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.
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)
I think Cape Cod (geographical designation) and Barnstable County (administrative/political designation) cover the same land. Explicitly, all of mainland Massachusetts land separated by the canal, plus the part of Bourne on the other side of the canal, as well as some small nearby islands (not Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket, but anything connected by causeway, perhaps Monomoy Islands and other recently-adjacent land, etc.). I can't find anything that explains the 9 km² difference. Otis/Edwards is definitely part of Barnstable County, the National Seashore and the Elizabeth Islands are too large to account for the difference. Similarly, the recognized Mashpee Wampanoag land is too small (less than 100 acres). Can anyone identify land that is part of Cape Cod, but not Barnstable County? The difference could just be lower or higher tide; measurements are typically mean tide, but large errors are still possible. Also, Cape Cod is eroding at a fast rate, but I don't think it's that fast. I'm inclined to standardize on 1,024 km², as that's the 2000 census figure, which can be easily cited. Any objections? If not, I'll make the changes.
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
Hello all- Not a terribly important point, but you may want to take a look at the definitions of peninsulaand cape. -Eric(talk) 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Actually, there is another problem here with the size of the Cape that is a small problem with the article. Cape Cod is not necessarily synonymous or "coextensive" with Barnstable County. Two of the county's towns (Bourne and Sandwich) both include larger bits of land than nine square kilometers that are on the mainland side of the canal. Does the Cape really end at those two towns' mainland boundaries? Living in Eastham, I don't think so. As soon as I cross the bridge, I am off Cape. It doesn't matter that I'm still in Barnstable County for a minute. There are plenty of businesses in Plymouth and Wareham that call themselves Cape Cod, too. But out here we believe that the Canal defines the boundary of the Cape. This should make Cape Cod's total area less (not more) than the total area of Barnstable County.Peter 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture Question
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]
Picture Answer
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.
Advertising Links
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.
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.
The CapeCodToday site is an open directory and provides the most extensive info on Cape Cod. The CapeCodTravel site is the local leading tourism guide (print & web) and should also stay (it actually predates the chamber site). They are added for the benefit of WikiPedia visitors seeking relevant info; the "advertising" benefits are marginal as there are never more than a few referals a month from this source. Please leave them on the page. Thank You.BooRadley 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true these two sites may be open directories, as previously stated it is impossible to qualify any particlar directory as "the most extensive" or "the leading" source considering how many there are. Contributors from numerous other sites with similar listings would disagree, and choosing one because of contributor persistence, circulation numbers, smallest advertising revenues, or longevity opens a huge can of worms. Furthermore, these sites do not contribute directly to the content of the article, and so are not suitable as references either. I move to have all directory sites removed--Chamber included--if it's going to cause problems. OTHER COMMENTS WELCOME CapeCodEph 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depite this request for comments, the links are back, and I fear this is going to turn into an editing war, with links being removed on a daily basis without much discussion to support (or deny) the edits. There is also a dearth of interest in the discussion, so I'm going to solicit other editors' opinions for policy input. CapeCodEph 05:10, 6 May 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]
Why were History and Geography removed?
