Jump to content

Talk:Boston/Archive 5

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

Move "subarticles" of Boston now as well?

Now that the parent article Boston, Massachusetts has been moved to Boston, should articles like Culture in Boston, Massachusetts and History of Boston, Massachusetts be moved to names without the "Massachusetts" qualifier? Cheers, Rai•me 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Loodog (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; I went ahead and moved these six articles: History of Boston, Massachusetts → History of Boston, Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts → Neighborhoods in Boston, Culture in Boston, Massachusetts → Culture in Boston, Sites of interest in Boston, Massachusetts → Sites of interest in Boston, Media in Boston, Massachusetts → Media in Boston, and Sister cities of Boston, Massachusetts → Sister cities of Boston. Many articles, like Boston transportation, Sports in Boston, and List of tallest buildings in Boston were already titled without the "Massachusetts" qualifier. Cheers, Rai•me 16:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any easy way to clean up all these links?--Loodog (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean changing links that point to Boston, Massachusetts to Boston, and so on? There is no need to do that, per WP:R#NOTBROKEN. As long as the redirect isn't broken, just leave it the way it is. One of the only times I think this could be beneficial is to adjust the redirects in the "main article" headings of this page's subsections. Cheers, Rai•me 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

The introductory photo montage has been changing daily, or more frequently, and in my opinion is getting steadily worse in terms of visual discord and clutter. Cramming so many images together risks lowering the overall visual appeal. I see this happening with the present version most of all. It is the worst yet because adjacent colors and shapes clash badly. It also helps when all or nearly all of the scenes included clearly are uniquely Bostonian, which they presently are not by any stretch. I believe a peak was reached with the version in place as of November 1, and would like to see us revert to that one and then leave it be with, at most, minor tweaks. What do others think? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of objection (or any other reaction), I am changing the lead image, but not to the Nov. 1 version. No going back to that one—it's been yanked for copyright reasons—and no remaining with what we have, as the present version is about to follow suit. Therefore returning to the tried and true, no copyright issue, view of the Esplanade and Back Bay. Thanks, I think, are due Tyork for efforts to create a successful montage; unfortunately, the licensing problems appear to be insurmountable. In case any future changes of the lead image are contemplated, I hope we will see prior discussion, perhaps with an opportunity to vote on several alternatives. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back Esplanade view pending further discussion. The aesthetic issues raised above remain unaddressed. Can File:Boston108.jpg or some close approximation of it be licensed and brought back? I stand by my assertion that nothing since works as well. Hoping others will join the discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought the collage image was too busy for a lead image, licensing issues aside. I think the image should be something quintessentially - and recognizably - Bostonian. The interior of a baseball park is not, and most of those images were equally not uniquely Boston.  Frank  |  talk  18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too well-versed on what other cities are doing, but I'm a fan of the straight skyline. Not only is it nice and simple IMHO but the template does ask for a skyline image, after all. Has there been a larger WikiProject Cities discussion perhaps?--Aepoutre (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I loved the collage image and personally don't care for the Back Bay/Esplanade image at all. The scope of this image is extremely limited and does not represent the "City of Boston" well, IMHO. Other notable American cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have all employed the image collage to represent many different locales within the city -- I think Boston deserves something similar. And, for the record, I think including a photo of Fenway Park in the collage is very appropriate; It is, after all, a Boston landmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.84.26 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Fenway Park is a landmark. The interior view of the infield of a baseball park looks like any other; the picture may claim to be from Fenway but there's nothing little identifying it in the picture, which renders its usefulness in a collage at about zero. How about the Green Monster?  Frank  |  talk  18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I went back and examined it more closely; I suppose the "John Hancock" and one building in the background could identify it, but I still don't think it's an iconic view of the ballpark. Also, see comment from AlexiusHoratius below; I concur on the size.  Frank  |  talk  18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, if I remember correctly, the picture of Fenway Park was actually a bit larger than the picture of the Boston skyline, which I found a bit odd. AlexiusHoratius 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

i prefer this image over the other one. it encompasses A LOT more of boston than the backbay/pru... ie; fenway, beacon hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonsox07 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, and a number of others don't. "Image does not show Boston’s skyline in it and doesn’t follow guidelines for “world cities” only has 2 buildings and a park. Change after discussion"?? Err, that IS a skyline, I count 15 high-rise buildings in it not counting the Trinity Church and Old South towers or the justifiably famous Hatch Shell, the park is the equally well known Esplanade, and the discussion generally involved why the previous montage was not suitable.  RGTraynor  18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made this image because most other World Cities have main collage pictures similar to this one, show casing what they are known for. See New York, LA, Chicago, London, Paris… ect. This type of format is standard for cities of this level. I chose Back Bay, Beacon Hills Acorn St, the South End, The Common and Fenway Park because they are all icons of Boston.

I can change the ballpark part to show more of Fenway’s Green monster. I choose that picture because it’s a night shot and matching the night skyline shot on the top. This picture is a lot better than the picture of esplanade because it doesn’t show Boston at all, just John Hancock and the prudential center. I will work to create a picture that everyone enjoys and wants but in the meantime I think the collage picture should stay in order to give continuity. It’s clear that most people prefer the collage over the esplanade, so please stop changing it until we can settle on tweaking the collage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the image is of central back bay- NOT bostons skyline, hense its NOT a skyline photograph and in violation of terms. its like saying new yorks skyline is just the downtown financial district or just midtown or a picture of the empire state building.

Until we can agree on an image the collage is the better of the two and actually has a full image of the boston skyline and isn’t in violation… so STOP changing it until we settle on what should be up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonsox07 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Esplanade picture is an inadequate representation of the city. If there really are copyright violations with the collage, can we please find images WITHOUT copyright issues?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.84.26 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I accidentally picked the wrong license when I uploaded it before which was why there was an error with the licensing and copyrights before but I corrected that.
I obviously agree that a picture of the esplanade though it’s nice, is an inadequate representation of Boston and even if you don’t like the collage it shows a lot more of Boston than that picture does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I'm inclined to agree, RG. --Aepoutre (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I personally love the collage and as a resident of Boston I agree that it showcases the best aspects of Boston. But if there is disagreement I personally think until someone makes a better main picture this should be a non-issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelloking (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting how many newly-registered editors (with no or few other apparent editing interests) show up here to applaud one side of this contentious issue. However, "I like it" (or "I don't like it") is not considered a valid argument for choices in Wikipedia, and there's more to consensus-building than a show of hands. Voting is often not even a part of it. The questions raised to start off this discussion have yet to be addressed in any depth. Let me try to steer the discussion back on that original track by asking just what views of Boston would be most iconic (the trademarks of the city, as it were). Earlier collages had several of them: The USS Constitution, the Old State House, the Zakim Bridge, an external, normal-scale view of Fenway Park. To these I would add the Bunker Hill Monument, perhaps the Paul Revere statue in the North End. To local residents these may all come across as cliches, but I believe that is precisely what we should be looking for. Anything that could be in any number of other cities should be excluded. And the combination should be assembled in such a way that adjacent colors, shapes and (especially) scaling are harmonious. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Run a check user... that will settle that ridiculous claim.
We can do something that is similar to what they did in NYC when deciding on their main montage and we can make 5 or 6 different collages or pictures, post them on here and vote on the best.... i think that would be fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree we need to get back on the issue... I like the idea of a collage with the old state house and bunker hill in it... I think we should limit it to 5 pictures though, anymore it will look crowded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Previewing some options here sounds good to me. That offers an opportunity to judge content, layout, and overall effect. Please sign your posts. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres the first one I made.... as suggested I made the skyline bigger, showed green monster... took hertz suggestions and added the old state house, beacon hill, and i added faneuil hall. i also made it lighter than the current collage. suggestions?

