Talk:Porter Square

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

I heard somemwhere that the Porter Square red line station boasts the longest escalator in the Northeast. Any truth to this? I know it is a very deep station. TD

Might be longest in Northeast; not longest in the US, see escalator article, and Porter (MBTA station) for length of this one.

Coleopterous 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Many of the commercial buildings in Porter Square were constructed between the end of WWII and prior to the opening of the T station in 1984, rather notably including the landmark Porter Square Shopping Center. The area at that time had many families who had lived in North Cambridge for generations, too. I'm trying to recall one that moved to a "rural area" and I can't. I therefore consider the statement in the article opinion, but if there's anything to back that up it would fascinate me. Cantabwarrior 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted that text; your comments casting doubt on it and nobody having been able to back it up in six months make it seem clearly questionable enough that I think it shouldn't be there, and I think somewhere Wikipedia's policy says that questionable, uncited information should be removed sooner rather than later. Obviously, if someone can find a source to cite, putting it back with a citation may be appropriate. JNW2 (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it might make sense to split up businesses that aren't in the larger buildings/complexes as being on Mass Ave (such as Toad and Elephant Walk) vs Somerville Avenue (such as Anna's). JNW2 (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's also a gym above CVS, and maintaining a neutral point of view probably requires listing either both gyms or neither of them. JNW2 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a long time resident of Porter Square, I would not say that "chronic homelessness" is one of its defining characteristics. The individual in the picture is the only homeless person seen there on a daily basis. I don't believe one person substantiates a whole section on homelessnesses. It seems that whoever wrote that is just annoyed she takes up space in the bus shelter. Is one person "partially inhibiting its intended use" really relevant to the average wiki reader? I don't think the entire section needs to be included in the article.

Furthermore the panhandling the previous editor is referring to is actually people selling Spare Change Newspaper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spare_Change If the section does remain, this should be changed to reflect this. None of the sellers take up residence in the station.

However this is just my opinion, I leave it up to fellow citizens to determine how relevant/accurate/impartial the suggested changes would be. Xsometimesx (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It does seem disproportionate to devote an entire section to this topic on the basis of one person seen regularly, if that is the case. The text reads as if written by someone using WP to editorialize and complain, the citation notwithstanding. Conflating panhandling with homelessness is unwarranted original research. I will remove or severely edit the section soon if we have a consensus to do so, or if nothing further is heard. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another editor, in apparent agreement with us here, has removed the section, calling it "Irrelevant, untrue". It's gone. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, it didn't stay gone for long. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the editor who insists on keeping the section seems to have an agenda beyond providing objective, relevant information. I also find it in questionable taste (and ethics, frankly) to include a photo of a homeless individual, taken while she was asleep. I would think that it would be considered a violation of one's rights. It seems particularly egregious when the individual in question has likely little to no recourse, let alone knowledge of the fact that she has become the poster-person for all homelessness in Porter Square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhray (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree as to the questionable taste. Back in October, the photo was removed by one editor on grounds of lacking permission for publication, and brought back by another on grounds of permission not being needed. I don't know who is correct as to violation of rights. However, if a consensus can be reached here, the entire section can be properly removed. The section may represent disproportionate space given to a minor matter. Its title may represent tendentious editing or original research unless it is well sourced that chronic homelessness characterizes Porter Square especially. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just added a template stating insufficient refs and original research to the section, as well as removed the only ref which, when read, did not back up the sentence it supposedly was a reference for. --Found5dollar (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

All the issues from the banner have been addressed. Please verify the referenced materials for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard91 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The material here is all properly sourced, verifiable, and relevant. Several editors seem to have researched this issue well. The designers of Porter's reconstruction, as well as Cambridge Police seem to think it's an important issue. I'm not sure why a few editors have become very aggressive in attempting to remove this section, but it now seems appropriate that the banner is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.41.193 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to have to be the tie-breaker here. To be fair, the banner-adding editor requested that the issues be resolved before removing the banner.. As far as I can tell, they have been addressed. Sanborn11 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's been almost three years since this debate. Is chronic homelessness still a remarkable characteristic of Porter Square worthy of encyclopaedic mention, or should this section be revised or removed? -- Cantabwarrior 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It remains a remarkable fact of Porter Square. Many homeless people pan-handling, especially late at night at the 24 hour CVS. I'm also aware of a serious assault by a homeless person last year. Lentower (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

An image used in this article, File:Homeless in porter square.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I tried to include a photo of the Rand Estate (which I found on the Cambridge Historical Society Website) in this article. I believe the photo was in the public domain, and I tried to identify it accordingly. But it seems it's been taken down. I think it helps the article to illustrate the changes of the area where the shopping center is. Can anyone weigh in with an opinion on why the photo wasn't appropriate? Isn't it PD?--Vistawhite (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly appropriate (and was positioned near the most relevant text), but the rules for demonstrating lack of copyright infringement are strict. If you haven't already done so, I would try resubmitting it and indicating that it dates from before 1923. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Commons won't let me upload it again even, when I change the name. The source of the photo is http://www.cambridgehistory.org/imagecollection/rand-estate-1899-massachusetts-avenue If you have any suggestions, I'd love to get it (or a similar suitable image) back in the article. Thanks, as always.--Vistawhite (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You might turn for assistance to the editor who deleted it, or see whether the Cambridge Historical Commission has a suitable view in their collection, or can lead you to one. Their "Northwest Cambridge" book has one (Fig. 335) on p. 163. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Porter Square. 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/20120324100446/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~katayama/ to http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~katayama/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply