Talk:Great Molasses Flood/Archive 1

Nutrition
ps: molasses has health quality iron and minerals for the human body to digest.

What is the point of including that in this article? Why not just link to the molasses article and put the nutritional information there? in fact, I'll do just that. - ElusiveByte 23:46, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Bah, I just read the nutritional information of molasses and it says it contains 0% dietary iron. The only mineral of note was calcium at 5% of the recommended daily value per 1 tbsp serving. So I simply deleted this incorrect information rather than moving it - ElusiveByte 23:57, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Depends on the molasses. I have some "unsulphured" molasses that claims to have lots of iron and calcium.  Tastes kind of like blood, so I believe the iron content.  It might also be that the iron is poorly absorbed, like with iron in spinach. --24.16.148.75 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Is this article fictional? :D (I assume it's not fiction, but still...) - Gilgamesh 02:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prohibition
I just thought I'd note that I added the timing of the 18th amendment ratification as just sort of an interesting coincidence. It actually went into effect a year after that, and accounts suggesting that the distilling company was "trying to get in one last batch" are more fancy than fact. In reality, the company continued in business right through Prohibition up to the present day. The Cambridge/Boston facilities were closed some time after this incident, but the company continued to produce alcohol through that period (and they still do). --iMb~Mw 01:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elevated tracks
That was a portion of the Atlantic Avenue Elevated line that ran between North (Union) and South Station until 1938, torn down in 1942. Some accounts suggest that this line was used for transporting molasses, but it was for passenger traffic. A second set of rails for the Union Freight Railroad ran beneath the El, and that is what carried goods from the waterfront. --iMb~Mw 03:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Popular culture
There is a Ducktales episode called Raiders of the Lost Harp - No. 45, I remeber there is a tank of fluid bubblegum spilling the harbor - quite similar to the Boston molasses disaster. --Abdull 13:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's hers, but April Hobart sings The Great Molasses Disaster of 1919. --Mike Wilson 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Map
The overview map showing the area of the disaster is anachronistic--it shows the Sumner (1934) and Callahan (1961) tunnels and the Central Artery (1956). That doesn't make it useless, but the Artery construction in particular changed the North End a lot. I'll change the caption to make this a bit more clear. --Jnik 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution. I used a recent map to make it easier for curioius readers to find the spot, should they choose to check it out for themselves. --iMb~Meow 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Number fixes explained
The article used to describe the tank as 50 ft tall and 240 ft around. After a change made today, it read 50 ft tall and 90 ft around. I changed it to 50 ft tall and 90 ft in diameter, which is supported by other sources.

The content number was clearly bogus. Calculate a volume with any of the numbers above (pick any shape) and you will see what I mean: there's no way 2.5 million gallons fit into such a tank. Therefore, I changed that number from 2.5 to 2.3 (source as above). Rl 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NYT Article
Does it make sense to use a reprint from the New York Times when the Boston Globe's coverage should be considered definitive? (The Boston Public Library's microfiche room staff can tell you which issue to pull because every 5th grader in town ends up writing a paper on this.... I did.) Alexr wiki 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubbling Up From the Streets to This Day?
I'd be great if someone could maybe make a note about the scientific feasibilty of this statement. Tomb Ride My Talk 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the obvious reasons why there won't be anything left. I stopped short of calling it flatly untrue, because there are people who insist that they can still smell it :) --iMb~Meow 08:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * * I am going to remove the "obvious reason", I will also cite at least two article that indicate that the area positively has a molasses smell in the summer. Your reasoning sounds logical but that does not take into account the fact the people’s basements were filled with the goo, On houses that where not destroyed you could see the high ‘molasses’ point which would mean that wooden timbers, brick walls and field stone foundations were permeated. As a local Bostonian I can also attest to the smell which can almost be nauseating at times. Maybe it is just the molasses covered ghosts but it is there. Markco1 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA
This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the banner of Project Boston I am currently working to clean up citations and add a few more. I will also add some more intersting information about the force of the disaster and the aftermath of the incident. Markco1 02:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination failed
This article is close to GA quality, but requires some copyediting and cleanup. The following issues should be addressed and the article resubmitted for consideration:

1. The style of writing in the article is inconsistent. For example, numbers are alternately spelled out or written in arabic numerals (such as 18th Amendment vs. Eighteenth Amendment). Furthermore, some of the measurements in the article are linked while others aren't, dates are written differently, abbreviations changed, etc. Some members of a series are linked, while others not.