forgot to sign, sorry (Tyork (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Quite honestly: I don't the fascination with cramming as many images as possible into what will typically be viewed as a 1.5" x 1.5" inch portion of a LCD. The Boston article is well developed and affords plenty of real estate to showcase a well balanced sampling of local scenery through out. Don't blow it all in an overly-busy lead image: just take a picture of some downtown buildings and be done with it. ccwaters (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, unlike this fellow's assertion, there is no picture format for cities, certainly none requiring collages, and I can find a great many leading cities that lack them: Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, Rome, Mexico City, San Francisco, Mumbai, Pittsburgh, Seoul ...  RGTraynor  18:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ccwaters, RGTraynor, and others above, a simple skylike pic showing the Back Bay from along the Charles is not only a simpler, more aesthically pleasing picture to use as a lead picture, but is an iconic view of Boston, often shown on television when sports or other events are broadcast from the city. It appears that one editor wishes to use his multi-image picture as the lead picture, although even that multi-image leaves out the vast majority of Boston's neighborhoods (i.e. nothing from Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, etc.) and many of Boston's famous landmarks (like the JFK Museum, for instance). The lead picture should be simple and recognizable as befits its placement and size, and a multi-image picture does not fit the bill, while a view of Boston along the Charles certainly does. I say the single image of Boston along the water should be the lead picture of the Boston article. --Friejose (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that most of those cities (Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, Rome, Mexico City, San Francisco, Mumbai, Pittsburgh, Seoul ... )haven't gotten around to updating their pages to reflect the new trend towards collages as the main pictures in large / leading cities, but if people want a single image instead of the collage (like every small town, or little city) that's fine... I personal feel the collage separates all the small towns from the major cities... Because it shows we have more than a just skyline or a few buildings… it shows that Boston has one of a kind attractions, not just John Hancock, a park and the Prudential center, but quality one of a kind jewels… for example take NYC which has the UN, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square and the Statue of Liberty in their collage and as their main picture... All those parts of the city make up NYC and just a photograph of the Empire State building wouldn’t do NYC justice just as a photograph of the Esplanade doesn’t do Boston justice but that’s my option. Post some suggestions here. This isn't a vote issue but I am not going to suggest we pursue a trend (collage photograph) that the veterans on this site don't want… (Tyork (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that I don't really know how much of a "trend" this really is. Take a look at the Chicago article, where an iconic view of the the lakeshore and skyline was replaced with a bunch of dumpy-looking pictures of buildings that "say" Chicago to no one but (possibly) a Chicagoan. The talk page for that article is now full of complaints about the montage. The trouble with that montage, and with the examples on this article, is that the scenes used just aren't all that famous. I can understand with London or New York - the Statue of Liberty, Times Square, and the scene of Westminster/Big Ben are famous throughout the world, and in those cases a montage was created to reflect the fact that it really was impossible to get all of the world famous sites in those cities into a single picture. I don't know that we really should be using that example with Boston, and what we have in the montages here are scenes that most non-Bostonians will have to read the montage's caption to even tell what they are. AlexiusHoratius 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
A perceptive of the current montage from a non native: top...zoomed out random nighttime skyline of random city near water, middle... non descript rowhouses (could be old city philly) and a horse and rider statue (again could easily be one a number of statues in fairmont park, philly), bottom...picture of fenway, so zoomed out its almost unrecognisable even to a baseball fan. ccwaters (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
A perception of the revised montage *from* a native: top, unusual angle from which if it didn't have the Hancock Tower in it, I wouldn't recognize it as Boston at all; middle, a monument which I can tell only from context that it's the Bunker Hill Memorial (the angle being poor for it); bottom, a row of townhouses which I presume is on Beacon Hill, somewhere, only because I happen to know there's nowhere else in Boston with 19th century brick row townhouses AND cobblestone alley AND trees AND on a slope.  RGTraynor  09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So can I, or somebody, change the lead image back to a simple, clean, iconic view of Boston along the Charles?

Unless someone objects here soon, I will make the change myself, as it seems to me that the consensus among everyone but the montage's creator is to have a single image. --Friejose (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. It is time to move on. Image restored to the one that stood, without any objection that I can recall, for a year and a half. If something better is proposed at some future time, there is still room here to display, critique and discuss it and seek a new consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Economy Section

I think this section has several misleading parts. Especially the first paragraph listing the companies. For instance, EMC Corp, Analog Devices, VistaPrint, and a few of the listed biotech companies do not have a presence in Boston. This section should be edited. Perhaps some items should be moved to the Greater Boston article or to Cambridge, Massachusetts 141.238.109.229 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Since they are listed as being in the Boston area, I can't tell what sort of companies are actually in the city of Boston. --Beirne (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Top in life sciences

Boston is the top life sciences cluster in the country. I want to include this in the Economy section, but there's not a good place to put it without disrupting the flow. Suggestions?--Loodog (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Boston firsts

