Talk:Connecticut

Question of Pronunciation

According to the wiki entry, "Connecticut (pronounced /kəˈnɛtɪkət/; the second C is silent)" is the correct way to say the name of the state. However, I do pronounce the second 'C' in Connecticut, although the 'T' is obviously stressed. Maybe this is just because my family is filled with New Yorkers, but I thought I might as well bring it up. --68.109.116.107 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Most people seem to say Conn-et-i-cut, not Connect-i-cut. --Zagsa 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From natives, the second C is usually silent. However, the vowels seem off. I hear the pattern schwa - short e - scwha - short i, not the schwa - short e - short i - chwa that is represented in /kəˈnɛtɪkət/ Further, I get glottal stops for both T's, and I do not recall hearing them commonly pronounced as 't.' Comments? I wish I knew IPA. Here's my best try: /kəˈnɛʔəkiʔ/ Jd2718 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people actually pronounce it Conn-en-i-cut, which is wrong, but everyone understands it nonetheless George kaplan 00:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of us natives pronounce it kin-EH-ti-kit. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you listen carefully as you speak you may find that you are replacing either the first "t" or both "t"s with a non-T sound. You may actually pronounce the "t"s as "T", but that would place you in the minority in the state. Jd2718 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As a native myself, I would say that it is usuallt pronounced Co-net-i-cut Merry Christmas- Kaspazes 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Departments of Connecticut Government

Apparently include a department of "mental retardation" according to the article. Unless I'm hilariously mistaken, no should object to my deletion of it.

--Dude, do not be stupid. Why don't you google first? There is a Department of Mental Retardation in CT, [[1]].

They do actually have such a department, though the name is due to change tomorrow, as of this writing. Also, please sign your posts with a time and date stamp.--65.16.61.35 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The name has still not been changed as of 1/31/07, although the General Assembly may take the issue up this session. 71.235.204.17 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Import Cities and Towns

What was the criteria for picking these? Was there a criteria? Important suburbs is nearly an oxymoron, and since when is Storrs an urban area?

Laws and Government Trimmed... Why?

Here is an older version of the Laws and Government section, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connecticut&oldid=25943090. An overview of Connecticut's judicial and legislative branches has been removed from it. It seems like a rather serious omission to remove text about two of the three branches of government.

---

The WikiProject U.S. States standards might help.

-- Right. Facts about which party holds the majority in the houses are fairly essential. The informational value of the section in its current state is quite low. Should we have a separate Wikipedia page, Connecticut Government?

---

Could you provide a citation for the New Jersey per capita income passing that of Connecticut? While more recent figures may differ, the 2000 census results are pretty static after a certain point. -- John Owens 22:08 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

This is a little late, but... CT has the highest income per capita; New Jersey has the highest income per family. Gzuckier 01:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Could it be explained why there are no county seats in Connecticut? -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:08 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finding a why for this has proven to be pretty difficult. Apparently the General Assembly abolished County government entirely effective 1 October 1960 ([2], [3]). Only one article I've found has had more than a sentence or two about it ([4]), and it seems to suggest that the county governments just added an extra layer of red tape and bureaucracy unnecessary for such a small state. - Plutor 13:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taftville?

Not sure this is the right place, but does anybody know why there is no article on Taftville CT, and does anybody know enough to write at least a stub? Its absence is rather surprising since even the tiniest US towns seem to have at least an automated entry, and Taftville seems to claim pop 250,000+. I hesitate to write an article myself because I know nothing about CT - I was just editing a bio of somebody (Saunders Mac Lane) who was born there.... Cambyses 19:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Based on some Googling, it looks like Taftville is a village inside Norwich, but it apparently isn't recognized by the census. The ZIP Code for the village is 06380, and that zip code has a population of 2,905 according to the 2000 Census. Where did you get your 250K+ number? That would make it twice the size of Bridgeport, the largest city in the state! - Plutor 14:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cheers for the info. The 250K number came from [5] but I'm quite prepared to believe it is nonsense. Apart from anything else, that makes me feel justified instead of lazy for not trying to write an article myself. ;-) Best wishes, Cambyses 15:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aha, I think that 250k number is actually the population of New London County (259,088 according to the 2000 census). Looking around on that site, whoever made those pages has the county populations on every page. Yech. We should have a page for Taftville, Connecticut, though, just as we do for other villages like Bantam. - Plutor 13:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's an "informal entry" for Taftville (I live nearby and have been there several times): There's probably no entry for it because it's unincorporated. It's a small village in the city of Norwich that appears to once have been a mill town. But like other former mill settlements in the area (Baltic, Jewett City, Greenville, etc.) the people there are among the poorest in the state. It's still got character, with the old mill on the east side of Route 97 and some neat houses along the hilly streets (especially the one with all the Jesus statues). Not much else here other than a fire station and post office. Route 169, a state scenic road and now a National Scenic Byway, passes through Taftville.

Perhaps you should create a new entry for Taftville using the information above. You can modify it before saving or allow others to make it more "formal". But your writing seems to include good information, and I think it would make a good start for the Taftville article.

Acegikmo1 18:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone else not like the map shown here? The choice of displayed cities in particular is what's bothering me. How in this world do Suffield, Ellington, and Vernon make the cut, but places like Stamford, New Britain, Norwich, Manchester, Storrs, and Norwalk get ignored? Shouldn't we choose one that shows major and important cities and towns, and not seemingly random ones?

