Talk:Seaport District

	United States portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Innovation district#Origins in the United States – Boston|Innovation District]] The anchor (#Origins in the United States – Boston) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

UUA[edit]

Has the world HQ of a major religion moved here from Beacon Hill, where it had been located for, oh, a century and a third?

Jimlue (talk)

Expansion[edit]

This is a great start, thank you for getting this going editors. I’m hoping to jump in to help shortly with some primary research I have going on simultaneously regarding the BRA. Garchy (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate-related flooding risks[edit]

Hello, I added a section on climate-related flood risks, which said

"A 2021 report by the First Street Foundation[2] found that all critical infrastructure, nearly all commercial buildings, and 90% of roads in the Seaport District are at risk of becoming inoperable by mid-century due to climate-related flooding.[3]"

Why was this addition removed? Surely it is one of the most important things to know about the Seaport District, and it is backed up with citations to primary research.

Plektix (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plektix: I think the way it was written, with the external link to the Foundation plus a citation to their report, made it look too promotional, but Viewmont Viking can correct me if it was something else. We should be aiming for secondary sources, like the Globe article, and not primary sources, like the report itself per WP:PSTS. I'll take a crack at reworking the information to make it align to WP standards because you are right, it is an important detail to include. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]