2. Two quotations appear without introduction or qualification and are quite difficult to separate from the text of the actual article. These need qualification and should adhere to the Manual of Style.

3. Copyediting needs to be done for spelling errors, unclosed parentheses, and minor grammatical errors.

4. Statements like "bomb throwing anti-war anarchists" might violate NPOV standards.

5. The references should be cited appropriately. For example, if you go to the website of the first reference, at the bottom of the page (as in the website the link goes to) it demonstrates exactly how the page should be cited. This should be observed. The second reference should be cited appropriately as well, rather than just naming the source. The appropriate style for reference citation should be observed for all the references given.

This article is quite interesting, and with a little polish, will easily pass when resubmitted. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the metric numbers
Something must be wrong with the metric numbers for the size of the tank. The article says 27 meters in diameter, and 15 meters tall. 27*Pi*15 = 1272 cubic meters = 1.272 million liters. Not 8.7 million liters. Unless this article is suggesting that the molasses was compressed by a factor of 8, which sounds impossible. Akeshet 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The volume of a cylinder is determined by the formula .  Thus the maximum capacity of the tank was 13.5×13.5×п×15 ≈ 9 million liters, slightly more than the 8.7 million liters shown in the article. --Allen3 talk 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, what the hell was I thinking. Akeshet 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Man-decade?
That's a strange way to put it. All people want to know is, how long did it take? How many people worked on the cleanup? Man-decade is something an engineer would use to cost out a job. An encyclopedia reader wants to know who, what, when, where and why. MarkinBoston 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link added
I am 19 years old and blind. I am interested in adding relevent items to wiki that help the blind "visualize" and grasp the subjects at hand. I love the tradition of oral storytelling. I have added a link to a radio story by The American Storyteller. This audio story is about the The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919.--Trgwilson (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Smell
The smell people often claim is the residual molasses smell is really a tar smell. I don't have any references for this, but I live in Boston and know a good deal about the local history, and am also familiar with the nauseating tar smell you can detect in the area of the flood. 75.69.110.227 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The event happened almost 90 years ago, so it's unlikely the smell is from the flood. It is more likely from some other nearby source.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alias names to the incident.
The Massachusetts Molasses Massacre. The Great SLOW Flood. The Great Sugar Slaughter. The River Of Death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absent evidence to the contrary, I think we can safely assume these are personally contrived original research, an attempt at humor. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Truth about Layhe
The following section was removed as unsourced and contradicted by NYTimes article:


 * The wave of molasses was so powerful that it destroyed the first floor of the fire department (station 31) causing the upper floors to collapse upon the first, trapping George Layhe in an 18" crawlspace. Layhe managed to keep his head above the molasses for three days to keep breathing, but on the fourth day could no longer keep his strength and drowned in the molasses.

However, the Boston Globe states on January 16, 1919 on page 7:


 * "ENGINERR'S BODY IN ENGINE HOUSE RUINS George Layhe Crushed by Piano and Wreckage Firemen Show Heroism in Saving Trapped Comrades" and "Heroic work was done by members of the Boston Fire Department yesterday afternoon. every minute at the risk of their lives, when they chopped and dug in the deblis of Engine 31 quarters in an effort to take out alive comrades who..."

