Talk:Brighton, Boston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terminology[edit]

Do we need both "blue collar" and "working class" in the opening sentence? They strike me as synonymns, and therefore redundant. Miss w 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV check}}

  • The phrase "working class" seems like a loaded term used by those who don't consider the upper economic "classes" (if you believe American society is actually divided into classes) to "work".
  • "White collar" and "blue collar" do not seem like standard economic classification for jobs. The article needs to either define these terms, or preferably use more standard classifications like "service" and "manufacturing".

-- Beland 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous Green Line reference[edit]

The article currently reads:

The forerunner of what is now the MBTA's "Green Line" light rail line

Which, the B, C, or D? -- Beland 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tell you, but there are no sources on the page.--Loodog 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to patch together what was meant from the external link to Cleveland Circle history. I'm also requesting sources from the original author. -- Beland 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting and Comm Ave and development[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

Now populated by recent immigrants and college students, Brighton was as late as 1900 still Boston's hunting ground. Hunting ceased when Commonwealth Avenue was extended from Boston's Back Bay section through Brighton to the neighboring city of Newton and Boston College, a development that firmly cemented the westernmost part of the city to its municipal heart.

I'm not exactly sure when the Kenmore-to-Boston College segment of Commonwealth Avenue was put in, but it had to be before 1895, when its article says the Newton extension was added. (It would be good if someone could track that down using printed books...I've checked some online sources, and not had much luck.) The Kenmore-to-Public Garden portion appears complete on 1880 maps. It was indeed not until 1900 that the streetcar began running on Comm Ave.

I tend to doubt the claim that what cemented Brighton to Boston was the creation of Comm Ave. Beacon Street ran to southern Brighton in 1850, and had electric streetcars by 1889. Northern Brighton sounds like it was a bustling commercial center as far back as the 1700s, and it had railroad access in the early 1800s. Comm Ave does seem to cut through the central part of the territory of Brighton (as distinct from Beacon Street, which is actually mostly in Brookline), and so perhaps could be describe as having some role in taming that part of it. I'm curious to know where this information about Brighton being the "hunting grounds" of Boston is coming from, and to get a better idea of when and why that period ended. -- Beland 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Today[edit]

Harvard Avenue is in Allston. Unless someone disagrees I am going to remove it in a few days. --Vorenus 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions for Cleanup[edit]

The page needs a map with Brighton's borders.

References are needed.

Those one-sentence paragraphs need to be condensed into proper English paragraphs - this isn't class notes, it's an encyclopedia.

The picture is a poor one - it says nothing about Brighton.

"The Suburb" section should probably be broken up.

"Yuppie" is not encyclopedic - think of an analogous term for a racial or ethnic group - it wouldn't work. Yuppie is not neutral, it's disparaging.

Why are Jews left out of "most prominent groups", and then mentioned later? Are Jews different? Aren't the Jews in Brighton and Brookline a specific group? where are they from? When did they arrive? Facts are good. MarkinBoston 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Allston[edit]

Stop calling Allston and Brighton "one" community. They are distinct and Brighton residents don't wish to be confused with run-down Allston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.119.156 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is exactly calling them one community, though it is undeniable that the term "Allston-Brighton" is in common use. As we are writing an encyclopedia here, your latest edit, however valid, is commentary, and that is viewed as "original research" and contrary to wiki policy unless sourced. Please sign your posts by typing four ~s. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer this properly, one needs to explore the history of the town of Brighton, which is glossed over in the article, but should not be. See articles on Allston, Boston and Brookline for some answers. Basically, Brighton was an independent town, with Allston as its eastern part. Allston was never an independent town. The town of Brookline once extended north to the Charles River and separated the town of Brighton from the city of Boston. Brookline ceded enough of its river shoreline so that Boston would be contiguous to Brighton and could annex it, which Boston then did in 1874. In conclusion, it would seem that, whether we like it or not, Brighton and Allston, share a common history to 1874 and since then have understandably been treated in many ways as a single unit by the city of Boston. clariosophic (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard's in Brighton?[edit]

I thought that Harvard was expanding in Allston, not in Brighton? Brighton is Boston College territory. Because of Harvard's expansion, WGBH was forced to move from Allston to Brighton. (Harvard was its landlord.)

Boston College bought the former HQ of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, which due to the cost of legal awards in the pedophilia scandal and declining church attendance sold off the expensive property and moved to an office park in the suburbs. It still maintains a seminary in Brighton. Bostoner (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, I removed Harvard from the list of local universities. -- Beland (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture?[edit]

Can no one get a better picture than this of Brighton? I'd be in favor of even putting a map of some sort in place of the picture if there is not a picture immediately available. A blurry picture of the river with some undefined buildings in the background is no good, IMO. Debollweevil (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

Living in the location a few years suffices for notable persons lists. The criteria are: a) they are notable; b) RSs report that they lived there. We don't create further criteria (and what would they be anyway? One year? Three years? Five years? As many years as editor X thinks is a good number? We have no such criteria at wp, because there are none). For that matter, even just being born in a location suffices -- even if the person moves away the next day.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable individuals were born, or "lived for a significant amount of time, in the city", per WP:USCITIES. The source cited on Simon Shnapir's article stated he lived in Brighton "a few years". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a guideline. And not even part of MOS. WP:LISTPEOPLE is the guideline. It states: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: ... The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. ... The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." He does both. Without question. And, as to the non-guideline, it doesn't provide support for your personal notion that a few years is not a significant amount of time. I've had jobs and relationships that have lasted a few years, and can assure you that it is in fact a very substantial amount of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTPEOPLE is a section in the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The article "Brighton, Boston" is not a stand-alone list; the "notable people" sections of city articles are not stand-alone lists. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. But the guideline for embedded lists is logically the same as the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE, on content selection matters. If for no other reason that, when the list becomes long enough, we spin the list out into an article. There is no difference in the criteria between the embedded list for Brighton and the article list for Massachusetts -- it is just that when the list becomes long enough, it is spun out. I see no guideline indicating that an entry in an article list, which is appropriate for an article list, must be deleted from an embedded list. Furthermore, even the non-guideline, non-MOS, style advice that you refer to only points to what one should make sure one takes care to include (it is not by its terms exhaustive), not to what one must delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not to be faulted for your creativity. I should never have deleted this person. He's an Olympic hero and every community he's lived in should be proud of having him. That was my mistake. Thanks for discussing this. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brighton, 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brighton, 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Right. Don't show us a map of Brighton today. Show us a 170-year-old map, which has a white stripe slicing down thru your namesake, whose boundaries we presume are not today's; and which shows no modern streets or features, which apparently you're not proud enough to illustrate.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. This article's been online for 17 years, so there's certainly no hurry.

Jimlue (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brighton,_Boston&oldid=1200357649"