Jump to content

Talk:Boston/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Coordinates ???

At the very top right of the page, the location coordinates on Google maps point here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.35,-71.05&spn=0.1,0.1&q=42.35,-71.05 to the South Station location, while in the info box the coordinates point right to the center of Boston, MA on Google map: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.358261,-71.060181&spn=0.3,0.3&q=42.358261,-71.060181. I don't understand how the coordinates are generated at the top right of the page. Especially when the correct coordinates are in the info box. Can someone with Wikispeak-techy knowledge help with this? Or explain? Is it somehow automatically generated by a bot or what when the subject is a city and a certain template is used? Also, I cannot find a way to change the coordinates displayed on the top right of the page to the coordinates that are in the info box under location. (Even though both coordinates are in Boston) Is this even possible? Necessary? Am I making a big deal over a difference of a few miles? Jeeny 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Population

Hey guys, the 2005 population estimate , listed as 559,034, is wrong. The Census admitted that it made a mistake and corrected it to 596,638. Here's is the link: [1]. I had fixed it before, but somebody didn't believe me, so I decided to bring the issue up here.Lexicon506 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Education Image

The image under the "education" is of a building located in Newton, Massachusetts, not Boston. Can anyone find anything suitable that's actually in Boston? BigKennyK 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is of Boston College and is right on the Brighton line. It is clearly appropriate and, as one of the nices buildings in Boston, a nice touch. 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a great picture, not in Newton fyi. The picture quality of all posted has improved greatly with the one exception of the longwood scape. 5-2-07

Why direct redirection?

Boston, Mass. is not the only significant settlement called Boston inhabited by English speakers, so why does a search for "Boston" not go to the disambiguation page ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).

Probably for the same reason that San Francisco goes directly to San Francisco, California, even though there are other places in the world named after Francis of Assisi: most people who type "Boston" want the one in Massachusetts, and not, say, New Boston, New Hampshire.
Atlant 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, how about the original Boston in Lincolnshire, pop some 35,000 as opposed to some 4,000 for New Boston. Try not to be so US-centric, Atlant! 82.32.238.139 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason that a google search for Boston returns this one.--Loodog 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Because the vast majority of users looking up "Boston" are probably looking for Boston, Massachusetts, a redirect to Boston, Massachusetts seems to provide the most clarity and ease of use, regardless of chronology, city size, and historical significance. Further, after the disambiguation page was restructured to be more neutral to the UK, Boston, Massachusetts is hidden beneath two other Bostons, making the process slightly confusing for those who are interested in looking up the most common use of Boston. It is clear, further, that using the language "most commonly refers to" in the disambiguation page is considered inadequate (even offensive) by many editors from the United Kingdom. However, when there are two common usages with one clearly more prominent than the other, there is precedent for taking the second most common usage and placing a separate link to it at the top of the article so the user does not need to wade through the disambiguation page for either usage (see Cambridge as an example - which, by the way, demonstrates that this is not a matter of US-centricism). I would not be at all opposed to adding a link to Boston, Lincolnshire at the top using the entry for Cambridge as a model. Is that an adequate compromise? Moldybagel 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening

The very first sentence in the article is confusing.

"Boston is the capital and the most populous city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a state of the United States of America, and the largest city in New England."

This makes it sound like Boston is a state in the US.