I took Harvard out of the list of Boston's firsts, as Harvard is in the city of Cambridge, not Boston. The sentence that had mentioned Harvard specifically said "The city was the site of several firsts", which is a good lead-in but by definition does not include Cambridge. An article about the city of Boston should be about the city of Boston. Information on things like Harvard belongs in the Cambridge, Massachusetts or Greater Boston articles. --Beirne (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just taking pertinent information away for technicalities. In common usage it is appropriate to mention Harvard in the Boston article. Highly relevant information about Greater Boston should be included in this article in my opinion. Important things like universities in neighboring cities also directly affect Boston, so as long as it is made clear they are not in the city proper (and it was), I don't see the problem. LonelyMarble (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a separate article for Greater Boston, which is a great place for regional discussion. There are several problems with including regional information in the Boston article. First, it clutters up the article with information that is not specific to the city. The fact that Harvard was the first college goes great in the Cambridge article. Mentioning things in neighboring cities does no service to the city of Boston unless there is a specific connection. For example, the education section lists the ties between Harvard and Tufts with Boston, which makes perfect sense. Another problem is that in some parts of the article, like the list of NCAA Division I colleges, Harvard and Boston College are listed as being in the city. They are not, except for some departments. The main campuses are outside of Boston. Someone like me from Tennessee, though, would have read that sentence and thought that Harvard was in Boston. --Beirne (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I want it to be clear if something is not in the city proper, but the average person usually does not distinguish city propers of major cities like Boston so rigidly. It is more relevant to the Greater Boston article, but given common usage of "Boston" it makes sense to include relevant information in this article as well. The readable prose in this article is fairly short, clutter isn't a problem at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I realize that with regionalism and metropolitan areas that the functional definition of a city isn't what it used to be. Other cities in the area like Cambridge, though, get their own articles without undue reference to the metropolitan area. If the Boston article is expanded to include Greater Boston through inclusion of details from other communities, then Boston gets no article of its own. And while people may use Boston to refer to the whole area in casual speech, more precision is required in an encyclopedia article. --Beirne (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with more than one of Beirne's points, including the issues of encyclopedic accuracy and the need to distinguish between Greater Boston and Boston proper, since there are indeed separate articles for the two. And I think that such a line of thought would provide a great opportunity to beef up and improve the Cambridge, Massachusetts and Greater Boston articles, rather than dump it all on Boston proper. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to Harvard Medical School in Boston, of course, and I understand the colloquial reference to Boston being everything from southern New Hampshire to northeastern Rhode Island, but I'd like to see an encyclopedia that is both fairly accurate and fairly comprehensive. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In common usage, "Boston" means "Boston, Cambridge, Brookline". A sizable fraction of Boston residents don't actually know that Brookline isn't a part of Boston city proper, or even where the boundary is. "Greater Boston" tends to refer to the outlying metro area that reaches out to 128.--Louiedog (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a former resident of both Boston and Cambridge, still living near the Red Line, I totally disagree with what Louiedog writes about "Boston, Cambridge, Brookline". Totally. I don't know anyone who thinks that. People in Boston actually tend to know exactly where they are, down to neighborhood, church parish, or square. I have no idea Louiedog where you got that idea. To the original point, my answer is: Harvard is not a Boston first, it is a Massachusetts first. Sswonk (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I concede that I have a biased sample group. I'm mostly around students, but the distinction between Brookline and Brighton is a fuzzy one.--Louiedog (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That I can believe, I hope we can educate these students. Permanent residents would never confuse Brookline or Cambridge with Boston. Sometimes looking at the street signs, for example these, will show which side of the border you are on: the Boston signs often include the city seal on their left end. Sswonk (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

History merge

I've history merged a revision from Boston/redirects here. There were a couple of software errors probably due to the size of the page's history, so if you notice that I broke something just let me know. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Best City Ever

Amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolutionist6 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish and LGBT population statistics

I removed the following two paragraphs, as they are deceptively out of the scope of the article, which is about the city and not the region:

Greater Boston additionally has a sizable Jewish community, estimated at between 210,000 people,[1][2] and 261,000[3] or 5-6% of the Greater Boston metro population, compared with about 2% for the nation as a whole. Contrary to national trends, the number of Jews in Greater Boston has been growing, fueled by the fact that 60% of children in Jewish mixed-faith families are raised Jewish, compared with roughly one in three nationally.[1]

The City of Boston also has one of the largest LGBT populations per capita. It ranks 5th of all major cities in the country (behind San Francisco, and slightly behind Seattle, Atlanta, and Minneapolis respectively), with 12.3% of the city recognizing themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.[4]

  1. ^ a b Michael Paulson. "Jewish population in region rises". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2009-11-29.
  2. ^ "Cities with the Largest Jewish Population in the Diaspora". adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-11-29. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 24 (help)
  3. ^ "Metro Area Membership Report". The Association of Religion Data Archives. Retrieved 2009-11-29.
  4. ^ "12.9% in Seattle are gay or bisexual, second only to S.F., study says". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. 2006. Retrieved 2009-05-01.

The LGBT figures are ultimately sourced to http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/samesexcouplesandglbpopacs.pdf which does state that 12.3% of the "largest city" in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy "metropolitan area" are "gay, lesbian or bisexual". It is not clear whether that means the NECTA or the MSA. Either way, Atlanta is not listed on the top table on page 7 of the PDF. It is not that I dispute these figures at all, rather that in a featured article the refs should be less ambiguous than this. I do not think the Jewish figures as they were presented (copied above) belong in the section, as the Demographics section is about the city and not the metro region. If definitive figures for the city itself can be found there is no reason not to include them in the section. Sswonk (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will give you the Jewish issue, but the gay one is solid and clearly states Boston city proper population in the appropriate column:
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 17,705 8,560 9,145 6.2% 201,344 Boston 4,876 2,755 2,121 12.3% 50,540
Also, within the prose, after mentioning how gay Greater Boston is, it states Moreover, with the exception of Austin, the proportion of GLB residents tends to be higher in the actual cities contained within the metropolitan areas shown. The proportion nearly doubles in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Minneapolis. I will do some Jewish research but I think the gay content can stay.--Louiedog (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Page redirect

Why is the page named Boston, instead of Boston, Massachusetts is there a good reason for this. South Bay (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See the last section of Archive 4. AlexiusHoratius 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong sense of cultural identity.

To me the the phrase "Bostonians are often considered to have a strong sense of cultural identity, perhaps as a result of its intellectual reputation; much of Boston's culture originates at its universities" is not very encyclopedia like. Especially when you consider that it is the best Wikipedia has to offer and the source [1] doesn't mention cultural identity is not mentioned at all. I request another source. Erikhansson1 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

I just changed the wording to indicate that the Boston Marathon is the world's oldest annual marathon. This is the BAA's wording. I believe the modern Olympic Marathon is older, but not annual.Dduggan47 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Does it matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.68.75 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Beantown nickname

I do a search for "Beantown" and am redirected to Boston. All very well and good, except now that I'm here, I find no mention of Beantown. Why is Boston nicknamed Beantown? Is it coffee beans, or Boston baked beans that gave it that name? In addition, has the name fallen into disfavor, and if so, why could that possibly be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick search of the article finds the nicknames section with the reference to boston.com.--Terrillja talk 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Witty email - Boston geography.

I've gotten this witty joke a few times and I always get a chuckle out of it. It's the view point of how any non-Bostonian would view Boston's actual geography. I was thinking it might be cool to put as a box quote somewhere but I have no idea who wrote it to quote them. Has anyone else seen it? When I google the first line a lot of hits turn up going to various Boston message boards but none of these seem to know the author. It goes:


CaribDigita (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime

Boston has a quite bad rate of crime. It should be mentioned more prominently in this article. Many other cities features large sections on crime, and some even that are less dangerous than Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.140.237 (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) How so? I have lived here my enitre life, Boston that is, and the crime rate has gone down significantlly over the past 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.68.75 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Boston (disambiguation) which may be of interest Purplebackpack89 04:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk • contribs)

"Inner core"?

The image showing colleges has a caption using the term "inner core". This term is not defined or elsewhere used in the article. (And as someone who lives in the area depicted, I have no idea what it means.) Unless this term can be defined and references sited, it should be removed.--Ericjs (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Climate

In the article, Boston's climate is listed as Köppen Dfa "using the 0 °C (32 °F) isotherm preferred by some climatologists." The Köppen classification generally uses the −3 °C (27 °F) isotherm. The 0 °C (32 °F) isotherm is used unofficially by some US and Australian scientists. In the interest of appealing to a more global scientific consensus rather than a narrower American scientific opinion, I suggest that we eliminate the Dfa tag.

