Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts

seed of education

An anon user placed the phrase, in quotes, "seed of American education" into this article. I would like to use it elsewhere - does anyone have the original souce for it? Thanks! Briancua 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

old discussion

Had this edit been only of dubious factuality or of dubious relevance, I might not have reverted it immediately. However, given not only the situation but the fact that he himself states Dedham was only one of a "number of [...] New England commmunities" where this was the case, it is not relevant enough to Dedham to justify its inclusion here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, it's only "dubious" to you, because a) you don't live nearby (but I do) and b) you haven't studied local history for years (but I have). [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is "dubious" to me because you are following exactly the pattern you accused me of: "vindictive [...] by a disgruntled editor who has been in a revert war with me and is stalking my edits". And even were it accurate information, as it would clearly be if you would, say, cite your sources, it is still information that you yourself say is accurate for a number of New England communities -- only one of which you have added this information to. If you were to document the assertion and add it to an article on the history of the region, I would have no objections. But you have shown ample evidence that you are acting in bad faith, and this is just more of [the same; you are editing not to produce a better version of Wikipedia, but to harass. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, you are really overdoing it here. As for my Dedham source, it's this book here, my original edition hardback copy of which I gave to a local history scholar 8 years ago and do not have at hand to cite. Also, for several years, before I moved, I was on a first name basis with certain Sacco family members whose grandfather was Sacco's brother - so please don't tell me about Dedham History.

Even so, you really ought to read that book if you are interested in a clear, accurate picture of that time period in Massachusetts and Dedham in particular. Please note the particular book I am pointing you to has few reviews, because frankly, not many people care about Dedham from those days. In fact one reviewer, who gave only "2 stars" due to it being "un-interesting" was still compelled to say "For anyone looking for the most complete view of early New England, this is it".

Now as to why the parish factoid belongs in the Dedham article: Well that's simple - most of the towns going west from Dedham - right on out to Millis, Medway and Mendon - all originally split off from Dedham many years ago. Dedham was the core town from which much of the area sprung. This is along the lines of how Norwood split off from Westwood in 1872 (and Westwood was previously part of Dedham). And frankly, if you don't understand the parish issue in Eastern Massachusetts from the older era, you can't ever get a correct grasp of why the "no establishment of religion" angle was later important and what it actually originally meant. But of course, based on how alert and critical I see that your mind is (judging from your sharp, yet trenchant comments about me on the Arb 3 request page), I am guessing you already know the true history of the financial/religious issue behind part of the Establishment Clause. Could it be then, you are biased towards the modern liberal bent which seeks to hide the truth about America's religious heritage? Hmmmmm... We shall see, we shall see.

Suffice it to say then, since I have given you the source and I have justified it's inclusion, I am reverting you. Have a nice day.

PS: Please use this link if you want to read some of that book online for free. The "arrows" at each side of the cover image, allow you to move forward and backwards.

