Talk:List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts

Churchill House

This house may date to 1662, but right now there are red flags. For a very early date based on science, there should be a direct citation of the scientific report. The professor cited here is not a dendrochronologist, not an architectural historian, and the cited source is not a reporter, and is behind a paywall. This would be one the very few buildings in the East that dates before 1670, so just the very early date itself is a red flag.Old houses (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Richard Sparrow House

Thirty years ago research was done on the Richard Sparrow House and they showed that it was probably not built in 1640 or built by Richard Sparrow. [[1]]

There is a link to the archeological study. It should be removed from this list as it is not certain when it was built at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:402:E394:559D:75F9:7CC7:1EAB (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes Cleanup

The notes need some work. For instance, "NHL" needs to be spelled out and linked. I kinda doubt it refers to National Hockey League. Also "only house in Plymouth occupied by Pilgrims" needs some qualification, like "only remaining house" if that was what was intended. --J Clear (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

witch house should be lowered

The only thing I could find on the house said there was no evidence that it was built in 1642 and that it was more likely that it was built in the 1660s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.184 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Nurse Homestead

I don't know how to add things to the list, but the Rebecca Nurse Homestead should be added, as well as the John Proctor House, the Rea-Proctor Homestead, and many other such things. There are a lot of buildings left off of this list. The John Ward House also needs to be added, as well as the Retire Beckett House from 1655 (located next to the House of Seven Gables).

Orphaned references in List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nris":

• From Federal Street District: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. April 15, 2008.
• From Boston Light: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Too broad of a topic

My guess is that many communities in Massachusetts have homes dating to 1750ish or later. I wonder if this article should be "List of Buildings in Massachusetts from before 1700" or "Colonial buildings in Massachusetts on the Historic Register" or something like that. Otherwise, I think we have a less-than-useful list here as it is so incomplete. Thoughts? CSZero (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I deleted the 2 houses after 1700 on this list. Vlad b (talk) 02:34, 8 Jan 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some parameters would be helpful for this list. I included a sentence with the requirement that "Only houses predominantly built prior to 1700 are suitable for inclusion on this list or the building must be the oldest of its type." Let me know what you think and feel free to modify. Creating additional lists may be helpful too. I agree that there are probably thousands of houses in MA from the 1700s, but many fewer from the First Period (1600s). Swampyank (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion and changing of sourced content

Where there is missing or unsourced information, it is appropriate to tag the missing content and discuss it on the Talk page rather than unilaterally deleting content without discussion or consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it is inappropriate for an editor to demonstrate ownership and failure to adhere to WP:NPOV of an article. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 03:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor above is stating his opinion regarding what wikipedia should be, rather than citing explicit rules from wikipedia editing policy. It might be "appropriate" to "tag the missing content," but deleting unverified statements, regardless of the article, is in exact accordance to wikipedia editing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no opinion involved here. Which editing policy of deleting content are you referring to? This is not a WP:BLP or other category requiring immediate deletion. The basic tenet is found here: Wikipedia:Citation needed: Requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate.. Content should be tagged as requiring additional WP:verification, not resorting to blanking content and deleting references without edit summaries, consensus or discussion, and not maintaining a neutral point of view. Also refer to WP:Source list When reliable sources disagree, the policy of keeping a neutral point of view requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any in particular. Simply present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight through coverage balanced according to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. These editing policies are fairly explicitly stated are are not opinions.NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 05:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The majority of entries in this article are not cited. All entries, whether new entries or 'original' should be properly, reliably sourced, according to wikipedia policy. In the case of this article, a date based on tradition is clearly not a reliable source. When the age of a building is the entire focus of the article, a reliable source would include, for example, dendrochronology or an architectural survey report, not "tradition". As is, this article should be renamed, "oldest buildings in massachusetts based on tradition."Old houses (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810123131/http://www.pilgrimjohnhowlandsociety.org/howland_house.shtml to http://www.pilgrimjohnhowlandsociety.org/howland_house.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080715114049/http://www.paulreverehouse.org/about/paulreverehouse.shtml to http://www.paulreverehouse.org/about/paulreverehouse.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509235740/http://www.historicipswich.org/1st-period-houses/ to http://www.historicipswich.org/1st-period-houses/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Capen House

I have removed the following from the article:

Capen House

Milton
1675
Dating using dendrochronology in 2002.[2] House was moved from Dorchester to Milton in 1909 and "[d]espite the opposition of the Historical Commission, a new owner of this property had the Capen house disassembled and removed from the Hillside Street site in 2006. The commission has no information regarding any future reconstruction of this important building."[3]

• I do not think this should be included again until/if the house is reassembled. Right now having the pieces sit in storage somewhere unknown does not make the house extant as a building. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This list should be "Verified" only or reduced in year range

I suggest we limit the scope to verified houses only and/or a reduction in year range as there are hundreds of first period houses in Massachusetts alone that are unverified. [4] We will end up with a list that is impossible to maintain if we try to include all of these houses. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Houses in states from the list provided:

Connecticut: 146

Maine: 14

Massachusetts: 1,474

New Hampshire: 16

New York: 2 (Not sure why these are there)

Rhode Island: 33

Vermont: 0

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay so I found three main phases in first period construction... [5]. We could rename this article First period houses in Massachusetts (1620-1660) as early first period houses "covers the decades from settlement to about 1660". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that there's no need to have houses from the late first period in the 1700s on this list, unless they are the oldest of a particular category. I do think having this list of the oldest houses (verified by dendro or not, as long as a basic source is cited) is useful for quickly identifying the candidates and of general interest to many people searching for information, and for future researchers trying to select candidates for dendro. Perhaps just adding an earlier cutoff date here would be useful (1670s, 1690s, etc.). If you wanted to create a additional list(s) of First Period Houses that is larger, that may make sense. There's no reason why you can't create more lists, rather than eliminating this one, even if there is some overlap. There are other house lists in MA including "List of historic houses in Massachusetts," etc. Nice work on your recent edits btw. Swampyank (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

According to the source, the earliest period for first period houses "covers the decades from settlement to about 1660". If we go by the list provided then that would mean that there are 44 houses in Massachusetts that date from 1634 to 1659. To give an idea on how this would look... there are currently 31 entries on the verified houses section. I will try to draft up an article within a week or so to address possible solutions. Thanks by the way for the compliment, I try my best with the edits and thank you for yours too. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 1660 may make sense for a cut off date for the first phase of the First Period Houses, but I think there should be some exceptions on the list for the oldest buildings, such as the Oldest House in Boston, or the oldest lighthouse or oldest church, etc. It makes sense to me to include these because they're often searched for. If 1660 is the cutoff date, there is only one building in MA has been verified with dendro prior to this date, so that would be a short list. Maybe the 1660 criteria should only apply to unverified buildings,, and dendro tested buildings from the 1600s should be included. I'd also be disappointed to see the other entries and photos of late 1600s houses disappear entirely though, so other lists of later periods should be created if you want to go this route. Swampyank (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Swampyank: I was thinking of adding color coding for the one verified house included in the ~1620 to 1660 house list. As for the other houses, of course I wouldn't get rid of them. I would make another list of houses from 1660 to 1700 (mid first period houses). The facts remain though that the oldest house in Boston for example does not date far enough back to be considered an early first period house. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather see the cutoff date around 1680 or 1690, then most of these houses could stay on the list. They might all be removed from the list anyway once dendro testing is done more widely. This is a list about age, not architectural style, so seventeenth century makes sense to me.Swampyank (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if its about age you are talking about 100+ houses (not including other buildings which of course can be added) with a cutoff date of 1680 or 1690. In my opinion we should use a cutoff date as defined by reliable sources. This would help with research purposes on expanding the article with a decent lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This article should be split

Right now we have the following:

• List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts
• List of historic houses in Massachusetts
• First period houses in Massachusetts (1620–1659)
• First period houses in Massachusetts (1660–1679)

The issue is that "oldest buildings" is too broad of a title. The term "building" can apply to just about any structure with four walls (From building: "A building or edifice, is an enclosed structure with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place"). This means the definition covers houses, mills, schools, hospitals, churches, ect.... as it is we now have lists just for the houses. It was a good idea to name a bunch of articles after the oldest buildings in x area, but a closer look at the scope reveals its problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

An alternate proposal is to create a column in the table for the type of "building" involved. The reason why the type of building is important lies with sources that focus exclusively on certain areas. This would delete alot of the entries and make the focus about the oldest in Massachusetts by type of structure. Houses easily make the bulk of the entries and can already be found on their "First Period houses" articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)