Talk:New England/Connecticut-Boston discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Connecticut 2 Lies about Connecticut 3 Ok 4 Census definition 5 Boston and New England 6 Very Subjective Article

Connecticut

I wish whoever would stop feeding the public lies about Boston being a business and cultural hub for us. Boston is no where near us and is not on our radar. We can give two sh**s about Boston. NYC is our hub as far a major cities are concerned. Boston just wants our market. Wikipedia, you need to make sure that FACTS are put here isntead of propaganda. If so many did not take this sites content as the official word, I would not care, but too many do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.30.200 (talk • contribs) .

See the archived talk; this has been debated before. I'd also suggest that stating "We can give two sh**s about Boston." isn't going to win your argument.

Atlant 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I cam with more than enough sites to back up my statement. Boston being a hub of any kind to CT is an opinion. This is like San Francisco being a hub of Los Angeles. Why do you continue to let lies on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.30.200 (talk • contribs) .

I guess it comes down to this: do you want to be considered in the Boston sphere of influence or be considered a suburb of Manhattan. Or another way: do you like pinstripes or red socks. Yet another way: are you a patriot or does your heart reside in the New Jersey medowlands? The San Fransisco analogy doesn't work; Northern CA and Southern CA are practially different states if you ask most Californians. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is comes down to is that the "New England" article is a lie. That is, Boston being a hub for New England, including CT. Come here and see if it is a hub. Define a hub and tell me if it applies to CT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayone (talk • contribs) .

69.182.30.200, aside from any debate we may have here, you should also read WP:3RR. You're now well onto the bad side of that rule as well as (probably) WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT. Seriously, this has all been discussed before and we all understand that South-Western CT probably feels like they're more a part of the NYC metro area than New England. Why not propose some language here on the talk page and perhaps we'll eventually reach some consensus?

Atlant 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't feel MORE like NYC than New England, we do not feel anything for a New England simply because we are not near any New England states and we do not revolve around Boston. We are in the NYC area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayone (talk • contribs) .

I removed the following inline citations:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7])

Some of them relate to tranportation in the CT-NY Metro-NJ area. This isn't effective citation that CT isn't part of New England; they're just more support of the area known as the North Eastern US or the unofficial "Tri-state" area. The fact remains that historically and culturally, Boston is clearly established as the "hub" of the region. Certainly, the further you get away geographically the less of an influence it has. And NYC clearly has a gravitational pull of it's own. But you can't get away from the fact that CT is still part of New England. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right fool! It is to show you what a city that is that is a hub of a region is. If you know what a hub is, then you will know that that is a perfect example.

This isn't effective citation that CT isn't part of New England;

Was this the arguement? I guess it must be yours. MY arguement which is the truth and has not even been proven by you is that BOSTON IS NO HUB FOR CT.

they're just more support of the area known as the North Eastern US or the unofficial "Tri-state" area.

It is official. When you live in it, then you know it.

The fact remains that historically and culturally, Boston is clearly established as the "hub" of the region.

Except CT. We are not in their region. Why argue over this?

Certainly, the further you get away geographically the less of an influence it has.

Or even - none! New England is not even a geographic region, it is a political and historical one.

And NYC clearly has a gravitational pull of it's own. But you can't get away from the fact that CT is still part of New England.

You can't get away from the FACT that CT is in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area that is to be found on this site and Boston IS NOT a hub for CT - period! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayone (talk • contribs) .

Hi. I suggest you take a look at some of the helpful links I have provided on your talk page to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. You should find them helpful in your editing and prevent the disputes you are quickly finding yourself involved in. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the policies for POV and opinions? It is clear that you jackasses allow those people in New England and the Boston area to dictate to you what their POV is. I sent your monkey ass many links and for some reason you still what to stick to that shit. This site is full of shit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.7.113 (talk • contribs) .

Gee, it's hard to disagree with such well-reasoned and intelligent discussion. - DavidWBrooks 10:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that one doesn't really evade WP:3RR by making some edits as a registered user, some edits as one IP, and some more edits as another IP.

Atlant 11:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Come now, Atlant. Clearly, there is a vast league of Connecticut citizens disenfranchised by our bigotry. --AaronS 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disenfranchised? But neither New England nor the New York metropolitan area hold any region-wide elections from which folks could be disenfranchised by our alleged gerrymandering!

Returning to seriosity for a moment, there's a pretty good map over at the NYma article, showing rather clearly the limited area of Connecticut that we spend so much time debating. Basically, as I've said before, Fairfield County.

Atlant 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Limited area? It has the most people and the wealthiest people. That is the immediate NYC metro area and the larger(you New Englanders would not know about this) in CT goes roughly where the last metro(as in NYC metro)-North trains stop. So you even pulled some evidence out so why do continue to think that Boston is a hub for CT? Now show me that Boston is a hub for the rest of the state? You can't do that either. I am not being anti-Boston, but to call it a hub for New England, icluding CT is an out right lie and overstating Boston's importance.

He/she has a point there - in the sense that many tens of thousands of Connecticut residents, probably hundreds of thousands, are not oriented toward Boston at all due to the pull of NYC. I think that can be reflected quickly in the intro. - DavidWBrooks 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned later in the article. I'm sure you may find some people living in the north of Maine or Burlington, VT or Pittsburg, NH or the Berkshires that don't feel much connection to Boston. But Boston's historical, cultrual, and financial importance to the region is indisputable. No one in their right mind would not consider CT as part of New England. I think this is just a result of the growth of the BosWash megalopolis. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

>See, usiing that logic, how can you call Boston a hub of New England? Boston is of NO omprtance in any way to CT and that is indisputable. Stop trying to promote that tiny market. Editors, you read it, not even all of New Englad sees Boston as a hub, so kindly take it out as it is POV. Why is it there and why does someone insist that it remain, especially when it is a clear lie?

Since people kept chaning my edits, I think the best thing to do is to just leave out the "Boston is the hub..." line so that we don't even have to go there as that line is POV...

FYI, geolocation of this editor's IP reveals it comes from Shelton, Connecticut in Fairfield County. Explains a lot I think. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the intro, hopefully in ways that will satisfy most. - DavidWBrooks 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who's got a decent reference handy for the Fairfield County thing, so we can get this over and done with? --iMeowbot~Meow 01:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider 'decent?' Also, it's not a "Fairfield County thing," it's a CT thing. You people put stuff on here without any proof and expect us to accept it becaust you control the dice. No me. If that was a fact, I would not bother with it. It is totally false, so it must go. This Boston propaganda designed to help make Boston a larger market. To do this, they need to lie about CT.

The reference for Boston that I cited is published in Chicago, it has no stake in pretending anything about Boston. Neither do I for that matter, I'm not even from this country. Now, there's a neat little census map higher up the talk page that would be a good reference, except that the image description page doesn't say where in the vast body of census data it was found. If we can trace that back to its source at the census department, we can cite it. --iMeowbot~Meow 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now take this[8] and even using that, Boston is no center of activity for CT. Unlike New England, we have our own cities.

Lies about Connecticut

One of the editors on here (Yanksox) is a clear liar, like most editors/propagandists on wikipedia. He has provided no proof on why the line about Boston bein a 'cultrual ceneter and business hub' for New England has to stand. He changes it back when I put "except for CT." He asked to provide proof which Id did and he continues to play games. With guys like him, this site is proven to be a fraud. I have encoutered this with more than a few biased editors. They all want to keep the story about their country, people or region that fits with their POV. When we change articles, all they do is cal it vandelism, our POV or anything other than the truth. Here is the exchange so far over this ONE LINE change:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yanksox 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the New England page, you can't just account for CT. Have you also considered Western Massachusetts? CT is not deserving of complete special treatment, please discuss this on the talk page. Thanks, Yanksox 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't live in western Mass so I cannot speak for them. That cite is from an encyclopedia. Did your professor or teacher ever tell you that those are not good sources? Even that source is not as you have made that statement to be. I have provided much more that that to prove my point but you New England fundamentalists and Boston pronoters keep lying. Show me how Boston is a hub for CT. There is NOTHING here that is influenced culturally, finanically or geograhpically by Boston.

Boston is the most populous city, CT also does not have one universal opinion once everyone from Hartford votes if they should be considered from New England, then I will change that opinion. It's impossible to gage what you consider to be part of a region, but just because you believe it doesn't necessarily make it a fact. It needs to be proved. All you have to go on is your opinions, New England is widely considered to inculde CT. I know for a fact it is disputed, but that does not give CT special rights, since western Mass and other places could feel the same way. Again, some people could feel Bostonian roots. It's impossible to tell. Comment if you need anything, Yanksox 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See, you are changing the point, on purpose. Who is arguing that CT is not New England? That is not the point. The point it, read: BOSTON IS NOT A HUB FOR CT. That is the point and it is the only thing that I have changed. I hope that you got it now.

Also, I hat it when you people call us vandels just because you don't like something. Why don't you actually 'research' your points instead of just adding some random BS that you like?

The article states that Boston isn't considered the Hub of Southwest New England. Which inculdes CT, I'm really not following you. The article stated that, and it inculded a generalized area (which covers the one that you want), it's more PC, while still satisfying what you desire. It appears somewhat unfair of you to revert other regions that may feel that way, or some people from CT, who may feel strong about Boston. It's a generalized statement that leaves everyone happy. Seriously, though, it accounts for the region. Yanksox 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, it's just a slick way of making YOUR point. We in CT don't see ourselves as "south western New England," we see ourselves as CT. Why the need to speak from a Boston perspective about CT? If you only knew how much Boston was a non-factor in CT, you would apologize to me.

I have been in CT so many times, it ridiculous, CT is considered under the New England mentality which is covered by the Universal image. I understand what you are trying to say, but you don't have any generalized sources or proof. We're engaging in a circular debate. Yanksox 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>What? Where are your sources of proof to show that BOSTON IS A CULTURAL AND BUSINESS HUB FOR CT? Not anything else that you want to add into this to get off of the point.

Exactly, we are going to keep going into a debate that can never end, since it's a cultural war. We need to be logical and work together to find a solution...together. Yanksox 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your war seems to be cultural and political, but mine is based on facts. You CANNOT offer any proof. You people on Wikipedia claim that WE need proof when WE change things, but YOU can put what you FEEL on here. This make this site BS. BS is what I saw when I looked up New England. It is YOU who does not want to work on this. I thought that the line "...Except for Connecticut" made it clear that CT is a part of New England, but just not in touch or affected by Boston.

I am extremly lost when you point to this. You are telling me that your war is one of facts. Can you please prove (not through a dictonary definition which is different from a cultural definition) your point? You keep telling us to prove ours, but you supply nothing. Yanksox 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>Lol! It is YOU who must supply proof since you put it there. You have supplied nothing but YOUR opinion("...I have been to CT so many times..." I LIVE here!) without any type of fact. I have provided actual facts that not only is CT in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area, I prodivded facts that it is recognized by the sate of NY AND CT[9] which is from the STATE, so it can't get any more official than that and Boston has not say over that. Again, Boston is no hub for CT. I know you guys want to spread propaganda to build up your city, but let's not do it by lying.

Eh, look, I am in the middle of both sides of this discussion and I understand both sides of the argument. But all you are doing in this reverts is just disregarding other areas, which isn't encylopedic, we need to focus on a generalized region. Yanksox 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>That's bullshit talk for "I want this Boston thing to remain because Boston is my master and I hate NY." There is no need for talks. What talks? I already proved my side. Where is your proof? CLear: Where is your proof that Boston is a hub for CT? The way I changed the article still shows that Boston is a hub for those New England states, but not for CT. You read it directly from Hartford...

Can we please practice civility? Look, if you really want to make a point post your proof on New England. Yanksox 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep playing games? You know I already proved my point and all you are doing is proving my point that you are a liar and a New England fundamentalist. I am done with you as I cannot even respect you. I will see what I can do to have you editing duties taken away as you are clearly putting out you POV. Damn, wikipedia cannot even get honest editors.

It's not random BS, it's just logic. Yanksox 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

---

You need to cool down and relax, please don't revert New England until the debate is settled or you may be blocked. Yanksox 01:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Who settles it and how does it get 'settled?' You seem to want to speak about us from a Boston perspective which is ignorant because they see us as a renegade New England state which must be pulled back into IT's sphere of influence. They also want a larger market, so they need CT and it's NYC connection.

Wait a minute, the proof that Connecticut has nothing to do with New England is a police agreement with NY and NJ?!! That's nice, but CT has also been a part of a New England police agreement since the 1960s. [10] --iMeowbot~Meow 02:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'somebody' said that the tri-state was not 'official,' but we see that it is. Again, MY arguement is not if CT is a so-called New England state, it has to with Boston not being a hub of ANY kind for CT.

The Us federal government would seem to disagree....

• Boston is its financial center: FRB Boston.
• EPA New England in Boston
• IRS processing center for Connecticut: Andover, MA

--iMeowbot~Meow 03:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See, this is why you need to live here instead trying to prove your BS. We do our IRS(we Have a choice) out of Philly. It is true, some things(as the US see as regional) come out of Boston, but that is only because the US government fails to see that it is easier for us to get to NYC than Boston. Also, Boston makes sure that they handle these things when they can. However, there are many instances where government dealins are made out of Philly and NYC. Again, CT does not rely on Boston for anything. If Bston were gone to day, RI, ME and NH might suffer, but not CT. If NY were gone, CT wouls suddenly go from being the wealthiest to being the poorest.

• • • • ^^^^GOOD POINT^^^^**** Wakamusha 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Do you really need to bog down this page when you could link to it? Yanksox 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Census definition

According to the U.S. Census, Fairfield and New Haven counties are part of the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT Combined Statistical Area (which is basically defined by commuting patterns).--Pharos 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, is there a particular query or something that we can cite in the article? --iMeowbot~Meow 05:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, we can link to this.--Pharos 05:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --iMeowbot~Meow 05:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also found this[11] which controls the northeast out of Philly. Again, I am sure that the feds broke it down by major cities and some cities are either assumed leaders in some regions or requested to have things in the citites, or just not be controlled by something less. Thanks dude for your input. Now if Yanksox would be so kind as to allow this SIMPLE and HARMLESS edit for the New England article instead of trying to keep up his lies:

The New England region of the United States is located in the northeastern corner of the country. Boston is its most populous city, and the business and cultural hub for all but the Connecticut, which is oriented toward New York City. New England is made up of the following states:

I really would appreciate it if you practiced civility. Yanksox 05:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I ahve and I have been more than patient with you. You just refuse to see things in any way but yours. The sad part is, I am from CT so I should know this. What is wrong with my edit, besides the fact that Boston is not recognized as the Captial and Rome for CT?