So it seems the truth is somewhere in between, but I can't read the whole article. Can someone with access dig this up to get to the bottom of this? Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While I do not have access to the Boston Globe article, the following items are from Puloe's book (Puleo, Stephen(2004). “Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919”, Boston:Beacon Press, ISBN 0-8070-5021-0):
 * Pg. 107:"Then he realized that Layhe was pinned under the pool table, desperately trying to keep his head out of the molasses, which had to be rising faster and higher away form the opening in the wall."
 * Pg. 119:"Late afternoon January darkness enshrouded the waterfront when they finally pulled firefighter George Layhe's lifeless body out from under the firehouse around 5 P.M."
 * Pg. 120:"They had found the thirty-seven-year-old fire department marine engineer wedged under the pool table and the piano, his legs crushed by the timbers."
 * Based upon Puloe, it appears Layhe was pinned by a piano and pool table and lasted for several hours instead of days. --Allen3 talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

More Photographs
More photographs can be found and I believe due to their age, they should be free to use on Wikipedia.

--Root Beers (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id21.html
 * http://rfi.bostonhistory.org/boston/full/004049.jpg
 * http://www.mapsovertime.com/northend9.htm
 * http://www.boston.com/ae/books/blog/story.wreckage.ap.jpg
 * http://www.madehow.com/images/hpm_0000_0005_0_img0118.jpg
 * http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Molasses.html
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Boston-molasses-disaster-nyt-article.jpg/190px-Boston-molasses-disaster-nyt-article.jpg
 * http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/boston_post.jpg
 * http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id21.html
 * http://rfi.bostonhistory.org/boston/full/004049.jpg

Duffee vs. Duffy?
Isn't it likely that: William A. Duffee 	? Resident in vicinity[2]

Is the same person as William Duffy 	58 	Laborer (North End Paving Yard)[citation needed]

This sure looks like a typical newspaper error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.88.39.178 (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially as the table lists 22 names, yet the death toll was supposedly 21. There has to be an extra somewhere... 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath
The ships called the USS Nantucket in teh article is the wrong ship. The ship at the disaster is THIS ONE: http://www.philatelicdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ship-nantucket.jpg The ship shown currently is a light ship, it that was never a training ship that could carry 116 cadets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.144.118 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Count of dead
The story says 21 died and the table of fatalities lists 21 by name, but under "Aftermath" there is also the text, "Two found on the fourth day were never identified." So, 21 or 23? --72.70.10.74 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question - I came to ask the same thing. I have a book which also refers to 21, but doesn't list them. So maybe the "never identified" is incorrect? Stevage 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I find no mention of this in the Puleo, the primary and most detailed source. I propose removing it if no one objects in the near term.  Puleo calls the Dec. 1919 death of Stephen Clougherty "the twenty-first and final death attributed to the Boston molasses flood." Hertz1888 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hertz1888 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Major errors in diagram
I've been researching the Molasses disaster, and I noticed that the diagram showing the location of the molasses tank is very wrong. It shows what I believe to be an earlier tank.

Here is the diagram that I believe is correct: http://books.google.com/books?id=e9OHvbC0_BoC&lpg=PP1&ots=9yyMsWlwB5&dq=dark%20tide&pg=PR14#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also, you can view a 1917 map here: http://www.mapjunction.com/places/Open_BRA/flash/flash4.pl?save=billwarner77,1282198241

The incorrect map is probably based on the tank location shown in a 1908 map here: http://www.mapjunction.com/places/Open_BRA/flash/flash4.pl?save=billwarner77,1282198311 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwarner (talk • contribs) 06:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The photo on page 17 of "Dark Tide", showing the tank before the flood, leaves no doubt that the tank was located adjacent to the sidewalk.  This corresponds well to the drawing (linked to above) facing page 1 of the same book, and to the 1917 map.  The 1908 map, which predates tank construction by seven years, definitely does not represent facts on the ground at the time of the disaster.  Neither does the drawing in the article.  The tank location is wrong and, among other discrepancies, the Purity offices shown at "4" could not have been where shown.  Based on the photo and 1917 map, I have adjusted the geographic coordinates.  This represents a shift of 50-55 feet and puts the tank's center near home plate on the present-day ballfield.  Now, who can we find to redraw the graphic in the article? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New article for further reading
So I have found an article in my school's data base that addresses the disaster in terms of weather fluctuations. "Contributing Editor SEAN POTTER is a New York based Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM), Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (CBM), and science writer with an interest in weather history."

