Talk:Greater Boston

message: Ideas for expansion: 
Companies of Boston, 128, 495
Geographic features (rivers, hills...)
Recreation (parks, swimming, cycling, fishing...)
Communications (TV, radio, newspapers, Internet, antenna farm)
Research facilities (observatories, labs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If Greater Boston indeed has 5.8 million people, it should have more than two congressman - specifically, that's about 10 congressmen - presumably the 2 NH congressmen and 8 of the 10 MA ones. john k 05:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 5.8 million people? There's only 6.3m in the whole state. That's an extremely liberal definition of "Greater Boston" -- Springfield and Worcester, which are certainly outside the region, have 350,000 residents in the city cores alone. This should probably be corrected. 160.39.145.124 20:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 5.8 million includes areas of N.H., Maine and Rhode Island.  Parts of those states are included in Greater Boston (a loosely defined region). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.64.147 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Census Bureau has more than one type of metropolitan area definition and one of them, Combined Statistical Area, is very inclusive.  The Boston-Manchester-Worcester CSA does in fact have over 5.7 million people.  Greater Boston, however, doesn't necessarily correspond to this or any other census definition.  --DeanoNightRider 08:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you expect?  This is Wikipedia and some editior(s) on here is clearly engaging in spreading Boston propaganda.  They even claimed that it was a business and cultural hub for CT!  Now I see this and it further confirms what I had already proven to these crooked editors, but they want the lies to continue because their feelings got hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.37.6 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Worcester is certainly outside the Greater Boston area? I question this assertion. Many people in the Worcester area work in Boston, and many people who live in Boston work in Worcester. Elizabeth Johnson Tsang (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to data produced by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the population of the cities and towns within the area they oversee, generally the area within Route 495, is 5,414,140 as of the 2010 Census. You can find this data here.Dombett (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Eighth district includes at least Somerville which is certainly greater Boston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.251.201 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighth District 

message: Framingham is most certainly not the "largest town in North America"; that honor probably goes to Hempstead (town), New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121a0012 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest town 

message: For the infobox I used 4,424,649—the 2004 estimate for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy in List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population.  —David618 23:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox data

message: In trying to update the CSA data for the Boston... CSA, I came upon two conflicting sources.  This source suggests a 2000 population of 5,517,730.  This source lists a 2000 population of 7,316,770, with a 2005 population of 7,427,336.  This second source is much higher than I've ever heard for the Boston area.  I cannot figure out the source for the discrepancies.  The three principal cities are the same for both sources; the first source is in "MA-CT-NH" while the second is in "MA-RI-NH" (which would seem to suggest an even smaller area, not a larger area).  With the exception of the figures for Boston, all of the other figures (e.g. Washington-Baltimore, San Franscisco, New York, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) seem reasonable and in agreement with other sources.  I'm almost inclined to think this might be a mistake (but only for Boston) and am inclined to contact the U.S. C.B. if I don't any revealing information on their website.  Anyone have any ideas???  Help would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks. Ufwuct 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boston CSA was redefined last May. It now includes the Providence MSA because the commuter interchange has exceeded the threshold value. --Polaron | Talk 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and your first source is a NECTA which is slightly different (but probably a better representation of the true metro area). --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To echo Polaron, the larger figures probably include Providence.Kmusser 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston-Worcester-Manchester CSA

message: Wanted to move this discussion here and look for more input:
:Hello, could you point me to a place where I can find the data for the principal cities list in Greater Boston? I watch that article, and I notice that cities get added and reverted from there all the time. The list can't be based on cities that have more jobs than residents, because, for example, Lowell (so I read somewhere) has a daytime population of 60,000, even though it has 100,000+ residents. However, as the 4th largest city in the state, and the second largest in Greater Boston, I think it belongs on this list. Lawrence is probably even worse for that, and Lynn, which isn't on the list, isn't much smaller than deeply depressed Lawrence. I think an official, directly cited source would reduce the constant edit/revert situation. Thanks, CSZero 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the list and you're right. A couple of the cities are just the largest cities of the NECTA division they're in but not listed as principal cities. The list of principal cities is here. I'll go ahead and delete the non-principal cities. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: one more thing though. This list is obviously very factual, being census data and all, but as a resident of the state, it doesn't sit well with me because some of these places are pretty small, since what they really are are highway suburbs. Looking at, say, an areal map of the area, there are a lot of clearly visible, larger (but poorer,old, and economically depressed...), population centers that seem omitted. I'd almost like to make an asterick for the principal cities and towns list explaining where its from and why, and then have a second list of 'other population centers' with cities like Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill in the North, and Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford to the South. In the Boston core, there's Lynn at least and maybe Somerville. Many of these cities have 80,000+ residents, and I think that makes them mentionable. What do you think? CSZero 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want the list to be based on population, I think that is fine. That might even be closer to what most people think as major cities. My only concern is that people will start adding more and more to the list of towns. But I guess as long as we state the criteria, it should be ok. 
Any objections/ideas? CSZero 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, how's that look? CSZero 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principal Cities and Towns 

message: The expansion of the Greater Boston CSA engulfed the remainder of Rhode Island without adding Providence to the name. A city of that size, much larger than Worcester or Manchester to boot, without a doubt needs to be included in the name. After all, without it, San Francisco and Philadelphia would still have larger CSA populations than Greater Boston. Heff01 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Providence and Worcester, proper, both have populations around 175,000.  Manchester is smaller at around 110,000. CSZero 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSA names are given by the Census Bureau, I don't think it's up to us to rename them.  Kmusser 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Providence metropolian area has a population of 1.6 million.  Worcester's would probably be around a half million if you could extricate it from Boston.  Manchester's metro is 177,000.  Still, the US Census Bureau hasn't renamed it so we can't just make up a new name out of some sense of justice.--Loodog (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The source for the list of towns is here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/List8.txt but it is no longer a valid link... CSZero (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providence 

