Talk:Boston, Massachusetts/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

High Cost of Living

The article states "Boston also struggles with gentrification issues that have led to the city having one of the highest costs of living in the United States." While many areas have Boston certainly have experienced or continue to experience gentrification, this statement seems out of place. First, the verb "struggles" suggests that gentrification is evil. Second, the statement implies that gentrification is the sole cause of the high cost of living in Boston. I think a better introductory statement, if any is included, should simply be that Boston has one of the highest costs of living in the United States, which is factual rather than speculative.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.49.65 (talk • contribs).

Sure. Feel free to change it to something better.--Loodog 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitur

The current article reads "Through land reclamation and the municipal annexation, Boston has expanded throughout the peninsula and has become one of the most culturally significant cities in the United States." Land reclamation and "the" municipal annexation ("the"?) across the peninsula is not obviously related to Boston becoming one of the most culturally significant cities in the US.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.88 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, I tweaked it. Next time, why not just do it yourself? It's a wiki... --barneca (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we do appreciate the deference you show by posting this on the talk page first, but, in general, feel free to make any changes to the article. If someone dislikes your edit, (s)he won't hold it against you.--Loodog 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Biotechnology: A Notable Niche, at Best

The current article claims Boston's economy is based on "technology--principally biotechnology", but that is not backed up by the facts at all. Biotechnology is a niche industry and no city's economy is principally based on it.

Actually, citydata.com has some nice info on the specific percentages of an economy's distribution. I'm throwing a pie chart up there.--Loodog 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Pie chart up. There you have it. Biotech would be under education and healthcare, which comprises 17% of the city's economy.--Loodog 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is biotech really significant ? Assuming the piecharts 17% education and healthcare includes biotech, as a boston resident who works in biotech, i know that education, non biotech research (lincoln labs) and healthcare are very big indutrys in boston which implies that biotech is not. More generally,there is tendency amongst the media and politicians - almost a common wisdom sort of thing - that biotech is important, perhaps related to politicians such as the former speaker of the house getting large paycheck private sector jobs in biotech. Biotech, like all industry, looks for cheap labor; there was a recent article in the boston biz journal about a biotech outsourcing high skill chem jobs to india; a trend likely to continue biotech is also likely to be fewer jobs then electronic implants (electronic implants for blind people) which is strangely neglected by the politicians there is also the long term failure of biotech to generate returns for investors on an industry wide basis.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.64.105 (talk • contribs)

page protection for front page article??

I don't know how no one requested page protection for this article before it went to the front page, but this is awful. The page is vandalized every 10 minutes. I've requested full protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please help me press the issue. If any admins are reading this, please give the page full protection immediately.--Loodog 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, they're denying it. This is absurd. If anyone feels the same, help me out on the request page.--Loodog 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This does not warrant semi-protection, yet alone full protection. For a mainpage article, it's not even getting that many hits. Furthermore, anon editors have been making constructive edits; even in the last 30 minutes. It's being heavily watched and if things get out of hand, it may be briefly semi-protected. But we're nowhere near that - Alison ☺ 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, a high visibility page gets a lot of vandalism, but it also gets a lot of attention from editors who end up making constructive edits. I will confess that my first reaction some months ago was also "protect mainpage articles" but that would throw out the good edits along with the bad, especially if it were a blanket policy. Kingdon 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We only have a few more hours left, before we switch to the next article. The level of vandalism here is manageable, and declines at this time of day (kids in the U.S. are coming home from school, eating dinner, etc.) - User:Aude/adminactivity. It may pick up again after 8pm EST when we switch to the next article. --Aude (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's well into June, school may be out for the summer soon (if not already) We will see vandalism drop over the summer. --Aude (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Climate information

Someone placed a {{fact}} tag on the following statement. Hence, I moved the passage here until someone can find a source for it.

The weather in Boston changes rapidly. It is not uncommon for the city to experience temperature swings of 54 Fahrenheit degrees (30 Celsius degrees) or more over the course of a couple of days.

PentawingTalk 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Errr ... good luck for that. I live in Boston, and a 50+ degree swing, while not unheard of, is damn uncommon.  RGTraynor  14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let You Know

There is a proposal over at Boston (disambiguation) to have the Boston page (currently a redirect to this page), turn into the disambiguation page. To view this proposal go to Talk:Boston_(disambiguation)#Requested_move. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was properly defeated. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was absurd. I don't think Brits are the least bit surprised or confused to find this page when they type "Boston" into wikipedia.--Loodog 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The demographics on this page are one-hundred percent true my source is this page: http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/PDF/ResearchPublications//New%20Bostonians%20No.%20609.pdf, look at page 8. These demographics come from the city itself.

