Talk:New Hampshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

State image

thumb|right| Why is this image presented on the talkpage? ZueJay (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How to edit state entry?

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.

NH house of reps

So the NH house of reps has 400 members, with multiple members selected from at-large districts... is this a system of proportional representation? If not, what voting system is used instead? -- pde 02:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. In theory, the state is divided up into districts - many covering several towns, but some covering only a portion of more populous cities - so that in theory each voter has equal representation in the House. The districts are of various size, with as few as three seats and as many as 11. (I'm not certain those are the extremes, but they're close) So a district with 8 representatives should, in theory, contain twice as many residents as a district with 4 representatives. It doesn't quite work out, of course. Within any given district that has X seats , the top X vote-getters in the general election go to the Legislature. - DavidWBrooks 12:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like (non-preferential) proportional representation to me, provided each voter only gets to vote for one candidate. If Greens or Libertarians (for example) made up over 1/9th of the vote in an 8 member district, they would elect representatives. -- pde 03:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You get to vote for as many candidates as there are seats in your district. In my town, for example, there are four seats in our district. Four Republicans and four Democrats are running - I vote for up to four out of that total of eight (I can vote for three or fewer, if I want). Minor party candidates could (and in rare occasions have) vote in representatives. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that's bloc voting, which sucks. -- pde 09:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Benson is still governor

Note to the anon who keeps changing the governor: Until Lynch is sworn in, which doesn't happen for a few weeks, Craig Benson is still governor. - DavidWBrooks 23:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: the new executive is now to be referred to as Lynch The Governor.Mlorrey 02:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

external links

I've removed a few external links, leaving only a couple official state web sites. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and we don't need to connect to any web site discussing/arguing aspects of life in New Hampshire; it would swamp the article. I also removed the U-L's website, since there are a variety of other, competing private sites and we don't want to list all of them. - DavidWBrooks 14:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what the New Hampshire Wikipedia entry should look like? Has the article been swamped with external links? Just 3 or 4 ....hmmm maybe not a problem then. I don't like windbags censoring me. Russell Kanning

--

"NH residents keeping NH free" is not an NPOV description of the site [1]. How about "The New Hampshire Underground, a fundamentalist libertarian website in NH"? My adjectives may not be quite accurate, I am not too familiar with nhfree.com; wikipedia defines "fundamentalist" currently as "strictly adher[ing] to founding principles", which seems to fit well. I am not sure if "libertarian" should be replaced my minarchist (a term that is easy to understand, but nevertheless I have never heard before). Aleph4 16:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be too bad of a description. :) NHfree.com doesn't really censor content so it can go in any direction people might take it. We use the site for all sorts of NH related topics so I thought it belonged on the NH wikipedia page. We seem to attract people from all over the political spectrum, so I don't see its inclusion here as going against the point of the whole wikipedia. I am not that interested in the Wikipedia becoming just another arm of academia and political correctness, so I think we should allow more variety in content, descriptions, and opinions. :) Russell Kanning

Forget my "POV" dig and anybody's opinion of the site. The point is that an article about New Hampshire is not a link farm for any website dicussing aspects of life in New Hampshire - there'd soon be 500 of them, swamping the article. Browsers wouldn't be able to open it! Gun owners, gun haters, pro/con toll booths, save the shipyard, maple syrup sucks, Monarchs vs. Ice Cats, Free Staters, Massholes Are Ruining Everything, etc. etc. etc. (Imagine what the California article would look like!) Once agin, wikipedia is not a link farm to all Web debate related in some form the article at hand. It's not that this site is wrong or bad, just inappropriate as an external link. - DavidWBrooks 17:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have a three-revert rule here on wikipedia (don't make the same/similar edits three times in one day) to prevent pissy edit wars, so the inappropriate link will last a day. I will fix the other errors, though. - DavidWBrooks 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Benson mention

To the anon who keeps putting in a mention that Lynch beat Benson: That doesn't seem appropriate here - after all, we don't mention who all the other elected officials defeated! Lynch's article covers this in depth. - DavidWBrooks 12:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

If the tidal portion of a river is used to determine a state's "coastline," wouldn't the District of Columbia then have a shorter coastline than Penn. or N.H. since the Potomac is tidal up to the Key Bridge? Another case of no D.C. representation!! (CBG, Washington, D.C.)

Um, no, since D.C is not a state. karmafist 09:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian politics

I'm looking to make a couple changes, but I'm interested in contrary points of view.

The second half of the second paragraph of the article seems to overstate the importance to the state of people who formally identify themselves as Libertarians. I'm involved in politics in NH, and this article is the first instance I've heard of "the Free State" reference (a quick Google reveals zero hits within the first 100 showing use of this as a bona fide motto in the mainstream press--only on a couple Libertarian sites, and one pro-smokers' site (search was: "the free state" nh "new hampshire")). Most of this discussion seems better suited to the "Politics" section of the article. I do think that the notion of "Libertarian-like" politics is important, but its origin should not be confused: it stems from old Yankee conservatism (mind your own business, and I'll mind mine), not from a reflection of a modern political movement.