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]
Belongs iin Provincetown article
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]
Cape Cod’s Borders Based In Fact and Not Supposition
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)
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.) Tvoz|talk 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftcoast (talk • contribs)
No, at this point it would be called original research on Wikipedia (see WP:OR) because you provide no sources, no citations, no independent analysis that backs up your edits - just your own viewpoint, which has been called into question by several editors today. I appreciate your apology, but then you turn around and revert to your text again, disregarding the request to discuss. You might want to get more familiar with how Wikipedia works in general. For example: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Please read WP:V. Also, while you're at it, try WP:3RR which you are already in violation of. We are a community of editors who try to work together in creating an encyclopedia - edit warring is not the way we do it; when an editor makes a major change to a standing article that other editors object to, we go back to the original and that editor comes here to the talk page and presents a case, and there is a discussion, and one hopes some kind of consensus is reached. I work on many articles that are about far more contentious subjects than this one - I come to this one to relax! - and even so, there is a tacit understanding among editors that the way to go is to discuss, not bully our edits in. Continual reverting will lead to being blocked - but that is avoidable. There is no emergency here - Cape Cod is not going to implode because we continue to refer to it the way we have been doing. Let's talk about this and see what others think, and then see where we are. (And as a procedural matter, could you please sign your posts on talk pages - just insert 4 tildes like this:~~~~ at the end of your post and it will be signed and date stamped. Makes it easier for other editors to follow. Thanks.) Tvoz|talk 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. We can continue to discuss the topic. The stated purpose of this article is to articulate “the geographic landform” of Cape Cod. It is not about historical modifications to the geographic landform such as the addition of canals, highways and so forth. It is not about personal opinions or popular notions on where one would wish Cape Cod was.
Likewise, it is not the discussion and editing of a biography or historical event that may be left to some interpretation and therefore requires more citation and verification. This is about a geographic land form, plain and simple. There are very clear distinctions between an ocean and a lake, a mountain and a hill a continent and an island and the definition of a cape is very black and white as well.
In the initial discussion, “Cape Cod’s Boarders Based In Fact and Not Supposition” I laid out the exact reasons as to why Cape Cod does not start at the canal and is more than a peninsula. The discussion articulates clearly how a geographic cape is to be determined and what tests we use to establish that fact. It is completely free from opinion and relies strictly on reason which substantiates all and any corrections that have been made to the article.
On the other had, so far each rebuttal and repeated revert by those editors that claim the geographic landform is something other than what it is, are devoid of any substantiation outside of their opinion (and maybe that of others). Instead of clear, factual reason why the Oxford English Dictionary should change its definition of what a “Cape” is, so as to accommodate their quaint but incorrect viewpoints, they carry on about Wikipedia protocol (which they violate) and suggest that consensus, long-standing stability of an article and today’s notion are reasons not to make corrections. So far, not one of the editors that have engaged in constant reverting has given one lucid fact or reason for doing so.
It is a sad statement if simple observation of what fits into the correct definition of a cape represents original research as one editor has suggested. However, unless there is an editor that can intelligently debate the facts set forth in the initial discussion, “Cape Cod’s Boarders Based In Fact and Not Supposition”, there is no reason not to change this article to reflect the truth of this geographic landform.Leftshore 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article, Leftshore, is not "to articulate the geographic landform of Cape Cod". It is to provide facts about Cape Cod, whatever that is. What Cape Cod is is determined by what the people who use the name "Cape Cod" mean by it, regardless of "how a geographic cape is to be determined". In the usage of people who use the term "Cape Cod", to say that Plymouth and Wareham are part of Cape Cod is simply a lie. To put it in your terms, despite the name, Cape Cod is not a geographic cape; it's a peninsula. Likewise, the article on Lake Huron doesn't assume that Lake Michigan is part of Lake Huron, even though, according to "how a geographic [lake] is to be determined", it is part of the same lake. It's simply not part of the region that real people call "Lake Huron". The article does comment briefly on the fact that Michigan and Huron are hydrologically the same lake, but that simply doesn't affect what body of water the name "Lake Huron" refers to. It's the same with Cape Cod—Wareham is simply outside the region that has the name Cape Cod. AJD 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for starters, the first line on the article reads, “This article is about the geographic landform. For other uses, see Cape Cod (disambiguation)” and not “This article is about where many people 'feel' Cape Cod is”. So yes, for the record, this article is all about geographic landform and issues that relate to it.
Secondly, the idea that the name “Cape Cod” is a misnomer and had people really known what they were doing when they named it, they would have been called “Peninsula Cod” is absurd. To say “What Cape Cod is is determined by what the people who use the name "Cape Cod" mean by it” is like saying that because a consensus of people feel 2+2 is 8, it’s now right.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a private web blog. While it is open to all to edit, it is not immune from the truth. Otherwise, it has no value as a resource. It should be the goal of every editor to seek the actual truth as dictated by fact, even when they would much rather cling to the warm fuzzy ideas of their past understandings.