Instead, I propose that we list the climate classification as Cfa (humid subtropical). I understand that there are reservations about applying the term "subtropical" to an area like Boston, however the Cfa classification was originally designed to describe areas with primarily deciduous forests and rare to minimal snow cover during winter months. With rarely more than a few weeks of snow cover, deciduous forests, and temperatures within the bounds of the globally accepted Cfa classification, it seems more logical to label the climate as Cfa. Perhaps a sentence or two could mention the nearby border/influence of the Dfa climate.

Bluerunner 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerunner (talk • contribs)

File:Boston Montage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boston Montage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

'History of Boston' missing from See also references

I would correct this omission myself, but for some reason, I've been unable to invoke edit mode for this article for the past 48 hrs.

Before that, I had drafted a criticism here, accusing this article of being deficient in its coverage of Boston history. Luckily, before posting it, it dawned on me that this topic might be covered in a separate article, which I then found. Hence, this article's custodians wasted my time--not to mention narrowly escaped incurring a false criticism of your efforts--by failing to include en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_Boston in your list of See also references, at bottom. I mean, huh?

Correct this glaring bug pronto. --Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A "See also" would be inappropriate, because History of Boston is linked within the article, at the top of the History section. I'm sorry you overlooked it. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Black population

So, the demographics sections states that the cities black population has decreased but I looked at the census results and according to them it actually increased so I removed that sentenece. Also, the black percentage is wrong, that was only for non-hispanic blacks and not blacks as a whole so I changed that as well. Now, that I've explained that I hope someone doesn't revert it back to the way it was again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Using the edit summaries to explain your edits is one of the best ways to avoid misunderstandings. Providing reliable sourcing for new or changed information is another. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Diminished article quality

As it stands the article would probably not meet the FA criteria, as many non constructive edits have been performed since the last review five years ago. I'm signalling this with the hope the article can be repaired so no further review will be needed. The most visible problems are:

  • unreferenced and disputed content: 4 "citation needed" tags in article
  • MOS issues: 2x bare URLs, MOS:HEAD not followed, etc
  • excessive number of images: text sandwiched between images. When the article was promoted had 14 images, now it has 43 excluding the infobox. Several captions are too long.
  • decorative flagicons added to the sister cities section
  • Prose issues: lead bit clumsy repeating "Boston" 16 times.
  • Navbarfarm : 12!

These are just some of the most obvious. --ELEKHHT 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Initiated FAR. --ELEKHHT 13:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

marathon bombing

I dont know if it should even be on this page, but the sentence On April 15, 2013, at approximately 14:50 ET the city suffered two bombings during the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and wounding 183 people. certainly does not belong where it currently is in the history section. The mention in the sports section is less out of place, but even then it seems given unnecessary weight. Maybe a sentence in the crime section instead. nableezy - 04:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Boston Marathon bombings should be mentioned just once, and then linked to the very comprehensive article on the event. Tacking it onto the history hodgepodge section as it is now doesn't help. Perhaps we should look at how the New York City article handles the 9/11 attacks. Reify-tech (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut, cut, cut

Not that I'm Orwell or anything, but one of my personal writing tenets is to remember that every word added dilutes the effect of all the others, so one must ask whether, in sum, a given piece of information actually adds to or detracts from the readers ability to come away with a good understanding of the subject. I'm in a pissy mood so maybe some of these don't deserve to be listed here, but honestly, does the reader really want to learn (or be misinformed by)...

  • that the MBTA lines are color-coded as orange, green, red, blue, silver and purple.
  • that the rail system is the 5th busiest, but the bus system is the 7th busiest, while transit usage is 3rd in the nation, and it's the 3rd busiest commuter rail network (and we even name #1 and #2 in case you care)
  • the names of the northermost, southernmost, and westernmost cities reached by the T (which has 65.5 miles of track -- the .5 is important, you know)
  • that there's a choice of electric and gas suppliers (which is true in the entire state, and most other states too) and their previous names, and the current and former names of steam companies, as if 1 in 100 people even know what a steam company does
  • the 13 names of Verizon's predecessors, somehow erroneously identifying the "Bell System" as the ultimate predecessor
  • population figures to the "exact" individual, and percentages to two decimal places
  • that the Marathon "always coincides with a Red Sox home baseball game that starts at 11:05 am, the only MLB game all year to start before noon local time" WOW!
  • that the ZBA has seven members
  • yes, and they're appointed by the mayor
  • shockingly, we are not told the cardinality of the School Committee
  • that Menino was "reelected in 2009 for a fifth term, the longest in the city's history" (actually, it makes sense to mention Menino's long tenure, though I'm skeptical as to whether his fifth term was longer than any of his other terms)
  • that the Patriots are "A charter member of the American Football League, the team joined the National Football League in 1970." Is this information about Boston?
  • "Boston is the country's third most densely populated city that is not a part of a larger city's metropolitan area" What in the world is the significance of this precise but essentially uninterpretable ranking?
  • misuse of the term "Boston proper", which has a technical (if now-little-used) meaning in the internal organization of city government
  • the detail that the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston happens to be the First District of the Federal Reserve.

There are also some unsettling statements, including...

  • "Within the city, Boston University exudes a large presence as the city's fourth-largest employer" (I thought all the exuding was ended after Silber left.)
  • "Surrounding the city are three major general aviation relievers: Beverly Municipal Airport to the north, Hanscom Field in Bedford, to the west, and Norwood Memorial Airport to the south." (I'm afraid to ask what a "reliever" is used for. Sounds nasty.)
  • talk of "fluctuation of people", which sounds painful

Like I said, I'm in a pissy mood. EEng (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's because there's no actual Geography of Boston article. So essentially you have what's only supposed to be a small snapshot on the main Boston article with other information that's better suited as deep linked. CaribDigita (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag

I've moved the contents of Flag of Boston here as IMO that article doesn't merit being stand-alone (seriously, would anyone look up "Flag of Boston" rather than "Boston"?). I can't locate any reference from this article to F.O.B., but if there is one, it should be replaced with an intra-page reference. Chrismorey (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

History

The section on History lists a peculiar set of colleges and universities, specifically, "Schools such as Boston University, the Harvard Medical School, Northeastern University, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Berklee College of Music and Boston Conservatory." Wentworth is a 3rd rate technical school that is largely a junior college. The Boston Conservatory is a very small school without the reputation of the much better known New England Conservatory of Music, which is also located in Boston. I suspect that people affiliated with these schools included their names in this section. Bostoner (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to invoke base motives. Lots of material in this article seems to be arbitrarily drawn from larger supersets. In many cases, such as this one, we'd probably need e.g. a "List of..." spinoff to list them all, or some criterion for which subset to include. Be my guest. EEng (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

The article has the pronunciation /ˈbɔːstən/ listed as an option for the city. I was under the impression that local pronunciation was the only one mentioned for a city and differences in other accents were ignored. The local pronunciation then would only be /ˈbɒstən/. Otherwise why wouldn't also include /ˈbɑstən/ for how Canadians and the Western US say it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebro55 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the local pronunciation is not the only one listed for a city. Our pronunciation guidelines are cross-dialectal, even for city names. After all, even people from other places are permitted to speak of a city and to pronounce its names according to their native accent. If the local pronunciation deviates from what the rest of the world calls it, then the local pronunciation may be listed as well, but we don't list only the local pronunciation. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Boston