Also, the map itself isn't very visually appealing. If it's agreed that we don't like this one, can anyone recommend a better choice? Beginning

I totally agree. Terrible map. I think the maps on nationalatlas.gov are public domain. There's a decent one of CT there. If noone objects, I'll replace the map with the one from nationalatlas.gov in a few days. Queson 18:37, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Re: County Seats

My understanding is that there technically are still county seats in Connecticut, though now they are more or less "ceremonial". According to the World Almanac, each county does have a county seat:

• Fairfield: Bridgeport (largest city in CT)
• Hartford: Hartford (capital, largest city in county)
• Litchfield: Torrington (only city in county; also has largest population)
• Middlesex: Middletown (only city in county)
• New Haven: New Haven (largest city in county, important city in state)
• New London: New London (county's namesake and important city; I've also heard the seat is/was Norwich)
• Tolland: Rockville (part of the town of Vernon, Rockville is one of largest settlements in county; historically important)
• Windham: Putnam (not sure why; Danielson is larger)

---

I have been told that New London County had two seats, New London and Norwich. Sessions of the County Court (now Superior Court) alternated between the Norwich and New London courthouses. Given the geography and population distribution in the region, this would have made sense in the days before motor highways, &c. I haven't a formal source on the two-seat arrangement, but one shouldn't be too hard to find.

--OWL ^(Talk) 03:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut State University System

Could the Central, Eastern, Western and Southern Connecticut State Universities all be organized under the heading of the Connecticut State University System? [6] I saw this done for Alaska.

Norwich?

Norwich is listed in the >100,000 column, but the Norwich page says it has a population of 36,117. They can't both be right. --RoySmith 03:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not a part of New England?

A new user has been editing all New England / New York Area and Connectict entries recently in an effort to differenciate Connecticut from New England. I am not from this area, so I have no idea; but a Google search seems to indicate that Connecticut is and always was considered part of a region called "New England". Can someone verify some of this for me?

• N0gar's contributions
• 64.252.121.69
• 66.159.136.32

Um, as a native New Havener and Connecticut Yankee, I'd say it's off-base for anyone to claim CT is not part of New England. A simple look at our history of colonization from Massachusetts, our compact during the war of 1812 and the proto-secessionist movement (based in Hartford), and our accents reveal us to be firmly New Englander in culture and geography. The influence from NY is indeed strong, esp in Fairfield County, but being "New Englander" involves more than rooting for a sports team or commuting to only New England cities for work. A simple ride on the Metro-North from NYC to New Haven will quickly reveal the CLEAR distinctions in geography, architecture, culture and demography that distinguish New York and the Mid-Atlantic region from New England, and I have to wonder why someone would be so adamant in trying to separate CT from its fellow New Englanders in the wikipedia; I can't even fathom what strange agenda motivates it. (Sol. v. Oranje)

>If you are indeed a native New Havener(which I doubt by your statements), then you cannot possibly believe that CT (the 203 part) is one and the same and has ANYTHING in common with New England. I could care less about the history. It is history, but no longer a social fact. That history came ONLY because the British had yet to conquer NY, otherwise it too would have been called New England. Speaking of which. VERMONT was once a part of New York as was PA. MA was one with Maine and even Canada!

"Our accents reveal us to be firmly New Englander in culture and geography." Are you crazy? New England people (as I learned from watching Cops) sound just like Boston people. We DO NOT sound like them at all. While a NYC accent is not firm either, our culture, business, transportation, weather, media, EVERYTHING is connected to NY. New England is no where to be found except from those who work for certain groups trying to "New Engalndize" CT.

You said it yourself, take a ride on Metro-North. That alone shows you where we stand as it is called METRO(as in metropolitan. As in city)-North (as in NORTH of the city) for a reason. NYPD patrol the stations, not New England PD! If ANYONE from ANY city in the world goes to NYC, you see the geography change. Why is 95S the most travelled road? How come Fairfield County is the most populous? Because it is in New England, or because it is near NYC, the premiere city in the US? How come Whindham County is the least populous when it is the CT county closest to the Boston area? How come Hartford TV stations want to move to New Haven? How come people from MA and RI continue to ride through CT looking to go to NYC? How come these same people end up trying to move here? How come they realize that this IS NOT Red SOx nation when they come here? I could go on and on. If you are indeed from the 203, then these are things I don't need to tell you. No native person from the 203 would even utter the words New England to describe the state. I even challenged CT stations to do a story on this and they did not decline, but just insisted their view. The bottom line is that as has long been said,"New York ends at the "Q" Bridge and then that is where New England begins."

It is pretty hard to think of ourselves as New Englanders when we get NYC, TV, radio,newspapers, police, transportation and people coming back and forth! We NONE of that from Boston. There has been an attempt by COmcast Cable to "New Englandize" their CT areas which is being challenged. Boston is a city that we think of when we think of Baltimore. We have heard of it and know what state it is in, but it is far away and we know nothing of it. Face it buddy, New England and CT don't and have not mixed since colonial times. If you want New England, go to Boston, MA or RI and keep it to yourselves. I live in the NY, NJ, CT Tri-State area. This is what I am all too familiar with just like most people in the 203 who come from NY or who's people come from NY. Hardly anyone I know of knows anyone from MA or has gone there but more than a few times, while mostly everyone knows NYC like we know our homes! How many New Englanders know that? New Englanders know Boston, we don't.