I am using the Oxford English Dictionary and God’s geography to determine the location of Cape Cod. Unfortunately, your argument is still based in opinion and conjecture and denies the simple facts. Leftshore 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I have changed the disambiguation line because it was misleading to say this article is about the geologic landform when in fact the article is about the area of Massachusetts known as Cape Cod - its history, geography, tourism, climate, sports, transportation, etc, etc. The disambiguation page shows these other uses for "Cape Cod":
Cape Cod (house), an architectural style.
Cape Cod (essay), an "excursion essay" written by Henry David Thoreau.
Cape Codder (drink), a cocktail made with cranberry juice and vodka.
Cape Cod Potato Chips, a brand of potato chips.
Clearly, this article is about Cape Cod the place, primarily as it is today, and the disambiguation line here was not reflective of the content of the article as the majority of edits rendered it.
(b)I have already explained to you about the distinction between "truth" and "verifiability" - it's an important distinction on Wikipedia, and you don't seem to get it. No one is arguing with you about the definition of the word "cape". No one is arguing whether or not it is true that geologically speaking, at one time Cape Cod was attached to the mainland and parts of what is now mainland were thought of as being a part of Cape Cod. But this article is quite clearly not just a history or geology of Cape Cod - read the article - it is not even primarily that. It is about Cape Cod as it is colloquially known. And that is everything on the other side of the bridges. It is misleading to our readers to pretend that "Cape Cod" includes Plymouth and Wareham. It does not, today, and has not in many, many years. We clearly identify the historic connection, but it's not what this article is about.
(c)With all due respect to both, neither the OED nor God have any relevance here. If this was actually an ongoing controversy in the real world, outside of your personal opinion and those of any other individuals who live in Wareham or Plymouth, then I would expect that there would be a wealth of citations available that discussed and debated this. Or there would be reliable sources that followed your thinking and insisted on considering those off-Cape towns as being on-Cape. Maps. Articles. Guidebooks. Scholarly articles. Books. Reliable sources. But you bring none of that to the table - you invoke your own opinion, and while I respect that you have that opinion, it remains just that. Your opinion. Original Research. Not allowed here. Please try to understand what we are telling you. Tvoz|talk 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there’s nothing like a good debate is there? I think I’ve discovered the challenge we are all facing here and it is grounded in science – Geography to be exact. On one side we are discussing Physical geography which focuses on geography as an earth science. It aims to understand the physical features of the Earth, its lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, pedosphere and global flora and fauna patterns (biosphere). It is provable by fact and is not influenced my opinion.
On the other hand we have Human geography and that is a branch of geography that focuses on the study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with various environments. It encompasses human, political, cultural, social, and economic aspects. While the major focus of human geography is not the physical landscape of the Earth (see physical geography), it is hardly possible to discuss human geography without referring to the physical landscape on which human activities are being played out, and environmental geography is emerging as a link between the two.
The reality is that, in light of these two spheres of Geography, both sides of this debate are correct and the reason we are failing to come to any common ground on the subject is because we are stuck on the geographical issues described above. Tvoz, I like your new header which reads, “This article is about the area of Massachusetts known as ‘Cape Cod’.” However, I’m going to propose we go a step beyond that. I am going to suggest that we have two articles on Cape Cod – one on Cape Cod’s Physical geography and one on Human geography. To do so would accurately describe both views and resolve this deliberation. It would also allow the user of Wikipedia to get a fuller understanding of the area we are all so clearly in love with – Cape Cod. What say ye?Leftshore 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the physical geography of Cape Cod is adequately covered in this article. AJD 13:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that but, if it were "adequately covered", I'm not sure we'd be having this discussionLeftshore 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
