about your opinion of Southie. It is Boston. It is South Boston.

This comment should be remove, as it reflects neither factually nor in spirit, the topic in question.

I agree, but please leave your signature when you post. --jenlight 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Out-migration

Would this section be better-titled Emigration? Sahasrahla 23:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Emigration is a better section title. Also, reading that section reminds me of an old joke: Will the last person out of Massachusetts please turn out the lights? --Coolcaesar 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The name

Why in the world did people have to give Massachusetts a name that is so horribly difficult to spell? JIP | Talk 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 See also Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Mississippi!

Help needed with Vandalism

This article has been doubled in size by an anonymous user cloning the entire article and then adding is at the end. Here was the edit:

17:04, 13 August 2006 72.152.171.49 (Talk)

This could have been vandalism or it could be inadvertent, but it is causing problems. I have not reverted as there have been edits since then, presumably by editors who did not know of the above action. It needs to be reverted and the subsequent edits added back, or the redundant text deleted before the problem gets worse. Kablammo 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it back to the old version. None of the edits was really significant -- mostly wikifying years and rounding some percentages to one significant digit. This may well have been an inadvertent duplication. Thanks for the heads up! BCorr|Брайен 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, what about the countries origins? And that it was one of the northern colonies?

Romney is the governor

As a note, Mitt Romney will continue to be the governor until Deval Patrick is inaugurated on 1/4/2007. Deval Patrick's election would be a welcome addition to the text of this article, however please do not change the infobox until Patrick's inauguration. Rhobite 04:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So stick an edit tag on the infobox? RGTraynor 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.. the infobox should be updated on January 4 to reflect Patrick's inauguration. Until then, Mitt Romney is still the governor. Rhobite 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The approach used by the Maryland and New York pages, which seems to me to convey the most information most accurately, is to list both in the infobox, with the Governor-Elect labelled as such. For consistency and to head off the repeated erroneous updates that people keep making (and you keep having to revert), I've gone ahead and implemented this. Krinsky 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to main articles

This article gets worse and worse every time I look at it. Don't you people have any pride in your native state? Or are you men without a country? The article for whatever reasons - probably mainly vandalism - has gotten huge and unmanageable. I've been puzzling over how just to start fixing it. Here is where I think we should start. A number of topics have been placed in "main articles" with links to the main articles. With one exception, these sections did not in fact put the material in the main article. The section goes on for a whole page. Is this part of the redundancy vandalism or what? As a result some ideas and topics get repeated, and more than once. We don't need any Massachusetts history in this article, not even a summary. Someone rightly started another article on it. And the geography also, what's that doing in there when there is another article on it? Furthermore, the "geography" contains some etymology, thus giving us two explanation of the name. So, we don't need a reconciliation with the main article, we need to make the main article the main article and get rid of those pages in this article. And then there is the one on Law and Government. We don't need two Massachusetts governments, one is enough. I made minimal contributions when this article was an article and not a joke, but I see someone has taken it on himself to rewrite language and history so I will have to fix that. Now, I'm not doing this article myself. I have other things to do. Meanwhile, enough is enough. The world wants to know about Massachusetts and all we seem to be able to offer is puerile jokes. I know the education level in Massachusetts is high due to the large number of colleges here, and students like to "joke" (some of them being pretty vicious). But, education should bring some sense of responsibility. If you don't like it, set yourself up a punching bag and refund your parents' money. So, get busy and fix this article, please.Dave 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Blue Hill

Although the name Massachusetts does indeed mean something like place of the great hill, it is unlikely that the hill was the little bump south of Boston. It is more likely that the hill was Mount Wachusett because it had a commanding view over the entire region. The Nipmuc Indians (not sure of the spelling) lived there. They are mentioned in the Westborough, Massachusetts article as well as others. They lived as far west as the Connecticut River, as far north as Mount Monadnock, and as far south as Connecticut's Seven Mile River. They named most everything. Even the Quabbin Reservoir used the Nipmuc name, meaning meeting of the waters, although named by Bostonians long after their demise. I strongly suggest that reference to that little bump near Norwood be rethought! It was somebody's guess and I'm sure it's not correct. --LymanSchool 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be very unlikely that the Massachuset tribe named its local features after areas in Nipmuc territory, any more than we think of the Rhode Island or Vermont capitols when we refer to the "State House." That aside, it's not our business to conduct scholarly research or speculation; see WP:NOR. RGTraynor 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what is happening in the following cut/paste: The Massachusetts Bay Colony was named after the indigenous population, the Massachusett, whose name can be segmented as mass-adchu-et, where mass is "great", adchu is "hill" and et is a locative suffix. It has been translated as "at the great hill," "at the place of large hills," or "at the range of hills," with reference to the Blue Hills, or in particular, Great Blue Hill, located on the boundary of Milton and Canton, to the southwest of Boston.[9] The current form of the name results from assimilation.

Please don't lecture me on WP:NOR. That's what I am trying to prevent. Any reference to the little hill south of Boston is conjecture and not bourne by any written evidence. Instead it is an invention (which could be correct, though unlikely) by the editor. ---LymanSchool 19:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Far from it ... and for my own account, I'd be deeply hesitant to make any assertions or reversions on a subject about which I'm using terms like "could be correct, though unlikely." As it happens, the premise that the etymology of the word refers to the Blue Hills is widespread, and a casual Google search turns up many links referencing the same: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. It is not remotely conjecture or original research on the part of the editor. RGTraynor 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

healthcare

are there any assessments done on individual cities healthcare? or a comparison between ma cities healthcare wise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.156.44 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

List of Colleges section is superfluous

This section: Massachusetts#Colleges and universities is out of hand. What is the point of having a list of 62 colleges when there are articles specifically devoted to the topic, namely:

• List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts and
• List of colleges and universities in metropolitan Boston

I propose to eliminate this section, and describe and enumerate in prose about ten--not in list form--and point readers to the two links to already existing lists elsewhere. Arguments against eliminating the section should indicate what the policy should be for preventing the list from growing again. -- Yellowdesk 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list December 29, 2007, with links to the two list pages, and a comment in text requesting that the list not be recreated here. -- Yellowdesk 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Massachusetts bands/musicians