This is a moderately surreal discussion for a couple of reasons. The first is your bizarre claim that CT is under seige from "New Englandizers" -- as if this is some dark political movement going against history when CT has always been a part of New England since its founding. The second is your repeated conflation of "the 203" (New Haven & Fairfield counties) with the entire state of Connecticut; since "the 203", in your view, is more a part of metro-NY than New England, the state of CT suddenly must conform to New Haven and Fairfield counties' NY-centric orientation despite 6 other CT counties not being part of "the 203". There also seems to be A LOT of animosity on your part against Boston, Hartford, and any location east or north of the Q Bridge, which is not befitting Wikipedia standards of NPOV. I still don't know whether to even take this seriously as a lot of your anger and motivation seems wrapped up in a fanatic obsession with de-linking CT from New England/Boston, specifically the Red Sox, which strikes me as petty and unserious. Your questioning of where I was even born is out of place regarding an issue like this, but I was born in New Haven and grew up in Orange (take a look at my username, dude) -- good enough for ya?

Perhaps your argument could perhaps become a new page on "Connecticut As Split Between New England and New York Cultural Regions" or somesuch; but seriously, Connecticut, as a state, is one of the six New England states recognized since colonial times -- just deal with it. We were founded by people from Massachusetts, Thomas Hooker who settled Hartford and Theophilus Eaton who settled New Haven. We almost seceded from the US during the early 1800s with the other New England states. Our cuisine is seafood-based, with immigrant influences such as Italian and Portuguese -- a cuisine which originated in southern New England (New London-Providence-New Bedford). Our architecture follows the New England colonial tradition, not the New York Federalist style. There are so many examples of our New England roots that it's surreal to even have to type them out -- in short, there is no effort to "New Englandize" CT because CT has always been part of New England. One must also note that being part of New England in no way is a hegemonic exclusive status that forbids us from having business, cultural, or other connections with areas outside of New England; various parts of New England interact closely with regions outside of it. "The 203" indeed does have many dealings with NYC, as Vermont does with Quebec and Maine with New Brunswick -- but none of these interactions take away "New England" status.

You argument that "New Englanders" only know Boston and true "203ers" only know NYC is just utterly strange, dude.

To finish: A couple of erratic corrections on your posts -- 1) Metro-North stations are patrolled not by the NYPD but by MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) Police, which are distinct agencies, 2) When driving on 95-S to NYC, did you ever bother to read the road-signs on the way North again? If so, notice the GIGANTIC roadsigns reading "I-95 N: NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY"? Why would NY name 95N after New England if CT was not part of it?, 3) Things like transportation access and industrial development account for Windham and Tolland counties' lower rate of population growth -- as does not being on the coast. The Quiet Corner's existence is more proof of the value of riverways and valleys as communication and transportation routes than some argument against CT's New England status. Sol. v. Oranje

>Nice reply. Your reply is why this debate will continue and will always be an issue in CT. You asked why should the rest of the state comply with the 203, but why should the 203(the wealthiest and most famous part of the state) comply with the 860? Why can't the 203 be what it is - the tri-state and the 860 preech and keep the New England to themselves and their Boston masters.

Yes, I probably am biased against Boston. It is THEIR Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics and Bruins, not ours. When once thinks of New England, Boston comes to mind first, then MA and whatever else after. CT is not in the Boston area and simply because it is called New England does not mean that we somehow must have some loyalty to a city that most never see on the regular, unlike NYC that we know like that back of our hand. It is Boston that gets sports teams and anything else worth while because it is a fairly large city by "New England" standards. No other NE state will ever get s sports team. The other states (which we do not border of have anything in common with)have nothing happening there and must be tied to Boston for survival. CT however, has a local TV market that is LARGER than Boston's! We have Hartford radio stations that dominate NYS, (860) CT and those part of NE, not Boston. If you are in New Haven, you cannot possibly tell me that you have more in common with Boston than NYC. I think channel 8 has gotten into your brain.

Now, you do know that CT used to own Westchester County? You did know that New Haven used to be a colony which inlcuded Long Island? This is in the colonial times also. It is no longer colonial times. New England simply translates into Boston. Boston is no where around the 203, but the #1 city in America is, and it's not Boston. Face facts and stop acting as if New England is some special secret society. If CT is NE, then Boston will always rule. CT stands alone in my book. They need us, but we do not need them. MA wants our connections to NYC. We don't want their connections to their state. Who cares about history? The Dutch had lands too, but is NY trying to make that connection? New England was a colonial term. Now it is only used to prompt up Boston's stature and control our state. Fools who buy into this, will usually find themselves doing Boston's bidding.

Houston is in the south, but does Miami have to be called the Houston area because of it? ALL states have different regions to them. Trouble comes when one region does not respect another and wants the whole state to take on their identity. I am not saying and I have never said that all of CT should not be NE, but the 203 is indeed the NYC area. NYC is this regions lifeline. It should be noted that Boston is no part of CT's lifeline.

It's surprising to find such a localized issue writ large on an internet stage, but suffice it to say, none of what you just said in any way renders CT not part of New England, and no, I'm not acting on "Boston's bidding" when I say that. Yes, I know New Haven was a separate colony from Hartford/CT, and yes, this is where much of your conflict lies -- but you know what, take it up with the English crown for forcing the union between CT and New Haven in the 1600s if you feel that strongly about it. New Haven and CT were merged, and also collectivized into the general Province of New England, not New York. And yes, NY does maintain Dutch connections -- have you bothered to dig into that city and state's culture a bit? NYC's maritime status, placenames, and cosmopolitan status is very much tied to the Dutch influence, as are whole regions of the Hudson and Mohawk valleys. History matters.