I agree, and have removed the "a state of the USA" bit. A link to the Massachusetts article is provided, so if someone doesn't know that Massachusetts is a state, they can simply go to the article about it.
Also, I removed the poorly-written section about the "Boston dialect" and added a link to the Boston accent article, which is significantly better. Cheers --DarthBinky 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move. It should be noted that Serge's notices to users who would specifically favor one side of this proposal do qualify as canvass, and not as friendly notices.--Húsönd 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Boston, Massachusetts → Boston — This city is the primary meaning of the term, so no disambiguation is needed, and it can be simply placed at its actual name. Yath 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support, there are exceptions to guidelines. Take New York for instance. Besides, if someone was to search for "Boston", I doubt they would be looking for Lincolnshire... HymylyT@C 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support though weakly - I agree that Boston is internationaly known as Boston - I would venture to say that more people know of Boston than they do the state of Massachusets. Mass is a difficult state to spell though even for people that live here. Currently though there is a redirect from Boston to here - is there a particular reason this is not good enough? Markco1 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the redirect is not good enough because the current name is inconsistent with the most widely followed naming convention in Wikipedia: use the most common name used to reference a given subject as the title of an article about that subject for which that name is the only, or unquestionably the dominant, use of that name. Because it contradicts that convention, the implication is that Boston is not the most common name used to refer to this city, or that referring to this city is not the dominant use of the name Boston, both of which are false. That's a problem that can only be resolved by this requested move. --Serge 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. 1) to be consistent with the most widely followed Wikipedia naming convention: use the name most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article. 2) to make it clear that Boston, and not Boston, Massachusetts, is the most common way people refer to this city, and 3) to make it clear that this city is undisputably the most prominent use of this name (being at the current disambiguated name implies that there are equal or more prominent uses of the name). --Serge 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. For reasons I've enumerated many times elsewhere. And Boston is certainly the primary meaning. john k 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support: Same as john k, I've supported this type of move several times and still do. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support: Boston is a world-class city that is equally well-known, if not more, as simply "Boston." Eliminating states/provinces has worked pretty well for other countries' major cities (ie. Canada and Australia), so why not the US? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - the current guideline is unnecessary, so this move is appropriate regardless of Boston's notability. Each and every city in the U.S. that manages to get put at its actual name is an improvement to the encyclopedia. --Yath 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    So....instead of working towards consensus on the guideline, this move is being done to make a point? AgneCheese/Wine 01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, this move is being done to improve Wikipedia - to make at least this article consistent with how most other Wikipedia articles are named by convention, including most city articles (disambiguate only when necessary, not simply to be named consistently with other articles that happen to be in the same category). --Serge 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    If "an improvement to the encyclopedia" is "making a point" to you, I don't know what to say. --Yath 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Moving articles to less obvious names does not help the project. Some of the proponents don't seem to be involved in city articles except to propose page moves. There are better ways of helping the project. -Will Beback · † · 18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of us are concerned with the apparent growing popularity of "niche naming" within Wikipedia, where every niche of articles follows some naming convention for ALL articles in that niche, not just those requiring disambiguation, resulting in willy-nilly naming all over Wikipedia, and fewer and fewer articles named with the name most commonly used to reference the subject of each article. Whether that's a concern for you or not is fine, but please respect that others are concerned about this, and that it's a legitimate concern. Thank you. --Serge 18:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I wholeheartedly agree that other users concerns should be respected and there has been a lot of good faith efforts on the convention page to air those concerns and work for consensus on a solution. Unfortunately, to this point, those arguments haven't been convincing enough to achieve consensus support. So rather then continue working for consensus, why step out to nominate a page move using the same failed arguments that is bound to fail again? That is counterproductive and while it is easy to respect the view, its hard to respect disruptive actions. AgneCheese/Wine 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for the nominator, I'm just participating in this just like you. Personally, I support all moves in all niches that are consistent with the most widely followed convention (not guideline) in Wikipedia: use the most common name for the subject of an article, if it's the only usage or unquestionably the most dominant usage of that name. Very simple. --Serge 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct. What benefit does this have to the project? Especially when there is clearly not consensus for this type of page moves over at the convention page. The exact same arguments in support of this page move have been soundly rejected for lack of consensus over on the convention page. So why recycle and rehash them here? The point issues comes into play because the nominator has clearly been a part of the convention page discussion and should be aware of the lack of consensus there, yet he comes here to nominate a page move anyways? To do what? To stir up the "troops" on both sides and create more bitterness and discontent? To distract from focusing on the convention page and try to find some consensus. That seems counterproductive and borderline disruptive. AgneCheese/Wine 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    The benefit you asked about is: increased clarity, by having the article at a simple name, when there is no need for it to be named anything else. There is a reasonable expectation that it might be moved, due to several other examples such as Chicago and Philadelphia. On one hand, I am concerned about the disagreement over the guideline, but on the other hand, there is actual work to be done making improvements. --Yath 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    Again, that argument has been roundly rejected and pointed out that there is no increase clarity and in fact it goes counter to naming conventions like WP:PRECISION which favors the most clear name. If you couldn't make this argument fly on the naming convention, what point is there to try on a page move? The "reasonable expections" you mentioned happened during a time when, unfortunately, not a lot of editors were aware of the naming convention issues. Do you honestly think they would succeed if proposed today? I tell you, if you are that confident then lets move the pages back to their original titles and try the page move. If they succeed, then from here on out you will never hear an objection from me about the City page move. I'm willing to bet that we could convince some of the other "oppose voters" to take the same deal. Wanna give it a go? AgneCheese/Wine 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agne, roundly rejected? You've got to be kidding. The WP:PRECISION argument is a red herring here, where no one can honestly argue that naming this article Boston is imprecise, since the city is unquestionably the dominant use of that name. WP:PRECISION, which is about avoiding ambiguous titles, has no application here, nor for any article (including any U.S. city article) where the most common name for the subject is either the only, or the unquestionably dominant, use of that name. --Serge 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's clear that you personally don't agree, but your implication that there is a consensus is unsupported. --Yath 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As a side note, I think the support "votes" would clearly see the point violation if one of the oppose voters proposed page moves to correct the article titles of Chicago, Illinois and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Obviously, there is strong sentiment that have these non-exceptional cases as "exceptions" is a determinant to the project and adds unnecessary confusion for the reader and editor. Or the ambiguous Vancouver, British Columbia for that matter. But rather focus is being directed to the convention page to try and garner some sense of consensus there prior to requesting a page move. That method of recourse is far less point driven and stands a better chance of succeeding in the long term. AgneCheese/Wine 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support The current naming convention is redundant and unneccesary. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support The existence of the redirect from the unqualified name shows that this is the primary topic and the unqualified name can be the article title per WP:D#Primary topic. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Weak Oppose -- makes more sense than Chicago, and a lot more than Philadelphia, but I would have opposed those, also. Probably the most common overall use, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so. Consistency in naming also has benefits, which, (contrary to Serge's inevitable comment), supports the longer name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The naming convention for U.S. cities recommends using the "city, state" format for consistency. -Will Beback · † · 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose For the same reasons that I have in the past. Consistency within naming conventions is important and useful. Exceptional cases should be exceptional. Boston isn't. Any change should be done within the framework of the naming convention. The discussion over there is not close to consensus about this type of move. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. StrongOppose Boston can refer to other things besides the city itself, including the song by augustana or the tv show boston common. There is nothing wrong with boston, massachusetts. And besides that, I like it the way it is.--SweetNeo85 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. That is why there is a Boston (disambiguation) page. If this page is moved, the dis-ambiguation page will not change its title, and we can still keep the link to the dis-ambiguation page at the top of the article. Georgia guy 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose. Let's not make a bigger mess while the guideline covering this is being discussed. Vegaswikian 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Do you really think anything is ever going to come of the guideline discussion? john k 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Opppose It's my belief that ALL cities (in and out of the United States should be "city, state/province" (so Toronto would be at Toronto, Ontario). TJ Spyke 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - and Rome at Rome, Lazio?? Johnbod 03:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The naming convention for US cities is "city, state" so should stay put. Keith D 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose There is more than a screen-full of other Bostons at the disam page. The current title should certainly remain, and "Boston" should probably take you to the disam page. for consistency, per many above Johnbod 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Please show in detail that this city is not the primary meaning. In other words, please show that one of the other meanings is an equally major meaning so that this term deserves equal-topic dis-ambiguation. Georgia guy 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment well I did think "primary" was defined in relation to all other meanings, but I see it appears in fact (rather oddly in my view) only to be defined in relation to the next most common meaning, so I will strike though my last & fall back onto the consistency argument. From a long way away, Boston still seems to me not to be in the same category as New York. For a really odd one (on a global perspective), what about Washington ? Johnbod 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose while I'm here. Might as well. For reasons mention above, reasons stated ad infinitum on WP:NC:CITY and reasons I've laid out in User:Agne27/City, State convention. Agne 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose' Boston redirects here so there is no problem with users having to type in a long title. There are at least eight other municipalities that use the name. Boston, MA wasn't even the first. Wikipedia policies are hammered out so that when there are cases that could be legitimately argued either way, we don't have a donnybrook on every article and end up with inconsistant usage. There is not justification for making an exception to the U.S. city naming convention here.--agr 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The world famous city in Massachusetts is unquestionably the dominant usage of the name Boston in the English speaking world. To disambiguate it using the comma convention implies incorrectly that it is not the dominant usage. That is the justification for making an exception here. --Serge 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The city comma state convention is widely used in the U.S. going back centuries. It reflects the fact that the 50 states are sovereign entities that control the names used by their citys and towns but not the names used in neighboring states. Use of Boston, Massachusetts as an article title no more implies anything about the prominance of Boston than using Arnold Schwartzenegger as a title implies there are other, more prominant Schwartzeneggers.--agr 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly! Disambiguation issues aside, there is a sense of identity and history that is tied into the comma convention. Unlike the silly argument that adding the state will "confuse" the reader as to what the city name will be, the Comma convention most accurately convey the name of the place which is what the article is about. In US history cities were never considered sovereign entities and have always been commonly associated with their state. It is a disservice and inaccuracy to the Encyclopedia to name US cities differently. AgneCheese/Wine 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, Arthur, that's a different argument that ignores my rebuttal to your first argument. As to your second argument, the fact that the states are sovereign in the United States and control the names within them is true enough, but why is that information appropriate to be conveyed via the title, at the cost of not conveying the much more arguably appropriate information: what the most common name of the subject for the given article is, and whether it's the only usage, or unquestionably the dominant usage, of that name? That is information that is conveyed by the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia, including most city articles. Why should U.S. cities in particular be an exception to this? Because of this state sovereignity thing? What does that have to do with conveying the most common name of the city, and whether or not there are other common uses of the name? As to the Arnold Schwarzennegger point, you make mine: While Arnold and Schwarzennegger are common ways to refer to the man, the most common way he is referred to is by his full name: Arnold Schwarzennegger. For people who are more commonly known by first name only, like Cher and Madonna (entertainer), they are not at their full name. Note in particular that Madonna is disambiguated by contextual information that distinguishes her from the other common uses of that name. --Serge 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Serge, you haven't "rebutted" any arguments here. No offense intended. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The reason US cities should be treated differently is that usage in the US for city names is different. Cher and Madonna have adopted stage names with no surname. There are any number of famous people known by their last name, Einstein, Brando, Gandhi, Picasso, Disraeli, where the Wikipedia article includes their given name in the title. It's a convention we follow. And my name is not Arthur, btw. Getting names right is important. :) --agr 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    No reason cited. --Serge 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose — For all the same reasons as usual. —wwoods 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    No reason cited. --Serge 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Vehemently opposed!. Just like my last vote for the very same page move. BlankVerse 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    No reason cited. You didn't cite a reason for opposing last time either. --Serge 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Neutral I do not want to take part in this can of worms. Compared to what you see on talk page of WP:NC:CITY, a Picasso has more clarity and definement. It's obvious you guys are not going to find consensus there and it is even more obvious that this page move (and others like it) are going to crash and burn with only more bitterness left on both sides. And saying that there shouldn't be any more page move request is not the answer either since there is clearly a problem with the current convention. But this, right now, is completely pointless. What both sides need to agree on is to seek mediation and input by people who has never commented on this and took sides (i.e. objective). For the sake of the project, please consider it. Right now both sides want to "win" and no one is going to. 205.157.110.11 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this canvassing

