Talk:Connecticut

Template:WP1.0

Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

The Supreme Court of CT ruled on 10/10/08 that same-sex marriages should be recognized in CT. This should be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

As a native myself, I would say that it is usually pronounce Co-ned-i-cut. Just like butter -> budder. :) 199.172.169.33 10:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I am native also, growing up I did try to pronounce it as it was spelled, but people either corrected me or said it in the common way. I would like to know the correct pronunciation myself. People in Missouri pronounce it Mis-surra, but I pronoun it Mis-surri. I am sure that is the case for a few other states as well. I still don't understand why Arkansas is not Ar-Kansas...--71.235.81.39 13:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Hartford County and the vast majority of people I know pronounce it Cuh-ned-i-cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.141.48 (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (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)

Changed officially 1st October '07 to Department of Developmental Services. I've amended the text. See http://www.ct.gov/dds/cwp/view.asp?Q=395946&A=2645 Rojomoke 11:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

This has now been handled via List_of_municipalities_of_Connecticut_by_population, which combines all manner of municipalities into a single list, and allows the other lists to remain undisturbed, since they list those municipalities with particular forms of government. -- Yellowdesk 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say that that article is a great piece of work. Thanks to all the wikipedians who helped with it.

mikemillerdc 20:38, 26 March 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.

"and has a very centrist viewpoint in the political arena." He's far right. Maybe he's centrist in terms of Republicans v Democrats; but they are both far right parties when compared to parties in other countries.

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.[2]

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.45.119 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2007

Well, you're right that this talk page was getting lengthy, and I thank you for pointing that fact out. I have archived the old discussions. As for the article itself; if you hit the edit tab a warning message comes up as follows, "This page is 58 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Besides the fact that too much prose all together is tiresome for many people to read, there is the fact that for many legacy browsers and for users of dial-up services a large page is very difficult to load and view. So yes, this article does indeed need to be split up per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 09:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly this can be achieved by pushing various lists into sub-articles and citing the subarticle, as I recently did to Connecticut#Education for the redundant list of colleges. Connecticut#Sports needs the same treatment, in that there are two lists on the page; an article entitled something like List of Professional sports teams in Connecticut is desirable to be cited here. The list of state insignia, and so forth in Connecticut#Names and symbols could also be pushed into a sub-article and cited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How come the article was change around? It read well without the New England reference in there. The New England article mention CT in teh NYC tri-state area was taken out also. It was perfect the way it was.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2007

It is in the nature of a Wikipedia article to be constantly changing and developing. If you think any improvements can be made to the article you are encouraged to be bold and edit the article appropriately. Thanks for helping out! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ESPN

Why no ESPN reference? MrM 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut is home to the headquarters of LOTS of companies, especially considering its small size. Even if major corporations were mentioned in this article, ESPN would be way back in line after giants like General Electric and United Technologies. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 07:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicities

"Connecticut is the most Italian-American state percentage-wise, just above Rhode Island." This statement is incorrect, Connecticut has the second highest percentage of Italian-Americans (18.6%) just behind Rhode Island (19%). Could someone please fix this? -DCR

Not so. The above statistics changed after the last census supplemental survey, I remember when this news broke several years ago:

December 30, 2001 - - Connecticut hardly conjures up images of ravioli or cannoli. But according to the 2000 Census, Connecticut has more residents claiming to be of Italian origin per capita than any other state in the nation. (Connecticut Most Italian State, By Brian Carovillano, The Associated Press)

Some 16.4 percent of Connecticut residents listed Italian as their primary ancestry, edging Rhode Island at 15.9 percent and New Jersey with 15.4 percent. The results are from the Census Bureau's supplemental survey, distributed last spring to 700,000 homes nationwide. (THE MOST ITALIAN STATE IN THE NATION? GUESS. The New York Times Weekly Desk; Section 14CN, By William Cockerham - - Page 6, Column 3)

Tri-State Area

How come there are always exceptions or tri-state is in quotes as if it is some sort or lie or joke? In this case, they write: "From a statistical and economic perspective, southwestern Connecticut is part of the Tri-State Region." That line sounds like excuses are being made fro CT being in the NYC area and that it only exists from a "statistical"(who's statistics?) and economic(huh?) perspective. Who's perspective is this? It must be Boston's and New England supporters. That is not our perspective. We are a part of the Tri-state area because we are near NYC, get their media, transportation, share their culture(yes. try finding a New England culture. when something is happening in NYC, it is happening in CT, then is gets to the rest of the nation.), land, water and NYC is the hub of the Tri-state area as is the case with any major city.