In the meantime, let's deal with reality -- CT is part of New England, not some vague "Northeast" region as you want to rewrite the CT page to. And no, being part of New England doesn't mean being subserviant to some alledged Bostonian menace; this is 2005, dude, stop with the weird intra-regional separatist paranoia. One can clearly state CT is part of New England without agreeing that Boston is the be-all, end-all of world cities. As for sports teams -- really, come on, that is not a very significant indicator of true importance. Besides which, the Patriots are located halfway between Boston and Providence (the second largest New England city) and Hartford used to have the Whalers, meaning not everything is Boston-centric to begin with.

I'm not sure what else to say other than you should probably move to Cos Cob if you really want to feel the NY vibe and stay in CT. CT is a complex place that most people think of as one thing, but it is in fact a many-layered state with a lot of different cultures overlapping -- from NY's influence, to Boston/New England's, to Canada's, to immigrants', and to our own native mix. We are part of New England and can at the same time express NY sides to our culture if we so choose, but to try and eliminate ourselves from New England regional mentions in a wikipedia is bizarre and not factual. As someone from New Haven, I feel at home both in Boston and NYC, and know both equally well. At the same time, I am proud of being from CT and also know that we are part of New England and not some reduced lame suburban strip of NYC like much of NJ and Long Island has become. I will continue to revert the CT article to include mention of CT's New England status, period. Sol. v. Oranje 05:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

>You had mentioned that BOTH sides should be told on this site, but yet you only want to tell one side. Why is that? Like I wrote, you can have your New England. If you want New England, move to Hartford and you can have it. The fact remains that the 203 is the NYC area and New England is no only an old region named for invaders, but it no longer has any meaning except to mean Boston and it's territories.

You keep going back into history, I am talking about TODAY, SOCIALLY. People in the 203 and great part of the rest of CT don't really feel "New Engalndly" of having anything in common with those states. I think that you are a NY hater and your people MUST have come from those NE states. That is the only excuse. I even took and continue to take NBC 30's Brad Field to task about calling our weather "Southern New England's" weather. He gave me the same arguement that you give. Once I dug deeper, I realized that this guy is from RI! It also backs my point up that those New Englanders need us, we don't need them. They want to force THEIR New England and Boston whorshipping states that can not stand on their own on us!

I always said that they should keep NE to themselves as you should. There are two parts to the state, the NYC part and the NE part. Don't force on part on the other. Just because CT was an historical NE state, does not mean that somehow we are to be pulled away from NY. New England is not some place where you can identify it based on a look or culture. Washington DC and PA look more "New Englandy" than CT or even NE itself! You hardly see and NE look in CT. As soon as I cross the border into RI only do I see it.

Now back to 'both sides.' It is clear that you and I will continue to do battle on this. As you change the articles to suit YOUR view, I will change it to suit reality in the present-day. I will continue to chage it as will you. You claim that you wanted to be fair, but it IS NOT fair to call CT NE period. I changed it to the northeast, which is not vague, it is a FACT. NE is not a separate country, it is in the northeastern US right? The mid-Atlantic is no region as PA does not even hav an Atlantic coastline! I believe what I write in the articles are fair and balanced, not ideal like yours. When you speak of CT in New England terms, that gives everyone else the wrong impression about our state. You calim that you don't want to be see as a suburb of NYC, but how about a subordinate to Boston and MA? What's the difference? NYC is closer to CT than Boston is to ANY part of CT - that is a stone cold fact! NYS borders more CT that NE does (that sound is a border too). Once you New Englanders stop coming to our state trying to tell us who we are, the better oof we and yourselves will be.

In the meantime, I will continue to edit the pages. I can keep it up for 20 years if I have to. You clearly DO NOT want to put in or allow both points of view, just your own.

CT is part of New England, period. CT being part of New England in no way makes it "subordinate" to Boston or MA -- each New England state is valid on its own terms. Your personal attacks on where "my people" come from are strange and uncalled for; besides which my family is not from any other New England state and my father's side has lived in "the 203" since the British burned down Fairfield. You clearly have an inordinate interest in this issue if you're attacking local weathermen for calling CT weather "Southern New England Weather" -- I guess you weren't pleased with Southern New England Telephone when it existed either (and was based out of New Haven)? Meanwhile, your larger conspiracy theories about New Englandist oppression of CT are amusing, but deeply strange and again against wikipedia's NPOV. Eventually, after enough changes and reverts, the CT article will be locked, which is unfortunate for others who wish to add material on the state. To forestall that possibility, I suggest a vote as Gzuckier has done to determine the fate of the article's stance -- I vote for CT being part of New England. Sol. v. Oranje 23:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I vote KEEP CT in New England. Gzuckier 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

strong keep I grew up in CT and have always considered it a quintessential part of New England. Is this some bizarre trolling? Brighterorange 9 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

How is this even a vote? We've (That's right, we. I've lived outside of Hartford for my entire life) been considered part of New England for nigh on four hundred years, have similar terrain to the rest of the region, talk in a similar fashion and seem to agree with them on many political issues, as well. Besides all that, is it really going to hurt anyone if we're under the aegis of New England, as we have always been? I mean, talking to my friends across the pond, New Englanders are the only Americans they really like. =P --68.109.116.107 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand how this debate is even valid. How does an area code make you any less a part of Connecticut? "The 203" isn't any less CT than the 860 area code, and it baffles me that people insist on making this seperation. Why do we get NYC television stations in the 203? Uh, well could it be because it's cheaper to live in Woodbridge than in NYC or around it? Noo, that couldn't be it! People can't stop to think about why NYC seems to "encroach" upon the south western corner of the state. Gasp, it couldn't be because the people who grew up in New York and still work there MOVED to Connecticut because IT'S CHEAPER. We may have the highest per capita income, but that's because a large ammount of people who work in NYC--and are quite successful--move to places like Greenich to get away from hub and bustle of the city. Plain and simple. And all of this crap about sports teams-- Excuse me, CT doens't have any professional sports team. I see and equal concentation of Boston, Mets and Yankee fans, thank you very much. Being a life-long resident of the "203" Waterbury region, I can say that no one up here considers us anything other than New Englanders. I have never heard this inane bull about the "203" being a NYC area EVER. Not even by anyone in New Haven. It's ridiculous.