Potter, Sean. (2011). Retrospect: January 15, 1919: Boston molasses flood. Weatherwise, 64(1), 10-11

Morrowind1984 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see a summary is available at this URL, but nothing more. You appear to have read the entire article.  What is the general conclusion?  Would citing it add anything new to our WP article? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Me no understand
I'm no fluid mechanics expert but I find it hard to believe that viscous sugar syrup could kill any body unless they had it poured over their heads and drowned. Yeah, the tank was under pressure, but how could mere fermentation exacerbated by warm temperatures generate enough force to generate a shock wave that threw trucks in the air, not to mention that the article seems to imply an explosion the likes of which have never been seen on Mythbusters or video tapes of demolishing buildings. So help me understand - how could something so viscous cause all the mayhem reported here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The shock wave was not caused by the fermentation or ‘an exploding tank’. The fermentation applied only enough pressure to cause the wall or part of the wall to fracture. Then the pressure/shock wave that was a result of the collapsing mass of molasses falling and spreading outward was created. It fell from a height of 50 feet, that’s what created the shock wave. Then due to the sticky nature of the material, if someone fell it was quite difficult to get back up. A depth of less than 2 feet would completely cover a person who had been knocked down; and molasses isn’t something that you can just rise thru like water at the beach. Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Homemaker
In the table under Fatalities, if Bridget Clougherty gets to be a "Homemaker", why is Stephen Clougherty "Unemployed"? I'm sure that Stephen helped "make the home" a little bit with his free time. 208.54.40.140 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

XKCD incoming!
The massive spike in traffic reported here is almost certainly due to this page being linked from http://what-if.xkcd.com/36/ XKCD army incoming! :) &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 04:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Initially, way back in August 2002, the article said, "It took over six months to remove the molasses from the cobblestone streets, theaters, businesses, automobiles, and homes." In December 2006 this changed to "It took 133 men months to remove the molasses...", and a citation (p. 98 in "Dark Tide") was added. In March 2007 the wording changed to "It took over a man-decade..." The statement continued to take on a life of its own. By the end of 2007 it said, "It took over 87,000 man-hours". Subsequently, a succession of editors have offered various interpretations of this figure, right up to the present time.

The only problem is that there is no such figure on p. 98 of Dark Tide, or on any other page of the Puleo book. I have searched the entire book repeatedly and am convinced that the information is not there. But then, how could anyone possibly know how many hours of effort were involved in cleaning up the countless molasses-soiled places throughout the city? Where the "133 men months" phrase came from is a mystery. The original "over six months" wording is equally unverifiable.

Apparently we have been publishing bogus, improperly-sourced information all these years. Widely republished and quoted, it has misinformed readers far too long. It is time to remedy that situation. I have edited the section accordingly, this time with ample verifiable sourcing, and no specific figure for the city-wide cleanup. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Petition for article name change
This article should be called The Boston Molassacre. Or at the very least the event's well-known nickname should get a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strobelit (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a list of some of the reliable sources that call it that? —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose a name change. The nickname is, at best, a neologism, coined (according to heresay) by tour operators to sensationalize the event—not that it needs any further sensationalizing.  The existing name is in countless documents and has served for a very long time.  Let's not rewrite history. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What Hertz1888 said. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe. If it can be cited that "The Boston Molassacre" is a name used by the locals for tourism promotion, as stated in this revert, then it's worthy of a mention in the article, although I agree that the article title itself should not be changed. I see no reason to keep a neologism out completely if it is in fact being called "The Boston Molassacre" by a significant group of people close to the event (like the local tourism industry). Badon (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mention only: There are 2420 Google hits for Boston Molassacre so at least some people call it that. However there are 20,300 hits for Boston "Molasses disaster", so the article certainly should not be renamed.  —EncMstr (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
Change "James H. Kinneally" to "James H. Kenneally" -- source on correct spelling of the surname can be found on the Boston Post image that is also on this wiki page. Correct spelling is "Kenneally".