Regarding the laws, what exactly is a "libertarian law" (oxymoron?), other than constitutionally protected rights? There are a lot of laws in NH, as in any other state, that limit personal freedoms for the purpose of controlling behavior and benefiting society as a whole. Show me citations to "the libertarian laws" that distinguish NH as different.

There is a strong tradition of local control in NH, but that doesn't mean that the real power resides there. NH is not a "home rule" state; it is a Dillon's Rule state, which means that all power resides with the state government, except that which is specifically delegated to subordinate political units (e.g., municipalities). The notion of local control is something that the state legislature closely guards, except when it suits the legislature to clearly remove the municipalities from the equation, depending upon the issue. Municipal ballot voting has nothing to do with distribution of power between the state and towns, but is an interesting development that warrants slightly deeper discussion here ("shifting political traditions," or something like that).

You're "involved in politics in NH" and you're never heard of the Free State project? Holy toledo, where have you been hiding: it was all over the state press last year and the year before. They were going to bring 20,000 people to NH and turn us into Libertiarian-land! The result, predictably, has fizzled; that may need to be updated. I agree with most of your other comments. - DavidWBrooks 14:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Of course I've heard of the Free State Project. What I've not heard of was New Hampshire being called the Free State, as a nickname. The Free State Project does not purport to call a state "the Free State." It purports to reform the government of a state in the Libertarian model. Sorry, forgot to sign off last time. FrostHeaves 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My error; sorry - I misunderstood you. I hadn't noticed that "free state" sentence in the introduction; you're quite correct, it's silly. I'd happily kill it off, but it sounds like you're preparing other edits, too. - DavidWBrooks 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

scholarly works

I'm sorry to have removed a lot of work, but including a screenfull of scholarly texts about NH history is not only overkill, but misses the point of wikipedia - we aren't a card catalog or Web link farm for history texts. (Imagine what the World War II article would be like, if this practice was followed!) Wikipedia is supposed to be a popular encyclopedia, not an academic research treatise. Casual readers scrolling down looking for information, or some serendipitious catch-the-eye information, would never make it past a roadblock list like that! - DavidWBrooks 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

We're an encyclopedia and all encyclopedias have bibliographies of the best sources. I just added one. The hot links are to tables of content and 10-20 pages of text for each book, allowing users to decide is they want to get one through libraries or purchase. This is solid, fresh information entirely focused on NH history available nowhere else. Rjensen 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not in the middle of the article, they don't! Anyway, we'll see what others think. - DavidWBrooks 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It pertains to history so I simply put it after the history section. Where should it be placed? Is there in fact any logical order to the article? Rjensen 23:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Logical order" in wikipedia? Ha! No, I'm joking ... the order depends on what participants think the order shold be, for better or worse.

I've created History of New Hampshire as a spinoff article, moving all the text and the bibliography there. I slightly trimmed the text from this article, but it needs work - I think cutting a bit more from the Colonial era, adding a little to the modern era. - DavidWBrooks 16:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't take too long: Hats off to Rjensen for a very fine rewrite of the History section. - DavidWBrooks 19:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks--my pleasure Rjensen 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

high schools

I'd like to remove the "notable high school" listing in this article - it's starting to grow ridiculously as everybody puts in their public high school, of which there are well over 100 in the state. An argument might be made for Phillips Exeter as nationaly known, but that's about it. - DavidWBrooks 19:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The section seems arbitrary and even random, and doesn't tell much about the state. Bcarlson33 12:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out the pubilc high schools, left in the private ones. Maybe they should go too? - DavidWBrooks 12:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Highest point

Somebody changed the "highest point" in the infox box from meters to feet - rightly, in my view, since this is an article about the U.S. The way the box is constructed, though, "m" for meters shows up automatically, which looked ridiculous, so I changed it back. It should be fixed so that both feet and meters can be displayed. - DavidWBrooks 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be in feet/miles/etc. Changing the infobox itself would involve going through all 50 states' pages and converting the measurements, and though that is somewhat daunting, it is entirely executible. You can create a new template, or, you can do what a couple of states have done (Kansas, for example), and have both measurements, placing the standard measurement (with unit) before the metric equivalent (without unit). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Republic of New Hampshire

Could somebody knowledgeable on New Hampshire history take a look at the recently created Republic of New Hampshire article? I'm not sure about some of the claims being made there. Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Rjensen if he could check it; he is, I believe, a history professor in New Hampshire. - DavidWBrooks 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

At best, the "current status" part doesn't belong there. The history article should be kept separate from anyone's interpretation of the current New Hampshire constitution. GMcGath 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Manchester the largest city?

Is Manchester the largest city? If it is, could someone please tell me the source for this? Also, size would be based on population, correct? --SheeEttin 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Manchester is the largest city population-wise. The U.S. Census Bureau is a source. Bcarlson33 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn you! You edited while I was adding my signature!

