Talk:History of Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Massachusetts is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

I have noticed that this article was requested, and I was wondering if a redirect the the article "Massachusetts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusettes) would be a good idea? Thank you. -Demosthenes- 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questia

Questia is a commercial on-line publisher of out of print books. Its site has not just full bibliography but the first pages of every chapter of every book. This is invaluable in its own right and essaential if a person is deciding to get the book by library-- or purchase access for 99 cents on Questia. Keeping readers blind about free www info is a bad idea and contary to the Wiki spirit. We are not selling cigarettes here. Note that MANY wiki articles has ISBN numbers for books (which are of use only in purchasing the book), and many list publishers. In the intellectual world of encyclopedia we have to rely on publishers, and a hostile attitude just weaken Wiki and makes it less useful. Rjensen 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you've done on the Massachusetts and History of Massachusetts articles. My biggest concern about Questia is whether the information on the History of Massachusetts article were original work or cut-and-paste from copyrighted articles. If this is not the case, then my next concern is that the reference is being used for advertising. Regardless of the quality of Questia (which I do not at all doubt-- they seem like a great resource), then the lists of resources which you provide (which, again, I appreciate) can be included without the like to Questia. It would be equally inappropriate, for example, to include a link to a book via Amazon, when instead a proper bibliography would merely list the bibliographic info. See, e.g., Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/archive1#advertisements on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the ISBN numbers are also useful for free library borrowing. --Mark Adler (Markles) 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no advertising here. The Questia name doesn't show anywhere in Wiki. (Only is users click through do they get it.) I have no relationship whatever to Questia. I recommend the FREE SERVICES they offfer because they are enormously helpful to users. Note that Wiki often says book xxx is published by Macmillan (in that case the company's name does appeal on Wiki). I think this linking is less intrusive and much more useful, because--take a look--Questia lets you read the first page of every chapter. Other links to sources like JSTOR are also valuable--our users otherwise do not know they can read this material online. By the way the mini-essays I am writing is entirely my own (based on the books I list in the references). I have been writing history books and articles for 40 years --am retired now--and love the work. Rjensen 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, specifically prohibiting external links to Bookstores. Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal background. Remove the Questia links from this and all pages you've edited. —Mark Adler (markles) 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Qustia is not a bookstore, it's a publisher. It offers very valuable FREE information, which books stores do not. Such as table of contents and first page of every chapter. Users cannot easily get this information. Blanking it hurts our users.Rjensen 05:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to concur with Markles. The Questia links are not appropriate. It is not a FREE SERVICE, it is a commercial site. (Sure, you can look at limited excerpts from the books....but you can do that at Amazon as well). ISBN numbers should be used. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maine

It says on List of U.S. states by date of statehood that Maine was formerly part of Massachusetts before 1820. Should this be noted here? -- Astrokey44|talk 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there are other tidbits in Massachusetts#History which may or may not be mentioned here. -- Beland 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilgrims/Puritans

The article is misleading in separating the original Pilgrims from the Puritans: "The Pilgrims were soon followed by Puritans..."

The Pilgrims were simply the first group of Puritans that came to Massachusetts, by way of Holland. Others that followed after 1630 were generally from England. But the they were all considered Puritans. (See Philbick's book: Mayflower, pages 8-10.)