>I just can't help laughing while reading this thread. I spent most of my life growing up in Fairfield and Shelton, and I've been to New York City and Long Island enough times to know that there's still quite a difference between Connecticut and the NYC area, regardless of the number of New Yorkers that are moving further up the "Gold Coast" to escape the city. Aside from those who have jobs in New York, many southwest Connecticut residents spend the vast majority of their time in Connecticut. The architecture and politics of Connecticut is unique to those of New York, and Connecticut distinguishes itself from New York by opposing numerous projects to span Long Island Sound with bridges, tunnels, pipelines and cables, all supported by New York. And Connecticut people are smart enough to not let a scumbag like Hillary "Carpetbagger" Clinton...who has no prior ties to New York...come into our state and take it over. ~wxstorm

Just a couple thoughts... I am from Bristol, CT and my best friend moved to New York a couple years ago. She was telling me how their slangs are entirely different over there. For instance, try to order a "grinder" in NY and see the funny looks you'll get. Or ask someone where the "package store" is. They won't know what the hell you're talking about. But if you go to Boston they'll understand you. Why? Because those are their slangs! So even if we don't have the accent, we talk very similar to the way they talk in Boston. Oh yeah, I have lived in Connecticut since my birth in 1985 and I have NEVER heard of the region covered by the area code 203 referred to as "the 203." That area code was the area code for the whole state until 5 or so years ago. Maybe this is because I live in Hartford County which uses the area code 860, but I'm pretty sure that if this is a common term then I would have heard it before now. Also, in 22 years I can count on one hand all of the times I've been to NYC. Either 4 or 5 times in my life. Connecticut has always been and always will be a part of New England. Karabeara126 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut is in New England, with differences

CT is in New England, but it is like a sub-region to itself now. While Fairfield and New Haven counties are in the tri-state area, the rest of the state is frimly New England. But as the state has gotten more suburban, it has more in common with New Jersey. Both are fimly suburban, with poor cities that have more less control of the state and aren't that large in numbers(Bridgeport has 139,000, while Newark has 273,000). They also have economies tied to regions outside them (New York City). Connecticut still hasn't been as suburban as New Jersey and still has large regions that are rural. But Connecticut has more in common with it than Massachusetts except for location which is most important.

CONNECTICUT IS VERY MUCH NEW ENGLAND!!

An interesting note is that both CT and NJ are the richest states in the country but both have some of the most poorest cities in the country too.

I live in the 203 area code and I can say with great pride: I am a New Englander and a Nutmegger too. This guy above is basing his argument solely on his sports allegiance to the NY Yankees. Isn't that silly? It seems that there may be a personal issue there - somehow needing to validate that allegiance by separating himself from his New England roots. Unfortunately for him - that's impossible. Connecticut is and always has been a New England state.

New England is a region. It includes six states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. If Connecticut isn't part of New England than please do whatever paperwork needs to be done to change the names of the following cities/towns Norwich, Groton, and New London. Also please do something to get rename the Thames River Seeing as it's namesake, the River Thames runs through the middle of London as it did in New London during colonial times. See also, New England Confederation As for poor cities, Connecticut is a great place for towns, but a bad place for cities. As for being different from the rest of New England, I think the only difference is that it's easier to get to NYC than anywhere else in the region and that's why people go there over Boston, which closes at 7. --Lekogm 23:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The original question

"I am not from this area, so I have no idea; but a Google search seems to indicate that Connecticut is and always was considered part of a region called "New England". Can someone verify some of this for me?"

The complete and direct answer:

Yes it is, by definition.Loodog 17:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion percentages

There have been several recent changes to the percentages of religions in the state. I would be much more comfortable with these (sometimes substantial) edits if they cited the source, which should be very easy for a column of numbers! (It's not like the editors are doing the census themselves!) Brighterorange 17:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Religion percentages comments

The non-religious percentage of 18 percent and Jewish percentages seems wrong and more of POV. The Jewish population in CT in one of the highest in percentages in the country and the pecentage of non-religious people at 18 percent has been raised significantly from 6 to 9 to 13 to now 18 percent.

history work in progress

it's getting clear that my additions here are going to mean that lots of this has to be moved to the CT history page, which i will do when i finish. Gzuckier 17:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Large unnoticed blanking

Someone on helpdesk-l has alerted us that this edit removed a lot of material; unfortunately it was never noticed, so a lot of this was never re-added. See this diff for the "current" state of the artilce. Sigh... Alphax ^τεχ 16:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

...and now I've fixed it. Glad to see that someone noticed this! Alphax ^τεχ 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks!! — brighterorange (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Milford & Woodmont

It has always been my impression that the City of Groton, though incorporated, is the only City in Connecticut that is still a subsection of a Town and not part of a merged City and Town government, putting the City in a class with most of the Boroughs in the state, including Jewett City as part of Griswold and Bantam as part of Litchfield. Just as in Jewett City and Bantam, the City of Groton is not itself considered one of Connecticut's municipalities. Other than Groton, the other Cities in Connecticut are generally considered cities by themselves, and while the Towns technically still exist (Town of Hartford, Town of New Haven, etc.) they are more or less effectively dissolved into the Cities and most people probably don't even know they do still exist.

