Talk:Brookline, Massachusetts/Archive 1

Untitled

Tony Levin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.153.72 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? 26zhangi (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Discussion

From the main page

With its good schools (both public and private), good transportation (several branches of the MBTA Green Line traverse the Town), and good government, Brookline is a choice spot in which to reside or establish a business.

It sounds like the Brookline Chamber of Commerce wrote this entry. The transportation I can understand, but what makes Brookline's government and schools "good"?

This isn't meant as an insult, rather as a query.

--Karmafist 18:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the "Challenge Index", Brookline High School is in the top 4% in the country, and ranked 704th overall. http://www.csh.k12.ny.us/highschool/data/TheTopHighSchools.htm

I'm planning on rewriting this article. I can't at the moment - I have a deadline soon, but I will as soon as I can. Cmouse 05:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can say that my entire pre-college education was at Brookline public schools and they WERE good. A pretty excellent preparation for all that followed. That Brookline has "good schools" is a truism which is at least repeated by every real estate agent and reflected in home prices. So while it might not be "objectively" true (though I would definitely argue that it is), it is a feature of the community which is generally held to be true, and certainly affects the economic and social milieu of the city. Joshua Penman, 23 June 2005

As a resident of Brookline, I would second the "good schools" part -- for a lot of people I know, that's one of the main reasons they chose to live in Brookline. Now, as to whether that's why it's a good spot to establish a business, I don't know. And the whole "good government" thing seems to be a bit much. There's certainly nothing particularly wrong with Brookline's government, except perhaps structurally, but it's not so fantastic that it draws people here. Geoff.green 15:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would further add that my parents, when migrating to the US from Israel in the early 1990s, inquired among their friends and colleagues, and Brookline was consistently mentioned was one of the towns with the top public education infrastructure in the US. As someone who has gone through those schools (8th grade and high school), I certainly agree. YoavShapira 19:58, 24 July 2005 (EDT)

This whole article isn't POV. Brookline is a jewel of a suburb? COME ON!!! I'm not doubting that Brookline is nice, in fact, I know Brookline is nice. I've been there. But the whole Culture section needs to be rewrittten. It's filled with adjectives such as "marvelous" and "magnificent". It reads like it was copied from an article in a travel section of a magazine. As for the part about the schools, how about instead of calling them good, we put in those statistics that Cmouse found. -BIG BROTHER

POV

I tried to rewrite this article. I'll check back in a few days and remove the tag unless someone disagrees... or beats me to the removal. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I like the article now. Vpendse 03:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm removing the darn tag. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a few more things

As another notable statistic, Brookline is 27% foreign born. It is also worth mentioning that Brookline has a number of large public housing developments. Despite its overall wealthy reputation it does have a fair amount of lower income residents. On the other side however, housing prices, like in most of the Boston area, are currently skyrocketing. It is rapidly becoming an unafordable place to live for many middle income families. There is also a convent in Brookline.

Don't forget the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, too! Jason t c 02:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nickname?

I've lived in Brookline almost my entire life and never have I ever heard anyone refer to Brookline as B-line. I suggest that we take down this as a nickname ,--68.166.236.248 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of this nickname either. Andrew73 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it down. --68.166.236.248 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Emerald Necklace reference.

I added the reference, seeing as Brookline maintains its side of the parkland. MarkinBoston 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notable resident?

The current King of Thailand (Bhumibol Adulyadej) should be added to the list of notable residents. Though he was born at Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, his parents lived on Longwood Ave. for a year or two after his birth. The Monarch's father was a physician studying at the Harvard School of Public Health, the mother studied nursing at Simmonds College. There is a photograph of the family including the infant King with the house in the background displayed in a museum in Bangkok. The label gives the address as 60 Longwood Avenue, which would place it at the current location of Longwood Towers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.223.128 (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wallace Place of Birth

This article (before my edit) claimed that Mike Wallace was not born in Brookline, while the article about him claimed that he was indeed born in Brookline. This site (IMDb) also says that he was born in Brookline. So, where was he born? If we cant resolve this, should we note it in the article or maybe we should remove that detail about him.

Thanks, Reuvenk 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, Mike Wallace was born in an elevator at Newton-Wellsley Hospital in Newton, MA. However, Brookline was his hometown since birth. If you consider place of birth, I would assure you that people like Conan O'brian and Theo Epstein wouldn't qualify as being Brookline natives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.241.20 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then his place of birth should be Brookline. Then again, if someone was born in England (for example), and when she was a week old her parents flew her to Brookline and she lived their until the day she died, I would not say that Brookline is her place of birth. So where do you draw the line. Alas. -Reuvenk_{T C E} 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Soccer Mom I'd Like to F***"

On the June 8, 2006 episode of The Daily Show, John Hodgman declared Brookline to be the SMILF (Soccer Mom I'd Like to Fuck) capital of the world.

I love swearing. I do recognize, though, that there are parents and teachers who do not share my affinity. Much as I would change their minds for the better, I also know that they are not particularly movable on this point. And of course, these people certainly wouldn't allow their young children/students to read this load of smut!