It does not hurt to admit the truth. If you can, please stop trying to short-change us on this. Hartford says they are "the shining star of New England," so that should be good enough for you guys who like the New England thing. I like the addition, but it just seems as if it was put there to be there, but not put put forth with force. It is written from a POV as if the Tri-state should not or was not supposed to be. Boston (not bashing) is too far away and too small for them to have any influence on CT. They act like they own New England or something. They act as if because one part of what was 'theirs' should be reclaimed because it does not see Boston as a hub or de facto capital. Reality is reality. I have seen a HUGE influx of plates from New England down the 203 way, the like of which I have NEVER seen before. It is almost as if Boston took out an ad and paid New Englanders to move down here. No matter, like the Greeks and Romans going to Egypt, they ll have no choice but to adapt to the local (NYC area) culture.

I just hope that when you mention CT and the Tri-state area, you put as much definite statements as you do about Boston and New England. With them, there are no doubts about what they are. With us, it makes it appear as if you don't take it seirously and that we are really New Englanders pretending to be New Yorkers. When you are in Greenwich and you can literally walk across the street and be in NY , then you will begin to see that the imaginary line known as "New England" is fiction and was only good for the USA's colonial past between the Dutch and the English.--71.235.81.39 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The tri-state area is an economic region -- it's convenient for retailers to target the three states in this area at the same time. It's not a dictionary defined region such as New England. I'm sure there are many tri-state areas across the country, anywhere the borders of three states meet. Please stop making accusations, it only fuels heated discussion. New England is a place, that's all. You're not bound by any law to feel like a New Englander just because you live within the borders of New England. Lastly, make new sections at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Leebo ^T/C 12:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See, you double-talk a lot. You tell me to relax because New England is "just a place," but clearly in your mind it is more than just a place since you also mention my living 'within IT'S borders." Where exactly is this New England border? I can never recall seeing any signs that read "welcome to New England." The dictionary does not define regions by the way, states and the federal government do. The Tri-state are is more than economic. When you people say that, you imply that New England is cultural or even a separate nation. Maybe you people up in Hartford may feel that way and that's you, but down here, we are what we are. Attitudes like your sis why we almost feel like we should be a separate state. Your clear bias is what fuels this discussion. Maybe if you ever lived in the 203, you would see things very differently. Living up north by MA seems to only give you one view of the state. For anyone reading this, it should be clear that you New England fundamentalists are aways at work in spreading your propaganda. Man, your desperation is psychotic.--71.235.81.39 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to communicate with an editor who refers to me as "you people up in Hartford" and who puts words in my mouth. I'll reiterate what I told you on your talk page: Find sources if you want to add things to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts, not a collection of opinions from anonymous contributors who live in southwest CT. Leebo ^T/C 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want the part about "from a statistical and economic standpoint..." crap about CT being in the NYC area taken out. That is BS and propaganda. If you want to put that it, then ADD "geographic and cultural" to it. Those are the prime reasons that CT is in the NYC area not a part of this New England fantasy. The 1st paragrah assumes that CT is somehow in bed with New England like the areas surrounding Boston. CT is to New England like other states are to their neighbors, of which CT only borders two New England states and our largest border is with NY. I will change it since Boston people seem to be at work to spraed false ideas about CT and make it appear as if we are 'down' with them when we are in fact down with NYC.--71.235.81.32 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Connecticut has always been part of New England. Furthermore, much of the state (i.e., beyond Fairfield County and parts of Litchfield County) is strongly aligned with the rest of New England, not only geographically, but also culturally and economically. Please note: This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for expressions of POV, particularly POV expressed by anonymous IP users who post only on Talk pages. --orlady 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You say "sorry, but Connecticut has always been part of New England. Furthermore, much of the state (i.e., beyond Fairfield County and parts of Litchfield County) is strongly aligned with the rest of New England, not only geographically, but also culturally and economically," but I AM LIVING HERE, so I know a lot better than some dude in Boston assuming things. I will tell you yet again, New Haven County is down with New York as it is on the Metro-North line, two lines in fact. I really wish you people would stop telling these stories. Boston/New England is not on our minds. Now the parts of CT that border MA is down with Boston/New England, but the part that borders RI seems to go both ways. For you to think that CT, a place right next to the #1 city in AMerica would be concerned with a tiny, far away city like Boston is flat out crazy! This is why when you New Englanders come down here, you make sure you wear your Boston sports team gear because we have on our NY/NJ sports team gear.