I went out of my way to discuss this issue with you on your talk page, and the only comments you have really given me is calling me a bold faced liar and accusing me of everything under the sun. The behavior you exhibited is completely unacceptable. Yanksox 05:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on! This was after you made a million and one excuses and refused to change the SIMPLE editonly because it goes against your New England fudamnetalist views. After I have provided proof and you have provided nothing and you STILL don't allow the change, what eles can I call you but a liar?

Please COOL OFF, scion of Connecticut. Wikipedia is not a shouting match, and if you don't permanently quit the insults you will not last long here.--Pharos 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. Edits(that people don't like) are called vandelism. Valid source are not 'decent' sources. BS sources are valid sources(because they were provided by an editor, even if they proved nothing). Telling the truth is telling a lie. Calling someone what they have been proven to be is name calling and not the truth? I think I am starting to get how things REALLY work around here.

In case you didn't notice, I agree with you as to the facts and just provided proof that the Census considers Fairfield and New Haven part of the New York area. But I am not calling people holding the opposite opinion "liars". Again, please COOL OFF.--Pharos 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only editor that reverted you. I am the, however, the only editor that tried to reach an accord with you. You need to learn to be civil and open minded, lessons that will serve you well outside of Wikipedia. Yanksox 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I should be clear about something with the Census data. The Census identifies Fairfield and New Haven counties as part of the New York CSA (which is a bit looser and broader than the MSA if you look at the map). So, it's pretty clearly stated that those counties are rather New York-oriented. However, the rest of Connecticut is not considered part of either the New York area or the Boston area, so the Census effectively has nothing to say on regions that aren't clearly suburbs of one or the other megacity..--Pharos 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well actually that helps out my (clearly won and clearly proven, but dismissed in favor of bias) argument since the other parts of CT are not counted as Boston, so it is not hub for ANY part of CT. Also, somone erased this, but I also pointed out that the link includes Torrington, CT which is up by Mass! So now that this issue has been PROVEN 50x over compared to NO PROOF from these editors, to show that you people are neutral(!), now is the time to change that article for truth sake and not because you wish that people see things(lies) the way that you want them to see it. If you read the NY Times, would you want to read lies? Would you want them to just make up stories or have articles read with bias towards an author's opinion? This is what clearly goes on on Wikipedia. Too bad most people think that this is a real and valid source of 'true' information.

Boston and New England

Obviously, the importance of Boston wanes the farther one goes from it. People in Western Massachusetts don't even think twice about Boston. Certainly, people in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (especially Northern Maine) have very scant practical day-to-day connections with the city. This does not, however, change the fact that New England sprung from Boston and has, ever since, been historically and culturally linked to it. --AaronS 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>New England 'springing' from Boston is not the debate. The debate is that someone asserts that Boston is a hub for New England, which others have denied for their states AND for CT, which is 100% false. Boston is not even near CT.

Actually, quite a bit of Connecticut is not too far from Boston. Boston certainly is a cultural and historical hub for the entire region, though it may not be a business hub for all of it (it still is a business hub and the most important business center in New England, however). --AaronS 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

>Boston not near CT. Do you have to have Phd to figure this out? Again, Boston is no busniess or cultural HUB for CT. As far as business is concerned, even Hartford might disagree. Besides, CT is in the NY region and we know that NYC is the #1 business and cultural hub for America.

You seemed like you were going to be civil until you started accusing me of doing something off-topic, like taking CT out of New England or trying to prove that CT was not New England. I was only proving that Boston is no business or cultural hub for CT. I did that and you did not like it. Those are the facts.

I'm trying out a different way of acknowledging the two urban centers. Is the current text a little closer to something that everyone can live with? --iMeowbot~Meow 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to acknowledge TWO urban centers, only acknowledge that Boston is no cultural or business hub for CT. Put away your pride and go back to this: The New England region of the United States is located in the northeastern corner of the country. Boston is its most populous city, and the business and cultural hub for all but the Connecticut, which is oriented toward New York City. New England is made up of the following states:

It is simple and keeps your point while only changin one line instead of the whole article. What you or whoever wrote was way worse and far more complex. It made a SIMPLE change into a major problem. All because of pride in the form of New England fundamentalism.

The problem is simply that "Boston is no cultural or business hub for CT" is just as false as the statement that Boston is the only economic and cultural center in the region. Both statements are oversimplifications. A state with no ties to the city wouldn't do something like this, for example. --iMeowbot~Meow 08:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The new version is better, but I might suggest changing "recent decades" to "during the 20th century." -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That last line (the new version is better) is YPOV. This 'new'(your) version just complicates the issue and makes the article less simple to read. Tell me, why MUST Boston be mentioned as a cultural and business hub at all? This seems to be at the heart of your bias. It appears as you want the viewers to get from reading it that Boston is somehow the nerve center and city that New England revolves around and looks up to. Why MUST this illusion be on the page?