message: Here is this section I am questioning, and I will provide several reasons below:
This list has been provided by the Census based on commuter populations, and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region.
*Boston
*Cambridge
*Framingham
*Nashua
*Newton
*Peabody
*Quincy
*Waltham
Comments:
The entire introductory sentence as written violates the following guidelines: 
WP:Citing sources The sentence is likely to be challenged because the list names some locations but not others without providing a source. If the source is dead, another needs to be found. The original source from 2006 is possibly somewhere within the archives at http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html, but the latest figures for 2008 should be used if the same list exists there.
WP:Verifiability The sentence is not verifiable because of the lack of a source, and similarly the list itself is not verifiable because it isn't clear which data set is being used. Are these all from the CSA, MSA, the NECTA or some other list the census has published? The criteria for this list needs to be explicitly stated.
WP:Avoid weasel words The second part of the sentence, "and is generally not what a resident of the area would consider the principal cities of the region" is ambiguous in that the area is not defined and generally together with consider implies opinions which are not within the scope of census data and can not be proven with reliable sources. That part of the introductory sentence for the list is simply not allowed under multiple guidelines.
I have no problem with having this list included in the article as long as it is clear what the criteria for inclusion (population of city/town >50K? commuter population>some number?) and what the area is but a source that provides the exact list needs to be added; if towns or cities are left out or added by criteria established after the fact here on Wikipedia, that constitutes a violation of the policy against original research. However, the second half of the sentence needs to be left out entirely because it states an unprovable opinion. For now, I removed that part of the sentence and unless a source is found for the list and given in the text explaining what the "area" is, it should be removed as well. Sswonk (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for 2008 is here (NECTA) and here (MSA). The definition of a principal city is here (Part D, Section 5). The concept of principal city is indeed somewhat non-intuitive but basically is a place that attracts commuters from its surroundings. --Polaron | Talk 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how about a reword like this: The Census Bureau defines the following as principal cities in the Boston NECTA using criteria developed for what the Office of Management and Budget calls a Core Based Statistical Area. Sswonk (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that if you want to put it.  If you don't soon and I get no objections, I will. CSZero (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use proper citations and not bare links.  121a0012 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course; I used bare links as a form of shorthand here on the talk page for convenience, they will be cited properly. Since there are no objections, I will make the change to the page. Sswonk (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections explained

message: Currently the lead says "...Metro Boston is usually reserved to signify the "inner core" surrounding the City of Boston, while Greater Boston usually at least overlaps the North and South Shores, as well as MetroWest and the Merrimack Valley." There's a "citation needed" on the first phrase about Metro Boston. Some quick searching seems to show that the terms Metro and Greater Boston are very often used interchangeably, and with varying definitions/delineations. This MetroBoston website defines "Metro Boston" as a fairly large area, and on various pages uses the term "Greater Boston" for the same region. Its planning region includes "most of the communities inside the I-495 corridor". This website, Greater Boston Employment Collaborative uses the terms Metro and Greater interchangeably, and defines it as "within Route 128". Confusingly, the site also defines a "Metro West", beyond "Greater Boston". Anyway, my brief search for clarity on these terms only made me more confused. Either better, clearer sources should be found or our page should explain how neither term is particularly well defined. Pfly (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro vs. Greater Boston 

message: The descriptions of the various statistical areas need to be checked against the current definitions (as used in the 2010 census) and the populations should show the 2010 numbers and not 2005 estimates.  I added  to the CSA section without realizing that all three of the OMB/Census-based sections need the same kind of updates.  121a0012 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population and statistical areas need updating 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Greater Boston. 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 https://web.archive.org/20080829235936/http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html to http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/1_transportation_plan/plan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522112709/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/globe_100_2009/mass_based_employers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310130608/http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf to http://ucso.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Students/CareerResources/CityScapes/Boston.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010004102/http://www.boston.com:80/business/globe/globe100/ to http://www.boston.com/business/globe/globe100/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018182241/http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office to http://news.vistaprint.com/facility/us-operations-and-north-american-business-unit-head-office
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) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Following sentences were removed from the article:
:In 1777, General Henry Knox founded the Springfield Armory, which during the Industrial Revolution catalyzed numerous important technological advances, including interchangeable parts. In 1786, Shays' Rebellion, a populist revolt led by disaffected Revolutionary War veterans, influenced the United States Constitutional Convention. In the 18th century, the Protestant First Great Awakening, which swept the Atlantic world, originated from the pulpit of Northampton preacher Jonathan Edwards.  Mikeanthony1965 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Springfield and Northampton, MA are NOT part of the Boston CSA nor are they part of the "Boston area".   

message: By what criteria are the "principal cities and towns" determined? I assumed it would be proximity (i.e. following the light-blue towns highlighted on the map), however the bulleted list includes several municipalities that are quite a distance away, many of which wouldn't normally be considered part of Greater Boston (e.g. New Bedford, Barnstable, Provincetown, Edgartown, West Tisbury), while omitting many municipalities that are more often considered "Greater Boston", and many of which are even highlighted on the map (e.g. Rochester, Middleborough, Lakeville, Plympton, Carver). This seems like something that should be re-evaluated, especially since that particular section offers no references or sources and seems rather arbitrary. VSatire (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure how it is determined. Different people have different opinions on what is included in Greater Boston, so no clear boundary is known. However, a good starting point would be the MAPC list. Livinlife133 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for "principal cities and towns"