|
→Cape Cod’s Boarders Based In Fact and Not Supposition: Not so fast, pleaae
|
|
||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:First of all, if you wanted to make such a major change in the article, it would have been better to come here to talk first, not to just post your stuff - which had numerous grammatical and other errors, by the way - with a warning that no one should edit you. You have no consensus to make your change - and the change is major to a long-standing stable article, so consensus would have been a nice thing to reach for, when you saw that I reverted you a day or two ago. That said, you have some of your facts askew. Plymouth and Wareham were not at all missing from the article. The geologic connection was clearly stated, the history was clearly rendered. But the fact of the matter is that today, "Cape Cod" does not include its geologic past, at least no sources that I've seen do so. Nor did you bother to bring any sources - all you did was write up your vision of what Cape Cod is and post it. "Cape Cod" is now an entity that is defined by the canal, whether or not you like that. The common understanding of the term is "everything on the far side of the bridges". I do not think we should ignore the history at all - and in fact I'd have no problem with that section and/or the geologic section to be expanded if you would like to do that, to bring in sources and citations about how the Cape uswed to be. But at present, until they rename it "Cod Island", "Cape Cod" means something other than what you are saying it means. Yes, the name is no longer correct, but so be it - these things happen. If you want to write a separate article that refers only to the geologic formation of Cape Cod, please do - I don't know if it will survuve as a separate article, but I certainly wouldn't object to it in principle. But distorting this article isn't the way to go. Again, by all means this article should, and did, acknowledge the geologic connection, and that before the canal things were different. But now, the canal exists - for almost a hundred years - and so the reality is that the incorrectly named "Cape Cod" is what most people think it is. I'm reverting your changes to the wording we had for quite a while, and correcting any errors that were introduced, and would be interested to hear if there are other editors with opinions on this. If you get consensus for a change, I'll respect that. But now, it's just you. (I haven't read the other edits that others made yet, but will do so.) <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
:First of all, if you wanted to make such a major change in the article, it would have been better to come here to talk first, not to just post your stuff - which had numerous grammatical and other errors, by the way - with a warning that no one should edit you. You have no consensus to make your change - and the change is major to a long-standing stable article, so consensus would have been a nice thing to reach for, when you saw that I reverted you a day or two ago. That said, you have some of your facts askew. Plymouth and Wareham were not at all missing from the article. The geologic connection was clearly stated, the history was clearly rendered. But the fact of the matter is that today, "Cape Cod" does not include its geologic past, at least no sources that I've seen do so. Nor did you bother to bring any sources - all you did was write up your vision of what Cape Cod is and post it. "Cape Cod" is now an entity that is defined by the canal, whether or not you like that. The common understanding of the term is "everything on the far side of the bridges". I do not think we should ignore the history at all - and in fact I'd have no problem with that section and/or the geologic section to be expanded if you would like to do that, to bring in sources and citations about how the Cape uswed to be. But at present, until they rename it "Cod Island", "Cape Cod" means something other than what you are saying it means. Yes, the name is no longer correct, but so be it - these things happen. If you want to write a separate article that refers only to the geologic formation of Cape Cod, please do - I don't know if it will survuve as a separate article, but I certainly wouldn't object to it in principle. But distorting this article isn't the way to go. Again, by all means this article should, and did, acknowledge the geologic connection, and that before the canal things were different. But now, the canal exists - for almost a hundred years - and so the reality is that the incorrectly named "Cape Cod" is what most people think it is. I'm reverting your changes to the wording we had for quite a while, and correcting any errors that were introduced, and would be interested to hear if there are other editors with opinions on this. If you get consensus for a change, I'll respect that. But now, it's just you. (I haven't read the other edits that others made yet, but will do so.) <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
My apologies, I did come in hard didn’t I? Nevertheless, I must strongly differ. Fact does not require consensus. Cape Cod, by definition does include Plymouth and Wareham. A consensus of the populous does not change that fact. The instillation of a man-made waterway does not change that fact. |
|||
While admittedly, the changes to this long held myth that Cape Cod begins at a canal were rather extensive, they are, nevertheless, correct. In an effort to make Wikipedia a medium of fact and not opinion, as the ground rules dictate, I really don’t have any choice but to make changes to any incorrect information, with or without a consensus. Truth demands it. |
|||
 | United States Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
An event mentioned in this article is a May 15 selected anniversary
The article says that the area of Cape Cod is 1,033 km². But the article on Barnstable County, Massachusetts says that its land area is 1,024 km². How can this be, when all of Cape Cod is part of Barnstable County? Where did those extra 9 km² come from? --AJD 23:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Duh. Cape Cod is not an island. A canal does not make the cape an island, and if someone so arbitrary could make that so by simple declaration, then I suppose the "bridges" to cape cod over the canal again "knit" the cape back on to the mainland. Silly argument. Cut a 1000 yard wide channel and remove the bridges, and no matter how shallow, I'd accept your POV. Otherwise, accept that your cape is a wonderful natural peninsular shoreline. Most likely this phrase was written by someone with misguided Vinyard envy.