In December 2005 user Bcorr edited the article on Milford to state that it is not a consolidated City/Town government, and that Woodmont is still part of the Town of Milford. I am not editing the article at this time, but I don't know if this is entirely accurate. Looking on Milford's webpage, there is no indication of any Town departments as separate from the City departments. Woodmont is technically a part of Milford, and it is likely too small in land area and population for the Borough to entirely govern itself; therefore, it is fair to assume that at least some (if not most) services are provided by the City of Milford, as there is no Town per se, at least so far as departments go. If this were not the case, would it not be incorporated as its own municipality?

If Woodmont is not part of the City, or not considered to be part of the City and administered as part of the City, that would put Milford in the same class as Groton, except that in this case, the City would have about 90% (or more) of the Town's land. In the Town of Groton, the City only has about 20% (rough estimate) of the Town's land. Milford would still have an identifiable Town. The City of Groton is still strongly associated with the Town; even on I-95, the sign says Groton TOWN line. In Milford, however, the signs say Milford CITY line. Therefore, I am suggesting that perhaps all of Milford, including Woodmont, is a consolidated City, and it is misleading to put in the same class as Groton on the Connecticut page. If Woodmont is technically still only part of the Town, then it should be noted that the City of Milford has more or less completely absorbed the Town, as it provides services to the Borough. FreshTurkeySandwich 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a separate municipality from the city, although many of its services are provided by the city. See the unofficial website for the borough at www.woodmontday.org/ -- BCorr|Брайен 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; Woodmont is not considered one of Connecticut's 169 municipalities. A list of the municipalities on the State of Connecticut's website (and many others; for an example, see [[7]]) does not include Woodmont on the list. Naugatuck is the only Borough in the state that is considered one of Connecticut's 169 municipalities; the others are all under their respective towns. The point is not so much about Woodmont, however, as it is Milford; what I am trying to convey is that Milford is a consolidated City, with a merged City-Town government, there is no functioning Town unit any more than any other City (unlike Groton), and that it should not be put in the category of nonconsolidated City. Please share your thoughts. FreshTurkeySandwich 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fresh, perhaps I "misspoke" (depending on your definition of municipality): to be more precise, I would say that the City of Milford and the Borough of Woodmont are mutually exclusive incorporated entities that together are comprised by and also comprise the Town of Milford. The Borough of Woodmont was incorporated in 1903 and the City of Milford was incorporated in 1959. A somewhat (but not completely) analagous situation is Ann Arbor Charter Township, Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. While in Michigan cities are not part of any township, the City of Ann Arbor is much larger in area and population, and the township consists of many noncontiguous parcels of land in and around the city. The only reason I mention that is to note that a town or township doesn't have to meet some sort of "viability" test to have a separate existence.

The following page at the official Connecticut state government site has a complete list of towns, cities, and boroughs: http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVII/towninfo.htm.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Home prices

The line in the cost of living/economy section that gives as fact the average price of a 3 family home on 1/4 acre to be $1,000,000 is both grossly generalized and inaccurate. To what area does this purport to apply? Where is the citation for the figure? And if it's just a figure thrown in for shock value, does it really offer any contextual value to the reader? It out to be revised or stricken from the article.

True, that only applies to Greenwich and Stamford. CT outside Fairfield County is FAR from 1m dollar homes as an average. The Hartford area is more affordable than people expect, as they think CT is all mansions.

I agree, as a resident of CT all my life I can say with confidence that that's a grossly inflated number. My own home, a two story three bedroom house on 3.5 acres in Killingworth, CT (Middlesex County) is less than half that! This leaves an incorrect perception of the state...

As for the speaking of no middle class, well, someone had better look at the state far more closely! It is not just Rich and Poor. Perhaps in Fairfield county, but look around. There is a (albeit small, characteristic of our entire nation) middle class...

million dollar homes

Connecticut doesn't have the highest number of million dollar homes in the country. By real number or percentage wise, California has more million dollar homes: 409,889 (5.8)% for California vs 37,866 (4.1%) for Connecticut. Even Hawaii has a higher percentage of million dollar homes (4.3%). Connecticut has the highest percentage in the Northeast, however. I corrected the false statement in the article.

Richest state?

I corrected the statement that Connecticut is the richest state in the country; it is the richest state PER CAPITA but not the richest state overall (indeed it simply cannot have more money than a state like California, which has the fourth largest economy in the world).

user:erosenfield

picture

The false inscription picture does not show up in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:False_Inscription.JPG

Owulax 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(Correction: sixth largest economy in the world, according to Wikipedia) user:erosenfield

Russo/bike team

I think that it's pretty reasonable to say that in order to be "famous," at least in regards to being a member of the list of "famous residents," one should be recognized outside of his/her discipline. I'm a huge WFAN listener (check my contributions), but Chris Russo is not famous, and only co-won 1 Marconi. He is NOT famous (as he would rephrase it). If he's going to be on the list, what about all the ESPN personalities, YES Network, OLN presenters?