Shortening Beacon Hill

This article says that Beacon Hill was shortened in 1807 and that the State House sits atop the shortened hill. But the State House was built in 1787. Does anybody know the correct information?

Are you referring to the Old State House that's down the street from the current building? MarkinBoston 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Walter Muir Whitehill, in "Boston, A Topographical History", says the new State House was built in 1795, "on the southern slope of the hill, with the ancient peak...rising behind it." The summit was taken down later, in stages, over several years, and the State House came to be on the new crest. Illustrations in the book show the process. Hertz1888 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston (Lincolnshire)

Well there you go again , you lot at Wikipedia, not only are you not tracking cross-language indexing, you are also not tracking obvious historical-geographical indices. Boston, the original Boston, befindet sich in Lincolnshire. SO, when I enter the query text 'Boston' in Wikipedia, how come there's no mention of Boston Lincolnshire?

This Boston is overwhelmingly the most common usage, but, rest assured, your English usage is also given note here:
  1. There is a mention in the history section: Boston's early European settlers first called the area Trimountaine, but later renamed the town after Boston, Lincolnshire, England, from which several prominent colonists emigrated.
  2. There is a note at the very top of the page: "Boston" redirects here. For other uses, see Boston (disambiguation). .

--Loodog 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fashion??

There is a particularly peacocky section that is completely unsourced about how "world-reknown" the Boston fasion scene is. I'm removing this.--Loodog 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coord tag

I removed the part of the infobox with the Lat and Lon and added the coord tag (sorry if the infobox style is better) because the coordinates in the infobox located Boston in the harbor on the map. I changed them to the Old City Hall (because it has been city hall and is perfectly between the 4 innermost T stations (GC, State, PS, and DC), but the coordinates display is superimposed for some reason. I am new enough at this to be thoroughly confused. Any ideas? Aepoutre 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It looks like someone has managed to tag a lot of placename wiki articles with the Image:Flacid_and_erects.jpg. See the "border" wikilink at the top of the Boston page, overlapping the featured article star. Aepoutre 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is happening with alot of other articles too, so I asked for help removing it on WP:ANI New England Review Me! 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Undid revision

03:21, 27 August 2007 User:Ajd changed

Boston is bordered by the cities and towns of Winthrop, Revere, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville, Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, Brookline, Needham, Dedham, Canton, Milton, and Quincy—often known as, and considered a part of, Greater Boston.


to the following

Boston is bordered by the cities and towns of Winthrop, Revere, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville, Cambridge, Watertown, Newton, Brookline, Needham, Dedham, Canton, Milton, and Quincy; and it is the center of the Greater Boston area.


I reverted this 13:32, 27 August 2007. I believe that, while the last statement could be made more concise, the point of the sentence was to pay homage to the Boston area, rather than emphasise Boston as the center. I think it may go without saying that Boston is included in, and the center of, Greater Boston. Aepoutre 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me the point of the sentence is just to provide a link to Greater Boston in that section. I changed the sentence because it's hard to see what "often known as, and considered a part of" means. It seems first to say that Greater Boston consists only of the towns and cities that border Boston (which is false), but then implies that those communities are merely a part of Greater Boston. AJD 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The current version—"which are often referred to as Greater Boston"—is worse. It explicitly states that Greater Boston is only the communities adjacent to Boston. Which is false. AJD 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. Glad you commented. Perhaps a Greater Boston reference is inappropriate under Geography anyhow? Perhaps we should just leave it as the surrounding towns, and make a separate explanatory sentence for the idea of the Greater Boston Area with the link as part of that sentence. It doesn't need to be long, of course. What do you think? Aepoutre 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth giving the amount of attention we're giving it. I was just trying to make sure that it didn't say or imply anything that was trivially false. AJD 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese-speaking community

I think it's worth mentioning Boston's sizable Portuguese-speaking population. By one account, there are 200,000 native Portuguese speakers in the Greater Boston Area. Toscaesque 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Be Bold and add it to the demographics section.--Loodog 20:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Are we talking to Boston or the Greater Boston area. Brighton/Allston is a big Portugese area. I honestly believe that their is a large difference between Boston and Greater Boston

Boston Finance Commission

Get the Boston Finance Commission Chairman to contribute information about the FinComm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.89.149 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire - the original Boston