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 Boston'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 "HKO":

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⚡ 07:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove full protection of the redirect at Boston, Massachusetts

I've already presented my reasoning here -Talk:Miami#Request to undo full protection of the redirect at Miami, Florida-, and to a much lesser extent, here -Talk:San Diego#Request to remove full protection of the redirect at San Diego, California. I shouldn't need an administrator's permission just so I can add a redirect template or modify a category, and I shouldn't need to ask the admin to do it either. Dustin (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I agree fully on that though. CaribDigita (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Sports" as a subsection of "Culture"

I believe that Sports should become a subsection of Culture. JC · Talk · Contributions 09:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline it should have its own section. Especially Boston, with its rich sports history. Onel5969 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For the demographics section: A source on Baltics in Boston

I found:

This is about immigrants from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Demographics table more than 150%

Demographics for 2010:

  • White (includes White Hispanics) 54%,
  • Non-Hispanic Whites 47%,
  • Black or African American 24%,
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 17.5%,
  • Asian 8.9%,
  • Two or more races 3.9%,
  • Native American 0.4%, Equals 155.7% ????

CaribDigita (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@CaribDigita: - Add up 47, 24, 17.5, 8.9, 3.9, and 0.4. The 54% includes the 47% plus the "White Hispanics" WhisperToMe (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Pollution data

Many of the numbers quoted seem to be from the numbeo.com website, and are based on the opinions of 16 visitors to their website who answered some multiple choice questions about how clean they think Boston is. There is no scientific basis. I would recommend removing the paragraph of "data". Ebony Jackson (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Double vandalism

I have noticed a pattern of deliberate double vandalism from two separate accounts (both created recently and used only for vandalism). The more recent vandalism gets quickly reverted by Cluebot or manually, but the earlier vandalism persists unless it is also manually reverted. This pattern has been used on other Wikipedia articles, with similar results. New accounts include at least User:Brianbarnaby1, User:Name changerman 46, User:Changer10921, User:Down200, and User:Wikitroll51198. Only the last account has been blocked as of this writing. I want to alert other editors to this trick, so that they can look more carefully when reverting, and also check for further unnoticed vandalism. WP:PROTECT may be needed, and I also wonder if there is any other mechanism to watch for this trick at a broader level, or to alert other editors. Reify-tech (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Boston

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Boston sports culture

How can this be listed as one of the biggest contributions to human civilization along with academics? Boston sports culture only affects Boston. 9 championships in the last 16 years doesn't make it the most impactful sports scene over NYC, Chicago, Philly, LA, etc. Los Angeles has 8 championships in 16 years. What happens if it ties Boston this year if the Rams/Clippers/Dodgers or Kings win? It's pretty stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.198.130 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Same street name 5 times.

Heard this interesting tidbit. I heard someone say because of municipal annexation, Boston wound up with the irregularity where it has the same street name 5 times and they don't necc. connect at all... I found them. Washington St. is the name.

  • Washington Street. Charlestown (Boston) is to the southeast of the Bunker Hill Community College. It proceeds a few blocks and then stops.
  • Washington Street, Downtown (Boston proper), begins at old State House (junction with Court Street and State Street, proceeds southward, passes through Dudley, proceeds out to Jamaica Plain where it turns into Hyde Park Ave..
  • Washington Street, Jamaica Plain, forms anew on the opposite side of Hyde Park Avenue/Forest Hills T station, and proceeds through Hyde Park + Roselindale eventually ends out in town of Walpole.
  • Washington Street, Dorchester, begins in Grove Hall, Dorchester at Blue Hill Avenue, proceeds south, and ends in Dorchester Lower Mills near Milton.
  • Washington Street, Newton Corner (at Mass. Pike) proceeds through (Brighton, Boston); continues to town of Brookline ending near Route 9/Riverway. CaribDigita (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but the one in Jamaica Plain is technically a continuation of the one that begins in Downtown (in that the numbers continue on the street after Forest Hills)209.6.159.185 (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Image overload

Boston has to be the most flagrant example of image overload I have ever seen on a featured article. How it was allowed to fall apart so spectacularly, and how it's still granted featured status, is puzzling to say the least. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: This article seems to have an issue with images creeping into it over time. This was a concern at the last FA review. It had 35 images after that review, it now has 72. I believe a pruning is in order. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest getting rid of the gallery at the bottom, as well as images of the same subject. If a building appears in the lead montage then it almost certainly doesn't need to be represented elsewhere in the article. (Re)move images to avoid squashing text. Stacking panoramas of city skylines is another unfortunate trend. I'm hesitant to make any of these changes myself because I don't know much about Boston. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The gallery actually serves some useful function, as a place for good photos that aren't immediately relevant to the text of the article. Its existence makes it easier to rigorously require that all other photos be relevant to the text they are inserted next to. After setting up a gallery in other articles, I have found it to be easier to move irrelevant photos out of the main text, and to later prune the gallery of excessive and redundant ones without getting a lot of protests and re-insertions. I do agree that the article has accumulated too many photos, and needs to be pruned. Reify-tech (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an image repository WP:NOTGALLERY. If readers want to look at a wall of Boston-related images they can go to Wiki Commons, Flickr, or a tourism website. Otherwise images should only be used where they're actually needed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Houston's another FA article which is suffering from this same problem. This article definitely needs photo trimming. I too agree with WP:NOTGALLERY, and I've had exactly the opposite experience than Reify-tech, in that editors have argued more about including stuff in the gallery (or creating a gallery). Perhaps an RfC at US Cities is in order? It's kind of like when you decorate a house: it can be tastefully done, and wall ornamentation can add to the room's ambience, or you can cram a picture or knick-knack into every square inch of open space, which simply looks cluttered. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Another suggestion is to revert to this montage. The current one has some very average shots and falls under WP:NOTGALLERY. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Irish population in Boston

When did the Irish become either the largest ethnic group or the majority of Boston's population? I would like to know and may be included in the study of Irish culture in Boston. Either this happened between 1850 and 1880, the peak of Irish immigration to the USA and a large proportion of Irish immigrants settled in Boston, except New York City has more Irish by numbers. The South Shore (Massachusetts) region about 25 miles south of Boston now has the US' highest percentage of ethnic Irish descent and the highest percentage of Irish in any town in the South Shore has to be 60 percent. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:8CE3:33F8:10A3:5BB8 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Boston Museum"

Boston Museum

What is this building? Thanks. I looked the Boston Museum disambiguation page but the results didn't easily resolve the issue. Thanks. OrganicEarth (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Tremont Street since the King's [Chapel] burial ground appears to be in the right corner. I believe it's just office buildings now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's the second building of the Boston Museum (theatre) at 28 Tremont Street. NewtonCourt (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Title montage image

Can someone please replace the title montage image? I'm sure there are better choices. Castncoot (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I hate the current one. (Also 99% sure it isn't an 'own work' as licensed). This one was used for a while and looks decent. AlexiusHoratius 22:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel that the very top picture would be a good one to start replacing, whoever wants and knows how to do so should feel free. I'm not thrilled about that old montage, either. Castncoot (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Boston. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently lead is clumsy