by Serge? Agne 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notifying users who have expressed interest about such moves on my talk page does not constitute canvassing. --Serge 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CANVASS under the section Votestacking
"Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote.".
Your message to your fellow supporters was "In the past, you've noted support on my talk page for naming U.S. cities consistently with other countries (only disambiguate when necessary)" and then encouraging them to come here. That is pretty clear cut. Agne 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is, Agne. That same page says:
Friendly notice
If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, and absolutely unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. WP:CANVASS#Friendly_notice
I'm not sure what your point is, except perhaps to be disruptive? --Serge 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It could very well be construed as disruptive since you are only informing those people who have clearly been supportive of your objective in the pass. What else but the desired outcome of "more support votes" is there to be expected from your actions? Unfortunately that section you quoted is vaguely worded and is under constant discussion and revision, but judging from the talk page one of the more concrete definitions of "Friendly notices" is said to be "Friendly notices are notifications that are open, neutral in tone, and directed at a bipartisan and small audience." In that regard your "notices" are clearly not open and neutral nor are they directed to a bipartisan audience. Agne 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would just say that I have several times asked Serge to keep me informed of these votes. john k 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boston advertising security scare and vandalism

I notice that a lot of vandalism has occurred due to what has tentatively been labled on Wikipedia the "Boston advertising security scare" (by moi), in addition to Aquagate and other rather silly names. They're doing it because Boston was pwned and the hackers (including the folks at 4Chan) know it, so they want to celebrate the fact by running riot all over Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This event seems reasonably important to recent history to me, it can be mentioned, but should be done in a NPOV way (naturally). Perhaps a link to a separate page talking about the event? 24.27.93.253 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protect request

