Talk:Stoneham, Massachusetts

Untitled

A) How come the "rating" info just goes to another info page on what ratings are, without telling you how to enter one? I'd rate this as a "start" but I can't seem to get to a screen that lets me do that...better user directions would help.

B) This article needs work. In particular, Governor Winthrop was probably not just going "on a picnic." He was more likely surveying or studying the land around Boston, either with a mind to his own purchases (see Billerica, Ten Hills, etc.) and/or the town's security, or both.

In the earliest years of Boston's founding there was great concern that a detachment of the royal navy could cut off Boston and besiege it, thus forcing a return of the charter, under which an energetic use of distance from the crown and enterprising political inventiveness had already created what was essentially an alternative government, (and which, by the 1650s, could truly have been a thorn in the Crown's side had Charles I not been executed; the charter was finally rescinded after the Restoration, in 1684, when Royal Governor Andros was sent to rule the provincial colony that replaced chartered self-rule.)

After a decade or so, immediate worries about this dissipated, but it was for this reason that Cambridge was founded, as an outpost/overlook to the Charles to protect Boston, and probably also why some settlers were left in Charlestown, just across the river from the Trimontaine.

So the "picnic" story sounds a bit lame. Might be true, but I'd want to look deeper into other sources--unless Winthrop says in his diary that's all they were doing, and even then I'd want to be sure.

Ditto the "no reason given for the breakaway." Towns were tied to churches; indeed, were sometimes even called "parishes," following Old English usage. Usually the reasons for separations between older and newer towns were that the church was too far away to be easily reached in bad weather, and a new parish was wanted that would be more convenient to the residents in the town requesting the separation.

Since the church was established, (i.e., tax revenue went to support the church) what affected church polity affected the town's political organization as well. The actual separation of church and state was still in its infancy in the 1600s; in fact, in Massachusetts, the Congregational Way was only disestablished several years after the American Revolutionary War, in 1825 (after a challenge by the Baptists, I believe).

Here again, the issues could be either simple or complex. In some places, the separation was fought, either because the original town feared the loss of tax revenues or wanted to be sure that the breakaway could manage on their own--i.e., had enough contributing houses to sustain a separate town's expenses--since it would be very awkward for all if the breakaway failed and had to apply for support.

In others--Billerica from Cambridge, for example--the separation seems to have been peaceable, probably because the distances were truly so far that the practicality of a separate parish was obvious.

This points up an important issue in current historiography. So many current writers and students of history have either personally dismissed churches and church history as repressive and negative institutions, and/or adhered to a very specific church historical "line" based on their own confessional preferences, and/or taken in only the briefest and most satirical ideas about churches in general, that they do not study them as focal institutions--which they were, and still are. Nor do they understand the motivations that belief structures supplied for historic actions that really do not make apparent sense otherwise.

Whether one agrees with a given polity or faith structure, it is a mistake to ignore the specifics of church history, especially in eras where beliefs and ideals based on church teachings were motivational and/or causally directive. (It is equally unhelpful to make generalized statements either for or against particular church actions without knowing more about them, as in any other aspect of history.)

And those are just two areas where I know something of the contextual situation and suspect there is more to be learned and told. How did shoemaking become important? Why were there all those gas stations? And shouldn't there be a mention of the zoo?

Too much of a tease, needs fleshing out. Dellaroux (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've filled in the "start class" and "low importance" info, as a starting point. Thanks for the observations: many good points. Chonak (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Gas stations - Rt 28 was the major way to get into Boston from the north before I-93. Somehow Stoneham was just the right place for all those gas stations. I think there were about a million of them. Almost. Snezzy (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Capt. Peter Hay

This might be no big deal or it might be one heck of a trivia item:

According to Stevens' History of Stoneham, one of the first selectmen, Captain Peter Hay, had four wives and "lived the life of a patriarch, so far as such a life was possible ... in Puritan New England". He died at the age of ninety in 1748.

Does anyone know whether this refers to four wives in succession (making Hay thrice a widower?) or to polygamy? Chonak (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the quote from Stevens in fuller context:

Another son of Patrick Hay, Capt. Peter Hay, who was one of the most influential men in Stoneham of his time, settled near his father, living for a while in the building known a few years since as the Old Office, and afterwards in the Hay Tavern, which descended in turn to Capt. David Hay. For generations the race was a thrifty and prolific one, exercising a very large influence. A third son, John, a young man of great promise, died in his thirty-first year. Peter Hay was not only the owner of houses and land and men-servants and maid-servants, but he had a multitude of wives, no less than four. He was one of the first selectmen when the town was organized. After having lived the life of a patriarch, so far as such a life was possible in the eighteenth century, and in Puritan New England, he died at the age of ninety in 1748.