Second source: I am a great-great-grandchild of his and it'd be nice to see the name corrected.

Kk02127 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ —EncMstr (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Great Molasses Flood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Boston Molasses Disaster → Great Molasses Flood – Per WP:UCN, the way more common name is preferred as article title. --Relisted. Steel1943  (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I've been in Boston for decades, and I've heard the latter term many times, but don't recall hearing the former term very much. Also, the latter term is more descriptive. Reify-tech (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Ngram seems to support nom... Herostratus (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why I linked it in my rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops missed that... Herostratus (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From a news search on boston molasses (disaster OR flood), I'd suggest Boston Molasses Flood as a presentation of the three key words most relevant to the needs of WP:AT. Great Boston Molasses Flood or Great Boston molasses flood would also be descriptive while meeting WP:UCRN.  We are not talking about Caffeine VS 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione here and there doesn't seem to be a set formula for the name.  Ngrams
 * I'd suggest that titles like these would have descriptive advantage in : Category:1919 disasters

Category:1919 in Massachusetts, Category:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts, Category:Disasters in Massachusetts, Category:Engineering failures, Category:Environmental disasters in the United States, Category:Floods in the United States, Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts, Category:Industrial accidents and incidents, Category:North End, Boston GregKaye 03:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I missing your point? Your n-gram link appears to pretty much support the proposed "Great Molasses Flood".  Though I'd be OK if people want to include Boston and make it a descriptive title.  I don't see much support in sources for "Great Boston Molasses Flood" as a proper name; most uses are in citations to the book title Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed by Dicklyon – More common in RS, and a better title overall. I disagree with the proposals by Gregkaye, which are unnecessarily wordy and contrary to WP:CONCISE. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Boston Molasses Flood uses relevant words. Titles have words and news and other encyclopaedia titles tend to use more of them.   The other options were mentioned in case editors wanted to retain ref to "Great".  GregKaye 03:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't normally make up our own proper names that way, do we? Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * RGloucester If we a to chose between  WP:CONCISE and the more highly ranked issue of WP:PRECISE, surely precession has to every time as WP:Encyclopedia  GregKaye 04:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon In this case, many titles might work but there have been many instances in which we have made up less than recognisable titles. In this case:
 * "great boston molasses flood" 1919 gets "About 5,660 results" in books
 * "great molasses flood" 1919 gets "About 2,210 results" in books
 * However, given the intention expressed with examples in the guideline, I'd say that WP:UCRN was of secondary importance. The important thing is that titles meet AT.
 * GregKaye 04:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And "Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919" gets about 1,800. But these "about" numbers are notoriously meaningless.  If you click through and see how many hits you can get, "great molasses flood" actually gets more.  The only way to get meaningful counts is via n-grams, and even there it's tricky to interpret.  But I see no evidence that anything else comes close to "Great Molasses Flood", which I think is the only name that would qualify as having been accepted as a proper name.  If you want to go descriptive, as I said, then I won't object; something like "Boston molasses flood of 1910" would be OK.  Not sure you mean about "meet AT".   Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon I take your point but would say that meaningless is pretty harsh especially when my argument has been about recognisability and not just commonality and the stats were primarily presented to confirm that my proposed title wasn't made up.  If you are going to present the Ngrams then I think that a variety of options of representational contents are best considered. In the Boston this case the results are close.  WP:AT guides so as to say that, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles" and I take this to be of first and fundamental importance.  Ngrams for "the Great Fire" and "the Great Fire of London" are extremely suggestive that, but for the existence of other articles, that we might prefer titles such as "The Great Fire" over "Great Fire of London".  I honestly do not see a problem in helpfully giving mention to the relevant place name in a title of this type.  GregKaye 05:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, I agree. We make up titles all the time.  My only objection was in capitalizing, or treating as a proper name, a title made up by putting common words together as you described it.  And the book hits are not case sensitive, so don't provide any support for proper name proposals.  I like Hertz's suggestion below, thoough (essentially just decap the present title instead of trying to find a proper name for the thing).  Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support partially decapped version of GregKaye proposal – This event will forever be associated with Boston (and molasses). Readers will search WP first under those two terms. Essential to keep Boston in the title.  Using a mix of u&lc, Boston molasses flood is not a "proper name" (grammatically speaking), so by adopting it we would not be "making up" a name.  Per Reify-tech, "flood" is more descriptive than "disaster".  I propose Boston molasses flood. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either Boston Molasses Flood or Boston molasses flood. Both are supported although many names have been used.  I guess that's journalism.  GregKaye 06:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose constructed names with "Boston" in them – Let's use the actual proper name for this event, which is used in RS. There is no need for "Boston". There were no other "molasses floods" in the world as far as I know, and redirects can be provided. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nommed by Dicklyon, and, come to think of it, I would hate to be caught in any kind of molasses flood. Randy Kryn 13:44 5 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's fine the way it is. See following section for how I came to this conclusion. Dropping to sentence case ("Boston molasses disaster") might well be called for, though. Herostratus (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why I oppose this proposal
Well, here's my take on this. The operative policy is WP:AT which offers two entirely contradictory rules. The first section Article titles summarizes this.