{{editprotected}}

I am requesting that an edit be made to the first lines in the history/intro section of this award winning article. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay who founded Boston in 1630 were not "known as the Pilgrim fathers." This should be deleted.

The Pilgrims founded Plymouth Colony and had a separate history and religious platform from the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Pilgrims departed by sea for the New World from Leiden, Holland not England. Leiden was their temporary home for 12 years (1608-1620) after having fled persecution in England. The Pilgrims landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 on the Mayflower, ten years before the Puritans. The Puritans came direct from England to Boston.

The two colonies were separate and did not merge until 1691, 71 years after the founding of the Plymouth Colony. When the Massachusetts Bay Colony was reorganized and issued a new charter as the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691, Plymouth ended its history as a separate colony and merged into the new province. The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Church of England - only to "purify" it. The Pilgrims were separatists who considered the established church in England to be corrupt and non-reformable. The two groups did eventually unite into one faith community but by then they were no longer Pilgrims and Puritans but had evolved into New England Congregationalists. For a detailed treatment of this issue, see http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/ Jm3106jr 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have lifted the semiprotection of the page; you may make the edit yourself. But first please make sure that the change is not original research, but is based on reliable sources; consider adding an inline reference to your text. The website you mentioned is not a reliable source, you'd need to cite respected works of historical scholarship. Sandstein 17:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have edited the section to disambiguate Puritans from Pilgrims. I used wiki links to substantiate all edits where reliable sources are quoted throughout. Jm3106jr 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about FA Status

I have posted comments in /Comments regarding some issues with this article. Please address these concerns in this section. Failing resolution or discussion I will be putting the article up for a WP:FAR. Alan.ca 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Response:
  • Condense thumbnail image text by keeping the bulk of the writing in the paragraphs.
Done, though I prefer that you explicitly point out which images if there is still a problem.
  • Remove the references list of unconnected sources and link to text using footnote style refs. WP:FOOT
Given that the list pertains to sources that addresses the entire article rather than individual points, this is not possible. Hence, I have renamed the section to "further reading" (such sections also appear in other FA articles).
  • Reduce number of external links and make certain remaining items meet project standards. WP:EL
Done.
  • Reduce usage of subsections in Culture section by summarizing information into about 3 complete paragraphs.
Done.
  • Eliminate single sentence and otherwise incomplete paragraphs.
Again, I prefer that you explicitly point out the passages (I ran a check and could not see any major problems).
Done for now.
PentawingTalk 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I can no longer recognize my home town! And the whole interesting history of the city is buried. Lost in a bunch of statistics, for lack of a better, or nicer word, at the moment. :( This article was beautiful, even long after it was on the front page, featured, and now it reads very little like it did. The article is hard to read because it is too wordy, and disjointed. :( I've given up trying to improve it, as it seems that a couple of people have recently come in and have taken over the article. Over-editing, sometimes, degrades an article. How about the KISS principal? I haven't read the article in a couple of days though. Just bits and pieces as, like I said, it's difficult to read because it's not interesting at all. There's just too much going on, and disjointed that I don't know how to begin to explain my points. Sorry, it's just that I'm sad to see this happening. I know I should not take this personally so I'm taking it off my watch list, and going to concentrate on the neighborhoods instead. They need work. I've been putting it off for a while now, anyway. I hope you succeed in improving it. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers. - Jeeny -talk- 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Demographics in Boston: nothing is easy

The demographics section has been edited heavily lately, I have a couple issues with recent changes:

  1. Unlike all other cities, it uses 2006 estimates rather than 2000 data. Also, no citations to it, which is its own problem.
  2. We have this whole note about commuters bringing up the effective daily population, and how this would make Boston "within" the top 10. First, no source on this. Second, does this add commuter populations to all other cities in that comparison? Third, can we be more useful than "within" the top 10?

