This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
I dont' know if this is the right place to say this, but in the introduction, it mentions the "Puritan's narrow views". I'm obviously not a Puritan myself, but think that the word "narrow" seems a little biased. Sure it may be a fair description, but there were plenty of Puritan's who were definitely not narrow minded. Just thought maybe the word (and other occurrences of it) could be changed to maybe, illiberal as that may better describe the scenario. Just a thought. Greenbluewhales ( talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's said that Vikings were first Europeans in Massachusetts? Around years 1000-1200? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.123.209 ( talk) 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The date the Province ended is shown as 1774. Another source states that a Provincial Congress was formed in that year. The reader is left in limbo except some references to the "Commonwealth". What kind of government was that? Was it controlled by the British or the Colonists? The term Commonwealth implies that it may have been an independent state between 1774 and admission to the Union. 76.102.31.185 ( talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Something is wrong here. Either the dates are incorrect, or the text has the logic backwards. (My cursory look at a few online sources indicates the text is probably backwards -- the Parliamentary declaration preceded Lexington & Concord, since it (among other things) would have enabled Gage to use (more) force.)
Also, I believe the actual battle took place on April 19, even if the troops actually left Boston late on the 18th.
Magicpiano ( talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The article implies that Thomas Hooker left the Massachusetts colony to found Connecticut over religious toleration, as did Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. I don't believe there is any evidence of that. Although Thomas Hooker wanted to extend suffrage to all Puritans, there is no evidence that I know of, that he dissented on any religious views with the Oligarchy/Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 ( talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Massachusetts article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here is a source:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6116{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6784When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla%3Bidno%3D2931364{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6003When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://171.66.125.217/content/77/1/74.fullJohnWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".
"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage ( mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations." [1]"
Yet some deny Hull's existence. Or, they think Johnny Appleseed (included on this page) is more important. Theonomad ( talk) 23:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Randolph, Edward. Edward Randolph: Including His Letters and Official Papers from New England, 1676 – 1703. Vol II, Prince Society, 1898. Barth, Jonathan Edward. “‘A Peculiar Stampe of Our Owne’: The Massachusetts Mint and the Battle over Sovereignty, 1652-1691.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 3, 2014, pp. 490–525. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43285101Jordan, Louis. “Chronological Listing of Documents and Events Relating to the Massachusetts Mint.” Coin and Currency Collections, University of Notre Dame, coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/MAMintDocs.chron.html “Pine Tree Shilling, United States, 1652.” National Museum of American History, americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1082064The Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay. Boston, T.B. Wait and Co, 1814.
By contrast, the paragraph on the "Massachusetts Pound" found on Wikipedia is atrocious. It makes me ashamed for the writer. Doubly so for those that it's fine. No matter what you think of me, John Hull, the mintmaster, the first Treasurer has a place in the "History of Massachusetts". Theonomad ( talk) 14:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're real interest in a reliable source. I think your interest in "winning".
THIS:
"All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".
"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage (mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations."[1]"
OR THIS: A laughable paragraph:
"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684." hahhah Theonomad ( talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasnt trying to be rude. You are helpful. Hull was in the 58 in 1683. Prime of life. He purchased a boatload of property in 1682. All of a sudden in 1683, wham! dead and the mint is closed. Sanderson hightailed it to New Hampshire. "... Until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical" arent my words - Jordans I believe, the reference is temporarily lost. Being the first Treasurer and establishing a mint I thought, were noteworthy. I will say, I'm not married to the copy. The "Massachusetts Pound" does seem like its a Wikipedia invention. Theonomad ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentions the "Massachusetts Pound".
"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684."
99% of people have never heard of the "Massachusetts Pound". Besides, its not compelling and badly edited. Plus, the argument that its not even true can be made. People want to hear about the pine tree shilling and the mint in Boston in 1652 not some silly piece of paper issued in 1778. Theonomad ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
I dont' know if this is the right place to say this, but in the introduction, it mentions the "Puritan's narrow views". I'm obviously not a Puritan myself, but think that the word "narrow" seems a little biased. Sure it may be a fair description, but there were plenty of Puritan's who were definitely not narrow minded. Just thought maybe the word (and other occurrences of it) could be changed to maybe, illiberal as that may better describe the scenario. Just a thought. Greenbluewhales ( talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's said that Vikings were first Europeans in Massachusetts? Around years 1000-1200? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.123.209 ( talk) 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The date the Province ended is shown as 1774. Another source states that a Provincial Congress was formed in that year. The reader is left in limbo except some references to the "Commonwealth". What kind of government was that? Was it controlled by the British or the Colonists? The term Commonwealth implies that it may have been an independent state between 1774 and admission to the Union. 76.102.31.185 ( talk) 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Something is wrong here. Either the dates are incorrect, or the text has the logic backwards. (My cursory look at a few online sources indicates the text is probably backwards -- the Parliamentary declaration preceded Lexington & Concord, since it (among other things) would have enabled Gage to use (more) force.)