The Wikipedia page on Dispatch says that they formed in Middlebury, Vermont. Although they are commonly associated with Massachusetts (especially given their concert at the Hatch Shell), should they be listed among acts that started in Massachusetts? --Domukaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.22.94 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Timeline of Massachusetts history

How about setting up a timeline of significant events that took place within Massachusetts? -- UniReb 07:57, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Massachusetts Lists

I'm thinking of spending a little time cleaning up some of the Massachusetts article. I'd like to create "see also" lists for National Park Service sites, famous people (Musicians,inventors, political figures,authors and poets etc.) or merge them with the categories already created. Any thoughts????????--Pmeleski 14:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In favor: I was about to post a similar proposal. (I pushed the huge list of colleges off of this article by referencing the lists a couple of months ago.) Lets push the following into pages named something like (naming needs improvement):

• List of Massachusetts Federal historic sites, parks, refuges, scenic and heritage areas
• List of Massachusettts bands
• List of Massachusetts politicians
• List of Massachusetts authors.
• List of Massachusetts inventors
• List of Massachusetts Actors

the see also list is starting to get out of hand too. Perhaps time for two or three columns on that.

the population breakdown by religion/sect could use come space-saving compression too. And references. -- Yellowdesk 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Conforming to suggested outline at WikiProject U.S. States

It's desirable to move the article in the direction of confirming to the outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._States. In large part it conforms to that outline, but could move closer to the outline if no strong reasons are found for diverging from it. -- Yellowdesk 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have failed this article according to the standards of the GA criteria. The article has several tags for cleanup, requests for inline citations, one of the images doesn't have a fair use rationale, and many statements should have inline citations added to help the reader establish verifiability. I'd recommend looking over the criteria,address these issues, and then renominate again. Good work so far with being very broad, plenty of images, and a good start on references. If you have any questions about this review please contact me on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, but I don't think the article as it stands now should be tagged with the "needs cleanup" label any more. Sfahey 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Geology anyone?

There is a new series of Geology of <state> articles. Only a handful have been written, nothing for Mass. yet. Nevertheless this seems important. Geology is the foundation of geography and even explains a fair amount of history (Mesozoic rifting along Connecticut River Valley bounds Pleistocene Lake Hitchcock, whose sediments create rich farmland encouraging early settlement in contrast with thin soils of hilltowns where settlement lagged about 100 years and so history has played out very differently...

I hope anyone who has at least taken a few courses in the regional geology will dive into this project. LADave 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Umasslogo.gif

Image:Umasslogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I don't know who decided that Massachusetts was (IPA) /ˌmɒ.səˈtʃu.sɪts/ (X-SAMPA /%mQ.s@"tSu.sIts/, "mohsuhchoosits, for those who require it), but as a resident of the state who has lived here for his entire life, I can say that I have never heard anyone pronounce the first vowel as /ɒ/, only as /æ/ (X-SAMPA /{/, "a" as in cat for those who require it). Sectori 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Vacancies

Perhaps it should be mentioned. Massachusetts is the only (of the 50 US states) American state that leaves its Governorship vacant, after its Governor dies, resigns or is removed from office. The next-in-line succeeds only to the powers & duties as Acting Governor (not the Governorship itself). GoodDay 23:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

you sure its only massachusetts? Gang14 02:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, not really, but New Jersey recently changed their own constitution, to allow 'full' gubernatorial succession. GoodDay 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

well once your are sure and when u have a referance then add it I say. Gang14 18:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why no healthcare section

Someone should really add this... I looked up the state just to find out about that and there's ZIP.

Area and density information

Some of the total area, land area, and population density information in the infobox are inconsistent (from US to SI), or wrong. I'm correcting it based on data at the US Census Bureau webpage: [13], and based on a conversion of 2.59 sqkm/sqmi. Don't know why infoboxes aren't set up for something like {{Unit area}}, but that's a question for another talk page. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone's unfinished edit?

I noticed someone was building a geography section, but left it unfinished and commented it out - unfortunately, nesting multiple 'close comment' tags won't work, so it displayed a bit of a mess on the page. I've removed this incomplete geology section - it'll be available in the version history if anyone feels like completing it. Jodamn 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

sloavery in massachusetts

massachusetts was one of the first places to free slaves. many slaves tried to escaped and go to massachusetts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.220.126 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Other presidents from Massachusetts

Why is the Kennedy family given precedence over other such political families as the Adams'? And Calvin Coolidge? - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bay Stater"? What?

I've lived in Massachusetts all my life, and I've been called a "Bostonian", not a "Bay Stater". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.243.42 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard "Bay Stater" either. I have heard Masshole, but that doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. - Denimadept (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, is it possible there is no "Demonym" for Massachusetts? I've never heard "Bay Stater" anywhere. - Denimadept (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear "Bay Stater" now and then on the WHDH newscasts; and legally, we are Bay Staters. That said, I don't think it's commonly used. Sahasrahla (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd rather be a Massachusetts Dweller, or maybe a Red Sox Fan. I think that'd be more to the point, yeah: you live in Massachusetts, you're by definition a Red Sox Fan. Who's with me? - Denimadept (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The term was not uncommon when I gew up there in the 60s. However, "Bay State" would be far more apt for Maryland, which is dominated by (Baltimore crime and) the Chesapeake Bay. It would be a triumph for both parties if legislators from the two states could get together and give the nickname to Maryland while calling for Mass. to become the "Cradle of Liberty". Any takers? Sfahey (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See section below. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankslapperinni (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Bostonian really only applies to people in Boston. I do hear Mass-hole all the time though. Maybe it could be an Alternate Demonym? I must say even though people probably "take offence" (Bawww...) to the term, it doesn't change the fact that it's the most common one.

See the first foot note in the article. "Bostonian" just gets used a great deal because most people in the state live near Boston, but Bay Stater is user all the time. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I too was a "Baystater", for my first 25 years. I now live in Maryland, which surrounds and is much influenced by Chesapeake Bay. Some clever Maryland pol would do well to try to get "Baystate" from Mass. and let Mass. become "The Cradle of Liberty". Sfahey (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Massachusettsan?"