--Loodog 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep it simple? There's a problem here with over-editing. You can't expect to put every little thing in there. It makes it hard to read, and uninteresting. JMO - Jeeny -talk- 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Date in Article

This article states that Boston was founded on November 17, 1630. The correct date is September 7, 1630. The only references I see to the November 17, 1630 are websites that copy Wikipedia data. If you need a reference, "A Municipal History of the Town and City of Boston During Two Centuries: From September 17, 1630,..." by Josiah Quincy, is available by Google, http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC57248669 --petertdavis 11:53, 25 February 2007

Redirect FYI

Just a note, there is apparently another edit war in process as to whether Boston should redirect to this article or to the disambiguation page. It is currently pointing at the disambiguation page. I've created an RFD. Enjoy.--Bobblehead 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


CT, a part of the Boston area?

Aside from the clear cut BS and Bostonians delusions of grandeur, please tell me what part of CT is in the Boston metro area? I would like to know. You guys in Philly, as well as Boston (I feel that you two have something in common, historically) need your own Identities. Philly needs to stop trying to put itself in with NYC just because it (Philly) is near NJ. NYC already has it's NY/NJ/CT region. Similarly, Boston needs to stop trying to force CT into it's New England region headed (self appointed of course) by itself. CT is not what you would like it to be. All of you stores (with Boston sports propaganda in them) cannot take it away from NYC. You two cities need to get a life and stop trying to leech off of cities that have nothing to do with you.--71.235.81.39 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I assumed that Connecticut was included as part of some Census designated place like Greater Boston or its MSA, but I checked and no formally recognized definition of Greater Boston or anything of the sort groups Connecticut in there. I removed it from the article.--Loodog 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Right for the wrong reasons, that is. Were the Census Bureau to define (say) Windham County as part of the Greater Boston SMSA, no amount of righteous indignation, inferiority complexes or envy would change that. RGTraynor 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is quite clear if you know your history. Prior to the 2000 Census, the Office of Management and Budget defined MSAs in New England on a town-by-town basis (similarly to what are now called NECTAs and Combined NECTAs). The Worcester, MA-CT PMSA included the town of Thompson, Connecticut, and thus it was also included in the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA [2]. Today, the county-based Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area does not include Connecticut, but the Worcester, MA-CT Metropolitan NECTA includes Putnam and Woodstock in addition to Thompson. (I can't find the CNECTA definitions, but I would expect that there's a Boston-Worcester-Lawrence CNECTA.) The Boston TV market historically included one Connecticut county; I'm not sure if it still does. 121a0012 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am glad that a sound editor is a work here. Boston does not have the reach that New Englanders would like to believe. It is not that large of a city. It is only the last major city in the US before Canada and it is all alone up there. The last time I checked TV markets, no piece of CT is in there TV market and there is no New England TV market. Boston keeps trying to use the New England thing to mean Boston and expand it's market share to make themselves appear more of a major TV market in the US. We in CT are proudly in the NYC area.--71.235.81.39 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about it, you can't speak for the whole state. Here's an interesting look into Connecticut state identity from a documentary called Between Boston & New York. Particularly the section on page 5 that starts at Regionalism where the documentary recognize that sports loyalties, politics, and other facts of life split the feelings of CTers between New York and Boston and their own desire to be identified separate from both in some cases. Personally, I know people who live in Greenwich who think of it as part of NYC and I know people who live in Pomfret who'd chop off the lower left corner of the state just to keep the whole place more "New England-y". But then again, it doesn't matter what I personally find to be the case either. But I did find this documentary and it does describe exactly what I've experienced. Some of CT think NYC, some of CT think Boston, you can listen to WFAN while watching NESN, your taxes are paid to Hartford but your income comes from Providence, you spend more hours in your car on the GWB than you do crossing the covered bridge to get into your community at home. Interesting place, but to swear off either NYC or Boston as not having any influence on the state as a whole entity is only arguing with your heart and not your brain. ju66l3r 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, when I was in CT (Hartford and points north and east), Boston stations were available on cable, you could get home delivery for the Globe, and Hartford Whalers' games were nearly half Black-and-Gold. Methinks you protest too much. RGTraynor 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Connecticut River splits the state into New York and New England spheres of influence. For example, Hartford is closer to Logan than JFK. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

all i want to say is NESN. and taken from the NESN website, "NESN is a service for New England TV subscribers that is available through cable and satellite providers in NESN's home broadcast territory (all of New England except Fairfield County, CT)."