Can someone work on the currently lead? (quote) The city is the economic and cultural anchor of a substantially larger metropolitan area called Greater Boston, home to 4.7 million people and the tenth-largest metropolitan statistical area in the country.[5] Greater Boston as a commuting region is home to 8.1 million people, making it the sixth-largest combined statistical area in the United States.[11] (end quote)

Is that a difference between a "metropolitan statistical area" and a "combined statistical area"? CaribDigita (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Largest ethnicity

How are the Irish the largest Ethnicity when it says African Americans make up 25% of the population? That should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semioplex (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity is different from race, though the two concepts are related and the lines are sometimes blurred. I think in this case you are "comparing apples and oranges". Hertz1888 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Bolton"

The intro scope notes at top say, "For the [sic] town, see Bolton, Massachusetts". That literally means "For the town of Boston, see Bolton". "Bolton" is a different English word than "Boston". Illogical, meaningless, obstructive, and a non sequitur. It smacks of hacking by someone trying to promote Bolton, Mass. by subversively naming it in an article about a different entity far more well known and merely spelled similarly to it. (1960s musical group The Beau Brummels were said to have selected their name because their LPs would be filed immediately after The Beatles'.) Delete it. Jimlue (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Boston

The red map of Boston is merely a schematic of the overall geometric shape of the city, with none of the many parts of Boston identified or delineated. (Unless topic "Sections of Boston" is treated in a separate Wiki article, in which case x-ref. to it.) Add a political map.

For that matter, offhand I don't see an integral list of Boston's named localities. The closest effort seems to be a table of neighborhoods, but those are neighborhoods. Uninhabited localities (see next comment) are excluded; to boot, it is filed in per-capita-income order. Name Boston's localities, in alpha order by same. Again, maybe shunting to a separate article would be good. Jimlue (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Deer Island

The red map shows Boston includes Deer Island. (I walk out there all the time, and until I saw the map just now, I assumed Deer Is. was in Winthrop--thru which you must go to get to Deer Is. I was stunned. So thanks for educating me.)

But a search (Safari for Mac) of "deer" in the text turns up nothing. Somewhere in the article, integrate mention of Deer Island as part of Boston. For that matter, the label-less red map seems to show that only PART of Deer Island is in Boston. Is that true? These things have got to be covered.

Still, we aver: A splendid article.

Jimlue (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Only content of relative significance should be included in the lead

Boston's status as the most populous city in the New England region of the northeastern United States is more significant than its status as the 22nd-most populous city in the U.S.—I would only consider it being in the top 5 most populous cities in the country to be significant, and this city doesn't even break the top 10 or top 20. I'm going to change the content in the article's lead, even though I would guess it is likely that I will be reverted. First past the post (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Boston-area weather/climate typical variations

Let's try to improve access to Boston weather/climate info. Averages are always the best place to start, and all-time record extremes are entertaining -- but the in-between understanding of typical historic statistical variations is quite important and also hard to find.

  • www.currentresults.com/Weather/Massachusetts/Places/boston-temperatures-by-month-average.php
How Often Boston Has Cold Temperatures

This website has a very useful "Days per month on average in Boston when the minimum temperature drops to 10, 20, or 32 °F or below" table. That kind of info would be helpful in some WP article. But the general Boston article is already rather overgrown -- can we have a Boston-area weather/climate article with more details?-73.61.15.24 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #2

The Lead Section: The lead section here is fantastic. It is full of detail explaining some of the history of Boston, the universities in the city, etc.. I think the lead section reports most of the important information without explaining them in too much detail.

Structure: I feel as if the sections are organized perfectly and broken down into different sub sections which help with the organization.

Balance Honestly this article covers almost everything you need to know about Boston including demographics, economy and sports just to name a few. After reading through this I did not find that anything that was written was off topic at all.

Neutral The article is very neutral in tone and does not show any signs of bias. The author wanted to put every aspect of Boston on display to the readers. I was not able to find any words or phrases that don't seem neutral in this article. There are no examples of the article making claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people.

Reliable sources This is a very long article and they used just shy of 300 sources which is incredible. I was not able to find any unsourced statements in this article. There are 297 sources being used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfranzosa5103 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Replacement of image in Climate section

I replaced the image File:Boston Winter Snowfall Counts Distribution.png in the Climate section with an official NOAA image of snowfall counts in Boston (copyright-free because NOAA is an official agency of the US government). This is because the data was synthesized from several sources, namely a website showing yearly snowfall data, without the average and standard deviation listed on the site. Additionally, it does not graph the actual snowfall counts in the time period it spans, but instead graphs it as a bell curve assuming that snowfall in Boston is normally distributed with mean 43.4 inches and standard deviation 22 inches. The normal distribution is not an appropriate model for snowfall, and even then, fitting a distribution to the empirical amounts of snowfall is not very useful. In addition, an article on a city should not assume a background in probability theory. Esquivalience (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

University town CfD

Categories are supposed to be defining characteristics of their subject, and I don't see how a global city like Boston or London or Paris can meet that definition. The term makes sense as an analogy to company town or mining town, where a single industry dominates. There's a discussion to delete the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 9#University towns. Maybe a rename or redefinition can save the concept. Please comment over there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Improvements and comments

I made a variety of improvements to punctuation and, in particular, to the layout which was rather scattered and messy. I have a series of comments.

1. "Despite cost-of-living issues, Boston ranks high on livability ratings, ranking 36th worldwide in quality of living in 2011 in a survey of 221 major cities".

The sample is ridiculous. The world alone has more than 200 countries. That information is pointless and meaningless. It should not even be in this article.

2. The cityscape images are way too big and they should be at the bottom in a gallery section.

3a. Two thirds of the section on "culture" are dedicated to music which should have its own section.

3b. "Symphony Hall (located west of Back Bay) is home to the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the related Boston Youth Symphony Orchestra, which is the largest youth orchestra in the nation, and to the Boston Pops Orchestra."

This sentence should be rewritten.

4. "On April 15, 2013, two explosions killed three people and injured hundreds at the marathon."

This sentence is unnecessary.

5. "Films have been made in Boston since as early as 1903, and it continues to be both a popular setting and a popular site for location shooting".

A few famous movies should be listed.

6. " In 2016, there are 1,461 bikes and 158 docking stations across the city".

This is old information in the present tense and it should be updated accordingly.

ICE77 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"City-to-state/USA difference"

These tables in the Demographics section are pretty silly - they assume the reader has zero arithmetic skills. I would drop them. 2602:306:CFEA:170:B414:10A2:8201:4E9A (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Boston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Boston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:25, 8 November 2020 (edit) Magnolia677 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 987344851 by Theonomad (talk)this has almost nothing to do with Boston) Tag: Undo ← Previous edit

Where was the Boston Stock Exchange? What is Boston? Correct! John Carpenter Hull was first Securities Director of Massachusetts, where was his office? hmmm What is the statehouse in Boston? Correct again! What is a large, bulbous, infragrant flower that only blooms for a week?