PPS: My wife's great aunt, whose family has lived locally (to the Dedham general area) stretching back over 350 years is almost 100 (she actually had a retired Union Civil War officer as a neighbor as a child) and has shared oodles of interesting factoids about this area with us. Suffice it to say, the local historical societies are jammed with facts and details which never get into books. The parish aspect of Dedham however, did make it into a book and is a very important part of American History. You sell yourself short, if you ingore it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These are the Google search results for "Establishment clause" and "Dedham". Nowhere do they indicate support for the theory that Dedham was somehow notable among the communities where this practice that was eventually overturned by the Establishment Clause was to be found. Your claim that it is proven because you read it in a book that you've now given away is insufficient. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the type of argumentation that I refer to as Beating a dead horse. The issue has been proven (see above). Simply because you cannot confirm it via Google, does not mean it's not sound and true. Frankly, for us to not be constantly at each others throats, it's going to require you opening your mind somewhat, sometimes. Please read the book and then tell me if the context of those times do not make clear that the parish system wasn't a substantial part of the rationale for much of the impetus for the "no establishment of religion" clause. Would you like to put a small wager on it? How about the loser on this point quits the Wiki for one year? I'm game if you are. Also, I see now that my follow-up question on your talk page just now is premature. Please consider it stricken. Also, your "Googling" could stand improvement. Here is a seach for Religious Freedom "Dedham" note that it returns as the #3 link, this which is informative, though not precisely on point. It does however have this interesting statement on it "Relatively little known outside the rarefied circles of colonial scholarship is the fact that it was a popular movement in the late 1630s that demanded the explicit codification of the colonists rights.". Anyway, Feldspar, if you would stop leaping to adverse conclusions, I might be willing to agree to a negotiated truce between us. Let me know if you are interested. Also, this link which also turned up among the 4,120 hits via my Google, seems to address the point I raise more closely. Please read this passage there "The word town denoted ecclesiastical and civil boundaries. Parishes are not mentioned as ecclesiastical divisions, and the distinction between the two was not known in old Colony and Massachusetts records. Instead, provincial statutes use precinct, parish and district indiscriminately for ecclesiastical as well as civil purposes. It is only after the Revolution that the term parish begins to be used in a strictly ecclesiastical sense, when its inhabitants began to be considered a "body corporate" and when the parish itself had to be divided. This second type of territorial parish or precinct consisted of contiguous lands, otherwise the term poll parish was used. The third type which sprang up had no reference to lands and estates and was commonly called a religious society.". Touché, no? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex apparently pretends to interpret the fact that I have not used my third revert as "yielding". To clarify the point, then, here is my third revert. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, did you even READ this link? It addresses and satisfies every one of the historical fact issues you raised. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I read it, the text which Feldspar (and others) keep reverting is perfectly valid and correct. I am restoring it. 216.153.214.94 15:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text which 216.153.214.94071404 keeps reverting is not "perfectly valid and correct." No practicable verification has been offered for it. Anyone who reads the cited sources and compares it with the text that has been inserted by other editors and myself will realize that everything which has been verified has, in fact, already been included in the article. The claims which go beyond what we have verification for, which 216.153.214.94071404 keeps putting in, cannot be taken at face value, as they originate with an editor who has -- to put it mildly -- a problem with truth, especially on any article regarding politics. One doesn't have to look any further than this talk page itself to see that; just look upwards. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar is simply mistaken. This link provides more than ample enough data to corroborate the edit which Feldspar keeps reverting. Also, Feldspar has been admonished by Fred Bauder (see proof here) to get a copy of "Lockridge, Kenneth A. (1985). A New England Town: The First Hundred Years: Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736 (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton." but he refuses to do it. It's clear that Feldspar has an agenda other than allowing edits which reflect the truth about America's Christian heritage. Perhaps he would be willing to share with us what his real objection is. Certainly it's not lack of documentation for the edit he keeps reverting. 216.153.214.94 17:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As 216.153.214.94071404 would know if he was concerned about the content of the article, instead of his campaign of harassment, all the information found at this link that is relevant to Dedham has been included. I read the linked article and summarized the relevant information. The question is not why I am reverting 216.153.214.94071404's edits; it is why he is reverting mine. Everything he has provided proof for has gone in the article; has he advanced any sort of rationale why he should be allowed to go further and insert his edits, which both duplicate information already there and add new information that he has yet to provide proof for? No, he has not.

I will not even comment on the chutzpah it takes for someone to cite the second Request for Arbitration opened against them in order to quote a particular one of their victims being mildly admonished by an adminstrator. As that same adminstrator made clear, there is no question who is "keeping the hell agoing" in this case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please take note that Feldspar refuses to discuss the merits of the information to be found at the links cited. Rather, he engages in inaccurate, misapplied, personal attacks. 216.153.214.94 18:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More information for the willifully blind Feldspar:

"When the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, they founded what was in essence the puritan church – which over time became known as the Congregational Church. The parish of each church composed the entire town. If you lived in a town, you were a resident of the parish, although not necessarily a member of the church. When you paid your taxes, however, some of your money went to support the parish church. Moneys to run the church came from the town.

Indeed, initially many of the early colonists in the 1600s lived in essence in theocracies, with people of only one religious persuasion welcome in the community. Thus, when one reads some of the early records of Puritan Connecticut, for example, one finds Quakers prosecuted under the law. Elsewhere, one can find evidence of Baptists being persecuted. New England was predominantly Congregationalist, with the exception of Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was known for its Quakers, but it also tolerated others". [1]" 216.153.214.94 19:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty interesting that religion in Dedham is still causing such a stink. I live behind the First Church in Dedham (Unitarian) on land owned by the church (I've got a 999-year lease, around 750 to go). According to local legend, the First Church became too liberal for some of the parishioner's tastes in the 1700's so they decamped and built a new church (the Allin Congregational Church) right across High Street from the First Church. They're both still there today. Again as legend has it, the Unitarians were so mad that they moved the location of the front door of the church, which used to face High Street, so that it faced Court Street instead, so they wouldn't have to look at their former brethren as they entered and exited church. This would have been no big deal except that the newly formed Congregational parish took a bunch of record books, silver, etc with them as they claimed that the Unitarians had changed so much that they in essence represented a new church. It took a long time and a couple of court cases before they both agreed to loan the silver to the (presumably) neutral Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

So here we are 200-some-odd years later and you still hear these stories at cocktail parties in Precinct 1, and good ol' Dedham's now stirring up trouble on the net, too! Well, whaddaya know, maybe some old stories have some truth to them: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/oct10.html -- TobyCabot

An idea for a separate article

"The town was originally arranged via a Parish delineation system with the residents of each required to pay into their local parish whether they attended that church or not [2]. This arrangement - which was also followed in a number of other Massachusetts and New England commmunities in the pre-Bill of Rights days - and the resentment it caused a number of people, was one of the prime rationales for the inclusion of the Establishment Clause into the United States Constitution. "