Thanks, anyway. --SheeEttin 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous topics

The New Hampshire#Miscellaneous topics needs some trimming as it contains a lot of duplicated or information that could be incorporated in the main body of the article. I will dedicate some effort to this when I have the time. --Assawyer 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For everything that can't be included in the article, leave it where it is and call the section "Trivia". Some of those things are really interesting, like the right to revolution. --SheeEttin 23:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have renamed the section and moved a lot of the facts up into the respective sections. The Right of Revolution was moved into the Law & Gov section with other info regarding the Constitution. --Assawyer 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Local papers

Someone has added a couple of local papers; if every small-town weekly in the state got mentioned, it could eventually add up to quite a list. Not a problem yet, but something to keep in mind. GMcGath 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Over a year later - the article is (barely) too long. There is a perfectly good list that the article already points to that contains all papers. Lets get rid of the redundant list and stop maintaining it in both places. Student7 02:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"in fiction"

I have returned a half-dozen references to specific places in NH, rather than to the state as a whole, that are in prominent fiction, such as "Peyton Place". If it's removed now, it will disappear and it's kind of interesting ... perhaps it should be a separate article, such as List of New Hampshire references in fiction or something like that. - DavidWBrooks 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. About time for another cleanup. Dartmouth, for example, needs to be with that schools article. Has nothing to do with state. Same with most of the rest except (I suppose) Bartlett. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The NH license plate

There's been a bit of a battle going on over the image of a New Hampshire license plate. Anyone care to shed some light on it? One image that keeps getting posted shows a plate with the letters "CSC" and four digits. This image should not be placed in this article, because (1) NH plates don't begin with three letters, and (2) the owner of the image doesn't want it up. The image which I just restored shows the correct numeric format, but I don't know its provenance. It could be the license plate of someone who might not want it up there. Any suggestions? Ken Gallager 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If we don't know whose license plate it is, we should not post it, any more than we should use a stranger's SS number. Even if it can't easily be linked to them and may not be a legal violation, it seems kind of rude, don't you think? I would kill the image entirely until we get somebody to post a picture of their own plate and give permission to use it. - DavidWBrooks 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You've voiced my own hesitations well. I'm taking the image off. Ken Gallager 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This should have been resolved, but... The CRC plate (Image:CurrentNewHampshirePlate.jpg) does not show the correct format. It was claimed that it was stolen from a site maintained by 15qdotnet, but it turns out it was not. 15qdotnet has since uploaded a better image of his, which WashingtonWillie (the old image uploader) has continually reverted. If this goes on much longer, I'm thinking about an RfC. Oh, and I'm getting back the good image (15qdotnet's). --SheeEttin 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood that the current image is the correct number format, but did you read the discussion above? I'm concerned that it's the license plate of someone who doesn't know it's up here. Is it yours? Where did the image come from? Ken Gallager 12:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's 15qdotnet's, from his site (the one with the correct format). Image here. I'm not sure where the WashingtonWillie one came from, but the user with that account seems to have gone a little crazy. It's been resolved somewhere, I think it was on 15qdotnet's IP user page... --SheeEttin 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) See also here and here. --SheeEttin 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I'm happy. Ken Gallager 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm going overboard here, but it wouldn't hurt to write on the page of the photo itself [2] that 15qdotnet has given permission for the plate to be posted - right now, all the Summary has is a link to the Web site where it came from, and a GNU license, but no indication that it's actually 15qdotnet who gave the OK, rather than somebody else who found the picture online and swiped it. -DavidWBrooks 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's assumed that it's 15qdotnet's image. Even if it's not, since it's released under the GNU, it's okay to submit here without permission. If you want to add a small note to the image, feel free. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is "OK to use", should we? It's somebody's plate, and we don't know who. Perhaps it would be best to see if there is a sample plate image available from the NH DMV?

coach TJ aka Teej

I don't know if there's any sample plates or what, but the owner of the plate was the one that uploaded it, so I'm assuming he wants it used...

Arena Football?

What exactly are the Manchester SeaMonsters? Are they a former team or a current team? If they're current, to what league do they belong?

They're not listed anywhere and the Wolves are a minor league team, so I'm guessing the Seamonsters are the former major league team for Manchester? Or maybe they moved to a different city?--65.16.61.35 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

per-capita alcohol

although that figure is skewed by the relatively large number of out-of-staters who buy tax-free liquor ... darn; we (the Telegraph) wrote an article about this fact when the data first came out, but it was pre-Web archive. I've got to find that source ... - DavidWBrooks 10:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I know its true myself. I have seen the Federally funded study where the lower price of alcohol of New Hampshire than its surrounding states causes more people to purchase in New Hampshire. New Hampshire, however, is not the only state that this happens to. However, the reason I deleted it is because the editor reverted the edit I made to the word "skewed." I did so to avoid a revert/edit war. I am going to try and find that study so the statement can be returned to all its glory. --Assawyer 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

9th

Is it possible to add a small fact in the lead stating that since NH was the ninth state to join the Union, we were the ones to make the Declaration of Independence take effect? I forget the specifics on what exactly happened, and I also can't see a way to add this to the lead. — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, don't you? NH was the 9th state to ratify the Constitution, and in that sense the 9th to join the union. GMcGath 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm... yeah, I think I do. History (especially documents, dates, etc.) is definitely not my strong suit. In any case, any ideas? — SheeEttin {T/C} 00:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fay Shaha?