Everything to do to with Boston ("this has almost nothing to do with Boston"). Can you be overruled? Theonomad (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Tremont Street"

If someone knows IPA or American Phonetics, it would be great if they were included on the Tremont Street article, thanks. --Prisencolin (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

the "e" is short; one syllable. Sounds like Trimont except short "i", hope that helps.Theonomad (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

23:17, 10 November 2020‎ Magnolia677 talk Theonomad (talk): This has little relevance to Boston; please seek a consensus before adding this again

Magnolia677 now says John C Hull, Speaker of the House Massachusetts, Securities Director of Massachusetts, based in Boston, presided over the Boston Stock Exchange for six years " has little relevance to Boston".  Arguably the most important event of the last century - the crash of 1929.  The current copy: "Boston went into decline by the early to mid-20th century, as factories became old and obsolete and businesses ..."  is weak and factually incorrect.  Leaving out WWI, the Spanish Flu,  WWII, the Depression etc. leaves a giant hole in the copy.  Now, if its Wikipedia's goal to mislead people and write for third grade comprehension tell me now.  If not, there's better ways to handle differences in copy from deletion.  Theonomad (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

Was a great read..but WP:Sandwich made many parts allmost impossible to read on a tablet or cell.--Moxy 🍁 00:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

John Carpenter Hull - First Securities Director Massachusetts

Editors: Leave the flabby and fictitious "Boston went into decline by the early to mid-20th century, as factories became old and obsolete and businesses ..." in there or fill the 50 year void with factual content? Let me knowTheonomad (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Theonomad, your talk-page comments are a bit scattered (and I don't think three sections are necessary), but I think that you're complaining about this removal? In that case, I agree with Magnolia677. Whilst Hull was clearly closely connected to Boston, the text you want to add is not about Boston. The city is large enough and has a rich enough history that it's not useful to include everything that a notable Boston resident did in the article. Rather it belongs in John C. Hull (politician), where I see you're doing a fine job. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Wham2001, Let's consider the three paragraphs the editors of this page have chosen for view on 20th Century Boston. The first "Boston went into DECLINE by the early to mid-20th century, as factories became old and obsolete..." leads into the second where there is "...VIBRANT Scollay Square area" and the third we're up to 1970's where "recover after 30 years of economic downturn".  The years arent in order.  It's not accurate, the 70's were an economic failure.  Meanwhile, Boston in the 50's boomed.   Government Ctr is a huge, ugly eyesore and anyone with a objective sense of "beauty" can attest.  The three paragraphs chosen are faulty, untrue, poorly edited and constructed.  

The benefit to historians is the history in question has already happened.  The usual focus of history concerns people and events not wishy-washy central state dreamtimes.  Only trying to improve the page.  At present, it's litter box quality.  Theonomad (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)PS: My disagreement Magnolia677 in on History of Boston page.

Theonomad Your objections to the "decline" sentence aside, it's unclear why information about Hull is what is needed instead. Like other editors have pointed out, your additions are not about Boston and are therefore not relevant to this article. Grk1011 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Grk1011 Anybody protecting this full litter box cannot have an appreciation for truth and goodness.Theonomad (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Grk1011Wham2001 Hope I got a laugh out of last comment. Seriously, Hull WAS Boston personified in the 1920's. Being FIRST anything, especially when its as important as Securities Director AFTER an figurative atomic bomb in the financial markets in the Crash of 1929, well - I think Hull should be on the Boston page. Theonomad (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

20 th Century Boston

Dear, dearMagnolia677, hear you have some concerns that to be addressed. Lets talk it now. All those edits were found on Wikipedia. Theonomad (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theonomad: You added three paragraphs of unsourced content. Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And now I have removed the remainder of your edit; the source you cited does not mention Boston, and does not support your edit. User:Theonomad, I'm cautioning you not to edit war over unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Magnolia677:Sweet Magnolia, whatever can you mean? Boston is the subject. All the places in the links are within Boston. Gov. Allen? Boston. Hull? Boston. Are you allright my dear Sweet Magnolia? Is English your first language? There has something in my edit that is allowed sweet one.Theonomad (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyway wasnt it you arguing for original copy? yes it was you my lil magnolia blossom...Theonomad (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Present 20th century

Present 20th century promotes a gag reflex. how boring can you be?


20th century Boston went into decline by the early to mid-20th century, as factories became old and obsolete and businesses moved out of the region for cheaper labor elsewhere.[73] Boston responded by initiating various urban renewal projects, under the direction of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) established in 1957. In 1958, BRA initiated a project to improve the historic West End neighborhood. Extensive demolition was met with strong public opposition, and thousands of families were displaced.[74]

The BRA continued implementing eminent domain projects, including the clearance of the vibrant Scollay Square area for construction of the modernist style Government Center. In 1965, the Columbia Point Health Center opened in the Dorchester neighborhood, the first Community Health Center in the United States. It mostly served the massive Columbia Point public housing complex adjoining it, which was built in 1953. The health center is still in operation and was rededicated in 1990 as the Geiger-Gibson Community Health Center.[75] The Columbia Point complex itself was redeveloped and revitalized from 1984 to 1990 into a mixed-income residential development called Harbor Point Apartments.[76]

By the 1970s, the city's economy had begun to recover after 30 years of economic downturn. A large number of high-rises were constructed in the Financial District and in Boston's Back Bay during this period.[77] This boom continued into the mid-1980s and resumed after a few pauses. Hospitals such as Massachusetts General Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Brigham and Women's Hospital lead the nation in medical innovation and patient care. Schools such as the Boston Architectural College, Boston College, Boston University, the Harvard Medical School, Tufts University School of Medicine, Northeastern University, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Berklee College of Music, the Boston Conservatory, and many others attract students to the area. Nevertheless, the city experienced conflict starting in 1974 over desegregation busing, which resulted in unrest and violence around public schools throughout the mid-1970s.[78]Theonomad (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

curprev 19:22, 17 November 2020‎ Magnolia677 talk contribs‎ 197,776 bytes -825‎ →‎20th century: Not supported by source cited, which does not even mention Boston once

@Magnolia677: you said: "‎20th century: Not supported by source cited, which does not even mention Boston once " In the edit questioned, I mentioned Boston 8 times. I mentioned Massachusetts 5 times. Seriously - whats your problem? I'm here to help. Theonomad (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Boston and related subject - Point Judith Rhode Island for example only.

Good Morning Wham2001 (talk, Grk1011 (talk), FDW777 (talk), and [User_talk:Magicpiano|♪piano]],  I wanted to get your take on the Point Judith Rhode Island for example.  I want to learn. I was told by editors to find new copy for various articles; then, told everything must be sourced. Please tell me, which is it? Below is current Point Judith Rhode Island on Wikipedia:

"Point Judith was named in the seventeenth century after Judith Thatcher who was a passenger on  a small vessel with her father when it ran aground on the point and was almost wrecked.  Allegedly, Judith rendered great service and as a result the vessel was saved.  In remembrance of this the crew called the point after her name.[1] According to Edmund Quincy's 1874 biography of his father Josiah Quincy, Point Judith was named after Judith Hull by her husband John Hull.[2]

For discussion: This is a bad reference?[3] It leads nowhere.  Of course, Josiah Quincy is right, he's the family of John and Judith Quincy Hull. Supporting references :  [4], [5] [6]   How would one rectify that situation? 