Also, I won't delete the entry because they seem legit, but the name "team nerac.com presented by outdoorlights.com" seems ridiculously over-commercialized.... the sponsors are getting their money's worth.Riphamilton 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

famous residents

Isn't Bush a famous resident of conneticut?66.41.66.213 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think so[8] --BarkerJr 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends which Bush you're talking about. George W. Bush was born here, but moved away when he was 2, so I wouldn't really call him a real resident. His grandfather, Prescott Bush, definitely was a long-term Connecticut resident since he owned an estate in Greenwich and served as one of the state's senators from 1952-1962. -Gromitjc 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush attended Yale (father and son I believe). I'd hate to have him listed as a "Famous Resident" regardless. But, Christy Romano needs to be added to this list. She lived in Milford and went to Saint Joe's high school.--69.120.181.101 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External Link

I think adding [9] would add a lot of useful information to this page.

Sources

This article is in need of sources very very badly. See WP:CITE on how to do it, and Minnesota for ideas, and good links (census etc). -Ravedave 05:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Broadcasting in Connecticut

http://wwuh.org/history/CTtimeline.htm - Might be useful as a source, if we mention any of this stuff; it was added to a speedied article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Connecticutians?

I've lived in Connecticut my whole life and have never heard the term Connecticutians. It seems more like a joking construction, like calling residents of Albany, New York, Albanians. I have heard the term "Connecticutter", but even that's said with a wry smile acknowledging the awkwardness of the construction. --Elipongo 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree People from CT are nutmeggers or from new york but need a place to sleep, as the joke goes. I wouldn't know how to pronounce Connectictians if my life depended on it. --Lekogm 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be pronounced "Kun-net-tih-kyoo-shuns", as in "Lilliputians" from Gulliver's Travels. While it does appear to be a joke (and I, a lifelong Nutmegger, have never heard it), I must say, I prefer it over "Connecticutters", "Connecticut residents" or even "Nutmeggers". Can we lobby the General Assembly (also a CT term) to recognize it? ChildOfTheMoon83 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It also contradicts information later in the article. I will delete. Jd2718 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

thunderstorms

The article stated that thunderstorms are "frequent" in Conn. After reviewing this, I changed it to reflect that while the state has thunderstorms in the summer, relatively speaking, they aren't as common as most of the US. Jcam 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regions

The list of regions includes some that look, frankly, made up. (Perhaps not by the contributer but by an aggressive Chamber of Commerce or economic development agency). "Quiet Corner" in particular looks suspicious. I notice that several of the linked articles have question marks over their lack of sources. Does this list add to the value of the article? Should the entire list be dropped? Can the names be verified? Jd2718 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Quiet Corner" term is used in tourism brochures and websites. Connecticut has two types of "official" regions. There are the five Tourism Regions and the 15 Regional Council of Governments. We should probably use one or the other if we're going to include a list of regions. --Polaron | Talk 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the information. We should probably choose not to list regions (I have already deleted the list). Some of these names are not widely known, and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the position of promoting them. Notice that "Gold Coast" does appear elsewhere. Jd2718

Town versus City

According to the State Register of Connecticut (http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVII/towninfo.htm#CITIES%20IN%20CONNECTICUT%20WITH%20DATE%20OF%20INCORPORATION), there are only 21 cities in Connecticut. This includes the 19 merged city-towns, and the two cities (Groton and Winsted) which are not merged.

They are: Ansonia, Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, Derby, Groton, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, Milford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Norwalk, Norwich, Shelton, Stamford, Torrington, Waterbury, West Haven, and Winsted (Winchester).

The remaining 150 MCDs are towns. There are a couple places in the government section which refer to towns as cities and cities as towns and vice versa. I'm not really sure what to do with this. Americans from outside New England will have trouble making the distinction between a city and a town in New England because city status is not the same thing.

Ultimately, it is factually incorrect to refer to Manchester and West Hartford as cities, even if they are urban areas. mikemillerdc 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

apparently user:64.252.99.226 is not vandalizing the page. He is trying to import the format from Florida, but saving piecemeal. We have been catching him partway through, and reverting. Ultimately I think the current text is better than the table he is trying to build (see the version today with time stamp 22:02), but he is trying to build something positive. How do we communicate with a user who is not reading the here and does not have a talk page? Jd2718 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The text here should be a summary and the current short version is I think better. (Although why 45000 instead of the rounder 50000 as the delimiter I'm not sure). We can add a section in List of towns in Connecticut for a list grouped according to population like what User:64.25299.226 has been doing instead of putting it here. --Polaron | Talk 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All reasonable. The 45,000 limit was in the previous long list, likely to include an extra few towns. I'll switch it later. Jd2718 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The new Principal cities section (which lists almost of the state's incorporated cities, but no towns, in declining order of population) seems "quaint" (at best). There are many towns in Connecticut that are larger than a bunch of the cities on the list (for example, consider Fairfield, Greenwich, Hamden, Manchester, and Stratford, all of which have 50,000 or more people). What's up?--orlady 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it to the largest municipalities, unless someone else here objects. Jd2718 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this "Principal cities" section supposed to be a list of actual principal cities (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) or just a list of towns with the biggest populations? --Polaron | Talk 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be essentially redundant with the List of cities in Connecticut, except for the cities that are really towns that is. I'm proposing it be merged into it. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 04:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lieberman: Democrat or Independent?

