Talk:Fairfield County, Connecticut/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Fairfield County, Connecticut from the page's creation until December 31st, 2010.

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Klan in Fairfield County
A paragraph added to that section seemed to suggest that simple numbers of Jews and Catholics in the county meant the Klan had lost power. I'm not sure the Klan actually ever had power -- the point of the paragraphs was simply that it existed in number in certain parts of the county. (It probably had some influence.) Since the Klan existed in white-minority counties in the South, simple numbers of Catholics and Jews in the county don't explain its withering away. (In fact, it seems to have been stronger where there were concentrations of Catholics -- Bridgeport and Stamford, for instance.) I rewrote the paragraph to reflect the lack of a strong connection between demographics and the Klan, but kept the information in because there's probably a weak one. That paragraph could probably use more rewriting, perhaps clarifying the connection.Noroton 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the Klan section be deleted?
--The History section is not neutrally reported. There is a lot of great history to report and you chose to only talk about the Klu Klux Klan, shedding a very bad image on Fairfield County.


 * So start reporting it, O Anonymous one. I happened to have information on the Klan around here that I got while reading a book and I put it in. Do your own contributing to that section. I did.Noroton 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a good compromise would be to expand the history section to discuss European immigration to the County generally, and include in that some of the Klan references. As it is, it's completely out of context and seems to be added simply to grind an axe. I'm not sure about Wikipedia policy on this, but it would seem to me that it is not appropriate to add a singular event or theme of events as a history section until a broader history section is drafted. In the meantime I suggest moving this section into its own article or eliminating it completely.


 * No.Noroton 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that's a great reason to contribute to an article--because you have a book lying around! The KKK's membership in Fairfield County is no more relevant to this article than membership in any organization. This article is about Fairfield County, not the KKK in Fairfield County, not the NRA in Fairfield County, etc. Because people belonged to an organization and had meetings 80 years ago doesn't amount to historical significance. As I said on the article's history page, it's trivia--boring trivia at that--moreover, it betrays laziness and a likely bias, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the person who inserted it. --69.177.53.82 04:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it belongs anywhere, besides in an article about the Klan itself, it would be History of Connecticut or Stamford, Connecticut. A county-level article from Connecticut is the wrong place for history. Jd2718 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It belongs where it is because it is not just Stamford based, as the section makes clear. Don't delete without consensus, which requires something more than your own opinion and that of an anonymous user. Wikipedia practice is to be inclusive when other guidelines are not violated. Noroton 23:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been reverted by five editors over the last year, and only you have defended the section. And Wikipedia is useful on inclusion/deletion. It is quite clear, however, that the section is unusual. There are no comparable sections in the other Connecticut county level articles, and in fact, no serious history in any of them at all. The edit you have been pushing is simply out of place. Jd2718 00:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How many of those editors were anonymous? Anonymous editors don't count in establishing consensus. Feel free to go to Third Opinion. What does "And Wikipedia is useful on inclusion/deletion" mean? Uniformity is explicitly *not* a Wikipedia standard, so whether or not there are history sections for the other counties is completely irrelevant. I'd welcome anyone filling out more of the history of Fairfield County, but it's a big project and might take a while. It seems to me that interesting, important, even arresting information is a good thing to have in the article. I've added similar information about the Klan in Stamford, Darien and elsewhere and found that many users, almost always anonymous -- I repeat: almost always anonymous -- try to delete it, either without explanation or with some anguished cry that the information is embarassing. I'm not giving in to people who want to whitewash history, so, consistent with working toward a reasonable consensus, I'm not going to give in. I'm more than willing to discuss this in a reasonable, polite way. I fail to see how deleting this section promotes Wikipedia's values and purpose. Noroton 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any editors who agree with you? I see none in this page's history. Further, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Those IPs are editors, too. I understand that you worked hard on creating the section, but if there is no agreement to keep it, then there is no agreement to keep it. Can you find anyone who thinks it belongs? Jd2718 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(redent) I didn't say anyone can't edit. I said anonymous editors don't create consensus, which you should have before deleting a section that doesn't otherwise violate Wikipedia official policy. Noroton 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Jd2718 has posted a request for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut. I've done the same at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights. Noroton 02:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (self edit to correct link Noroton 02:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