The first sentence is Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. It then goes on to strongly infer (although not state directly) that if and only if it is not clearly established "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject", we go on to look at the Five Virtues.

But why? As a thought experiment, image a case where the great preponderance of English-language sources refer to an entity as "XYZ", and yet most readers wanting to learn about this entity will not be familiar with that name, will not know to search on that name, and if they do find the article with that title will not have any idea (from just the title) what it's about.

Very unlikely, but it's a thought experiment. Should we still go with "XYZ" as the title? I would say not. So why does WP:AT tell us to?

Two reasons I think. One, it's just a reflexive holdover from our (quite proper) dependence on and valorization of reliable sources for article material. This tends to carry over into a general "reliable sources good" mindset even when it's not appropriate. (For instance, it bedevils discussions on typography (whether or not entities should be given as "Pink" or "P!nk", "Macy's" or "Macy*s" and so forth) where we are jerked around by trying to read the tea leaves of reliable sources, which devolves to trying to follow the majority vote of other publications' stylebooks, rather than using the brains God gave us to try to figure out, and then do, what's best for our readers. (I think that is why it says "reliable" sources when reliability is germane only for statements of fact, not what we should title things; it should say "notable" or "popular" or "widely-read" sources or something, or else "scholarly" or "academic" if they had wanted to roll that way.)

But the real reason is contained in WP:AT itself, where it says "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis added.) To stretch that out and informalize it a bit, the passage could be restated like this: "Remember when we said 'article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources'? Well, we mainly did that because what we really want is the 'most recognizable and most natural' titles, and reliable sources almost by definition provide that. (After all, it's practically impossible to image a case where a clear preponderance of many reliable sources called a place by a certain name, yet most readers did not recognize that name.)" This makes sense, and it explains an important reason why we go by preponderance of sources, I think.

So my reading of WP:AT is that the Five Virtues are the ruling authority for article titles, and that reference to reliable sources is more on the order of reflexive hand waving, in the same sense that "Good night, and God bless you all" is not really a theological statement of belief.

(Even if you don't believe that, in this case you are only going to be able to go with reliable sources if "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" is established. To do that, you have to interpret "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". Does "English-language sources" refer to all English-language sources with no exception (that would be silly), or to 51% or more of such sources, or some supermajority of such sources (67%, 75%, 90%, whatever), or perhaps just a plurality of such sources (40% or even less if no other single phrase is more common), or what? If you can satisfy yourself that some standard is met and can convince others, AND if you don't buy my argument re valorizing the Five Virtues, then you're all set to look at reliable sources first.)