In an earlier edit, User:208.58.4.72 changed Lieberman to an Independent in the infobox (but not in the text). I'm not sure this is appropriate. While he won election as a representative of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party, he has stated his intention to caucus with the democrats, and I am not sure he ever ended his political affiliation with the democratic party. mikemillerdc 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He will be listed on every congressional whatever as an independent for the next 6 years (look at VT). I would go with Independent, and add 'caucuses with the Democrats' after we see that he actually does so after reorganization. I would assume that more detail would go in the Joe Lieberman article. Jd2718 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

on the Joe Lieberman page, there seems to be a consensus that he should be listed as a Democrat. I am watching the Talk:Joe Lieberman page where there is a much more robust discussion. I think we should accept whatever the consensus over there becomes as definitive. mikemillerdc 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Officially, though, Joe Lieberman is an Independent, but caucuses most of the time with Democrats. However, that doesn't make him a Democrat since the party pretty much gave him the boot when he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. Being an Independent also reflects more accurately on Lieberman, as he has on numerous occasions crossed party lines on major issues, and has a very centrist viewpoint in the political arena. Ironically Lieberman has been receiving most of his support from Connecticut's Republicans and a large share of unaffiliated voters, while he has lost support among the state's Democrats.

adding stuff

I think that you should add the indian relations!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sum383 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Powers ^T 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Connecticut. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Ferry Services

I have twice reverted part of an edit relating to proposed ferry service. I removed the italicized portion

The state has encouraged traffic reduction schemes, including rail use and ride-sharing[12], and it has proposed ferry service in Long Island Sound.[10]

The last edit summary was: (reinsert ferry service; the cited website states that the LIS Ferry Coalition was created by agencies of both CT and NY to promote ferries for transportation.)

The LIS Ferry coalition is a coordinating group. It was created by the New York Metropolitan Planning Council, and includes agencies from Connecticut and Rhode Island as well. It does not have the power to propose anything, just to pass on information and promote ideas.

The website does not seem to have a specific proposal involving ferry service for Connecticut. Were there to be such a proposal, it would be unlikely to be in the form of a traffic congestion mitigation proposal.

So, 1) just because LISFC likes something, does not mean that there is a proposal, 2) I could find no proposal, 3) LISFC is not an arm of the State of Connecticut, and 3) there is no source for the State of Connecticut having such a proposal. Jd2718 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jd2718, I'm the one that replaced it. Maybe I just need some help with the editing. These ferry proposals have been floated before, and lately it's been back in the news. Google News shows a Connecticut Post article about the new proposal for a Bridgeport-Stamford-Manhattan link, but it's no longer on the Post's website, so I linked to the planning agency instead.

I think the ferry services that already exist at Bridgeport and New London should be mentioned somewhere, maybe with a mention about the new proposals (with proper documentation, of course). Maybe we can have a separate "Ferry" subhead in the public transportation section, but it seems like we wouldn't have much content for it. Any ideas, anyone? Cmprince 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that ferry transportation could go in a unique subsection, but should not be associated with traffic congestion mitigation. But I just don't think the services are significant enough to go in the article for the whole state. Without checking, I assume the Port Jeff service shows up in Bridgeport and New London in that article, plus the casinos, if they have articles. And if a proposal for more service does arise, it could be noted.

Thank you for providing sources! The article really needed them. Jd2718 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing education statistic

According to CBS News's "Making the Grade" map of U.S. states and some key educational statistics for each, Connecticut has a most unusual stat. The data claims that it has a "Student/Teacher Ratio: 2.6 to 1". That's two teachers for every five students, as opposed to the much more common rates of 12-20 to 1. Can this be correct? How would this be fiscally possible? I came to this article to see if Wikipedia had any suggestion, but I find that the only education discussed for this state is college/university level and boarding schools. I would think that such a remarkable ratio would indicate something worth citing about Connecticut's K-12 programs. Does anyone have any information on this subject? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say CBS just dropped a leading '1' on the stat. Cmprince 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Southwick Jog"

...redlinked, though this would make an inane separate article. Tagged "citation required" although the ext. link (Connecticut State Library) "Connecticut's "Southwick Jog" gives a much more sensible account than this Wikipedia article. I'd fix this myself, but the references system here is a cat's cardle. --Wetman 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My Opinon

I think it is best for it to be cut in diffrent articles. Fattdoggy 15:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of Connecticut at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Connecticut. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong template

The template being used for this article is wrong. This template should only be used for cities. Can you please use a template:Infobox state instead of template:Infobox city. Thank you! Furthermore, the request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. --CyclePat 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Connecticut uses Template:US state, consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. Cmprince 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

oh! Sorry! my bad. I was just going threw the list of cities. I think I added the UTC-5 category 1 week ago when I was testing the template:Currenttime. Thank you! --CyclePat 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "dot" appears in wrong place in Google Earth?

I'm a newbie here, so apologies if this is in the wrong place or otherwise incomplete. When using Google Earth, if you look just southwest of Montauk, NY, in the Atlantic Ocean, you will see the Wikipedia dot for Connecticut. The coordinates are obviously incorrect. Can someone fix that, as I'm not sure where those erroneous coordinates come from. Thanks! Cdmcquee 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--Cdmcquee 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think they are read from (usually weeks old) database dumps of wikipedia, using the {{coor}} family of templates. The coordinate tag in the article appears to be correct now, so perhaps the problem will be fixed next time they update their data. — brighterorange (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut Discussion

We may as well split this discussion into multiple articles, because it is longer than the real article about Connecticut. I feel the Connecticut article is the proper length.