Talk:Connecticut/Archive 3

Background
Recently, I included a sentence that has been removed for rather reasonable possibilities. This is the sentence:

The reasons stated for remove were:

That was not a rather disagreeable statement, but I shall try to make a civil case against it to defer future judgement.

Presentation
According to the article on the event:

The murders later became tied to the state's debate on and process of repealing the death penalty. Both the vetoed 2009 and successful 2012 bill had provided special exceptions to allow for the execution for the eleven people on Death Row before the bill's passing. Two of those convicted were the perpetrators of the event.

Not only is that the case,

Conclusion
I feel in light in this evidence; that the original sentence, as may edited in the future, should be re-included in the article. If needed, I can present even more evidence of this tragedy's effect including (1) the state's continual news coverage of the perpetrators, (2) the work of the Petit Family Foundation, (3) national debate involving the state and the event, and (4) more if needed.

So, should the addition be included in the article?

― MJL -Talk-☖  21:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Added reflist-talk &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Connnecticut" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Connnecticut. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Connecticuit" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Connecticuit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

plane crash?
notable enough to mention? I came here befoore i added anything. Bugezremus (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A Boston person keeps changing the article to push CT with Boston when we are with NYC!!!
Why do I have to fight to make the RIGHT corrections on this article? I know the person who made it this way is from somewhere in the Boston area, as only they want to emphasize their region for CT. CT is in metro NYC - the largest in the USA. CT is not in metro Boston, and New England is NOT a market, metro area or government! The Coronavirus event should be enough to let you know that this is metro NYC and we have NOTHING to do with BOSTON! Boston sports teams are NOT local to ANY part of CT and they are not allowed to market in CT because this is not their territory.

The person who edits this article puts RI and MA as CT's borders BEFORE NY, and they put New England before NYC metro area, which they put as an afterthought, and in a way that makes it look as a fallacy. The reality is the reverse, as the ONLY connection with those states is this New England title, which really has no meaning. NY borders MOST of CT in FIVE directions! I know, because I am constantly straddling the border and going into nearby NJ. We in this Tri-state area hardly travel to the MA/RI regions. RI and MA only have one border each for CT. They should not be listed first. This article (as usual over the years...) is written in a way to pull CT away from NYC (only 10 minutes away) and to try and attach it to Boston (3 HOURS away), which means that this article is propaganda and not the truth.

I also work with local governments, and they ALWAYS view their politics from a NYC region point of view, never New England or Boston. Not only are we dealing with proximity, we are dealing with the largest market in the nation vs a market that we are not even a part of! Only people in the Boston sectors find this to be a problem. I think if the New England title were to drop from CT, then that would take away any debates on the matter. The state of CT is only in the NYC market and the Hartford market, so any other state is dismissed. So let's have this article reflect reality!

NY/NJ/CT Local News Channel

[http://www.news12.com More Local Tri-state news. No Boston, they have their own]

http://www.mta.info/mnr

Wikipedia is so biased it ain't funny. When I change it to reflect REALITY (with sources), they claim that reality is "not constructive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.201.248 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one editing the page but this comment made me want to reply. There is certainly a large connection between Connecticut and New York City/State but the fact that you live in that part Connecticut has your oriented in that direction.  A large portion of the state (area wise) is oriented more towards New England than New York.  Look at sports team allegiance or the fact that towns along the northern border are part of Massachusetts metro areas, including Boston.  How about the fact that I can't even pickup a New York City radio or television station but I can pickup several stations in Rhode Island and Massachusetts?  Those are facts that you can't change.  I don't know where you got some of your "facts" like New York City is 10 minutes from Connecticut or that Boston sports teams can't market here.  How can that be when I'm over 100 miles from New York City and several Connecticut stations carry Boston sports teams?  Why would the Red Sox and Patriots bring their championship trophies to Connecticut in celebrations if that was true?  I think you need to think about the state as a whole and not the individual corners.  Dbroer (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate venue to debate sports team allegiances and similar local trivia. Can you please be more specific on the actual article content that is under dispute here? —Dilidor (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bringing Connecticut to GA
I am interested in nominating this article for GA (it is my home state). Some work will definitely need to be done to bring the article up to GA standards before a nomination. I am interested in other editors' thoughts on what we can improve ahead of a potential GA nomination. I marked one section for expansion, but there are many other things to change I am sure. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022
"Change Stamford location to Fairfield County. Change New Haven location to New Haven County. Change Greenwich location to Fairfield County." 2603:3001:22A9:0:8D28:91E9:8A1E:4217 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I see nowhere in the article where incorrect locations are listed. Can you point me to where, exactly, you want this change made? casualdejekyll  04:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"American" ancestry
Should "American" be listed as one of the largest "European" ancestries in Connecticut? Certainly the assumption is that most people who choose to identify as "American" have European origins, but this isn't necessarily the case, and the option to select "American" ancestry on surveys is open to Euro and non-Euro Americans alike.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The reliable source cited uses that terminology. Should Wikipedia invent its own facts? TEDickey (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the point was to avoid a blatant contradiction, regardless of the perceived reputability of the source. 2601:182:4381:E60:E041:C55:C95D:B4A0 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth Data For Demographics Section
So, most of the other 50 States have theirs present. Can someone who makes tables put it in?

Here's 2020 to start, Table 6:

2603:7080:CB3F:5032:109A:B65A:CEC:982B (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Climate Section (Attn: "Icy")
For the map and description of the climate, I can only assume you are using the Koppen -3 Celsius definition as the division between C and D type climate, can you please clearly state that on your work? I am assuming since not even New London has surpassed the 0C on a trailing 30 year basis (very close on a trendline though). I am not saying it's misleading but many are used to referring to the 0 Celsius isotherm definition (which only reaches north into urban/coastal New York City at this time, but is moving north). It may seem misleading to some not to specify. See New London article climate section for the type of specificity I am referring to. -3C is also a very liberal definition. It may not hurt to include a map beneath it based on the 0C coldest month isotherm as well (some areas might be approaching this in coastal locations), both clearly labeled. The specificity would help people less familiar with the topic and would avoid criticism of "global warming alarmism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.181.14 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)