Why, when I search for Boston in Wiki, to I get this particular Boston? Surely it should go to the Boston (disambiguation), if not to Boston, Lincolnshire as this Boston is the original Boston, that the lesser ones (joke) took their names from? By linking to a particular one on a search suggests that all the other Bostons are inferior to the one that is linked to. I would like to propose that when Boston is searched for that the general page is listed, rather than a particular Boston is a particular place, in the name of fair play Darkieboy236 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The city in Massachusetts is the most commonly thought of meaning by most anglophones nowadays. Compare with Pi. The mathematical constant was named after the Greek letter, but the mathematical constant is the primary meaning today. Georgia guy 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that when someone searches for Boston, they should get a list of possibilities, rather than be directed to an irrelevant entry about some foreign place (foreign to the 6,000,000,000 people that do not live in the USA). This should be true for any entry with more than one possibility. If you was to look up "Boston" in a paper encyclopaedia you would get a sub-list of options, there is no reason why this online encyclopaedia should be any different. Darkieboy236 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOT#PAPER. If you wish to see such a list, go to Encarta. Sasha Callahan 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you concerned only about Boston? There are tens of thousands of articles where the dominant meaning is at the unqualified name and other meanings are listed at a disambiguation page linked to at the top of the article for the dominant meaning. If you want to change the policy regarding primary topic disambiguation, please start a discussion or add to the related existing discussions at WT:D. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To quote from WP:D, "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" Google "Boston" + "Lincolnshire," you get two million hits. Google "Boston" + "Massachusetts," you get 128 million hits. It is the unvarying standard on Wikipedia that a subject that is far more prominent than another needs no disambiguation.  RGTraynor  15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Darkie. This Boston is the clear primary usage in literature, speech, media, television, etc... Exactly what you propose and every variation on it have been suggested before and have been shot down with unanimity or near to it. For example, look 7 topics up on this very talk page and see the discussion we had 1 month ago.--Loodog 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Whilst the Boston in Lincolnshire undoubtedly has a proud history, today it is a small and rather remote town that many English people would struggle to locate on a map. Whilst the Boston in Massachusetts is a major metropolis well known around the world. Routing a query on Boston to a dab page of all the Bostons in the world would be as perverse as answering a query on London with a page of all the other Londons. -- Chris j wood 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that argument would have more credence if this article was called just Boston. Surely the fact that US based editors feel the need to qualify the article name with , Massachusetts indicates a certain lack of confidence in the universality of the name. After all nobody in the UK would ever think of calling London by the name London, England. -- Waterstones 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a whole other argument. The only reason it is at Boston, Massachusetts is because some editors (myself sort of a little bit included) think that all city names should be located like that for consistency, but with a redirect if it is truly the primary topic. If I were God, London would be a redirect to London, England. Moving this article to Boston comes up frequently, too. But due to the redirects it makes absolutely no practical difference, and such discussions are tempests in teapots. Either way it's done, Boston MA is obviously the primary topic for Boston. --barneca (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The location of this article has bullocks to do with confidence. It has been discussed to death for years and is at the only compromise, which is no less bold than putting it at "Boston" since that direct goes straight here. It just makes fewer misdirected links. If you still do not understand why the article is where it is, please read the very extensive discussion that has already taken place.--Loodog 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the discussion last January that led to it and the discussion in August before that.--Loodog 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, it was proposed in June to make "Boston" a disabig. It was unanimously defeated inside 2 days.--Loodog 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Loodog. The very extensive discussion you refer to above had strong arguments both way but eventually failed to establish a consensus; hence the article stayed where it was. That in no way precludes further discussion, or further attempts to establish a consensus. As it happens I think the current location is probably the best of several not very good alternatives, but there is no need to try to stifle debate on this issue. -- Chris j wood 16:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attempting debate stagnation, but merely trying to inform those who come up with ideas that have been discussed ad nauseum of the reasons such a notion was defeated prior, aiding said contributor in rethinking his position and/or providing new arguments that refute the prior reigning conceits. I just don't want to reiterate reasons A, B, and C every time someone proposes X, if it's going to be a satisfactory rebuke.--Loodog 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Hi. I borrowed some code from this article to add references to Thomas Gage and Deerfield, Massachusetts. Could I get some help? I'm new at this and the page numbers don't show. Kroyw 9 September 2007

Preserving historical public records of the City of Boston

Boston City Hall routinely defects civic interest in how government works, delaying or denying access to public information, public records and public meetings. Here's a resource for historians http://sunshineboston.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwarnersaklad (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Education section