How about the 20th century Boston?   Much appreciated, Theonomad (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Hall

Magnolia677, I have been there. The sound is pure. You are being a pest. There are enough glaring deficiencies on this page for you get more than your fair share of knocking sandcastles down. I noted one. Anyone can destroy. You're a "Nelson" from the "The Simpsons" type.

History and architecture - Wikipedia On June 12, 1899, ground was broken and construction began on Symphony Hall after the Orchestra's original home (the Old Boston Music Hall) was threatened by road-building and subway construction. The building was completed 17 months later at a cost of $771,000.[4] The hall was inaugurated on October 15, 1900, Architects McKim, Mead and White engaged Wallace Clement Sabine, a young assistant professor of physics at Harvard University, as their acoustical consultant, and Symphony Hall became one of the first auditoria designed in accordance with scientifically derived acoustical principles. Admired for its lively acoustics from the time of its opening, the hall is often cited as one of the best sounding classical concert venues in the world.[5]Theonomad (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review #1

The Lead Section: Yes, the lead section is very well written. It includes most everything that I would want to know about Boston without having to completely dive into the article itself.

Structure: I like the history section and it obviously makes sense for this to be chronological. I think the sports section could probably be a bit bigger. Sports are a huge passion for Boston and the surrounding area and could be drilled down into a time period or different sections.

Balance: This Wikipedia article is very well-written. As one of the oldest and biggest cities in the US, Boston obviously has a lot of information to share. The article itself compares similarly to that of "New York City" and "Miami".

Neutral: The article is neutral in tone for the most part. The phrase "one of the best" comes up when describing the Boston Marathon and could be easily replaced with "one of the most famous" or "well-known"

Reliable sources: There are approximately 300 (!) sources used for this article. Most claims are in fact sourced. one thing I would be wary of is the fact that 2 Boston teams are currently competing in postseason play. This could make this page a target for fan-related memes and viral edits following a loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryadelson (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 May 2018 and 13:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


20th century

	+

At the turn of the century, Boston saw its acoustically superior Symphony Hall which houses the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and which continues to make the hall its home. In 1901, Boston Red Sox were founded, though Red Sox fans would have to wait until seventeen years later, at the height of the "Spanish Flu" until they won their first World Series in 1918. 

	+	
	+

Many architecturally significant buildings were built during these early years of the 20th century: Horticultural Hall built on Massachusetts Avenue, theTennis and Racquet Club, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Fenway Studios, Jordan Hall as well as the Boston Opera Company. The Longfellow Bridge was built in 1906 and made famous by Robert McCloskey in Make Way for Ducklings for its iconic "salt and pepper" feature. 

	+	
	+

With the "Roaring Twenties" in full swing, Logan International Airport opened on September 8, 1923, and was used mainly by the Massachusetts Air National Guard and the United States Army Air Corps. It was then called Jeffery Field, WBZ (AM) radio began broadcasting in Boston just in time for the Boston Bruins hockey team founding in 1924. The Bruins first game at the Boston Garden was in November, 1928. 

	+	
	+

Stock prices rose 39% in 1928. To stop speculation, the Fed raised the discount rate. The Fed also sold securities to banks as part of its open market operations. "The Great Depression began in August 1929, when the economic expansion on of the Roaring Twenties came to an end. A series of financial crises punctuated the contraction. These crises included a stock market crash in 1929" and a panic in Boston. Governor of Massachusetts Frank G. Allen appointed John C. Hull the first Securities Director of Massachusetts in late 1929.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonomad (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Since your reference doesn't mention Boston or Massachusetts, the relevance is? FDW777 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


User talk:FDW777|talk]]FDW777 It starts with "At the turn of the century, Boston saw its acoustically superior Symphony Hall which houses the Boston SymphonyOrchestra," and ends with "These crises included a stock market crash in 1929" and a panic in Boston. Governor of Massachusetts Frank G. Allen appointed John C. Hull the first Securities Director of Massachusetts in late 1929." I struggle to meaning in your comment. Either you 1)didnt read it, 2)are gaslighting in full view or dont care about the quality of your submissions. Which is obvious on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonomad (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Try option 3) You are wrong because, as you admit, you "struggle to meaning". As documented here or at #curprev 19:22, 17 November 2020‎ Magnolia677 talk contribs‎ 197,776 bytes -825‎ →‎20th century: Not supported by source cited, which does not even mention Boston once below, you don't even know what a source/reference is. We aren't interested in useless non-references that don't mention Boston. FDW777 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I see now FDW777 (talk). thank you. Each sentence has to footnoted correct? As in "Boston Red Sox play at Fenway Park in Boston Massachusetts.[8] Right? In that case, someone's got to get a team together for millions of sentences that haven't got "source/reference" applied. In my day we called them "footnotes" because were displayed at the "foot" of the page usually in smaller font. Or, in the back of the paper before computers.
Curious how you'd handle this sentence found in the current copy of "Boston" found on Wikipedia, it reads:
"The BRA continued implementing eminent domain projects, including the clearance of the vibrant Scollay Square area for construction of the modernist style Government Center."
There are several issues. 1)The BRA is not in existence anymore. "Projects" denotes more than one example. A Bruere chair is "modernist style". Govt Center is the "Gates of Hell" style. Theonomad (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
FDW777 (talk) And this source reference footnote bad. * Bluestone, Barry; Stevenson, Mary Huff (2002). The Boston Renaissance: Race, Space, and Economic Change in an American Metropolis. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN 978-1-61044-072-1. Not to mention to do proper job - at least two sources have to be found.Theonomad (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
A footnote might contain a reference, it might equally clarify some part of the text. FDW777 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Theonomad: You are correct; there are currently over 150,000 articles tagged as lacking sources, and many that are untagged. The official English Wikipedia policy is at Wikipedia:Verifiability, which notes that all quotations and any statement which is challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation to a reliable published source that supports the claim being made. This is probably the biggest and one of the most important backlogs on Wikipedia, and any help reducing it would be much appreciated. A team has already been formed to work on this backlog; that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ How Point Judith got its name; from notes found in the 1854 genealogy of the Greenleaf family. Note 98, pg. 110.
  2. ^ Quincy, Edmund (1874-01-01). Life of Josiah Quincy. Little, Brown.
  3. ^ How Point Judith got its name; from notes found in the 1854 genealogy of the Greenleaf family. Note 98, pg. 110.
  4. ^ https://archive.org/details/diariesofjohnhul00hull/page/124/mode/2up
  5. ^ https://www.rihs.org/mssinv/Mss483sg01.htm
  6. ^ https://archive.org/stream/storyofpettaquam00huli?ref=ol#page/n11/mode/2up/search/hull
  7. ^ https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression#:~:text=The%20Great%20Depression%20began%20in,Twenties%20came%20to%20an%20end.&text=These%20crises%20included%20a%20stock,crises%20from%201931%20through%201933.
  8. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/Fenway-Park

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sensified, Apt551, Marsh32.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kirstinguidi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ctrepanier96. Peer reviewers: Coryadelson, Dfranzosa5103, Nslabczynski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston/Archive_5&oldid=1251556569"