If you're with me on the Five Virtues being in play, let's move forward. To summarize them, they are: So then looking at three options that seem to be in play, we have: They're equally concise. They're maybe equal in consistency (although I would hazard that we tend to title articles like "Ohio train disaster (1903)" rather than "Great train disaster (1903). Naturalness, I dunno -- possibly "Great molasses flood" is the winner here. Precision and Recognizability, though, anything with "Boston" in it is going to have the whip hand.
 * 1) Recognizability – Person reading the article title will know what the article is about.
 * 2) Naturalness – Most likely search term. (IMO redirects make this matter a bit less.)
 * 3) Precision – Will not be confused with other subjects.
 * 4) Conciseness.
 * 5) Consistency with titles of articles about similar things.
 * Boston molasses disaster (or Boston Molasses Disaster)
 * Great molasses flood (or Great Molasses Flood)
 * Boston molasses flood (or Boston Molasses Flood)

Consider readers who are flipping through article titles at speed, looking for this subject, based on a vague and half-remembered account. "Boston" is better than "Great" for fixing the subject, IMO. It's almost by definition "great" or there wouldn't be an article on it. Similarly, readers flipping through article titles at speed looking for a different event, a molasses tanker sinking or a water flood somewhere etc. are better served by the "Boston" in the title as a basis for rejecting the article than by "Great", a rather vague term.

Similar logic applies to the reader immediately understanding what the article is about once she does get to it. (Obviously, once the reader reads the first sentence all confusion is cleared up, but the point of titles is for reader not to have to do that to find the article they want.)

So: two of the Five Virtues a draw (maybe), one of them favoring "Great..." (maybe), two of them favoring "Boston...". Q.E.D., for my part it's got to be either Boston molasses disaster (or Boston Molasses Disaster) or Boston molasses flood (or Boston Molasses Flood). On the principle of inertia -- WP:TITLECHANGES which says "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed", I'm voting for just keeping the existing title. That's my story and I'm sticken to it. Herostratus (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that analysis and explanation of your thinking. I'd agree that the 5 WP:CRITERIA are in play, because they always are.   While I don't agree that "Great Molasses Flood" is unfamiliar (who hasn't heard of it?).  I would say that "Great Boston Molasses Flood" does a better job of recognizability and precision; but "Boston Molasses Flood" is certainly not a term you will find in sources without "Great" in front of it, except when lower case, so can't really be treated as a  proper name; and "Great Molasses Disaster" (whether upper or lower case) is even more rare.  We have enough descriptive and possibly proper-name titles to choose from, so let's choose one of them:


 * Great Molasses Flood
 * Great Boston Molasses Flood
 * Boston molasses flood
 * Boston molasses flood of 1919
 * I'm OK with any of these, but no disaster; no other case variations make sense (see all the other responses so far). Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And I took the "Tragedy" variation out, which was added here without comment or source. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion continued

