Talk:New Haven, Connecticut

Skyline

The New Haven Skyline has changed, I'd like to see a new 'good' picture!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.114.122 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What section of the skyline? The problem with the image used in the infobox is that it can't be too wide, and to catch the new construction (which is considerably to the left of those buildings when the photo is taken from the same location), the image would need to be much wider. I will try for a panorama that gets the new cancer center & the other new buildings, but I'm not sure it would fit into the article. A skyline shot taken from somewhere other than the east shore might be able to get more/other buildings. --Versageek 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

- I think that just taking a new picture in the same place would be fine. It's not absolutely necessary to capture every single high-rise in New Haven and put it on the picture. A new picture in the same place would be nice, I'd like to see how 360 State Street looks in the new one. -milkyoreo27 (April 21, 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.48.191 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

Very skeptical of the "tallest buildings" section. I think there are quite a few buildings in the downtown that are taller than Harkness Tower, much as I love it!--AaronM 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

source used in article. Though I've often known emporis to have details wrong, I generally accept their ranking. If you can find a better source, go for it!--Loodog 03:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit: in fact, Harkness Tower is only the 5th tallest. So you're right. I guess the article's been fixed since you mentioned it.--Loodog 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This link is very helpful; should be utilized:http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=225Bgervais (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Population

According to the Department of Economic Development, the city population is 127, 401 as of 2009. (http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/EconomicDevelopment/pdfs/PDF-Official.pdf)

But somebody keeps changing it. Last time I changed it to population of 127,401 (core population of 127,000), it was changed back to the same. So I thought, oh, okay. I didn't think that I referenced the information, so I understood. This time, I changed it again - this time, it was a perfect edit. Somebody edited it, keeping the 2009 as the year, and actually decreasing the population by 1,000 (to 123,000).

To whoever is doing that - please stop being immature. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.178.5 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Preferring accurate figures is not necessarily a sign of immaturity. Nor is insisting on sources the first several times you changed the number without any. If you bothered to check, you would see that the latest change reflects the official estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau. The city publication, for which you provided a broken link in your edit, does not provide any information on where their number came from. U.S. Census trumps unknown source for U.S. population figures. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion

There needs to be a section on religion. Can someone get some information on religion in New Haven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.112.110 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

City Crime Rankings

The crime ranking mentioned here (4th most dangerous) is in no way accurate.

Using comparable urban areas, New Haven is around the 168th most dangerous city, not the 4th most. See http://www.ctdatahaven.org/blog/2011/06/public_safety_new_haven/. The NBC Connecticut reference should be removed as these media sources have issued corrections on their story. It is possible to compare blocks to blocks, or standard urban areas to standard urban areas, but not municipalities.

The rankings are completely invalid, and were not issued by the FBI, Wall Street Journal, nor any other reputable source. Consequently they were not published by the NYTimes, Hartford Courant, WSJ, or other major newspapers and the NH Register, which published a story on them, later issued a retraction.

Rob Casey, who heads the FBI section that publishes the Uniform Crime Report that the rankings are based upon, has said "You're not comparing apples and oranges, your are comparing watermelons and grapes. These rough rankings provide no insight into the many variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region. Consequently they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.119 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. You're conducting original resarch and saying that multiple reliable sources (such as NBC, WTNH, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal et al) are wrong, but that some New Haven not for profit blog is correct. If they have "corrected their stories", please cite such a retraction... I see none out there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The figures that you like were originally published by "24/7 Wall Street", an online blog, run by one individual, and meant for equity traders. "24/7 Wall Street" is in no ways a respected news or policy organization with transparent leadership. Furthermore, the figures were not originally "published" by any of the other sources you cite, and were not featured by the "Wall Street Journal" (some lazy editors have apparently confused that esteemed publication with the "24/7 Wall Street" blog). Please correct your information before posting inaccurate information here. Furthermore, according to the New Haven Register story published the next day, "The '24/7 Wall Street' report was not endorsed by the FBI, which cautions against comparing cities based on the UCR numbers, stating such analyses can be misleading or overly simplistic by failing to take in a range of factors that contribute to the numbers." Please see the piece at http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/06/03/opinion/doc4de95d1f01145208649566.txt for a correction. Also, note that unlike the "24/7" source that you are citing, DataHaven is not a "blog." It is an organization in New Haven that has existed for decades, is a 501(c)3 organization affiliated with the Urban Institute of Washington DC's NNIP program, and is transparently run by a Board of Directors consisting of University-based, foundation and civic leadership. Changes must be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.119 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You rail against legitimate sources, yet you cite an OPINION page. Many news media outlets covered the story, I have seen none retract it, including... the Wall Street Journal [[1]]. As I said on your talk page, you're free to find disclaimers from NBC, WSJ etc that say what you're saying. OR you can add your point to mine and say that it's a debated topic, but you CANNOT remove validly referenced points. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "WSJ" link you posted is actually from an online aggregator feed, called ONESPOT, that clearly says "from Business Insider", a source which itself only republishes the post on the 24/7 Blog. Therefore, you are only citing a blog, which is not in any way a valid source of information. Meanwhile, I have cited the FBI - which has completely discredited the rankings you cite - and also posted articles published by established research institutions that clearly explain the problems of those rankings. Again, please stop confusing sources. I apologize, but source information that is not valid must be removed. It seems that any criminologist in the United States would agree with me - please refer to the Wikipedia Page on CQ Press, etc., where you will find many quotes from criminologists.-71.235 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.119 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Which they are, as WSJ published it under its own banner and didn't just do a redirect. It's also not posted any retraction, nor has another other source that has published the story that I can find. Nor have you offered a single retraction, though you said that sources did retract the story. You did not cite the FBI, you cited an Op-Ed piece, which also falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, which is why I'm even offering to let you put it in as a contested piece of information. You still cannot just delete cited points becuase you do not like them, however. You are bordering on wp:or, as the only citations you have are an opinion piece and a blog from a non-profit. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Online aggregators like "ONESPOT" are not blogs - they are automatic aggregations of news feeds and not subject to any editorial control. The WP:NEWSBLOG section on blogs, that you cite, talks about online weblogs that are under the control of a particular journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.119 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we have come to an amicable solution with the current edit (17:24, 13 June 2011). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicopee is not Springfield

There is a rather embarrassing error in the media section: "Though both WTNH and WCTX are located in New Haven, CT, their Master Control, and Traffic departments are located in Springfield, Massachusetts in a former section of the city called Chicopee."

Chicopee is an independent city of 55,000 people, and is not a part of Springfield. Many communities in New England were "former sections" of other towns that broke away in the 17th and 18th centuries! I presume you mean that their "Master Control" is located in the WWLP building? --71.192.131.227 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the WTNH and WCTX articles tell us that these TV stations are controlled from Chicopee, and not Springfield. I'm not sure when this erroneous edit was made, but I agree that it's embarassing. Does it even merit being in the New Haven article? These details are covered pretty well in the articles on the stations; I think it should be removed. Lrkleine (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That information isn't relevant to New Haven at all... in their own articles? Sure. But not in an article about the city. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

Yeah, I was just looking at the U.S census results at us quickfacts and according to their data the demographic information is WAY off base especially where the Hispanic population is concerned, so I changed it. I would post a link, but I don't know how, still if you would look you take a quick look you would see what I mean.