A recent editor changed the denonym from "Bay Stater" to "Massachusettsan." An online search of the Boston Globe from 1980 to the present turns up 811 occurrences of "Bay Stater" and zero, zip, zilch, nada occurrences of "Massachusettsan." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A similar check of the Boston Herald from 1991 to the present turns up exactly one occurrence of the word "Massachusettsan." It is an editorial. It is an editorial scorning Howard Dean's campaign for using the word, and noting:

Anyone who tries to verbalize that demonym knows writing "Massachusetts resident" or the standard "Bay Stater" would have been much cleaner. Rather than his opinion against ours, we decided to get a ruling - and, thank goodness, the state has official EVERYTHING. So we refer the Dean camp to Chapter 2, Section 35 of the Massachusetts General Laws granting the designation of the citizens of the commonwealth--Bay Stater.

Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the actual reference: Massachusetts General Laws, Section 2, Chapter 35, which reads, in full:

Chapter 2: Section 35. Designation of citizens of commonwealth Section 35. Bay Staters shall be the official designation of citizens of the commonwealth.

. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

I just removed a few links that I don't think belong - one was added by someone who was "spamming" many different articles including this one. Still there remain 22 external links, which seems excessive to me. If anyone cares to go through the other links and trim more, that would be great. Or is some rationale for all these links? --Aude (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User Middleforkmaps added external link to interactive mapsachusetts mapping site

I've stripped out a few more: links like the MBTA, the Boston Marathon and the state political parties belong more properly under articles for those entities, and the local NRA branch and genealogy seems a bit off topic. RGTraynor 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An online guide to the State of Massachussets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernini2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox error

How can the state be wider than it is long? Can someone more facile with these boxes than I correct this? Sfahey (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The width is East to West, the height North to South. Even including the islands and stuff like that, MA is wider than it is long. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it reads "length", not "height".Sfahey (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well considering we are talking about a flat object, not something growing up from the ground, "height" may not be accurate. It is most likely a standard term for the infoboxes. Regardless, it is still correct. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sports

1. Basketball Hall of Fame

2. Patriots Hall of Fame

3. Home of gymnast, Alica Sacromone

4. Boston Red Sox

5. Boston Bruins

6. New England Patriots

7. Boston Celtics

8. And of course, THE HOME OF THE YANKEE HATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.212.146 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The US "Commonwealth"

The other uses tag states "This article is about the U.S. Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Shouldn't this say "US State of Massachusetts"? It is a US State which uses the word Commonwealth in its official name. Calling it "The US Commonwealth of Massachusetts" separates it from the other states. Archons (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there are a number of others which call themselves "Commonwealth" too. Check it out. - Denimadept (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the list: Commonwealth#U.S._states - Denimadept (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the list. My point is that it is the name of a state. The word commonwealth does not separate it from the 46 states that do not use that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archons (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is a point. You'll need to clarify further if you really want to make one. Denimadept's point (with which I agree wholeheartedly) is that Massachusetts' name is the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", not the "State of Massachusetts". Similarly, New York State is the "State of New York", not the "Commonwealth of New York". It's just the name, and it should suffice to say that "the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state". King of the Arverni (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting changing anything other than the other uses tag so that it is consistent with other State pages. Archons (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that you could change the dab tag without upsetting anyone. Be WP:BOLD. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sales Tax

I believe that sales tax for MA is going to change and the article needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.253.229 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Find a reference and update the article, then. - Denimadept (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found one. - Denimadept (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

same-sex marriage

The article states, as of 2004 MA would be the sixth state/jurisdiction in the world legalizing same-sex marriage. This "ranking" cannot be correct as at least Germany adopted a federal act on same-sex marriage taking effect 1. August 2001. Since there is no current list on this legislation -regarding further countries- I think it would be better to mention this fact w/o a rank. --92.50.109.251 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany, the 2001 legislation in Germany recognizes same-sex civil union or Eingetragene Partnerschaft. In 2004, Massachusetts joined the other jurisdictions listed in this article in specifically recognizing same-sex marriage (Ehe), indistinguishable from traditional marriage. Sswonk (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.38.73 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts Constitution

Just a quick note; is the Massachusetts constitution truly the oldest functioning constitution? It was written in 1780, but Vermont's constitution was written in 1777, and has not been given up. 147.126.46.145 (talk)

Nope. NH was 1783 to take effect in 1784 and was revised as of 2007. See [14]. - Denimadept (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Corruption

I would love to some some information about the Mafia and other sources of corruption in the MA gov't. I don't personally know any sources. Howeveer, myself and many others that lived there with me seem to think there is a lot going on behind the scenes to cause things like construction to be so wasteful and low quality (ie. sidewalks, roads etc.), especially for an otherwise wealthy state. If anyone has info on that, please post some, I'd love to see it! Thanks. Demis (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was on the subway in Brookline yesterday with someone who "seemed to think" that the ticket counters had an easy job. That was until the ticket counter told him she was also a mechanic, had to fix the subways when they broke down. What people "seem to think" and what is reality don't often line up. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Education

Does anyone else think there's a little too much info on Westfield State College: "Massachusetts is also home to several other state funded 2 and 4 year colleges, including Westfield State College in the western portion of the state. Westfield State College has a rich history in Massachusetrts and boasts an array of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. Most well known for their education and criminal justice programs, Westfield State has more recently expanded graduate offerings through its Division of Graduate and Continuing Education to include Social Work, Psychology, English, Accountancy, and Public Administration, as well as a host of online courses."

This sounds like a college catalog to me. While we're at it, why don't we bring up all the other state colleges and their various undergraduate and graduate offerings...!?!? you get the point. 71.243.119.203 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)bacarolle

Agreed. Excised. - Denimadept (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error8

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write herejh

72.173.20.105 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates are correct. If you have a specific problem with them, please state it and repost the template. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