Rex/216 - is there an article that already describes this concept? Seems to me that if "a number of other...communities" used this system, it would be far more productive to create an article describing that, and in that article provide at least a partial list of communities, like Dedham, that used it. I think I have to agree with the others that having something like this in this article isn't very helpful, since this town is not notable for it. Write up a separate article just about this historical fact, cite your sources, and let it stand on it's own. What do you think? -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

I strongly urge people to thoroughly look into this (as I have done). Dedham, Massachusetts is more notable on this issue, as it was one of the core towns in Massachusetts and this Parish/Tax issue was more prevelant in Massachusetts than most other states. Absent me writing out a full history for everyone on this page, there is no way I can explain this all to you. Anyone who is interested ought to read this book. Frankly, anyone who won't read that book, really ought to shut up and butt out. Also, the links I have provided on this talk page are enough for any honest person to confirm that my edit is correct. I am really disgusted at the fraudelent tag-team reverts that were performed by underinformed, closed-minded editors such as Violet, et al. As for "a number of other communities" this is included to avoid the impression that it was Dedham only. On the other hand, this edit was in the history section of Dedham, so even if the issue was also part of the history of other towns there really is no reason to exclude it. Frankly, it boggles my mind that certain editors here are intentionally trying to block that edit about Colonial Dedham. There has been ZERO supported rationale for excluding it. In fact, only Feldspar has even offered any rationales of any kind, and his are not supported by the facts. The edit is true, the history is true. Trying to deny that would be like saying that water is not H2O. 216.153.214.94 00:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the rational for excluding it may have been rash, and neither side is doing any good in perpetuating it. The article is not harmed or helped appreciably with this inclusion. For now, I encourage Rex/216 to make a start on a new article, and I'd ask other editors to get involved with the idea of documenting this interesting bit of history. Later, we can see what method works best to link the city articles with the new article. I don't know much about the subject, but I'd be willing to help research and get it off the ground it it will help us get to the point where the page protection isn't needed. So... what's a good title to make the new article under? -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Title: Colonial Religious Taxation. 216.153.214.94 18:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see this 216.153.214.94 18:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still waiting for others to join the dialog here

1. 216.153.214.94 07:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second Netoholic's suggestion. --kizzle 07:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Another Suggestion

It might be of interest to some readers to amplify the History section. In particular, there is no mention of Dedham's importance to the devlopment to the region, in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was a leading market town and had some locally important industry. There is a monograph by Electa Kane Tritsch that could be usede as a reference, in addition to the several books of Dedham history. Davidb0229 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dedham flag.JPG

Image:Dedham flag.JPG 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott

I think that paul SHOULD be in the list of notable residence. Because of a joke he made on windows weekly someone took him off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.166.9 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He claimed he added it to show someone that anyone could edit Wikipedia. He also stated that he really does not want to be listed under notable residents. Should his wishes be honored? Dpeters11 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed within the first few minutes in http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/twit.cachefly.net/ww0140.mp3, I don't believe Paul said he didn't want to be listed. He merely told how he put himself on the list years ago as a joke to show how useless wikipedia was because anyone could edit it. He later tried to remove himself to undo his joke and was unable to do so. I did not get the impression that he really cared one way or the other on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.234.70 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually at 13:50 he does say that he doesn't like that he was on the page. Despite that I do think he does deserve to be on here considering he has written what I am told is a successful series of tech books, manages a popular Windows tech site and is host of a podcast on one of if not the most popular podcast network to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.91.210 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dedham, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150531073236/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26costello.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/us/26costello.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Counties not identified

The present Norfolk county was not formed until 1793. Counties for Dedham before then are not identified. I guessed Suffolk, but possibly Essex for some years. 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:E1:DF31:5B44:7E0A (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dedham, 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528005334/http://westroxbury.patch.com/listings/boston-united-hand-in-hand-cemetery to http://westroxbury.patch.com/listings/boston-united-hand-in-hand-cemetery
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dedhamhighalumni.org/dhs/mirror/fy02/April2002/staterep.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070605124529/http://dedhamlibrary.org:80/friends.htm to http://dedhamlibrary.org/friends.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dedham, 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/20141016143546/http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/bobby-kelly-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/bobby-kelly-1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070605124529/http://dedhamlibrary.org/friends.htm to http://dedhamlibrary.org/friends.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108022109/http://www.rongolini.com/masshist.htm to http://www.rongolini.com/masshist.htm

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) 21:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As in 'lily'

I was getting worried because your article sweeps aside all those millennia of native habitation and says that the topic begins in 1635 A.D. with the white settlers, perhaps suggesting that this substantial tract of land was unoccupied and inherently theirs from the get-go.

So it was with great relief that a text search brings up a mention of Indians. The Cleveland Indians.

Jimlue (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)