Also, I believe the actual battle took place on April 19, even if the troops actually left Boston late on the 18th.
Magicpiano ( talk) 19:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The article implies that Thomas Hooker left the Massachusetts colony to found Connecticut over religious toleration, as did Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. I don't believe there is any evidence of that. Although Thomas Hooker wanted to extend suffrage to all Puritans, there is no evidence that I know of, that he dissented on any religious views with the Oligarchy/Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 ( talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Any interest in creating a Timeline of Massachusetts article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here is a source:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)-- M2545 ( talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6116{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6784When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla%3Bidno%3D2931364{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?did=D6003When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://171.66.125.217/content/77/1/74.fullJohnWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".
"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage ( mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations." [1]"
Yet some deny Hull's existence. Or, they think Johnny Appleseed (included on this page) is more important. Theonomad ( talk) 23:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Randolph, Edward. Edward Randolph: Including His Letters and Official Papers from New England, 1676 – 1703. Vol II, Prince Society, 1898. Barth, Jonathan Edward. “‘A Peculiar Stampe of Our Owne’: The Massachusetts Mint and the Battle over Sovereignty, 1652-1691.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 3, 2014, pp. 490–525. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43285101Jordan, Louis. “Chronological Listing of Documents and Events Relating to the Massachusetts Mint.” Coin and Currency Collections, University of Notre Dame, coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/MAMintDocs.chron.html “Pine Tree Shilling, United States, 1652.” National Museum of American History, americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1082064The Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay. Boston, T.B. Wait and Co, 1814.
By contrast, the paragraph on the "Massachusetts Pound" found on Wikipedia is atrocious. It makes me ashamed for the writer. Doubly so for those that it's fine. No matter what you think of me, John Hull, the mintmaster, the first Treasurer has a place in the "History of Massachusetts". Theonomad ( talk) 14:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're real interest in a reliable source. I think your interest in "winning".
THIS:
"All the sentences below are true. Hull isn't considered to be "History of Massachusetts".
"Currency was another issue in the colonies. In 1652 the Massachusetts legislature authorized John Hull to produce coinage (mintmaster). "The Hull Mint produced several denominations of silver coinage, including the pine tree shilling, for over 30 years until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical." Charles II of England deemed the "Hull Mint" high treason in the United Kingdom which had a punishment of Hanging, drawing and quartering. "On April 6, 1681, Randolph petitioned the king, informing him the colony was still pressing their own coins which he saw as high treason and believed it was enough to void the charter. He asked that a writ of Quo warranto (a legal action requiring the defendant to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold) be issued against Massachusetts for the violations."[1]"
OR THIS: A laughable paragraph:
"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684." hahhah Theonomad ( talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasnt trying to be rude. You are helpful. Hull was in the 58 in 1683. Prime of life. He purchased a boatload of property in 1682. All of a sudden in 1683, wham! dead and the mint is closed. Sanderson hightailed it to New Hampshire. "... Until the political and economic situation made operating the mint no longer practical" arent my words - Jordans I believe, the reference is temporarily lost. Being the first Treasurer and establishing a mint I thought, were noteworthy. I will say, I'm not married to the copy. The "Massachusetts Pound" does seem like its a Wikipedia invention. Theonomad ( talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentions the "Massachusetts Pound".
"The Massachusetts Bay government established a mint to produce the Massachusetts pound beginning in 1652. In 1645, the General Court ordered rural towns to increase sheep production. Sheep provided meat and especially wool for the local cloth industry, avoiding the expense of imports of British cloth.[18] Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and began to scrutinize the governmental oversight in the colonies, and Parliament passed the Navigation Acts to regulate trade for England's benefit. Massachusetts and Rhode Island had thriving merchant fleets, and they often ran afoul of the trade regulations. King Charles formally vacated the Massachusetts charter in 1684."
99% of people have never heard of the "Massachusetts Pound". Besides, its not compelling and badly edited. Plus, the argument that its not even true can be made. People want to hear about the pine tree shilling and the mint in Boston in 1652 not some silly piece of paper issued in 1778. Theonomad ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)