English as Official Language

I propose deleting the reference to English as the "official language" of the Commonwealth. Contrary to WP:V, the assertion is not sourced. The article on the so-called English-only movement does provide a reference to Article XX of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which provides an English language test for voting and holding office. The amendment is unconstitutional insofar as it imposes a literacy test on voters. I am not sure whether the constitutionality of the Amendment has ever been tested insofar as it imposes a literacy test on candidates for office, but I think the constitutionality of the provision would be in question. And in any case, Amendment XX does not declare that English is the official language of the Commonwealth, as does, for example, Article 3, Section 6 of the California Constitution or Amendment 28 to the Arizona Constitution. In the absence of such an explicit declaration, and given the unclear meaning of "official language" in any case, there is no good basis for the assertion as far as I can tell. Tfolkman (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The alternative to 'official language' would be 'de facto', and I'm not sure that would be a good switch considering the constitution mandates that voters know English and that there is (or at least was) a law mandating English-only education for a period at least. Some states say clear as day "English is the official language", some say nothing on the topic, falling squarely in the 'de facto' category, and some, like Massachusetts, are in between. To me, the English-only voting requirement comes closer to the official language side than the de jure one. Also, it isn't our job to be judging the constitutionality of bills, or whether or not they constitute a literacy test - we should just be explaining what the situation is. Perhaps a note could be added in the infobox entry explaining exactly what is going on. AlexiusHoratius 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the distinction you mean to draw between de jure and official. There is a distinction between de jure and de facto, and there is no question that English is the de facto language of government and society in Massachusetts. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I also want to point out a point that just occurred to me. Article XX was ratified in the mid-1800s. It was clearly intended as a literacy test and may, I suppose, have had racial overtones. But this was long before the notion of "English as an official language" had any political currency. It seems to me, therefore, that referencing Article XX in support of the notion that English is the official language of the Commonwealth is anachronistic. Tfolkman (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant 'de facto', not 'de jure' (I changed it an hour or so after I posted the first time). Anyway, due to how the infobox is set up, we basically have four options. 1) Leave it like it is 2) Leave the wording but put a note (which would appear on the bottom) explaining the situation 3)Switch it to 'de facto' (I'd actually rather not do that because of the existing laws. Racially motivated or not, constitutional or not, they're still on the books.) and 4) just remove the entry, as most people will probably already figure that things are done in English. Like I said before, whether or not it is racially motivated and constitutional (and actually, if you ask me, I'd say mandating that those who pick politicians at least be able to write their name makes sense) is not for us to decide. AlexiusHoratius 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer option (4) for the reason you give. Do others have a view? Tfolkman (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced with English (de facto), same as the United States page, and other states, Rhode Island, etc. On a note, the legality of Article XX shouldn't be an issue in this decision, but I would not agree that Article XX should be interpreted as defining an official language in the first place. --Extrabatteries (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I will have to reconsider what I previously wrote regarding the legality of the law. After reading several chapters from this, it seems this law would have already been overtaken by the voting rights act and supreme court rulings such as katzenbach v morgan. That the law remains on the books wouldn't make a difference. And it certainly devalues this article as source for the sole citation of the state's official language. http://books.google.com/books?id=9-8nUaEdpFMC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=english+literacy+vote+massachusetts&source=bl&ots=MXSIQyvxDq&sig=KCauOhRRX-xMNdoe9mRT2w6FZXM&hl=en&ei=ecT9S4icDJuK_AbdxtGjCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=english%20literacy%20vote%20massachusetts&f=false --Extrabatteries (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is fine with me, too, though I am not sure AlexiusHoratius will agree. And I agree with you that Article XX does not define English as an official language. Tfolkman (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to adopt your suggestion and make the change. I am a relatively new editor, but I have read WP:BOLD, and I think the change is warranted, so we will see what happens. Tfolkman 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfolkman (talk • contribs)

GA nom coming soon - still need a bit of help

I'm planning on nominating the article for GA status pretty soon, but I'd like someone who knows more about Massachusetts than I do to take a look at a few things - most of the specifics can be found here. Thanks in advance. AlexiusHoratius 13:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still on this, just been a bit busy in real life. I'll work on it a bit more in the next few weeks when I get a chance. AlexiusHoratius 20:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still on this, but have gotten a bit tied up with the geography section - in particular geology. I had checked out a Massachusetts geology book from the library, but it was a bit too dense for my limited geologic knowledge to handle. I'm still working on it though - hopefully it will be up to GA standards within a month or two. No rush, I guess. AlexiusHoratius 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mass" as a nickname

Isn't "Mass" a common nickname (technically: abbreviation) for Massachusetts, not only in the region, but in many parts of the U.S.? Shouldn't this be stated somewhere? --TimothyDexter (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proper titles and Commonwealth versus State distinctions

Noticed two glaring errors as a citizen of Massachusetts and from taking Mass & Federal Political Science. Below are the main points:

1.) Governor of Massachusetts official title is not Governor of Massachusetts. His Constitutional title is Governor of The Commonwealth. 2.) It should be noted, but is not, that in Massachusetts the Lt. Governor does not assume the office of the Governor of The Commonwealth in absence, resignation, or death of the Governor, but rather becomes Acting Governor. All laws signed by Jane Swift where signed as "Lt. Governor Jane Swift, Acting Governor of The Commonwealth" and when she came before the General Court for State of The Commonwealth Address she was announced as "Lt. Governor Jane Swift, Acting Governor of The Commonwealth". This is a rather important political point since the majority of the states allow for Lt. Governors to assume the office of the Governor of that state for absence, resignation, or death. 3.) The article states no "practical" difference between a Commonwealth and a State then references a book on Kentucky, not Massachusetts. There is a practical difference. What the state refers to as "the New England town" form of government is actually one of the practical differences. In a Commonwealth, municipalities are directly incorporated into the higher state/federal government with a county designated as a regional division. All municipalities through a Charter issued by the General Court are allowed to create By Laws which if approved by the Town Meeting (a quorum of the citizenry) and submitted to the office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, where there be no violation by the By Law of Massachusetts General Law & Amendments (MGL and/or MGLA) is allowed to stand as a sort of "Local Law" applicable within the boarders of the Town. In a State all municipalities are incorporated into the county which is then incorporated into the state/federal government with a county acting like a "mini state" with certain local law enacting powers. Thus, in a Commonwealth for all practical reasons counties are irrelevant and redundant which is why several counties including Franklin and Hamden have abolished theirs. 4.) Under Government it should be noted there are five Constitutional Officers of Massachusetts and this should be noted in that their titles are different from states. These include: The Governor of The Commonwealth, Lt. Governor of The Commonwealth, Sec. of The Commonwealth, Treasurer of The Commonwealth, Attorney General of The Commonwealth. Massachusetts does not have a Sec. of State, that office is fulfilled by the Sec. of The Commonwealth and the use of Sec. of State is a common mistake made by national news when covering elections in the Commonwealth. 5.) Finally, it should be noted that Massachusetts citizens are fiercely proud of their Townships and Cities. Most citizens identify themselves first and foremost as being from a certain municipality before stating the region of Massachusetts and then the actual Commonwealth itself. Example: I'm John Smith and I'm from New Salem which is in Western Mass in Franklin County.