You have written exactly the same thing dozens of times now. That's not discussion, it's spam. If you would like to engage in actual discussion, please do so. Thanks. --iMeowbot~Meow 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

· Perhaps I can help out with some perspective here. I live in southern New Jersey (a.k.a. South Jersey). Most people presume that all of South Jersey considers itself a suburb of Philadelphia or even just the greater Delaware Valley. However, southern shore towns like Atlantic City, Wildwood and Cape May maintain very strong independent identities, and do not consider themselves dependent on Philadelphia at all. (Similarly, most of us in South Jersey see North Jersey as a mere suburb of New York City, NY.)

>I often use NJ as an example in my arguements on this issue. The ony difference with NJ is that Philly is right next to NJ as opposed to Boston not being any where near CT. On NYC news, NJ seems to be talked about more than even NYC. I find that weird, but what can you do? This Wikipedia is clearly bias and these people clearly don't want to do anything but put their opinions as assumed fact on here so I will resort to terro tactics, if not shutting this site down.

My point is, if the perspective that some areas do not see themselves as dependent on Boston the way the rest of the areas see them, then this perspective needs to be sourced per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR and be presented neutrally. It's good NPOV practice to "write for the enemy," as it were, in documenting an opinion you may not share and do so in such a way as no one can tell you disagree.

Hope this helps. - CobaltBlueTony 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Subjective Article

I seem to find objectivity on this site very hard to come by. Anyone reading this particular article cannot help but to walk away from it know tow things, Boston is a capital of something other than MA and CT is filled with NYC 'transplants' as if it is supposed to be filled with Bostonians! It is clear that this article was written by people from Boston and is filled with fiction designed to make the city appear more influental and important than it really is, especially in CT. Someone needs to fix this and other articles to reflect truth, not propaganda.

Damn those vile Bostonian propagandists! --AaronS 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Boston being the "political and cultural center" of New England is mentioned 3 times.--Loodog 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your attempt at humor, the bigger question is "IS Boston a political and cultural capital for ALL of New England?" Some would argue against that. I cannot see Boston as having ANY influence on CT. In fact, it almost appears as if the article was written clealry to point out that CT is in the NYC area and that Boston or New England must 'recapture' CT and bring it under it's control. In other words, make CT love Boston as a de facto captital of New England. There are a lot of subjective article on this site, but this is one of the more blatant ones that just can't seem to be changed into truth. Are people in Boston THAT desparate? Do you people really think that you can win over CT versus NYC? CT is near NYC, but it is not near Boston. There is a entire state in between CT and the part of MA that contains Boston. The only thing that is true is that Boston has hijacked the title of New England to be a synomym for Boston. I do admit that people in New England do sound alike, but CT does not sound like them. They speak English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrman2 (talk • contribs) .

The Mayor of Boston actually has a special task force set up to recapture Connecticut via Wikipedia. In all seriousness, though, Boston is the largest city in New England. It is the oldest city in New England. For a long time, it was the largest and most important city in North America. Its influence in the region is entrenched, regardless of whether or not you're a Yankees or Mets fan. Southwestern Connecticut is addressed in the article; so is rural New England, although I would like to see more about Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Western Massachusetts. --AaronS 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Salem and Portsmouth, New Hampshire older than Boston? -Acjelen 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki articles would say "yes" and "no", with Boston=1630 and Salem=1626 (so "yes"), and Portsmouth "tying" at 1630.

Atlant 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oldest settlements, but not oldest cities. --AaronS 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that either Boston, Salem, or Portsmouth were founded as "cities". "Hey Sam, let's declare our two houses a city!" ;-)

Atlant 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But all three are cities now. The claim of AaronS is that Boston is the oldest city in New England. A city's age should go back to initial settlement, otherwise New York City dates only to 1898. The Portsmouth Historical Society states on its website that Portsmouth was first settled by the English in 1623. Is this wrong? -Acjelen 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Is this wrong?" -- Beats me! But I'd probably trust the Portsmouth Historical Society over the Wiki article.

Atlant 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were done with the "Western CT Debate." This is already addressed in the body of the article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently time for the next round. :-(

Atlant 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I found it mildly interesting to see it mentioned in the Nashua Telegraph article. This sounds like the same user stiring up the debate. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

David Brooks (the author of the Telegraph article, a long-time Wiki editor and Wiki admin) and I were both aware of this conflict; we both found it amusing in a Wikiality-sort of way.

Atlant 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Boston can be the largest city in New England(whoopee!) and the oldest, but what does that mean to CT? What does it mean to Vermont, NY or Philly? Philly was a more significant city than Boston and it's population and size shows when compared to a Boston. NYC is the nation's largest and it is older than Boston. It is also next to CT. Do you think that CT would not have influence from a city that is literally right next door as opposed to one that is two states away? The article clearly overstates Boston's importance to CT. It may indeed be the cultural and politcal hub for New England, but that would exclude CT. CT people do not have those shameful Boston accents. CT people speak with class and are a prime example of spoken American English. This article needs to be corrected as a great deal of the subjective points cannot be proven true. Who is going to take the first step in cleaning it up? I tried by taking out the "...cultrual and political hub" crap, but it got reversed back into fantasy land.