I am from Rocky Hill and grew up in danbury, and have always considered myself a New Englander, and a part of the Boston area, so I agree, please do not try and speak for the whole state. For some in Fairfield County, you may share this POV, but do not speak on behalf of the entire state. youd have a better argument against boston area if you were to say the hartford/springfield area, as bradley international airport serves. and i am also on the west of the river and have always been, so even that doesn't work.Kmccusker2 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol! It may be closer to Logan (Hartford has it's own airport), but Logan is still a good way away from Boston. However, Hartford is not in the NYC area. Since they are crazy about Springfield, MA and call themselves the "shining start of New England," that pretty much sums up what they feel that they must be. Down in the NY area parts of the state, the only thing New England are some Boston/MA owned businesses who seem to want to promote Boston sports teams or call themselves "New England" something. They put emphasis on the "New England." It's a dead give away. I have never seen a city so far away try so hard to capture the minds of a state that has nothing at all to do with them. In spite of all of their efforts, they cannot change the culture. Ask anyone in the world, "New York or Boston?" You know Boston is not even in the running. Boston is not even world class. The question is "New York or Los Angeles?" Boston needs to deal with it's own region and forget about trying to brainwash CT citizen's.--71.235.81.39

Logan is in Boston........Kmccusker2 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Except when it comes to bedbugs. "World class" NYC could learn a lesson from Boston in controlling infestations, evidently. But seriously, remain civil and comment on the content of this article and not some over-generalized "NYC > Boston" non sequiter rant. Thanks. ju66l3r 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


As much as I personally have a political and cultural axe to grind with Boston, I have to agree with the others here, 71.235.81.39. You are not conducting your part of conversation in a fashion appropriate to open, academic discourse. Please refrain from making wild, unsubstantiated claims that something is factual. For instance, "world class" is a subjective, non-neutral statement and therefore inappropriate to the discussion.
On another front, I think it would be interesting to identify the different pseudo-cultural areas in the U.S., though this is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. After all, southwestern CT does appear to display NYC leanings, while the northern parts seem to link to the Berkshires, Springfield, and Worcester, respectively. I'm not sure about the south central and southeastern parts of the state, but it would be interesting to see someone do such a study. --Dunkelza 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been done, both on linguistic and cultural scales. Fairfield and New Haven Counties are definitely satellites of NYC, while you're correct in the premise that everywhere else is a part of New England; New Haven, Bristol and points northwest are border towns, more or less. Beyond that, heaven knows the basis for 71.235.81.39's evident hatred of Boston, but I agree it's inappropriate for Wikipedia in general and this article in particular. RGTraynor 15:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the south central part is NYC too. You forget that they are on the Metro-North line and Boston is still light years away. They just do not have anything in common with a city that has no influence or proximity to them. For those who do, I may assume it is because they border MA and that must be good enough for them. Southeastern CT is very odd. I used to assume that they were into Boston and NOT NYC. When I was coming back from RI(I keep forgetting that another cultural divide is that these Boston related peoples sound alike and NOT as we do in CT), I was in a town (North Stonington) near the RI border. I went into a gas station and they sold NY newpapers as well as Boston. They also sol Yankees and Red Sox gear. Now I will say that the Red Sox gear would not be too shocking, but I was shocked to see Yankees. So I guess the SE part of the state may deal with both.

FOr the most part, if you live in the parts of the state where you pick up NYC or Long Island TV or radio stations, you know that you are in the NYC area. Even in any part of CT, I have not been able to pick up any Boston media because it is not possible since no part of CT is in the Boston area. We don't even get Boston newspapers down here except in those specialty newsstands. I hope that settles this. I just think that people from Boston and New England spent too much time assuming and thinking that CT felt the same way as they do about Boston/New England that it comes as a shock to you. Well this is the way it is.--71.235.81.39 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Logan is still a good way away from Boston," you say? Logan is in Boston. AJD 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on that. I meant that Hartford is still a good distance from Boston.--71.235.81.39 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My girlfriend's from Hartford, she's a Sox and Bruins fan, and she identifies with Boston. This is irrefutable proof that you're wrong. --75.67.189.21 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The census of 2006?