For accuracy these points should be considered so as to prevent confusion from people who are trying to learn about Massachusetts. All of this information is basic and required knowledge to pass any Mass & Federal Political Science course at the College Level at any College located within the Commonwealth. AdamsRice (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to update the article, using cites to back up your position, please. - Denimadept (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, "fiercely proud" is not how I'd say it. I lived in MA for 10 years and never could remember the name of my county. I always had to look it up, as it was largely irrelevant to my life. I would call your statement an opinion, and leave it out. - Denimadept (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Data visualization of municipal population changes in Massachusetts

I've put together an animated SVG showing population flows within Massachusetts for each decade between 1850 and 2009, available at http://toolserver.org/~emw/Massachusetts_municipal_population_flows.svg. I've also uploaded it at File:Massachusetts municipal population flows.svg. If anyone reading this uses Chrome, Opera or Firefox 4 (beta), then I would appreciate feedback on how the animation could be improved. I would like to eventually put the animation (possibly ported to .ogv video format) into the article space including any improvements suggested here. Emw (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be posting a table of the underlying population count data to my userspace soon. Emw (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:MassMutual Springfield.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:MassMutual Springfield.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bay State" -- official formal designation or informal nickname?

An editor, User:OuroborosCobra, is insisting (e.g. here) that "Bay Staters" is the official formal designation for residents of Massachusetts and that we should use that instead of "Massachusetts residents" or similar nomenclature in formal passages.

Hopefully it's obvious that this is silly. The editor's case is based on the fact that (according to him) somewhere sometime a bureaucrat somewhere signed a proclamation making "Bay Stater" the official name of the state or something: "The fact that it [Bay Stater] is the official demonym of the state means that it's use isn't informal. It is a formal designation. "Bay Stater" is what a citizen of Massachusetts is formally called. Masshole would be informal" he says in his last edit summary.

This is nonsense in my opinion. No politician or clerk can dictate what nomenclature the Wikipedia must use for political entities. So that leaves us to fall back on our Manual of Style and common sense. I believe that these inform us that as a practical matter "Bay Stater" is an informal nickname. We don't write "158 Show-Me Staters were killed in the Joplin tornadoes" and so forth, and hopefully we aren't going to start. Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - official or not, I've not heard the term used much if at all when living in Massachusetts. I've heard "Masshole" more frequently. Maybe it's a personal thing! It's less official than the (ignored) state flower, state rock (if any), state color (if any), or any other silly state thing, but I wasn't going to get involved with the battle. BTW, do we have a cite for the demonym? Hm, yes I see we do, see cite 1. - Denimadept (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that... "Bay Staters shall be the official designation of citizens of the commonwealth" Part I, Title I, Chapter 2, Section 35 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Thus proving exactly nothing, except that Massachusetts lawmakers have slow days too. I expected such a law existed and don't base my objection on this but on that fact that our articles reflect usage and our own Manual of Style and not laws passed by any entity. If, in a fit of madness, the New York Times, The Economist, Time Magazine, and so forth, were to accept this obscure law as overriding their manual of style then I'd be willing to listen... call me when this happens (I won't be holding my breath). If the State of Alabama has the bright idea to pass a law saying "The official designation of citizens of the State of Alabama shall be 'Salt of the Earth'"(or 'God's Chosen Children' or 'Residents of the Finest State' or whatever), which I would not put past them, would we required to follow that too. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Too long

At more than 133, 000 bytes this article appears too long to download, read, and navigate comfortably. Please see WP:SPLIT. Some sections are already linked to a main article. In such cases it may be possible to transfer text into their respective main articles. New articles could possibly be created as needed to transfer more text. The benefit of these new and existing main articles is there plenty of room for expansion. This is not really the case for this particular article ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While there is some fat that still needs to be trimmed - especially in the history section - keep in mind that 250+ references with proper formats will add a lot of size. I might try to do some trimming of unsourced stuff, but I really don't think it's possible to get a well sourced article that covers all major aspects on an expansive topic such as this to come in at under, say, 120kb. As it is, much of the geography section is still unsourced - which will obviously add to the article's length. AlexiusHoratius 06:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just merged content from the geography section over to the main article. I didn't notice if sourcing was an issue. If it is then sources can be applied to that article.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - by and large I applaud your trimming work, both here and at other state articles I've been seeing. It's often easier to work from a "clean slate" than try and find references for reams of someone else's original research. I just wanted to make sure some of these article with better referencing didn't get "penalized" with clean-up tags. I'll look at adding a bit back to the geo. section (it's a bit stubby right now), but I'll keep it short and sourced. I think a good "goal" for that section (including climate) would be 5-6 well-sourced paragraphs. AlexiusHoratius 04:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the idea is to have one summary paragraph in the article where content is being split from. Then the reader may click on the link to the much longer main articles. I think having five or six paragraphs in the geography section might defeat the purpose. Also, it might seem redundant. One more thing is that this article is difficult to download and I don't have a slow computer and I have plenty of RAM. If I am thinking in terms of the general reader, then what is best for the general reader?

I just merged the history section over to the main article. I was very careful to place each paragraph from this section into the appropriate section of that article. Hopefully, this minimizes the copy editing needed in that article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Virginia is a good guide here - similar subject matter and scope - it's a recent FA and I think it was on the main page not too long ago - but it is also a good deal larger than 100kb or whatever. Like I said before, I generally agree with trimming on most of these articles - South Carolina was a disaster - but on the other hand I don't think it's possible to fit the history (or a number of other topics) of a place like MA into one paragraph. AlexiusHoratius 07:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Virginia" is currently at 140,000 bytes, and I am guessing it could have achieved FA status without being that long. However, I think you are saying that article size is no hindrance. Personally, I suppose it depends on the editors working on the article. I can only wonder why 140,000 bytes was not an issue that hindered awarding that article FA. Wikipedia:Summary style is a guideline. As far as I know, to achieve GA, and FA heeding the guidelines is supposed to be a factor.