Hey Loodog, I would leave the school system info as is. Do we know how many of each ethnicity have children? There are alot of variables involved. I sort of see where you are going with your analysis, but I would leave that out and try to match what the citation says. Do you have a cite that says minorities are "over represented" ect?? Thanks, --Tom 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of complex internal factors (number of kids per couple, neighborhoods, average age), minorities in the public school system have a disproportionately high representation (as compares with the city as a whole). If, for example, American Jews represent 2% of the world population and win 37% of Nobel Prizes, they are said by definition to be overrepresented without any original research by me.--Loodog 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is boarderline offensive. Jews are smarter than gentiles, right? More blacks use the boston public schools than whites and are poorer, right? Does the cite say what you have added? No. This is your analysis of the numbers. Please stop, thanks. --Tom 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Loodog, the word "overrepresented" does mean what you say it means, but I think it has a negative connotation associated with it. I think it might be accidentally offending when that wasn't your intent. Also, Per Tom's first comment here, I agree that the situation is complicated enough that we should avoid the comparison to overall population statistics unless a reliable source (which could very well exist) is found that discusses this, and can be cited.
Tom, I think in your second comment you're taking offense where none is intended, and attributing motives to Loodog that aren't there. It seemed clear (to me, at least) that Loodog's Nobel prize example was meant as just that: an example, with intentionally fake numbers, to demonstrate his point.
Is it possible you're both unintentionally escalating a minor disagreement into something bigger because you're misinterpreting each other's motives? --barneca (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Barneca, thanks for your comments. I will be the first to apologize and say that I did not mean any offense and I really didn't take any. I have edited with Loodog in the past and we have worked things out. Loodog does a ton of good editing imho. We did get into a little spat over statistics about the city of Providence and which section of town is "the most affluent" defined by statistics but no biggie. Sort of the same thing here again. Statistics are just that, numbers. I agree with the analysis above about avoiding certain wording unless a specific source says specifically that. Anyways, I will defer to the community and again do not want to escalate this and apologize again. Cheers! --Tom 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) ps, I think Loodog's numbers in his example were true regarding Jewish winners of the Noble, not that it matters either way.
Oh, I didn't know you guys had worked together before and weren't really and truly feuding. I'll take off my "junior peacemaker" hat :) . As for the content dispute part, as I said above, I think I agree with removing the comparison unless a RS mentions it. p.s. Well I'll be damned. --barneca (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent to left> Actually barneca, I appreciate your imput and trying to cool things down. That can never hurt and it probably avoided a longer back and forth. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Jewish analogy: those are actual percentages, but they may as well be made up for the purposes of this discussion. Please don't take it as anything more than a logical equivalent to the situation here.
"you're misinterpreting each other's motives" Exactly. I'm making a simple statement of fact regarding proportion of minority students in schools to proportion of total population. A key factor yes, is obviously that median whites are something like 15 years older than hispanics or blacks so they just don't have as many kids of school age to begin with. Then there are more sensitive issues of poverty and income. I'm not asserting any cause for the discrepancy, nor would I feel qualified to do so. It's a statement of fact that is interesting from a demographic point of view. Minority races are the majority in public schools. The reader is not told or insinuated the potentially complex reasons for this.--Loodog 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, Tom, you want to resolve the issue on the talk page before reverting the article again? All continual reversions of the article while the topic is under debate does is wear on everyone's patience.--Loodog 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Loodog, if you want to revert the article, go for it. I do believe a few, 2?, folks have said not to include your revision, but I doubt many people will get involved or want to over such a small edit. Anyways, the discussion is here so at least it has been discussed. Cheers! --Tom 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather not get the edit included just because I was more adamant. Concensus is always required. Barneca and Tom, would you object to a simple statement of comparison along the lines of "the student population within the school system was 45.5% Black or African-American, 31.2% Hispanic or Latino, 14% White, and 9% Asian, as compared with 24%, 14%, 49%, and 8% respectively for the city as a whole."?--Loodog 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First generation answer: Since both sets of data are referenced, I can't argue forcefully against its inclusion.
After thinking more: However, there is still kind of a hint of OR in that; the obvious question is, why say that at all? Because it is indicative of something. Indicative of what? If it's indicative of something noteworthy, we should find some reliable sources and put together a couple of sentences about it. If it isn't, then it's kind of a distraction. I took a stab at looking for some sources of more information, but it consisted of a 5 minute Google search on "Boston school racial composition", and it wasn't successful. I can't spend any significant time looking at this for a couple of days, but if someone hasn't taken a shot at it by next week, I may make a brief foray into actual research and see what I can find. It seems like it might be important, and I'd hate to shortchange it with one sentence of statistics.
Final answer: And then, of course, the lightbulb went off. I'm not originally from here, so it wasn't until I started poking around Google that I suddenly remembered why Boston school's racial composition tickled something in the back of my mind. The whole school busing thing from the 70's isn't mentioned at all in the article, under history or under education. It was a pretty big deal nationally, so I imagine its a pretty big deal locally. Shouldn't that be somewhere? I bet with some looking I could find something that ties the statistical difference to remnants of "white flight" from public schools in the 70's.
Like I said, I can't do much for a few days, and you two may know more/have more references available than me anyway. Short term I'm ambivalent about the additional stats, but long term I think it's actually deserving of more research. --barneca (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent to left> Hey Loodog, no I would not object to that version. braneca makes a good suggestion about the busing thing if its true/verifiable. Anyways, thanks to barneca again and sorry for the drama. Cheers! --Tom 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)