The demographics section claims to be based on the "census of 2006". What on earth is that? THe footnote that supposedly sources it talks about the census of 2000. This needs to be fixed. john k 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I switched it to the 2000 census information, though I added a caveat concerning the estimate in 2006 (which I recalled the city government actually petitioned to have it revised to that figure). PentawingTalk 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Prediction of destruction

I reverted the addition of the prediction by Wilford Woodruff that Boston would be destroyed as being WP:Undue weight for an extremely minority POV.[3] However Alex71va (talk · contribs) re-added the prediction into the history section of the article[4] and then left a comment on my talk page[5] citing the inclusion of Pat Robertson saying the people of Dover, Pennsylvania shouldn't turn to God in case of a disaster after they voted out their school board[6] as justification for inclusion of the prediction in this article. Rather than get in a revert war with the editor, I figured I'd get the opinion of the regular editors of this article on whether it should be included or not. Cheers. --Bobblehead 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, i feel this shouldn't be included. I feel that few people realize that this was said and thus is of no signifigance. Also as far as I know Wilford Woodruff's prediction haven't come true. Perhaps if someone like Nostradamus had saidthis, then we should include it. Also, the Dover, PA thing gained national and perhaps international headlines, and as far as I know no one outside the mormon church has even heard of woodruff or his predictions. Also, I'm from the Boston area. WhiteKongMan 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not many outside the Mormon Church have heard of this prediction because its frankly embarassing to the Mormon church that this kind of prediction has never come true. I know that the Mormon church is only a minor religion in Boston. But with high-profile individuals like Kim Smith (recently the dean of the business school at Harvard) and Mitt Romney (recently the governor and now a presidential candidate) being Mormons it would be helpful to all those who learn about Boston and its civic leaders to know what their top religious leaders have said. Wilford Woodruff is no minor figure in Mormon history. He was the church's 4th president. He was also a native of New England and quite familiar with Boston having been a missionary there. (Alex71va (talk · contribs))
The actions of a something's founders are not always representative of the current population that make up that something. The US's first Presidents were slave owners and it would be just as inappropriate to include mention of that fact in every article in which the US relates to. If you want to include that information, I'd suggest you head over to Wilford Woodruff's article and see if you can get it added over there... --Bobblehead 03:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no offense taken for you removing this reference on Woodruff OUT of the Boston Wikipedia article. However if Woodruff ends up being right and a tidal wave washes Boston away then I'll resubmit this trivia tidbit ;) Chances are that I might face some opposition over at Wilford Woodruff from some Mormons who don't want an embarrassing prophecy to get too much publicity. (Alex71va (talk · contribs))
Very much undue weight, especially for some discredited BS. No doubt you could dredge up all manner of "predictions" from the Cayces and Criswells of the world too that Boston would be destroyed in 1999 or thereabouts.  RGTraynor  04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing as no consensus to move; given this proposal did not succeed a bare two months ago, no guideline changes have occurred in the interim, and the evident trend of the discussion thus far to endorse the previous result, closing early.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts → Boston – {Boston, MA is by far the most common usage of the term Boston. The Boston page already redirects to Boston, MA. Though Boston, Lincolnshire may be the namesake of Boston MA, Boston MA is still the most common usage by far. Norwich, Norfolk in England, for example, is a lesser known city who can simply be found under Norwich. Several other North American cities have only the city name as their article name, including Philadelphia, New York City, Montreal, Chicago and San Francisco. I feel Boston among others should fall in this category} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Harry (talk • contribs).

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Harry (talk • contribs).

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Why is this question being asked again? We just had a survey that closed February 7, two months ago. See above. -Will Beback · † · 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Christian Science Center or Copley Square?

I have edited the erroneous caption misrepresenting Copley Square as the Christian Science Center.

-matt lavallee

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston/Archive_3&oldid=1149797373"