Anyone know who this "notable New Hampshire resident or native" is? A Google search draws a blank.

I've done two reverts on the NH article in the past week, so I'd be verging on obnoxiousness if I just reverted this one, but it seems odd. GMcGath 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no such problems - it's gone. Obviously a joke from an anon. - DavidWBrooks 12:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be refering to the 14th President of the United States Franklin Pierce who was from New Hampshire ([3]). Jmccay 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Archie

Riverdale High, where the cartoon character Archie and the gang have their adventures, was allegedly based in part on Manchester Central High School. this isn't true. It was haverhill ma. - 199.221.112.52

Good point - the Archie article supports that. I've removed the reference. - DavidWBrooks 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Bob Montana spent three years at Haverhill High and one year at Central. Haverhill seems to have been the greater influence -- for instance, the Riverdale school paper is called the "Brown and Gold," which is Haverhill's school colors -- but Central probably had some influence. I think the current text presents the appropriate balance. GMcGath 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

University grouping

I've moved Keene State and Plymouth State under UNH, but this might be worth discussing. They're part of the University System of New Hampshire, and not strictly part of UNH. An alternative might be to group them all (including UNH) under the University System of New Hampshire. Or maybe it should just be put back the way it was before. Comments? GMcGath 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Maybe it could use a little more formatting, but your point makes sense. --Ken Gallager 18:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Republic of New Hampshire

if you remove the external link i put for the nh independence movement again, you will be comitting vandalism upon the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but we can't link to every activist group in the state; we're not a link farm. At the risk of drawing the score of somebody whose shift key is apparently broken, I have removed it, too. - DavidWBrooks 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Median Income

Where does $57,323 (1st) for median income come from? - MSTCrow 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 Election

Can a reference be made anywhere regarding New Hampshire's decisive role in giving the 2004 US Election the the Republican candidate George W. Bush?

Well, since the state voted for Kerry in 2004, perhaps we should rethink that statement a bit. If you meant the 2000 election, it wasn't "decisive": several states would have changed the result if they had gone Democratic. - DavidWBrooks 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Libertarians?

"In addition to the lack of sales and income taxes, the state has the highest per capita elected and appointed Libertarians and the highest density of Libertarian Party members in the nation. However, the Libertarian Party does not perform well in the state relative to the rest of the country."

What exactly does this last sentence mean? If the Libertarian Party's highest density is in New Hampshire, I'd say they were doing rather well there, wouldn't you? 205.118.21.137 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Darned if I know, and I couldn't find good data one way or the other. So I removed both sentences. - DavidWBrooks 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil Union, links, state house caption

Hi, lots of reverts on my recent edits. I agree we do not need three mentions of the Civil Union passage. I think one in history or politics and one in firsts is plenty. The history one was deleted with the edit description that there was one in politics already. It had been deleted when the edit was made. The links I added to otther articles, Alan Shepherd, New Hampshire and Vermont towns, and the wiki New Hampshire State House article were also reverted. I see no controversy or danger in that. Ken, would you weigh in on your reverts? Thanks. JimCApitol3 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. The other location of the civil unions info is actually directly above the "Politics" section, not within the "Politics" section. Which section would you rather see it in? Let's have it in just one of the places but make sure the important info from each location is included. I apologize about reverting the State House caption; that was good information, and I was just going too quickly. Alan Shepard is still linked; I fixed what was a red link. See you... --Ken Gallager 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Omissions

I live in New Hampshire. You might want to tie in more information from the various cities in New Hampshire listed in wikipedia. For example, the World Bank was formed in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (NH) ([4]). You also list Sunapee, NH as the birth place of the rock band Aerosmith ([5]). Also, the 14th President of the United States, Franklin Pierce, was from New Hampshire ([6]). The state of NH has the first in the Nation Primary, and is required to have it by the state's law. Jmccay 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read it again: Pierce is there, the Bretton Woods accord is there, and the primary is all over the place. - DavidWBrooks 20:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NH fisher mainlogo.jpg

Image:NH fisher mainlogo.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 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 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ManchesterWolves.gif

Image:ManchesterWolves.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 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 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 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Status of Isles of Shoals

There is a small group of islands along the coast of NE known as the Isles of Shoals that are legally part of Maine and New Hampshire. Though they have no permanent population today, they did at one time (the NH portion was incorporated as the town of Gosport). The big question I have is, how are they legally treated by the states WRT their incorporation status. Are they treated as unincorporated land? If so, they should be listed in the listbox for each state under the appropriate heading? Or are they part of towns? It would appear that, based on the nearest towns, they should be adminstered as parts of New Castle, New Hampshire and Kittery, Maine. How do these states treat these areas? Just something that was bothering me about the completeness of certain articles at Wikipedia on the subject. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See a response at Talk:Isles of Shoals - DavidWBrooks 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of schools

I've been uncomfortable for some time with the list of private schools in the article. Every time someone puts in a public school and I delete it, I feel like some sort of flunky at a gated community. It turns out that the List of high schools in New Hampshire includes all high schools, public, parochial, private, etc., so there really is no need for a list of private schools on the main NH page. I've gone ahead and deleted the list, just mentioning that there are 20 private high schools in the state. Comments? --Ken Gallager 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have intelligently de-flunky-ified yourself, and this article! - DavidWBrooks 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Notables