You may not like the realities and you may desparatly need CT in your realm, but it is not happening, no matter what you write or delete. A friend of mine just came back from Cleaveland. When asked where he was from, he said the New York area. At other times he said CT, but the people associated it with New York and not wimpy and lame New England.--71.235.81.32 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow- get over it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.254.82 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Names and Symbols

The article says, regarding what do you call someone from Connecticut: "Nutmegger" is sometimes used, as is "Yankee."[13] The footnote takes you to the Connecticut State Library where there is no mention of the use of Yankee to denote a Connecticut resident. Perhaps "Yankee" should be omitted or another reference found? --Ttommott 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that section has been moved up to the intro and the citation left behind. I'll fix that along with a few other things when I catch up to this page in my watchlist again. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CDP articles

Comments requested on whether separate CDP articles for town centers are necessary. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Connecticut#Comments requested regarding CDP articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Economy

You know what's odd?

There's a full article on Economy of Connecticut in the Hebrew Wikipedia, but not here ... --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

redirection of county navigation templates to state template

See reasoning at Template talk:Connecticut#All towns listing. Individual county templates were removed in favor of a state template that has been expanded to list all towns and boroughs. Comments are requested. --Polaron | Talk 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

contested statements removed

1. There is, however, a great disparity in incomes through the state; although New Canaan has one of the highest per capita incomes in America, Hartford is one of the ten cities with the lowest per capita incomes in America, (The low number may partially be due to the fact that the city, like other cities in the area has a small footprint relative to a typical American city--only about 18 square miles--and therefore does not have more middle-income areas included in its total to "balance out", statistically, inner areas with older housing stock and a poorer population). {{Fact|date=February 2007}}
2. Fairfield County has become a bedroom community for higher-paid New York City workers seeking a less urban lifestyle. This in turn has attracted businesses wishing to remain near New York City to southwestern Connecticut, most notably to Stamford. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
3. Hartford is the poorest city in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 (although see above). {{Fact|date=February 2007}}
4. Poor and medium wealth households are particularly affected by a very high cost of living, due to a combination of expensive real estate, expensive heating for the winters, and other factors. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
5. As a result, the middle class largely fled the urban areas for the suburbs, taking stores and other tax-paying businesses with them, leaving mostly the urban poor in the older, central areas of Connecticut cities. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
6. Glaciers carved valleys in Connecticut running north to south; as a result, many more roadways in the state run north to south than do east to west, mimicking the previous use of the many north-south rivers as transportation. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
7. Before 1818 the highest court in Connecticut was the General Assembly, and later, the Upper House, with the Governor having the title "Chief Judge". {{Fact|date=February 2007}}
8. It is one of the few dual-sex tournaments in professional tennis and is the warm-up tournament to the US Open, played the following week in Queens, New York. The court speed and weather conditions are identical to those at the US Open. {{Fact|date=May 2007}}

Please do not return this information to the artilce without a citation.--BirgitteSB 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re:#1 I believe only the parenthetical statement is controversial here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

• OK I will restore the first part.--BirgitteSB 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re:#2 The two-part documentary "Connecticut and its cities" by Karyl K. Evans and aired by CPTV in 2002 describes this phenonmenon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

• I have no idea how to cite a documantary. If someone made a film about it surely there is a written source on the topic.--BirgitteSB 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re:#3 The second worksheet here indicates Hartford is the town with the lowest per capita income as of the 2000 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

• I cited and restored this after re-wording it slightly to better match the source.--BirgitteSB 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re:#5 The two-part documentary "Connecticut and its cities" by Karyl K. Evans and aired by CPTV in 2002 describes this phenonmenon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)
• Re:#7 Appears to be validated by this and this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs)

• Somewhat but not completely. Nothing about the role of the govenor and it is all pretty unclear to me. If you understand it better please rework the description to what is supported by the citation and restore it.--BirgitteSB 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

State Motto

I thought that the state motto should have a source. If it already does, then just tell me. I just wanted to check with everybody before doing anything. If you look here, this explains how they came to the motto and their explantation. Thanks,

Conor69 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Data from the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) apparently contradicts the survey at the beginning of the religion section. But the ARDA data seems more accurate to me. The survey cited at the beginning of the religion section on the other hand switches between single denominations and groups of denominations all the time. Mk4711 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) people there live it thug style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.254.86 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)