Pertaining to the History of MA, and other topics - these are not being placed in only one paragraph. These sections link to a main article that gives an in depth treatment of each topic. More is covered in these main articles than can possibly be covered in the Massachusetts article. If you are concerned about GA and FA status - the Massachusetts article can achieve GA and FA with the summary style I have begun to implement. No reader will miss out on any information because of the main articles that these sections link to.

I am interested to know your opinion. What is the difference between a one paragraph summary style linked to a main article, and coverage given by several paragraphs, also linked to a main article? Both are insubstantial coverage. Sufficient coverage can only be achieved with the main articles. These are the articles that have room for all the necessary details. I suppose I am wondering what you hope to achieve with several paragraphs per section instead of just one?

I am surprised that more editors are not involved in this discussion. Perhaps we should open a discussion at WikiProject Massachusetts (and provide a link to this one)? What do you think? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind - I went ahead let the project know of this discussion. [15]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this one paragraph rule is the scope of the paragraph. I just don't think stuffing the history of a place like Massachusetts into 8 or 9 sentences would sound very good. If it's too brief, then you are forcing the reader to go to the daughter article if they want an overview of the topic that actually makes sense and flows well. I really can't think of any recent examples of FAs or GAs of this scope (large city, state, country, etc.) that adhere to your one paragraph per history/geography section rule. For what it's worth, Manitoba is another recent FA to look at. A general overview on a broad topic is possible in 5 or 6 paragraphs, but not 5 or 6 sentences. For some topics, one or two paragraphs might be enough (like sports or something) but not history or geography. AlexiusHoratius 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you are saying. However, look at Geography of Manitoba. This article is small and could certainly benefit from what is in the Geography section of Manitoba. It seems the Geography of Manitoba is suffering (somewhat) from neglect. Combining that geography section with that geography article does not make for an overly long and complicated article. It seems the geography section in the Manitoba article could work with one or two paragraphs given the dearth of content that is being presented. To me this kind of work does not make sense. However, the daughter articles of this article may be a different case. It seemed to me yesterday that History of Massachusetts could be a GA candidate. Perhaps Geography of Massachusetts is also a different case. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - let me change that to three or four paragraphs in the geography section of Manitoba. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has recently been working on articles related to the (colonial) history of Massachusetts, it's my opinion that what you've done is for the most part good. I do think, however that you've cut rather too much out of the history here, and it should probably be more like 2-3 paragraphs. There are a few things that probably ought to be mentioned, that are not, in roughly chronological order:

• Puritans (not the Pilgrims) where the major settling force, not just in Massachusetts, but all of New England, in the 17th century; this is why Boston was (and remains) a potent economic center for the region.
• An early emphasis on shipbuilding led to a thriving merchant business that competed with English merchants.
• Some Massachusetts merchants were major players in the Atlantic slave trade (mainly in the 18th century), even though slaves were not held in large numbers in colonial times (unlike in the southern colonies).
• Massachusetts colonial governments had a very strong independent streak from the start, leading to difficult relations with the crown at first and later with royally appointed governors.
• The founding of the Springfield Armory during the revolution was a center of early industrialization.

The article's "readable prose size" is currently 34K; based on WP:SIZERULE there is room for more material. (I justify inclusion of these specific items because they serve as background to the state's rise as a merchant and industrial power. Mention of the early slave trade is an important counterpoint to the state's later abolitionist position.) Magic♪piano 12:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• AlexiusHoratius, go ahead and edit according to your ideas. The FA articles in both instances stand as a good example. Thanks for the discussion. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on a streamlined version for the history section of what had been here, keeping only the referenced stuff and trying to stick to only the key events. Like I said before and the other editor said, I do agree with most of the cuts to state articles you've been making - a lot of bloat has accumulated over the last 8 or 9 years on most of these articles. AlexiusHoratius 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added back the old ecology section (which could perhaps be shortened in some places) and most of the old history section. I tried to cut nearly all of the unsourced stuff out of the old history section, which included most of the material on western Mass. If someone has access to books or knows of good websites, I think a sentence or two on the settlement of western Massachusetts, along with a sentence on the Springfield Armory would be good here - I just didn't have any books in front of me (the one I used was checked out from the library). The sections I re-added aren't set in stone or anything, and cuts or additions could be made in places - like I said earlier, I've been trying to basically follow the Virginia and Manitoba articles for guides as to the length of these sections. AlexiusHoratius 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Population density and population number are inconsistent for Massachusetts

The land area is given as 10,555 sq mi. The population density is given as 809 per sq mile. If these numbers are correct, the population of Massachusetts would be 8,538,995. It is given as 6,547,629. Either the population density is lower, the land area smaller, or the population is 2 million higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.248.127 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Massachusetts Tax Burden

I was surprised to see the claim that the Massachusetts state and local tax burden ranked 23rd in the nation - so I followed the link. In fact it ranks 11th, and when combined with federal taxes, it ranks 8th.

See reference #120 for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.144 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

historical population

Estimate 2020? There are a lot of refs under the numbers and the increase is too large for Massachusetts, only small increase of population like whole New England and northern East Coast, but however is a 2020 estimate not a bit too heavy? I mean even 2015 is hard, the financial crisis and debt crisis is very important for the immigration which generates most of the population increase in this area... so I think it is maybe "interesting" but nothing for wikipedia, not yet ;) Quickfacts (census.gov):

Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 1.5% (Massachusetts), 1.7% (USA)

Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 0.9% (Massa.) 0.9% (USA)

Population, 2010 (April 1) Census 6,547,629

Population, 2011 estimate 6,607,003

Population, 2012 estimate 6,646,144

So the increase already slowed down from July 1, 2011 until July 1, 2012 compared to the US total increase. Greetings from Europe :D Kilon22 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

We have a regular IP vandalism of this article for already quite some time. Should I configure pending changes for the page?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New Junior Senator

Can someone change the Junior Senator to Ed Markey (D)? He will be sworn in within a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.8.146 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We can change it when he is sworn in; until then, he is not the senator. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Massachusetts

In 2002 the Massachusetts legislature voted English as the official language. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.91.128 (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Got a cite for that? - Denimadept (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In 2002 there was a ballot initiative prohibiting bilingual education[16], which somehow passed (much to the shock of everybody I knew). Could this be what you were thinking of, 174.63.91.128? —Quintucket (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If so, that is far from making an official language. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, but people tend to misremember things, and given the date, I suspect that the IP merely recalled that something English-only went down then. —Quintucket (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Boston Housing Development Corporation

