Talk:Shanghai tunnels
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
See my comments at Talk:Portland, Oregon. In any case, I feel "Shanghai tunnels" is too broad a title for what this article intends to cover; why not "Underground Portland"? -- llywrch 02:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
most of the references i've found call them the 'portland underground,' with 'shanghai tunnels' being a nickname for them. i think it might be appropriate to rename the article as such, and reference the nickname in the intro. i may add that in soon myself, but article title i'll leave for now. --Jocke 01:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about this article be merged with Shanghaiing? After all this is just Portland's example of it. Also, I have moved the two other cities that were listed in Portland, Oregon here. --Jason McHuff 21:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
im not sure merging is in order. i don't have specific references to cite, but i know i've seen a travel channel show on the tunnels. shanghaiing is one thing. the tunnels an entirely different sort of thing. Yung Wei 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Myth
This entry is false and is commercial advisement for one person who does "tours". Portland was not known for shanghaiing and did not have tunnels and trapdoors. I recommend that this whole entry be deleted or changed to reflect the nature that shanghai tunnels in Portland is a myth and a commercial enterprise of one man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.237.166.109 (talk • contribs) 22:47, March 2, 2006 (UTC)
- FACT. My family goes back four generations in Portland, and has evidenced these tunnels and the practice. A 2nd great uncle was a ship's captain that chronicled this practice in Portland. Likewise, my grandfather recounted the practice long before the tours were ever set up. Infact, most of the tunnels have been destroyed through neighborhood development. The local newspaper printed a run of articles of this in the late 1970's/early 1980's also, long before the tours were set up. I have personally seen the tunnels prior to the tours, as the city had closed off entrances to the underground due to health and safety issues.
- This sounds to be as if the person questioning this wanted to run a tour but lost out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.60.10.107 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 10, 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sir, this last sentence discredits you pretty spectacularly. Also, please clearly mark and sign your comments on talk pages. -- pde 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Discredited or not, the thrust of "FACT"'s post is backed up a many many references. Falling back simply to WP:V and WP:CITE, the Portland Underground a.k.a The Shanghai Tunnels is pretty much precisely what the article says it is. There are thousands of Google hits to back it up. I could find nothing that dispelled it as a myth. I'm not saying there aren't any, but a search for "Portland Underground" "Shanghai tunnel" +myth came up with nothing relevent. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Chuck Palahniuk has a whole chapter of his travelguide to Portland dedicated to the underground tunnels. Perhaps before you muck up the page with clean up banners you should do a little research. People in my college classes have written research papers on the tunnels, not to mention the myriad of newspaper articles over the years. I mean, you can actually walk around in the damn things! Ask anybody in Portland, or better yet see them for yourself! How much more un-mythical does a structure need to be to get your seal of approval? I nominate the banners be removed. Ccj 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Alright, I removed the banners, since it seems obvious to everybody except one person that the structures do in fact exist. Ccj 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- They most definitely exist. In fact I work in a building in Old Town with one that enters our basement. There is a large network of them underneath Portland. It's no myth. 67.40.255.9 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)DPM
-
-
-
[edit] Title change?
The title would more appropriately describe various tunnels in Shanghai, rather than tunnels in Portland. Title change to Shanghai tunnels (Oregon)? --Sumple (Talk) 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, this is unnecessary as there is no specific "Shanghai tunnels" in Shanghai that would create an ambiguity.--Pharos 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link to Palahniuk and tours
The mention of Palahniuk was removed from the article by the person who insisted the underground wasn't real. Can we put it back? It seems pretty straightforward to me--noted author writes chapter on the tunnels, ergo, this gets mentioned in the article about them. I did edit the article to mention the group that runs the tours, which appears to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit, one that even teaches classes at PSU. This seems pretty legit, and not a commercial venture, so I don't see why we couldn't replace the link to the page about the tours. (cgsmthood.com) (I also just ran across these other, definitely commericial, underground tours: [1].) We have plenty of articles about tourist trap-type things, so even if this one person's get-rich-quick scheme (one that happens to be backed up with history), I don't see why there shouldn't be an article on it with the appropriate links. (Witness Seattle Underground). Katr67 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More and better sources?
If the idea of "Shanghai tunnels" rests on more than just imaginative speculation and oral history regarding these tunnels' purposes, could we please have a few authoritative historical references, ideally with their own citations and bibliographies, referenced? Not to impune the Cascade Geographical Society, but their web entry reads more like marketing for the tours they offer than serious scholarship. --ScottMainwaring 06:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