My thought was that the people placed here should be recognized by everyone, not just those that follow that genre (rap, WW wrestling, snowboarding or whatever). There is a perfectly good separate list for that. Since it is nearly impossible to screen this list, my next suggestion is to leave Franklin Pierce and place everybody on the separate list. Vermont#Notable Vermonters has done this and it has saved a lot of hassle. So has a college I am helping to edit. A hassle-free method. Student7 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more household names here than just Franklin Pierce, who by the way, is not very well known. However, perhaps a few could be cut -

• Maxine Kumin
• Josh Meyers (he's been kicked off before)
• Maxfield Parrish
• Jodi Picoult
• Augustus Saint-Gaudens
• Bob Tewksbury
• Steven Tyler

(feel free to add or subtract from this list) 199.125.109.116 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add Robert Frost to this list of notables. He was not born in New Hampshire, but owned a Farm there from 1907 to 1912. Fnsnet (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I must be blind.. I looked today, and he was there. :) Fnsnet (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For once, Vermont has done it right by exiling all notables to a separate list. What you might do, since it is getting out of hand (again), is to group the list by "politicians," "athletes," and "entertainment/literary." I can help screen relative unknowns out of politicians. When they are lumped together like this, I would delete the athletes and entertainers as well. Wouldn't go over.

(Having said that, I confess that Vermont's separate list needs screening as well for similiar reasons - can't distinguish between unknown athletes and unknown politicians. And for the newbies, this means that these folks have to be well known outside the state, so usually governors and equivalent aren't on them!)Student7 (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

I'm editing out the current pronunciation. If it's local, please replace it and state that, but it's not how the rest of the country says it. kwami 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're basically right with your changes. The major problem is that most of us can't read the IPA code without a guide. I changed the pronunciation of the "ew" sound, as your version ("Nyew") sounds like the guy on The Onion Radio News. Signed by someone who's lived in New Hampshire for 19 years, --Ken Gallager 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

January 5, 1776

For six months between the enactment of the first NH Constitution on January 5, 1776 and the creation of the USA with the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, New Hampshire was an independent country, and was, in fact, the first sovereign post-colonial entity in the Americas. That should definitely be included in the article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougOfDoom (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The USA didn't come into being until 1789. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, that's when the current Constitution went into effect. The country was declared on 1776-07-04. - Denimadept (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right of revolution

This was added with no reference, so it was deleted. "The State Constitution is one of the few that acknowledges the right of revolution..." Current wording is "The State Constitution is the nation's only state constitution which acknowledges the right of revolution..." A search of all the state constitutions will take some time. Alabama says in Chapter 2

People source of power.
That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

New Hampshire, of course says, in Article 10,

[Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

I'm guessing that I won't find the words "Right of Revolution" in any other constitution. 199.125.109.116 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You guessed wrong. Right of revolution. Kentucky. Tennessee. North Carolina. All have it. Nhprman 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable people (further discussion)

One of my regular editing duties, it seems, is knocking seemingly-deserving people off the list of notable people in this article. Jenny Thompson, a highly successful Olympic swimmer, is just the latest. Matt Bonner has been on and off a lot as well. There has been earlier discussion, on the other hand, that the current list is already too long and should be cut back even more.