So, acknowledging this, why don't we strike a compromise with the single, otherwise unimportant F-word in this article? We could use a trio of friendly asterisks instead of the last three letters, thereby encouraging the popularity of Wikipedia among such parents and teachers, and thus enabling the use of Wikipedia by middle-schoolers who find themselves disposed of only those source materials which have been permitted them by their educators.

Yes, I know the policies: Wikipedia is not censored, and profanities in quotes must never be obscured with asterisks. But I ask: are these policies, as applied here, harming Wikipedia just a little bit? Omphaloscope » talk 05:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Aspinwall

WP:BRD in full force here. I just got through with a pretty ambitious project to remove all non-notable people from subsections on Massachusetts town articles labeled 'Notable residents' (or the like). As such, I removed Aspinwall, under the belief that if he was notable according to WP:N, then there would be an article, if only a stub, about him. I'm here seeking consensus as to whether "Notable" for "Notable residents" means a lower standard than WP:N and, if so, what that standard ought to be. Achowat (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reverting bogus notables entries for years using the argument (which I believe is solidly based on WP policy) that notability requires an article or other reliably-sourced evidence. Have I been wrong? Hertz1888 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I believe notability should be established primarily instead of secondarily. If you think that Aspinwall is notable enough for inclusion in the Encyclopedia, then the first step should be to make his page and then link to it from other namespaces. My understanding on "notable residents" (which, to my knowledge, has never been subject to a community discussion or a guideline or policy) is similiar to that of the notability of birthdates (birthdates and hometowns felt like in that way to me) that anyone with an article can have a link on their birthday, but any redlinks should be removed. Making William Aspinwall (state legislator (or whatever name) would allow the community as a whole to discuss his notability, but as such, I'd default to leaving only persons who have established notability through inclusion. Achowat (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the analogy with birthdates. However, if you are relying on WP:N as a basis, then please see WP:NRVE. I think you are being overzealous. Many WP entries start out being introduced to notables sections along with valid outside evidence, and function as invitations to write an article, which may or may not happen; that should not matter. Lots of other entries lack such evidence and are candidates for reversion as soon as encountered. Redlinking names without WP articles of their own (but otherwise validated), as I think you may be suggesting, would be a stronger invitation to article-writing. I have no particular interest in Aspinwall (though I note that the family name applies to an entire neighborhood of Brookline), but somebody did, and went to the trouble of providing decent sourcing. I don't think he should be deleted out-of-hand, and the same principles would apply to other cities and towns in general. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate analogy is a simple one: No one is notable just for their birthdate or place of residence and everyone has one. I honestly don't see how that analogy is anything but intuitive. I would also ask you to point to the relevance of WP:NRVE; the subject is about needing evidence to establish notability, not stating the simply having any evidence is enough to establish notability. In regards to whether the specific piece of evidence would cause Aspinwall to pass or fail the WP:GNG, the source is a "Who's Who" book, a collection of trivia about whoever is to be featured (and, in more recent years, whoever has paid to be featured). It fails General notability guidelines Significant coverage and Presumed. WP:IRS points us to WP:SECONDARY where we can see that a tertiary source, like a "Who's Who" book, is not sufficient to establish notability. Achowat (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in the general principles than in discussing the case of Aspinwall. NRVE points to "significant" evidence, not just "any" evidence. You have not shown that a WP article is required prior to adding anyone to a local notables section. I think requiring that would be going at things exactly backwards, and represent overkill. As I have tried to say, good information often finds its way into WP via the local notables sections. I have other responsibilities for now and would like to wrap up this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the simple fact is that a "Who's Who" book is not 'significant coverage'. Aspinwall, frankly, is a terrible example. And this is a terrible forum for discussing global policies. This page should exist exclusively to discuss the content of the Brookline page. While there is an important academic discussion to be had, and one that I would welcome, the facts of the matter is that Aspinwall does not meet the General Notability Guidelines for inclusion into the encyclopedia. What also hurts is that this Talk page is pretty dead (it's really just you and I talking.) Right now the only WikiProject with a guideline on such issues is Wikiproject Oregon who explicitly state (in an invisi-comment) "Only People who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. The biographical article must mention how they are associated with <city name>, whether born, raised, or residing. The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited." While I admit that guidelines can't fly up, WP:MASS has yet to take up the issue, and if you were looking to engage other opinions, I would suggest taking it there. Achowat (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with this? WP:WTAF, WP:LISTPEOPLE. Achowat (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same to you. You seem determined to make this deletion; please go ahead. You are clearly more cognizant of the relevant policies than I. However, I do question whether an essay on avoiding redlinking is truly relevant, as there was no redlinking of Aspinwall. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is relevant in tandem with WP:LISTPEOPLE. People should only be put into lists if they are notable (LISTPEOPLE). If something is notable, an article should be written before it is included in lists (WTAF). Achowat (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]