 * Oppose Proposed because a title that includes "Great" seems out of place and does not receive the most hits. Support Boston Molasses Flood based on google book kits being twice that of proposed. 2.6K hits for "Great Molasses Flood" -wikipedia, 6.5K hits for "Boston Molasses Flood" -wikipedia..--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Boston Molasses Flood, upper-cased, seems like a good name for the page, via data and identification purposes. But this nom was for one name, and now things are twisting to a naming poll. Well, BMF works. Randy Kryn 1:42 6 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone's not listening. The trouble with "Boston Molasses Flood" is that it's just a part of the common proper name "Great Boston Molasses Flood".  See n-grams.  The book count estimates aren't nearly as reliable or meaningful at estimating such things as the actual n-gram counts are; "The Boston Molasses Flood" doesn't occur enough to even be counted.  The inclusion of "Great" in a proper name is not really a choice we get to make; it's in there; if we prefer a title without that, then it's a descriptive title.  Boston molasses flood is OK, as concise descriptive titles go, but calling it by one of its two common proper names is probably more appropriate; omitting Great from those proper names makes about as much sense as omitting Great from Great Fire of London.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great Caesar's ghost! I stand corrected, and metaphorically covered in molasses. Randy Kryn 2:36 6 April, 2015 (UTC)
 * , please take another look in consideration of this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, I put a lot thought into this already. However, if this RM fails and there's another one to change the case from "Boston Molasses Disaster" to "Boston molasses disaster" I'll be all ears and inclined to favor. "Boston molasses flood" would be OK too, provided there's sufficient data and argument to overcome inertia (WP:TITLECHANGES). Herostratus (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we do list "Boston molasses flood" as among the most likely descriptive titles above; thanks for nothing that you're OK with that. I'd still like to hear what you think are the "proper" name possibilities, based on what's been  pointed out about sources.  Ini particular, where do you find support in sources for "Boston Molasses Disaster"?  Or for "Boston Molasses Flood" without "Great" as part of it?  Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did take this into consideration. "Great Boston Molasses Flood" -wikipedia is 6.2K hit, so less than the 6.7K of my proposed, and comes with the added baggage of "great" being questionable neutral point of view. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As pure description, Dicklyon. It was in Boston, it was made of molasses, and it was a disaster and/or a flood (whichever you prefer). Greatness can kind of be assumed -- we don't have articles like "Tiny little Memphis flood of 1903" and so on. "List of trivial, meaningless events in American history", whatever. Some things are capital-G Great (Great Depression, Great War, etc.) but really nothing here should be lowercase-g great: that's editorializing. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're good with "Boston molasses flood", but not any of the commonly used "proper" names for the event, which have "Great" in them. So noted.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed - honestly, redirects are cheap and can include Boston. But we use WP:COMMONNAME for a reason Red Slash 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Great Molasses Flood or Great Boston Molasses Flood, the two most common proper names; there is no need to fall back to a descriptive title when we have these to choose from. 216.239.45.83 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support it is not just the largest of many molasses floods in various places
 * Support the nominator's proposal of Great Molasses Flood or something else with "flood" if others agree. I prefer a proper name to a descriptive.  —  AjaxSmack   03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Not sure where we are with this one - But I agree with Red Slash that redirects are cheap and we use WP:COMMONNAME for a reason. I support Great Molasses Flood - although we don't want to confuse it with the "small" or "medium" molasses floods... Garchy (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Regardless of my previous preferences to the contrary, I too now support the original proposal, on account of "commonname" and other reasonable arguments made. (Isn't it time this discussion wrapped up?  There seems to be a strong consensus for Great Molasses Flood, with appropriate redirects to it.) Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Search data
Here is a straight breakdown of search results for a number of the names being floated around.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. A graphic rendition of the above, in miniature. Randy Kryn 12:00 12 April, 2015 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Great Molasses Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130913150554/http://www.bostonharborwalk.com/placestogo/location.php?nid=3&sid=21 to http://www.bostonharborwalk.com/placestogo/location.php?nid=3&sid=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Exclamation point
In the passage
 * "Witnesses variously reported... a tremendous crashing, a deep growling, or a thunderclap-like bang!, and as the rivets shot out of the tank, a machine gun-like sound

does the exclamation point belong? It's unusual to have exclamation points in the middle of sentences. It's not a quotation. Editors are disagreeing about this. Herostratus (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Source checked. Phrase with exclamation point is indeed a direct quote. I've given it quotation marks in our article, and italicized "bang!" as in the source. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh OK that's different. Didn't realize it was a quote. Herostratus (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Molasses Flood. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023055001/http://www.theamericanstoryteller.com/stories/molasses/ to http://www.theamericanstoryteller.com/stories/molasses/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310034650/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03521177.asp to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/03521177.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Temperatures
Hi, the temperatures in the sections "Flood" and "Causes" do not match. Which is correct: 40F/4C or 41F/5C? T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

American English
I added an American-language template to the Talk page for the benefit of some recent (and future?) editors. The event took place in Massachusetts, but feel free to discuss (or change) if there is a good reason. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)