Having made my own decisions without much deep reflection in the past, it would seem my criteria for someone being on this list fall into 2 categories: 1) Someone who played a crucial role in the history of the state; or 2) someone famous enough that an average reader not from New Hampshire would go "Wow! I didn't know they were from New Hampshire." I've wavered on Matt Bonner, but I still think he doesn't get enough playing time for anyone except diehard basketball fans to know who he is. Likewise with Jenny Thompson. Just my thoughts, --Ken Gallager (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I"d raise the banner higher for this article - including only people who are known outside New Hampshire as being associated with New Hampshire. The rest are in the category "hey, I didn't know he/she was from NH!" - in other words, trivia. On a first look-through, I'd trim the list to: Dan Brown, Ken Burns, Christa McAuliffe, Bode Miller, Franklin Pierce, Sandler (ugh, I guess), Shepard, Souter, Daniel Webster. Maybe PJ O'Rourke. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep Jenny Thompson. There are 3 billion people on the planet, and only 10 have won 8 olympic gold medals. Jenny is one of them. This is notable by itself. It doesn't make a hoot of difference if no one in the world follows olympic swimming, but if someone wins that many golds they deserve to be on the list a whole lot more than a lot of the other people on there. And who is Bob Tewksbury? Anyone ever heard of him? By the way, for now I would prefer to keep him because it keeps the columns even. I strongly disagree that the list is too long. It is just about right, and a good balance for the rest of the article. Shorten it and it looks like no one notable lives in New Hampshire. Lengthen it and it looks like everybody and their uncle is there even if no one ever heard of them. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We're in serious judgment-call territory here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jenny is ten times better known than either Bob Tewksbury or Penny Pitou. By far the best known is Sarah Silverman and then Adam Sandler, followed by Robert Frost, Steven Tyler, Franklin Pierce and J.D. Salinger. Of those now on the list, the least known are, in order from least to best known, Bob Tewksbury, Penny Pitou, John Sargent Pillsbury, John Wentworth, Charles Revson, Maxine Kumin, Grace Metalious, Chris Carpenter, Donald Hall, and Augustus Saint-Gaudens, based solely on page views. I doubt that anyone would want to take Grace or Wentworth off the list. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very useful to have someone go through the list like that with fresh eyes. I would agree that if we're talking about Olympic athletes, it's probably time to replace Penny Pitou with Jenny Thompson. I was thinking earlier today that everyone used to know who Mark Spitz was, who achieved approximately the same level of success as Jenny, correct? It's funny that he became a celebrity, yet I don't recall Jenny getting that kind of name recognition. Besides replacing Penny with Jenny, I could see pulling Bob Tewksbury off the list, but not any of the others -- the others all have some level of significance that goes beyond sports hero of a particular generation. --Ken Gallager (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In looking up Bob Tewksbury I see that he was a major league baseball player from 1986 to 1998, and that he still appears on cable, working with the Red Sox. So ten years ago he was probably a lot better known than he is today. Same with Penny Pitou. I think she made quite a stir about 30 years ago. I'm working through the List of people from New Hampshire. Though neither is on it, did you know that Tonya Harding is twice as popular as Nancy Kerrigan? Pamela Smart, who is on it, is much more popular than most of the notables (all but about 10 I think). I also checked to see what the other New England states had, and Rhode Island didn't want to list anyone, nobody wanted to list anyone from Massachusetts, Connecticut listed 15, Vermont 2 and (take a deep breath) Maine has 92 listed. So our 36 doesn't seem too many at all. 199.125.109.55 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments occurred to me overnight. First, I agree with you that the number of people in the list is about right. Others might disagree by a few plus or minus. Second, one should take number of google hits, or any other measure of popularity, with a large grain of salt, because inevitably it will favor current celebrities over anyone else. Finally, Bob Tewksbury is big news here in Concord, where I live, but if you examine his record dispassionately (by wins, for example), why is he on the list but not Mike Flanagan, who won almost 60 more games? Simply because Tewksbury pitched more recently. Baseball players (and other athletes, by extension) should be Hall of Fame-level to be on this list. I'll go ahead and make the couple of changes talked about here. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does this list exist at all, come to think of it? What does it tell the reader about New Hampshire? How is it useful to know that X sports person or actor was born or raised in the state? Nothing: It's content-free factoid land.

Maybe we should just kill the darn thing, as Massachusetts has done, leaving only the pointer to the article list. If there's no reason to mention the person in some section in the article (Souter? Frost and Updike, because NH is so prevalent in their work? Daniel Webster?) then he/she/it/they don't belong here at all. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get rid of it; not yet, anyway. I think the presence of a list of notable people is a function of the notability (or size) of the state: the more notable (or larger) the state, the less point there would be to having a list. Imagine a list of notable people on the United States page, for instance! For a state like New Hampshire, with only 1.3 million people, the surprise factor (call it factoids if you will) increases when you learn that a famous person is from there. Farther down the significance list, I don't think anyone would argue that any of the towns' and cities' lists of notable inhabitants should be removed from their articles. Looking at states, New York and Massachusetts (large populations) don't have lists; Vermont and Maine (small) do. So really, we're asking whether New Hampshire is large enough to warrant dispensing with the list in its main page. I would say not yet. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First independent state

The wording of this section has changed recently, and doesn't mean what it used to:

• On January 5, 1776 at Exeter, the Provincial Congress of New Hampshire ratified the first independent state constitution, free of British rule.

This needs to be changed from "state constitution" to "independent state", or "state", or "constitution", or something. Saying "state constitution" has the false connotation, oh yeah, first of the fifty states. The word "state" has two meanings, "a division of a nation" or "a nation state". It sounds like it is the latter that was intended, yet the current wording makes it sound like the former. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the word "state". 199.125.109.55 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Should include some mention of involvement with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

I feel some mention of NH's involvement with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative should be in this article. 192.223.243.5 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. - Denimadept (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting library claims

In the "firsts" sections, we now have two claims for "first free public library" - Peterborough Town Library, and Dublin's Juvenile Library. I've found sources for both of them - Peterborough Dublin The difference between them appears to be that Peterborough was founded as a tax-supported library, while Dublin was supported as voluntary subscription service. Rewording thoughts? Ideas? Kate (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok, although would that make Dublin the first public library for children in the world? 199.125.109.28 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of religions

May include? What kind of a statement is that? It may include every religion in the world. Why were these chosen? What purpose does this list serve? Are all other religions definitely excluded? New Hampshire has a long tradition of religious intolerance, but making a list and saying that all other religions are definitely not only not present but also not welcome is not appropriate. 199.125.109.55 (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something - what exactly are you referring to? The only list of religions is based on a report and includes "other", so it doesn't seem to exclude anything. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It used to say something other than what was in the report (may include), but I read the report and fixed it (to "Less than 0.5%"), which is what it does say. 199.125.109.55 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Culture" vs "Economy"

My thought is to move skiing and winter activities to "tourism" under economy. The reason for it's being there should be clearer than having it under "culture" where the rule is (to the outsider) "anything goes." Student7 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. That makes good sense.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Population estimate

I strongly object to putting the 2007 population data in the infobox, for several reasons:

1. The number is wrong. The number is simply an estimate, with a larger degree of inaccuracy than the 2000 figure.
2. It means updating every year, which is more work.
3. All other states provide the 2000 census numbers.

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I came to this from Template talk:Infobox U.S. state#2007 Population estimates. User:Cchow2 is absolutely correct. The 2007 estimate is definitely a much more accurate figure for the current population of New Hampshire. Every ten years the U.S. Census Bureau does an actual count, but in other years they use extensive statistical sampling to measure whether states are growing or shrinking, etc. So starting with New Hampshire's 2000 population of 1,235,786, they've estimated that the state is growing, and has grown by 80,000 people. This 80,000 figure is an estimate, probably with a slight margin of error. The margin of error is only for the estimate. So there's probably something like a 95 percent chance that the current population of New Hampshire was between 1,312,000 and 1,318,000 when that estimate was made. There'd be something like a 99 percent chance that the population was right at 1,235,000 in 2000. There's absolutely no chance whatsoever -- I mean we're talking 1 in millions -- that 1,235,000 is a more accurate estimate of the current population of New Hampshire than 1,312,000. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and I appreciate the work you are doing. Two things: this should be debated at the "national" level, not at the state article level for each state.

Second - what about the person looking for "official" census counts and doesn't want estimates. I guess the article points him to other info? Also, the parameter says 2000 census, not 2007 estimate though the word "estimate" has been included externally. This kind of means (to me) that this thing has not been settled at the national/WikiProject level. Estimates may be better than a 7 year old count, but they are estimates not reality. Student7 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very important to realize that the census counts are not "reality" either. They are considered more reliable, but nowhere near perfect. I think including both figures, like at New Hampshire, is acceptable. By the way, the centralized discussion is occurring at the link I provided above: Template talk:Infobox U.S. state#2007 Population estimates. I cross-posted since I saw this was being discussed here too. --JayHenry (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of governors

The list of governors ought to be somewhere (and numbered IMO but I'm not volunteering!). They can be "hidden" so they don't take up a lot of white space. Most people aren't interested but they are part of NH or NH history. Student7 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you found List of Governors of New Hampshire, eventually. If you go to any Governor, there is a link to it at the bottom, and also a navbox listing all of them. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

It seems odd to "jointly" poll NH and VT on religion - and rank them among the lowest in the nation in belief in God. I think it would be more interesting to count the number of churches per capita - Concord has about two or three per block - although perhaps only two or three attendees??? I do suspect a huge demographic shift in church attendance over the years - there are many small towns that I can think of that had or still have multiple churches despite populations of less than a thousand.

If anyone wants to pitch in, the History of New Hampshire is looking a little anemic, and says nothing about the one-room schoolhouses, or the town meeting form of government, and "indians" or "native Americans" is never mentioned (or why the "fort" was built), for example. It oddly has a section titled "Industrialization, Abolitionism and Politics: 1815–1860" and says nothing about the creation of the mills, and equally oddly the next section, titled "Prosperity, Depression and War: 1920–1950" starts out by saying "The textile industry was hard hit", and goes on to say "The closing of the Amoskeag Mills in 1935 was a major blow to Manchester". Is that really what they mean by "prosperity"? 199.125.109.96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Early history

The section on New Hampshire's history, it seems to me, should certainly include mention of John Wheelwright, as well as the role played by Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John Mason -- and the subsequent split by their heirs of the land patents belonging to the two men -- that was to play such havoc with the colony in its early days. I will try to get to it when I have a chance. This early stuff has some good drama, and it seems to me it would be nice to include it if we can. (And by the way, that's a fabulous photo of the capitol.) Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the main article has been forked. While ensuring that it is included there, including it here, in what is essentially a summary, may not be a good idea without first determining what in the summary can be deleted to compensate. A perennial problem for forked articles. Student7 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Law and government) Claremont lawsuits

I've now added a mention of the New Hampshire Constitution's structure and its date of ratification. (I've heard that it is the only original state constitution still in effect, but can't document it; if so, that deserves a mention.)

(I see I forgot to log in first! That 24.60.78.79 is me; sorry! Thanks, Ken, as I see you've already cleaned it up a bit!)

The previous assertion that the state constitution doesn't mandate public schools has been totally overtaken by the "Claremont" suits (and associated biennial soap opera, all of which have recently been reset by the "Londonderry" suit). I have now mentioned "Claremont" in the "Law and government" section.