Cape Cod is considered by many to be a "man made island", but above and beyond all else, is simply a "cape" (not big enough to be a "peninsula" like Florida). Whatever definition seems to work, and this is coming from a native (born and raised there, lived there for most of my 31 years). -wikicali00
The 9 sq km difference is trivial and easily explained by the dynamic shoreline. Major storms usually in the winter re-arrange the geography continuously. Islands and barriers beaches are split or joined. Large areas of mud flats are exposed or covered. Fresh water ponds become saline and so forth.
One cannot deny P-town's gay and lesbian tourist attractions in addition to the whale watching that takes place. I added a blurb covering that. Colby Peterson 16:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two very similar sattelite images of Cape Cod on the page? To the untutored eye, at least, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between them to justify them both. Just wondering if someone could explain it to me. Billy Shears 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why 2 photos are there but one is an astronaut photo (Spring 1997) and the other is a MISR satellite image from April 13, 2000. One way to tell them apart is cloud locations in one but not the other.
External linking wars in this article, particularly among those promoting particular Cape Cod travel and information portals and personal sites, are growing extremely tiresome. There are so many such sites (e.g. capecod.com, capecodtravel.com, ecape.com, capecodtoday.com, capelinks.com etc. etc. etc.) that linking to any particular one is prohibitive.
From the guidelines on Wikipedia:External links:
Occasionally acceptable links [...] Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included. (emphasis added)
The regional Chamber site is the least volatile/advertising-sensitive of these options, and adequate in providing the directory feature. If there is consensus that the Chamber site itself is too controversial or divisive, that too could be eliminated. It is not Wikipedia's role to provide commercial links, even if they are under the guise of "directory assistance." This article should be about the Cape itself, not which advertiser has been here most recently.
CapeCodEph 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a drag that people keep putting commercial site links in this article--and it seem to be done by anonymous editors usually. I agree that it should stop. -Eric (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two sections "History" and "Geography" seem to have been lopped off earlier today by a user with only an IP address. SInce there is no explanation, and these are valid sections, I reinstated the immediately previous edit. Perhaps this was a mistake, but it was done in two edits, so I don't know. Tvoz 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whale-watching is a major subsection of the Cape's tourism sector (see the already listed CoC links. The gay tourism is important, but not to the whole Cape (to that end, it is no more important than any other demographic tourism). It should be listed on Provincetown's article because of its special relevance there. FEastman 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Mashpee, Massachusetts highlighted in the image of Cape Cod at the top of the article? FEastman 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there has been a Cape Cod Cannel, there has been a debate over what is Cape Cod and what is not. By definition, a man-made structure can not determine or redefine the physical characteristics of a cape of any kind. One needs to apply a more educated analysis of the facts instead of utilizing personal opinion, arbitrary colloquialisms and the like to truly define where Cape Cod’s boarders lie.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “Cape” is defined as a, “headland or promontory” (ORIGIN Old French cap, from Latin caput ‘head’). A cape is not to be confused with the word “Peninsula” which is defined as, “a long, narrow piece of land projecting out into a sea or lake”. Hence, a cape may include a peninsula, as “Cape” Cod does, but a peninsula is not a qualifier nor a requisite for a piece of land to be defined a cape.
In the case of Cape Cod, we not only have a distinctive headland that starts well west of the man-made Cape Cod Canal, we have the assistance of geology to define its location. Cape Cod is mainly composed of a sand base as a result of glacial formation (see Geology section for more detail). The geological differences between Cape Cod and other Southeastern Massachusetts communities are stark. Vegetation is a testament to this difference. Pitch Pine, Oak and other species of flora and fauna thrive on the Cape’s sandy promontory and differ greatly from the mainland’s plant life.
As a result of these facts, no encyclopedic definition or discussion of Cape Cod can be complete without including all of the Cape Cod headland and not simply the portion that is encapsulated by a convenient, man-made demarcation line. It is beyond dispute that the towns of Plymouth and Wareham are factually part of Cape Cod. Therefore, all discussion on Cape Cod as a whole in Wikipedia must include mention of these towns. To remove them from the definition and explanation of what and where Cape Cod is, as if they were some foreign world with no attachment, is baseless and clearly founded in unsupported opinion and conjecture.
It is therefore recommended that any edits to this article that fail to recognize all of Cape Cod by including the geographic region from Provincetown to Plymouth and Chatham to Wareham, be immediately struck and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftshore (talk • contribs)
My apologies, I did come in hard didn’t I? Nevertheless, I must strongly differ. Fact does not require consensus. Cape Cod, by definition does include Plymouth and Wareham. A consensus of the populous does not change that fact. The instillation of a man-made waterway does not change that fact.
While admittedly, the changes to this long held myth that Cape Cod begins at a canal were rather extensive, they are, nevertheless, correct. In an effort to make Wikipedia a medium of fact and not opinion, as the ground rules dictate, I really don’t have any choice but to make changes to any incorrect information, with or without a consensus. Truth demands it.