People whose Wikipedia contributions are identified by IP addresses have exactly the same status as anyone else. Noroton calls them anonymous--what hypocrisy! The only people around here who aren't anonymous are those who use real names. That makes you, Noroton, just as anonymous as I am. A handle is nothing but a fancy disguise. As for the Klan section, it's patently absurd. Norton won't let anyone delete it because he (or she) can't admit he (or she) is wrong. Debating this is a waste of people's time. Can we appeal to a higher authority to stop this person from hijacking and ruining the Fairfield County article? -69.177.252.42 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like it, but you can't help form a consensus if we do any kind of a vote. Go through the rigamarole of registering (takes minutes) and you do. Even if you don't, you can discuss the matter here either way, and that can contribute to a consensus by convincing ohers. Do you have a point to make about the subject at hand? I'll be happy to discuss the matter. Noroton 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one who has mentioned a vote is - you. The only one who seems to want to keep this section in this article is - you. There have been several editors who removed it, myself included. And only the author - you, seem to object. You are certainly right about lack of consensus. I will find a way to bring more editors here so that this can be made clearer. Jd2718 21:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anonymous editors don't count in establishing consensus." Please cite proof of this statement. As I said when I deleted the Klan section months ago, the Klan has had no role in shaping Fairfield County history. This is an issue of relevance, not free speech. That the Klan drew members in Fairfield County, had meetings, and then vanished doesn't have significance. It's nothing more than an artifact. There's been no effect arising from this artifact. History is about causes and effects. I stated furthermore that the frivolous nature of this contribution alienates people who would otherwise make valuable additions to the history section. You labeled my thoughtful comment vandalism and restored the Klan section, which aside from its irrelevance, has some cryptically rascist phrasing: "The Ku Klux Klan had a following among some in Fairfield County" suggests that the Klan deserved a following. That the Klan enjoyed "popularity" is an opinion. That it "wanted to keep down blacks, Jews and Catholics" implies that these groups were already down and inferior before the Klan targeted them. The section also contains this non-sequitur: "The county also has the largest number of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of any county in Connecticut, another group hated by the Klan." While all of these inclusions are odd and troubling, the real issue remains lack of historical relevance. -69.177.103.229 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very interesting and informative section. It's a bit over-reliant on a single source, but it's well written and informative. I personally would support it being expanded into its own article History of the Klu Klux Klan in Connecticut, I would like to see some stuff in there about the KKK march in East Windsor in the 80s at least- one county is too small a scope. You up to finding more sources and expanding it, Noroton? Thanks!&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(redent) Ultimately, I'd like to have a History of Fairfield County, Connecticut article and before that I'd like to expand the history section so this part of the article won't be overwhelming that section. Once we have a "history of" article, there won't be a need for this section here. It's going to take me months to get to it though. Noroton 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The disputed content is not about Fairfield County specifically, but about Connecticut. It is generally well-written and has a source, though, so I will move it to History of Connecticut. Cmprince 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently this is a contentious issue. The content is not about Fairfield County, it's about the state of Connecticut. Including a few cities and towns in FF County doesn't change that (certainly, New Haven, New Britain, and the state Republican party aren't pertinent). It has been moved to the History of Connecticut page, which seems like the appropriate place for it, as I am unaware of any significant history of the Klan in Fairfield County, as distinct from the Klan in the rest of the state. If there is a significant county history of the Klan, when it is written it should probably be forked off of this article to keep it balanced. Cmprince 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've tried just above to offer a compromise, but apparently Cmprince would rather edit war. Noroton 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per my opinion above that this material needs to be expanded towards statewide coverage, I agree with Cmprince moving the material to where it is more likely to get statewide attention. Having had a KKK march within two miles of my home up here in Ellington just twenty or so years ago, I think statewide coverage of this topic is essential. Here in the Fairfield County article the material won't be noticed by us in the rest of the state, but in the state history article it is more likely to be expanded upon.&mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(redent)The information was taken from a history of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, covering Fairfield County. The focus of the book and of the information on the Klan in the book was on Fairfield County. Some other information out there on the Klan in Connecticut should be included in the Connecticut section or it may focus the Connecticut history article unfairly on Fairfield County. Only information pertaining to the state as a whole or to the event in Stamford should be in the Connecticut history article, and anyone who wants the information in that article should do some work on making sure Fairfield County isn't overemphasized. That's my concern with having the information there. The information should be here as well, within an overall Fairfield County history section and eventually, History of Fairfield County article. Just how much more accomodating can I be? I'm not going to lay down and let Cmprince roll over me just as every anonymous clown has tried to do. Screw that. Noroton 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Noroton, I'm sorry you feel that way, but there is a clear consensus about this content and its appropriate location. Whatever the source material may have intended to be about, the copy that was written reflects Klan activity in the state. There is very little there that has anything to do with Fairfield County in particular.
 * Also, please stop with the attacks on anonymous contributors. It's not appropriate or welcome. Cmprince 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can the both of you please step back and take a breather on this? You'd think neither of you had heard of WP:3RR before. I'm surprised at both of you for this. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section myself. User:Jouster has pointed out WP:UNDUE (a part of WP:NPOV) to me, and it appears that it's on the side of people who want the section out. Although I think WP:UNDUE should apply to an article only over time, it's not worth fighting over. Here's the relevant part:


 * Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I'll add it back if we ever get a History of Fairfield County, Connecticut article (it will happen eventually). Noroton 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm going to keep it in mind myself anyway. I was thinking last night that an even broader article like History of racism in Connecticut would be a pretty good topic. I remember once seeing a Hartford newspaper from the 1950s (don't know if it was the Times or the Courant) where the classified jobs section had page after page saying "Christians Only" or "Whites Only". It wasn't all that long ago and I think that it would be well worth our time to educate people that racism wasn't just in the south. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind
Pay no attention to my 7/8/2006 edit of the article. Ufwuct 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't There More?
Didn't more stuff happen in Fairfield County's History besides the Ku Klux Klan?

Of course there's more. But people don't want to contribute because they're turned off by this Klan nonsense. Until the Klan section is deleted, serious contributors will stay away. As it stands now, we're liable to get another "history" section titled "Child Molesters in Fairfield County." 69.177.252.42 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Related projects
Please see the (recently created) WikiProject Connecticut/Fairfield County subproject. (I have found that page difficult to relocate lately).

For a suggested outline of County article content you might try looking at the WikiProject U.S. counties (although that project page has been tagged as "inactive", the content suggestions seem quite helpful). 67.86.73.252 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
I think we should make an effort to clean up this article as its becoming immense in size and very hard for people who are doing research to read. Lets brainstorm some ideas here on how we could clean this up. I think one thing is to over-time spread our the info of this article into afew separate articles and make a new template for Fairfield County-related articles such as the case with major cities such as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles. Post some ideas if anyone has any, cleaning up this article should deffinatly be a long term goal of those who are major contributors to this article. Kotosb (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sports
To the "sophisticate" whom is a rabid anti-Boston sports fan: a)	There are a number of Boston fans in the area. Boston is the closest major city with sports teams for a large segment of Connecticut. If the article said that there were more Boston fans than NYC fans you would have a case. To say that Boston's appeal stops at the Housatonic River is just silly. b)	Boston *is* the next largest sporting city to parts of Fairfield County. It’s closer or equidistant to Eastern & Northern FFLD County than Philadelphia. (Both being about 150 miles in distance.) c)	I am personally not a Boston fan. However, I’m also against propaganda, which is saying that there isn’t a sizable support base for Boston in FFLD county is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WE'RE NOT NEW ENGLANDERS. WE'RE NEW YORKERS. SUBURBAN NEW YORKERS. WE HAVE NO GODDAMN REASON TO ROOT FOR THE BOSTON TEAMS. Everyone who roots for Boston in Fairfield County is a TRAITOR to their local teams and should go back to Boston. Or Eastern CT which PRETENDS to be Boston.

Its 95% Yankees/Mets fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that lucid and well thought out point of debate, with your citation of the makeup of the sports fans in the county. I'm duly impressed by your single-handedly deciding that a piece of Connecticut is not part of New England, and that one can be a traitor to something that only exists as a real-estate construct. I formally propose a lock on this page so that this pointless editing can cease. Markvs88 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)