Talk:Charles River
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rowing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Charles River is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
Contents |
[edit] White Geese
Regarding this edit war over the Charles River White Geese political protest, could someone who is knowledgeable provide some WP:NPOV content about what this is about? Seems like it might actually be germaine to the topic of this page. --ScottMainwaring 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remediation controversies
Good to see some content here about efforts (misguided or not) to improve the environment in and around the Charles, but much of this content is presented with a clear POV bias. A more balanced presentation based on published, verifiable facts is necessary to conform to WP:NPOV it seems. --ScottMainwaring 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response on White Geese
I tried to make the entry less inaccurate and less biased.
There is great propaganda in here about so-called clean up of the Charles River which gives the dramatically false impression of proper environmental behavior.
The opposite is the truth.
The state's behavior at Ebersoll Fields was strikingly destruction of the environment.
The behavior at Magazine Beach is exactly the opposite of the impression falsely being given.
The designer plants introduced in place of the wetlands at Magazine Beach create a wall blocking any possible swimming in the Charles River at that location, exactly the opposite of the PR piece in the report.
The heartless and deliberate starvation of the Charles River White Geese is also exactly the opposite of the claims of environmental sainthood.
The bizarre behavior in the playing fields is exactly the opposite of the claims in the report.
I did not put in the deliberate poisoning of goose eggs over the last four years, Canadas all four years, Whites the first two of the four years.
Neutrality is to balance the PR piece with reality or to keep the PR nonsense out of the report.
Neutrality is not to spout the false party line of really destructive state and local governments.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.108.215.194 (talk • contribs) .
- That's fair enough. One big part of presenting this controversy in a way that is suitable for an encyclopaedia is good documentation. Blogs and personal Web sites, even if everything in them may be true, will always be called into question (because where are their sources? and so on).
- Some sources that would help here would be transcripts from public meetings or hearings, or newspaper articles. Is their solid documentation for the poisons that are mentioned (pesticides? fertiliser? which ones?) and the deleterious effects that are claimed? As well, for the introduced vegetation?
- Please understand, I'm not arguing that none of these bad things have happened. I'm only pointing out the things that I, as a reader who stumbled upon this article today, would want to see before accepting the assertions on that section as fact or at least probable. Those things may be enough to put the dispute to rest amongst the editors as well. --71.162.87.248 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naming History
If I recall correctly, the bridge just downstream of the Watertown Dam bears writings which claim that the river was named the Massachusetts River (by John Smith), and then renamed the Charles River by order of the then-Prince Charles. Now, I'm not claiming that a bridge should really count as a Reliable Source. I mean, it's just a bridge, what can it know?.. but anyone who is interested in the English naming of the river may want to look into this anyway. - 18.252.7.52 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's true! I just added this with a good reference. However I called Charles "king".. I guess technically he was still the prince heir apparent at the time. Not sure how to say that tersely, it is almost besides the point, no? Pfly (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Charles, at age 15, may "tersely" and accurately be said to be Prince Charles, as Karl Haglund notes in his Inventing the Charles River (MIT Press, 2003), page 5. Since Charles was not made King of Great Britain and Ireland until 1625 (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, Micropedia, p. 112), designating him "king" at age 15 is clearly incorrect. Jwhitman (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)jwhitman
[edit] Early History
How can Waltham have been the site of the first factory when the very next paragraph says that a canal for water power was created in the 1600s? What's the definition of "factory" which allows the first statement? - Denimadept 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