Okay, the reason this argument persists: New England as 6 states vs. New England as quaint small historic towns with a particular ethos.

• The former: New England is exactly defined to be those six states. If the character of those six states is no longer monopolized by quaint "small town historic charm" (or whatever it is when people think New England), this reflects a change in what "New England" means. In which case, Boston is not the cultural and political capital of New England, but rather one of them.

• The latter: think New England and its character and the term evokes connotations of historic towns, bed & breakfasts, lighthouses, etc... As a preexisting concept in the English language, New England wasn't meant to include suburban NYC and New York transplants.

If we are to resolve this, we need to pick one version of New England and let it be the end. Though personally, I would argue that Boston does not exert so much hegemony on even the latter definition of New England so as to call it the "cultural and political" capital. What effect does Boston and its culture have on Montpelier? Augusta? Both of which are easily prime examples of "traditional New England".--Loodog 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even think New Englanders know what New England is supposed to mean. The media has made it to be a place full or seafood, lighthouses, colonial construction and about the Revolutionary War. I often argue that you can find that look anywhere in the norhteast, probably even more so in places like Washington DC, Philly or just from Maine to Virginia. In fact, one could argue that Philly look like what one would think of when viualizing a New England. There is no real definition. You had "New FOUNDland," "New England," "New York" and "New Jersey." There was nothing special about either place except that the British conquered them one by one.

Morden-day definitions almost always equate New England with Boston and areas around Boston. It also(at least in the Boston area) is assumed that New England is devoted to Boston sports simply because it is the only state with major sports teams and the last major city on the east coast before you hit Canada. As I read somewhere on here, someone pointed out that northen NE was indeed French. Vermont(the name) and it's capital attest to that. How is that NE if it's French? The problem with the artcile is that it attempts to define NE as Boston or as Boston being the center of all things NE when this is untrue. A lot of town in NY state(east of the Hudson) consider thyemselves to be NE. It must be the geopgraphy.

If "Vermont" is french, it is pretty bad French. Pfly 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vermont is a conjunction of Vert (green) and Mont (mountain)...thus, the Green Mountains in Vermont. ju66l3r 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The state of NJ is torn between NYC and Philly. NYC wants most of NJ for itself while Philly wants it's stake also. CT is like that as NYC sees it as a part of it's area and Boston(via the New England title) 'needs' it to be a part of it's market for it's wealth and NYC outlet. Saying the Boston is influential to CT when it is not even near CT, is like assuming that Houston is the de facto captial of the south because it is it's largest city. It is unrealistic to think that. Clearly parts of northern CT identify with NE, but I am not talking about NE identity, I am talking about the artcile overstating Boston's influence and importance in the NE article.

I would be fine if the article just left out Boston being "it's cultural, poilitical and business hub." It sounds like an ad. An ad that is stretching the facts in order to boost the city's image and market. I would say leave that out to start. While Boston is important when dealing with the HISTORY of NE, it is unimportant when dealing wiith the present as it relates to CT. States that straddle between two region are always pulled into both and are usually unknown outside of those regions. In this case, saying that Boston is NE's "it's cultural, poilitical and business hub" to include CT in that(not to exclude it from NE) is absolutley false. Not because I want it to be, but because it is. I cannot disagree that it is for MA, ME, RI, NH and to a degree, Vermont simply because they sound alike and are actually near Boston, but not in it's metro area.

I'm a little surprised this is an issue. I've long had the impression that New England is the most clearly defined region in the United States, it being the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. I can't recall ever hearing a different definition of New England than that.

As for Boston, perhaps the text would be better something like "Boston is the traditional urban center of New England." That would fix the issue of Boston not being culturally like rural New England (its the urban center), and the word "traditional" would put the emphasis on the historical importance of Boston and not so much on present-day Boston / anti-Boston sentiment. Pfly 05:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That would not work either. The question is why does the article have to insist upon making Boston the focal point as if that city is responible for the other state well being? Why not just leave it at "...Boston is New England's largest city?" That explains it all without the Boston city promos. When the article goes on and on overstating Boston's importance AND taking up the meaning of what New England is or is supposed to be, that is a problem. IN NYS, the northeast and the whole USA, the importance of NYC is always noted. Unlike Boston, NYC IS the center of the world in the USA, northeast and it's own tri-state area around the city. Everyone knows NYC and knows it's importance. Not everyone knows about modern-day Boston outside of sports(like most smaller cities) and even places in the so-called region of New England know very little about Boston. Given that fact, it is impossible that Boston can be a "cultural, business and political hub" for NE. If it is, then I guess that is what Bostonians assume themselves to be. I guess it's because they are the only NE city with major sports teams. We all know that if you don't have sports teams in your city or state, you are not official. Just the same, NYC is near CT, not just the southwestern part as Boston is not near any part of CT.

