Talk:Boston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBoston is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 9, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
May 14, 2007Featured article reviewKept
March 21, 2013Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 20, 2004, September 17, 2011, September 17, 2015, September 17, 2020, and September 17, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section 'Government and politics' incompetent[edit]

By way of describing Boston's government, it begins with a sentence naming a hyperlink apparently supposed to stand in for that purpose, and moves on. What does Boston's government comprise? Unbelievably, you never say. We don't want to interrupt our reading and go to a generic article about a "strong mayor–council" government. This is the Wikipedia article on Boston, Massachusetts, one of the world's most famous cities. We want a description of Boston's government. For that matter, what does strong mean in Boston's context? I see no explanation.

The meltdown continues. The next sentence changes the subject to secondary—nay, tertiary—topics, the present mayor's personal background; the length of a predecessor's term; etc. Those facts are fine, but get them out of there, to a place downstream in the article where, after describing Boston's government, you may then talk about the persons in it. Then, however, you do return to the government narrative, which is fine.

But then you change the topic again and mention a school committee. This, without having introduced the topic of "committees" to begin with. Are you still talking about the components of city government? Does it therefore comprise a mayor, city council, and school committee? Is Boston's government tricameral—executive, legislative, and educational? And because you failed to state how many committees there are, does Boston have only the one mentioned? Again, how many bodies does Boston's government have, and what are their names and purpose?

The second paragraph, which is about as far as I got, goes on to talk about other agencies of government. That looks fine to me.

Jimlue (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Olympic bid[edit]

Is it really WP:DUE to include Boston's failed Olympic bid in the history section? :3 F4U (they/it) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. It's three sentences, it hardly throws the article out-of-balance. --Jayron32 15:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the Native American name?[edit]

New user Pinehillwetu just added the original name used by the Massachusett peoples for the area now known as Boston. This doesn't appear to be the standard as few if any other articles for major U.S. cities include their original native names. Do we keep the name or remove it? I'm leaning towards removing it or mentioning/listing it somewhere else just for consistency. RyanAl6 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Massachusett language is still spoken, and the Wampanoag nation is a federally recognized tribe. Its wholly appropriate as other countries have city names written in native or local languages despite those languages not being either official languages or officially taught in school to children. Additionally, not every US city has an indigenous name as some of them were founded only after colonists came, and not before. Pinehillwetu (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding these per WP:LEADLANG unless there is a consensus to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this section indicates that it is inappropriate to add the indigenous language name of the city, they are relevant, spoken languages, and not overly long/obstructive. Instead of citing a section and unconstructively undoing edits, provide constructive and specific feedback. There is historical consensus that Boston was Shawmut which comes from the Massachusett word Mashauwomuk. Pinehillwetu (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors disagree with you. Again, you need consensus before making broad changes across the ledes of city articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this consensus needed among editors even if edits are historically verified? There was no response to my original talk post. Pinehillwetu (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a source doesn't negate WP:LEADLANG and MOS:FIRST, nor does it negate WP:CONSENSUS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to keep it considering it's an important part of the history of Boston and gives important context to the city's history in a succinct way. It's a good faith edit that takes up minimal space and is informative for users about the longest inhabitants of Boston. I move to preserve this edit. Though standards are important to keep, this is not a meaningful deviation from the standard as some other US cities also have their indigenous names as well. These names are also helpful for beginners or folks not well versed in history understand why there are so many cities across the US and UK with the same placenames. 12.168.121.4 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park NPOV concerns[edit]

I'm posting this to inform interested editors that I've tagged the Hyde Park, Boston for NPOV concerns. See my post on at Talk:Hyde Park, Boston. Jessintime (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better higher education subsection photo?[edit]

The current photo

Boston ought to have a cornucopia of options for illustrating the higher education subsection. That makes it unfortunate that the current photo, an aerial photo of Harvard Business School that's too zoomed out for readers to make out much detail without expanding it, is the best we've been able to do. Would anyone like to suggest alternatives? Sdkb (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]