Why is there nothing on the Boston Housing Development Corporation!? Christopher Hagar (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Government records freely licensed

See http://www.mass.gov/governor/terms-of-use.html. If I have read this correctly, images of Gov. Baker and Lt. Gov. Polito can be uploaded. MB298 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Latin

Latin is used in the state's motto in Massachusetts, so can we at least put a translation of the commonwealth's official name into the article? it seems relevant to me, its not like I wrote "Republic of Massachusetts" in Assyrian Neo Aramaic, i wrote it in Latin which is relevant to the state. --user:Neddy1234

Latin is not an official language of the state, nor does the state have an official name in a language other than English. -- Calidum 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Calidum, Massachusetts has a strong historical and classicist tradition which strongly confirms Neddy1234's suggestion as valid and actionable. You need to accede the usage of the proper Latin name, which appears in many official documents including Harvard diplomata throughout hundreds of years of history. Please add the pertinent, called-for, and currently missing Latin name. 129.170.195.165 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massachusetts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buffaboy (talk · contribs) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

O.K., I have nothing going on the next couple of days and will be bored out of my mine. Since my GA reviews are concentrated on the U.S., I will review Massachusetts. Beware this may take a week or two, or longer depending on whether or not it's in good shape. Buffaboy ^talk 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on! I've done my best to prep the article for GA status, but it is a huge article so there are likely many improvements to be made! Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and you can expect me to be helpful during the process! Buffaboy ^talk 01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ran a checklinks of the references, and everything seems to be in order except for refs 275 (archive URL: [17]) and 277 (archive URL: [18].) I'm not checking for WP:RS right now, as I am about to start the read-thru, but that's the only issue I see ATM. I will comment along with changes as I go. Buffaboy ^talk 01:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know if the See also conforms with WP:MOS, but I like it a lot.

  C WP:ALSO doesn't say whether including headers in the see also section is good or bad. So I'll leave it to your editorial judgement. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• A couple references are in a journal format when a web format would suit them better, and some date formats are incorrect. I'm done for tonight, but sofar those are my observations. Buffaboy ^talk 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Massachusetts is the 6th smallest by land area, but the 14th most populous and the 3rd most densely populated of the 50 United States. I feel as though it should say "state" after smallest, but if you're okay with the wording then I am too.

   Done Added. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEADCITE, it's not necessary to reference lead content of the content is in the article (I believe), but there aren't many refs so I'll leave that to you as well.

   Done I've removed many of the citations in the lead, but have kept a few where I believe it may be difficult to find sources for the statements in the wikilinked articles. I can tone it down further if you think there are still too many. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not responding as fast, but I've been working on a few things today. So far, everything looks good, and tomorrow (today) I'll go through extensively for a few hours, and I might be able to come back with a pass or fail. Buffaboy ^talk 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Take your time, there's no rush. Remember, there is no deadline. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I actually just caught a cold so I'll put it on hold just for a couple of days. It'll give me time to read it in the meantime. Buffaboy ^talk 02:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Do you want to keep the section headings under "History?" Buffaboy ^talk 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally yes, seems like a good way to organize a long history section and it fits nicely with most history sections of other political regions. I'm open to suggestions though.Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: While I did say there is no deadline, I was wondering if you intend to finish this review. It's fine if you would like to pass it on to someone else, I would just prefer that it doesn't stay in on hold limbo indefinitely. Thanks for your efforts so far. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Thank you for your understanding. I have had to cut back on editing recently because of increased IRL commitments, and the size and scope of the article requires a fine toothed comb. I sincerely wish I could find the time to do a thorough review, but in order to be completely thorough it would take at least a month of constant source checking and potentially copy editing. I hope we get to review each other's GA nominations in the future, but for now, I don't have much time. In the meantime I will find someone with time who can help thoroughly review the article. Buffaboy ^talk 02:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massachusetts/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to review this before its first GAN, but I was too late. I mainly focus on prose issues and should have this to you by tomorrow JAGUAR  19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "and the 3rd most densely populated of the 50 United States" - how about just 50 states or something similar? Done
• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are discouraged unless it's citing controversial information. However given the complexity and broadness of this article, most of the citations in the lead are in fact appropriate (such as census figures etc). I thought that it wouldn't hurt to relocate a few ones

• I just realised that this was mentioned in the previous GAR, so it's up to you if you want to cut back or not

• I'm happy with the lead as is unless you have specific changes you link I should make.

• It has improved greatly, thanks JAGUAR  21:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Massachusetts is an economic leader in life science, the finance industry, information technology, manufacturing, renewable energy, the defense industry, and maritime trade" - just in the US or worldwide? Fixed International.
• "a major route for migratory waterfowl along the Atlantic coast" - might be worth renaming this to west coast?  Fixed I assume you mean east?

• I meant east but for some reason wrote west! Thanks JAGUAR  21:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• "though surveying problems resulted in disputed territory until 1803–04" - this part needs a citation (if it is in the previous one, it should be moved here)  Done
• The last two paragraphs in the Demographics section could be merged in order to create a better flow  Done
• "Lowell is home to the second-largest Cambodian (Khmer) community in the nation" - of the nation  Done
• The list of bullet points in the Religion section goes against WP:MOS and would be better of being converted into a wiki-table, prose or maybe cut entirely?  Fixed Moved in into the main paragraph.
• Some WP:OVERLINK in the Regional services section Done
• The first paragraph in the Roads section is largely unreferenced Fixed added ref
• The International relations section is very short, should it be there? If it can't be expanded I would recommend merging it with something else  Done merged to recent history
• The bullet point list in the Education section goes against MOS and the GA criteria. It seems list-y, does it need to be there? Fixed restored section to the version I had a month ago
• The Notes section is empty! Done A relic of a begone era

References

• Ref 311 is dead (only one dead link of an article this size, impressive!) Done Update the rankings as well. You should have seen the article before I went after it about two thirds of the refs were dead, outdated, or unreliable.
• According to the toolserver, a few refs are missing access dates but this is not going to affect the GA criteria. Done

On hold

Of all the states I have reviewed recently this has been by far the most well written and has a good chance of passing this GAN. Overall I found a few prose issues and some MOS concerns that included lists, but other than that this article is in good shape. If all of the above can be clarified then I'll promote this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! JAGUAR  17:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed your concerns. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for those swift responses, Winner 42! The article now meets the GA criteria, the prose is well written, the references all check out and all MOS issues have been dealt with. Well done on all the hard work you put into this - it is rare for an article of this scale and importance to be promoted. I've done a lot of reviews on this scale before but this is probably the first one that has passed with flying colours. JAGUAR  21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling error

Please fix "Massac" and change to "Massachusetts". Thank you. 129.170.195.165 (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Massachusettensian"

Is another demonym in the literature, was the term used by John Adams to define himself (and distinguish himself from Jefferson, who was a "Virginian") -- see Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, Volume 1, p.515:

Mr Jefferson desired me to take them to my lodgings and make the draught. This I declined and gave several reasons for declining. 1. That he was a Virginian and I a Massachusettensian. 2. That he was a southern man and I a northern one.