The multitude of wives is certainly curious. Don't we wish we knew more! Snezzy (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Notable residents

The entry for Jeff Covelluzzi is probably unwarranted. The same person who continuously adds the un-notable Wilmington HS teacher Jay Demos to Wilmington's notabilities has added Jeff (another WHS teacher) to Stoneham. It is unusual for HS teachers to be notable. If one, then why not all of them? I'm removing this entry. Please supply evidence for notability. Snezzy (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also removed "John Quigley: artist and illustrator" because none of the references to the name are an artist or illustrator and none of them live in Stoneham. The entry was probably spurious. If not, please supply evidence and revert. Thank you. Snezzy (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is now an entry for a Quincy Brisco who seems to be a WBCN radio personality. No evidence is provided for the claim that Brisco is or was a resident of Stoneham. Snezzy (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• The name "Quincy Brisco" redirects to an article about the "Toucher and Rich Show", but that article does not mention Brisco. Dropping the entry from the Stoneham list. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The Manual of Style indicates criteria for including a person in a list of people; see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people. They are (I'm paraphrasing them into ordinary terminology for the sake of those unfamiliar with WP lingo): (1) The person qualifies for his own WP article; (2) The person meets the other criteria for the list, by reliable sources (i.e., publications that are independent and of journalistic quality). -- Bistropha (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stoneham, Massachusetts/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article needs work. In particular, Governor Winthrop was probably not just going "on a picnic." He was more likely surveying or studying the land around Boston, either with a mind to his own purchases (see Billerica, Ten Hills, etc.) and/or the town's security, or both. In the earliest years of Boston's founding there was great concern that a detachment of the royal navy could cut off Boston and besiege it, thus forcing a return of the charter, under which an energetic use of distance from the crown and enterprising political inventiveness had already created what was essentially an alternative government, (and which, by the 1650s, could truly have been a thorn in the Crown's side had Charles I not been executed; the charter was finally rescinded after the Restoration, in 1684, when Royal Governor Andros was sent to rule the provincial colony that replaced chartered self-rule.) After a decade or so, immediate worries about this dissipated, but it was for this reason that Cambridge was founded, as an outpost/overlook to the Charles to protect Boston, and probably also why some settlers were left in Charlestown, just across the river from the Trimontaine. So the "picnic" story sounds a bit lame. Might be true, but I'd want to look deeper into other sources--unless Winthrop says in his diary that's all they were doing, and even then I'd want to be sure. Ditto the "no reason given for the breakaway." Usually the reasons were that the church was too far away to be easily reached in bad weather, and a new parish was wanted that would be more convenient to the residents in the town requesting the separation. Here again, the issues could be either simple or complex. In some places, the separation was fought, either because the original town feared the loss of tax revenues or wanted to be sure that the breakaway could manage on their own--i.e., had enough contributing houses to sustain a separate town's expenses--since it would be very awkward for all if the breakaway failed and had to apply for support. In others--Billerica from Cambridge, for example--the separation seems to have been peaceable, probably because the distances were truly so far that the practicality of a separate parish was obvious. This points up an important issue in current historiography. So many current writers and students of history have either dismissed churches and church history as simply repressive and negative institutions, or taken in only the briefest and most generalized ideas about them, that they do not study them as focal institutions, which they were, nor do they understand the motivations they supplied for historic actions that really do not make apparent sense otherwise. Whether one agrees with a given polity or faith structure, it is a mistake to ignore the specifics of church history, especially in eras where beliefs and ideals based on church teachings were motivational and/or causally directive. And those are just two areas where I know something of the contextual situation and suspect there is more to be learned and told. How did shoemaking become important? Why were there all those gas stations? And shouldn't there be a mention of the zoo? Too much of a tease, needs fleshing out.

Last edited at 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate source for "land acknowledgement"

The statement that Stoneham is on Wampanoag territory is sourced to a website, native-land.ca. The link given points to the site's home page, not to any specific information. This site does not meet the criteria for "reliable sources", since it is partly based on user-submitted data. The site's About page states that it is not an academic study. The assertion should be sourced to a more verifiable work. Bistropha (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Bistropha (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)