I tend toward a historical and geographic point of view and know nothing about sports teams. I don't think sports teams mean much for the importance of cities. I'm not from New England and didn't realize there was a pro- and anti-Boston controversy. I do realize that there are other old and important cities in New England. Perhaps somthing like "Boston is New England's largest city and has been since the early 1600s. Other important founding cities include Newport, Providence, New Haven, Hartford, and Portsmouth." That would hit the cities founded before 1700 that formed the nucleus of the early colonies. ...or whatever, just an idea.

And for what its worth, not everyone knows about Boston in terms of sports. I sure don't. I know they have a baseball team, but that's the extent of my sports knowledge. There's a football team named for New England. Is it Boston-based? I wouldn't know. When I think of Boston, I think of colonial and revolutionary history, schools like Harvard and MIT, high-tech industry, etc.

Finally, I think most people in the US and maybe the world have heard of Boston, and not for its sports. It's not a "small city", it's quiet famous in its own right. But again, I didn't realize its status in New England was controversial. Pfly 19:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Anything and everything is controversial. - DavidWBrooks 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a lifelong New Englander, having lived in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and having spent most of my life in the rural parts of the region. I have many good friends and family from other New England states, including Connecticut. What this user proposes is preposterous. Many Connecticut citizens identify with New York City, since it is so close to the southwestern part of the state. There are a great many other Connecticut citizens who identify with Boston just as strongly. People from New Hampshire might identify with Manchester instead of Boston. In the northern parts of New England, Boston is but a distant star; but it is still a star around which New England revolves: culturally, economically, politically, historically, and so on. This user's views are quite surprising to me. --AaronS 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you would be shocked at the attitudes of many in New England over Boston. Imagine if you lived in South Carolina and all you heard about was Houston as an example of what the south is? You would know that you cannot relate because Houston is no where around you. In fact, many from SC may not have ever gone there or had a need to. This is the problem with Boston and New England. Boston wants states in NE to assume loyalty to Boston and ASSUME that every state revolves around Boston. It is untrue. Boston was very important in colonial times, but after the revolution Boston had no need to stand out anymore. Boston now DOES have an influence on RI, NH, MA(of course) and ME. These peoples even sound alike, but CT people do not sound like them at all. It has none on CT and very little on Vermont. Any Boston influence on Vermont is likely to come from NH.

I think you could put "...Boston is NE's largest city and a cultural, business and political hub for eastern NE" if you had to. I find it very strange that whoever controls this article insists upon embelshing Boston's importance. Boston is no Philly.

ALso, the Patriots are a Boston team. They let that be known after each of their Super Bowl victories. They used to be caled the Boston Patriots until they moved Foxboro, which is more or less in between Boston and Providence. Boston sports a very well known. The Celtics are the Yankess of basketball, but unlike the Yankees, they have not kept winiing titles. You wrote above what you thought of when you think of Boston. I think of that also, but I never think of it as a hub for NE or even having anything to do with CT. I think Boston as a NE capital is largley a Boston-based propaganda machine at work. I have never seen such an efforst by a city to break out of it's isolation(being that it is no near any other decent sized cities) by going on a mission to 'capture' CT fom NY as Boston tries. If they want to capture CT from NY(they cannot because it is too far away), they may want to build their city up so that it becomes a place to be like NYC. We all know that is very hard to do if LA and Chicago can't do it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrman2 (talk • contribs) .

Mrman2, would you please do us the courtesy of signing your posts to the talk page? It's very easy to do: Just put four tildes (~~~~) after your post and when you press "Save page", your username will be included in a handy Wikilinked form. A timetsamp of your post will also be included.

Atlant 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Boston being the cultural and political hub of New England is an outright falsity. The sentence in the article should be changed to:

"Boston is the cultural and political hub of the universe."

to more accurately reflect Boston's true importance.--Loodog 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I did sign. It is clear that some editor, if you can call him that, dead set for allowing propaganda to persist in this New England article. What does one have to do to prove this is false? I mean, the best way to build up your city is to attract people to it and offer more attractions. I mean, Boston is isolated so it can only grow but so much. I guess this is why they must bolster their importance on this site. Sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrman2 (talk • contribs) .

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTINGS!

Atlant 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that some parts of the article have changed, but it seems as if you cannot get over Boston being some mythical city that rules everything north of NYC. Even the article Yankee seems to want people to think that it means a New Englander. I am from CT and I cannot find ANYONE in my lifetime to eve call themselves or anyone else from CT(or even New England for that matter) a "New Englander." A Yankee has been applied to most in teh northeast. Why ealse would a baseball team call themselves such? What can we do to cahgne this fiction about Boston's role in present New England?--Mrman2 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for being blunt, but your opinions are invalid. --AaronS 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise is needed. I think the debating is done. Can we propose some sort of compromise on the issue so the article can be changed to something we can agree on?--Loodog 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise is needed? But to suggest that Boston is not considered the de facto political, cultural, and historical capital of New England is strange. To generalize into an analogy, there is no doubt that Paris is very different from Marseille and the South of France, and especially from places even farther away. This does not mean that Paris is not regarded as the métropole of French culture and history, even in places where it has no political influence (Belgium, Martinique, Niger, Algeria, etc.). This user has been attempting to make the claim that Connecticut is not a part of New England for quite some time. It's preposterous. --AaronS 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The debate is dead. No one's convincing anyone of anything here. Since we still don't have a consensus, compromise is needed.--Loodog 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past when this has been (repeatedly) brought up, we New Englanders have offered to cede Fairfield County, Connecticut to the New York metropolitan area; has that change been implemented in the article? If so, I think that's sufficient compromise.