The term comes from a Latin construction meaning "from" or "of" Massachusetts, which is a demonymized form of the Latin used on the state seal and flag (and thus its use as a demonymic term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.160.52 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I'm pretty sure though the correct term is "Massachusettsian), but yeah Massachusettensian is not very bad 96.237.16.157 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Massachusettsian" is incorrect and virtually nowhere attested. However, "Massachusettensian" is so thoroughly proper, attested, and formally (and verifiably) correct that it is improper that any other really should appear at all; at the very least it should be listed as first instead of third. The proper and historically attested demonym of Massachusetts is "Massachusettensian", deriving from the Latin noun for the state, "massachusettens, ensis, f." 129.170.195.165 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing edits

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T147146

Many early edits to this article are missing; see the above-linked Phabricator task for details. Graham87 13:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Image

An editor inserted File:The First Thanksgiving cph.3g04961.jpg (shown here) in the "Colonial period" section, and I'm skeptical that this is appropriate. This looks like an idealization and was painted about 1912, long after the event, and in time when propaganda about this sort of thing would have probably been rife. We are supposed to document history not somebody's notion of what history might have been. On this basis I suggest the image should probably be removed, but I haven't done this, as I'm not sure. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No objection being recorded, I've removed the image. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree completely that such an image has no place in an encyclopedia, considering the topic. --TimothyDexter (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223235718/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/tables/NST-EST2015-01.csv to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/tables/NST-EST2015-01.csv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921185345/http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/pynchon.html to http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/pynchon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706203009/http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ to http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030032157/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/noble_e.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/noble_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219191828/http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2007/11/29/the-first-class-state.html to http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2007/11/29/the-first-class-state.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160821213346/http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301113005/http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings to http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414101335/http://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/BUSM-About.html to http://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/BUSM-About.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tP2qUQgm?url=http://espn.go.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners to http://espn.go.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.revival-library.org/pensketches/revivals/1st_edwards.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110190706/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1755_11_18_hs.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1755_11_18_hs.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203013517/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2507000.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2507000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505044339/http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/29/how-states-are-spending-money-in-education to http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/29/how-states-are-spending-money-in-education

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Demonym

The fourth Demonym "Masshole" (Informal) might be a good addition. I don't really know.

I came to this talk page to find exactly this. Maybe "Mass-hole (pejorative)".--75.81.51.47 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I realize this is an old discussion, but I agree. It's probably one of the more common demonyms for people from the state, honestly. And there are reliable sources that reference it, since it was minor news that Oxford included the term in their dictionary.68.80.130.184 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to add "Masshole (vulgar)" (WITH the link to the news article that it had been included in the OED) and someone took it right down with a tag "Let's not." This is a bummer to me. I have never heard of the other demonyms and I hear "masshole" all the time. Yes, it's vulgar, but Wikipedia is supposed to provide useful information, not just the information people deem "polite," right? It's been a long time since I was actively contributing to Wikipedia and I've lost track of how one is supposed to go about arguing these things... and I have many other causes to fight... but if someone wants to pick this up, I think it really should be included.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504211534/http://www.springfieldcollege.edu/welcome/birthplace-of-basketball/ to http://www.springfieldcollege.edu/welcome/birthplace-of-basketball/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226064502/http://umass.edu/ruralmass/currentresearch.html to http://www.umass.edu/ruralmass/currentresearch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306042927/http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OB&yr=2007&qkey=4409&state=MA to http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/BRFSS/list.asp?cat=OB&yr=2007&qkey=4409&state=MA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207054448/https://www.massport.com/media/378708/1215-avstats-airport-traffic-summary.pdf to https://www.massport.com/media/378708/1215-avstats-airport-traffic-summary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604091938/http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-sheet/2015/massachusetts.pdf to http://aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-sheet/2015/massachusetts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203011311/http://www.capesymphony.org/cape-symphony-orchestra-the-ccso.asp to http://www.capesymphony.org/cape-symphony-orchestra-the-ccso.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720090725/http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/ir/facts2009-10.pdf to http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/ir/facts2009-10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016214542/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.html to https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank18.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016214511/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank17.html to https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank17.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016120337/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0150.pdf to https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0150.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

untitled

Please add your discussion in the appropriate section. Only start a new section if the discussion is on a new topic.

'Wondering how to edit this State Entry?

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

76.102.31.185 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Local Government or Administrative Divisions?

At the top of the "Cities, Towns and Counties" section, there is a 'main article' link to the Local Government section of the Government of Massachusetts article. That section then has a 'main article' link to the Administrative Divisions of Massachusetts article. Wouldn't it be simpler if the 'main article' bit for the "Cities, Towns and Counties" section linked directly to the Administrative Divisions of Massachusetts article?

— JLUK1234 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Massachusetts

The data are out of date. I propose the following edit, but I don't know how to implement the references. Would someone who knows how to do that please implement the change?

The United States Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that the Massachusetts gross state product in 2018 was US$567 billion. The per capita personal income in 2018 was $70,072, making it the second-highest state in the nation. As of January 2019, Massachusetts general minimum wage in the state is $12 per hour while the minimum wage for tipped workers is $4.35 an hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.107.9 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

References

"Masschusetts" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masschusetts. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Massitchusits" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Massitchusits. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Page Protection

Simple question: Why is this page not protected?

111818b (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@111818b: It is, it has move protection. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)