This section might better be put in a hierarchical sequence:

• State constitution
• Mandates and non-mandates in the state constitution
• Institutions provided by the constitution (the legislature and courts)
• Current office-holders in those institutions
• The statutes
• Notable statutory inclusions and omissions that tend to define the state
• Statutes addressing battleground issues of the day that don't tend to define the state (controversial; I'd put "civil unions" here, but a contributor who views NH as a pioneer might not)

Depending on comments here, I'd do the editing. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PS--Have now perused the entry on Government of New Hampshire. The same comment on organization might apply there. I do not know how much detail is appropriate for the "New Hampshire" page (perhaps nothing about public schooling) and how much should go in "Government of New Hampshire."

Hi Spike -- Your suggestions for improvement would do best in the Government of New Hampshire article and would go a great way toward differentiating that article from the Government section here. Right now the two articles are so close in content that I find myself focusing on the places where they disagree. (Which is the correct contract size for the Executive Council? $2500 or $5000?) Why not start with beefing up the Government of New Hampshire article, based on your ideas, and then we can see how the section in this article might complement it? --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a dollar amount in the state constitution, but www.nh.gov/council/overview.html says the threshold is $5000; I've made that change. Have also gotten down to New Hampshire Constitution, and New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (where I've written initial text for two formerly-empty sections). This exercise makes me more cautious. While there is nothing so recent as the Claremont saga, there's a lot of repetition and I am reluctant to add more. I don't know the accepted criteria for "differentiating" these articles. The Right to Revolution is a quaintness, described in three places (down to New Hampshire Constitution, which quotes it in its entirety, a loving addition from a Free State Project member. But the Right to Revolution doesn't really help anyone understand NH (nor the constitutional requirement that the legislature not grant anyone a pension beyond the current year). Claremont (mandating equal public education) and Civil Unions do (but might not in the future, if these cease to be multi-state trends). --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished my edit of Government of New Hampshire and recently added a section on idiosyncracies to try to sum up themes in law and taxation that seem to define the state. An unnamed contributor has given this section the coveted {{Unreferenced}} tag. Perhaps y'all should review it and state whether it fits or how to make it fit. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Free Stater" Demonym

Am still too new to want to revert someone else's change, especially one that Ken presumably has seen and let stand, but the recent addition of "Free Stater" as a second demonym for a New Hampshirite is advocacy not description. Nothing personal, I am a New Hampshire libertarian of 30 years, but no one calls us Free Staters, we don't call ourselves Free Staters, and anyone referring to Free Staters is not talking about all the residents of New Hampshire but only about the hundreds who moved here pursuant to the Free State Project, which is referred to in the text. I wish you luck, but you are not yet all of us. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're respectful to other contributers, there's nothing wrong with reverting something if you disagree with its inclusion; a reluctance to do so is a refreshing change, but unnecessary. I've removed it, as I agree with your comments. --barneca (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just missed the edit (must've been doing my own edit at the time). Calling all people from New Hampshire Free Staters makes as much sense as calling them all Republicans. My native state of Maryland, by the way, already has "Free State" taken as a nickname. Cheers, --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

SAT/ACT scores

David Brooks has made the new sentence on New Hampshire's nation-leading SAT/ACT scores "reasonable," but I agree with his further comment that it doesn't deserve a mention "this high," that is, in the article's introduction. A one-year educational statistic is now in the same paragraph with the Presidential Primary. Sorry, but the former does not define the state as the latter does.

A comparable factoid that did define the state was the long stretch of years in which we spent the least in the nation on municipal schools and consistently led the nation in educational performance. (That's right, we didn't merely tie Massachusetts.) Libertarians and conservatives used to explain this counter-intuitive result by saying that the frugality induced parent involvement whereas states that spent more tended toward by-the-book solutions. I can't document these trends, nor cite the commentary, and have already written enough insufficiently-cited stuff here on New Hampshire's libertarian/conservative history. But if you want to tell a story, this would be the story to tell.

Consequently, I am moving this sentence to the end of Section 7.1 (Education), but if the rest of you want to revert it, I won't wrestle with you. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions of personal freedom

In New Hampshire (according to a podcast by NPR.org) the state made a law that prohibits to dry laundry outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.72.74 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No ... this is a good example of why nobody should take second-hand (third-hand in this case) commentary as being accurate, because people often misunderstand what they hear or misstate it as they pass it on.

N.H. says local bodies (usually neighborhood organizations or apartment buildings) *can* make rules prohibiting outdoor clothes drying on privately owned property if they wish to, but it doesn't prohibit outdoor laundry drying, nor require that it be prohibited. There are "right to dry" groups trying to make it illegal to prohibit outdoor drying (in other words, to let anybody hang up their laundry outside, no matter what the neighbors think) but there is no state law prohibiting outdoor drying. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've removed the advocacy from the title of this section. Of course any restriction on personal freedom is "Communist-style" in the sense that it is in the direction of the extreme restrictions of Communism. (Yes, the right wing might impose comparably extreme restrictions if it were dominant; the anti-abortion wing is the most active in the current Republican reorganization toward 2010.) But none of the state laws enabling municipalities to restrict personal freedom (and I am against all of them) are accurately compared with Communism, except against a perfectly libertarian state, which I have tried to illustrate in the articles exists only on isolated political issues. Moreover, prohibiting the hanging of laundry is hardly the worst example of state and local government dictating aesthetics. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)