Atlant 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: What's the name of U.S. Route 1 as it passes through Fairfield County? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What do I win if "Paterson Plank Road, err, Boston Post Road" is the correct answer and I give it to you first? ;)

Atlant 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is ever a NH Wiki meetup, I'll buy you a bottle of Alexander Hamilton Sam Adams, you know, that beer named after that guy from Boston who did that thing with the tea. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a deal -- thanks!

Atlant 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is idiotic as there is a Boston Post Road in NY also! The fact that a poster says that "we New Englanders" have "given away" Fairfield County to NY is compromise enough shows the gual, arrogance and conspriacy that I have pointed out. I point it out, they back it up. When people go to a site looking for information, they hope that they are getting thetruth. Especially if they are children looking to do a paper in school. They should not come on a site and be treated to people's personal opinions about what they think their city 'should be,' they should get the facts as to what it actually is. They should get rid of the editor of this article for injecting subjective propaganda onto the site.

Imagine - you read about New England on here and you think that it is all about Boston all over the place. Once you arrive to western Mass you realize it is not so as much. Once you arrive in CT("I" will give you the Windham County) and you find that Boston is not on anyone's minds, but it is NYC oriented, you would start asking some serious credibility questions about Wikipedia. Readers do not need to read small city ads when they come on here. If they want to know how 'great' Boston is, they can go there or look up some Boston tourist site. Do you see Los Angles trying to speak for the west coast or claiming that it is some de facto capital of the west coast? They don't even do that for California and that is one state! So the nerve of you Bostonians trying to claim other states as yours. Boston has no influence on most of CT and it is no cultural(find something Boston related in CT), business(how? where?) or financial hub(with NYC right next doorto the wealthiest county in the US? Try again) of most of CT. This is flat out fiction.--Mrman2 06:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whenever I think of Connecticut, especially the upscale sprawly bits near New York City, I always think of The Ice Storm, the Clintons, and David Letterman "taking the subway in". I also think of Amy Fischer. I know that's Long Island, but I like to wonder if she'd have picked a more cultured married man to have an affair with if she lived in western Connecticut. Western Connecticut! That should be in the article. A New Englander is someone who uses "western Connecticut" with a straight face. -Acjelen 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well one thing that is very clear is that Wikipedia IS NOT a site where the public can chage or contribute to articles, and this site is not credible. Don't come one here and try to promote Boston just because it is not more of what you feel that it should be. The reason it is not more that what it could or should be is because there is nothing else after Boston. I would say try developing a strong city in Maine and maybe people will go there and travel to Boston as an alternative. Much as the peoples in Philly love to go to NYC whenever they can. Philly is a stand-alone city itself, but they must go to NYC, even if they are not in the area. They also go to Baltimore and DC. My point is, Boston is kind of isolated so that is why it is not stronger than what it could be. This is also why Boston likes to equate itrself to New England in order to act as if they have some vast area of their own. This is why they need CT because it is tied to NY and it(the people) do not see Boston as a city of influence(it does not mean that some CT people don't go there, although I have not see many CT plates there when I went).--Mrman2 18:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Boston a person with wants and desires, feelings of inadequacy and insecurities? --AaronS 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Boston's feelings of insecurity and inadaquacy in comparison to New York were examined in an interesting way in the HBO documentary about the Curse of the Bambino. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last night in a debate, New Haven mayor John DeStefano made it very clear that CT is in the tri-state area along with NY and NJ! Again, you Boston propagandists, how does Boston have ANY influence on CT? It is not in our area and has nothing to do with us. So now the mayor of New Haven is a liar or fails to realize that Boston is the greatest city in the world? Tell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.24.34 (talk • contribs) .

Oh noes! Maine is considered part of the Atlantic seaboard! Delaware is trying to steal Maine from us! Someone call Stephen King!!! -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've said it before: The places where the Metro-North Railroad can let you commute to New York City have a definite feeling of facing New York City. But that still doesn't make them not a part of New England.

Atlant 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My facetious comment is supposed to illustrate that just because a state is included in another identified geographic region, doesn't mean that it is not included in the first geographic region. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- I was replying to 69.183.24.34; I'll change the indent levels to make that more-clear.

Atlant 17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I knew who you were talking to. I just wanted to pile on a more serious response. I'm well aware that from past history the anon user is unlikely to listen to reason. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)