Talk:Hartford, Connecticut/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hartford's Future as a Sanctuary for Illegal Immigrants

As reported on CNN on August 4, 2008, Hartford is developing a policy to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants. With America's taxpayers already burdened by the job of educating the children of illegal immigrants in public schools, the very last thing Hartford needs is to invite more people to the town who are not obeying the law, who are not paying earned income taxes, and who don't speak English.

First Black Mayor?

Is there any reason why you had to refer to this guy as the first "black mayor in New England?" I did not know that there was a state called New England. Unless you can come up with some law that shows that there is a state called New England, you diminish Hartford's importance by mentioning New England when the only place that Hartford should be compared to is the rest of CT. Sounds as if the New England(Boston) propagandists are at work again.--71.235.81.39 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Revitalization

I removed some statements, such as "brand new" that don't fit the neutrality rules and cleaned up the grammar. I removed the neutrality notice since it's better now, but put up a notice about the section being about future. I suggest someone keep an eye on this stuff, because it's going to be outdated very soon.

Having lived in Atlanta for a while, I think it's overkill to provide such details every single condominium and apartment complex being built (besides Hartford 21, which is a huge project). I understand in a stagnated city it's cool to see redevelopment, but this is an encyclopedia and things like this are daily events in most cities. I put them into bullet form, but if everyone agrees, it would probably be better to just list them. -- netdragon 4 July 2006

The entire Revitalization section is looking more and more like an advertisement, special thanks to the edits of Ctman987 (whom I suspect might be, or be an advocate of, architect Cesar Pelli). Much of the section should be trimmed (perhaps leaving a small overview paragraph of the projects). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

North End and poverty

The "North End" is actually many different neighborhoods. Somehow, they have been lumped together . I suspect the media picked this term up from someone or some group with an agenda. It makes better news copy. I've been looking for better demographic data for the area but have come up empty so far. While I have my own opinions about the causes and solutions to Hartford's problems, I think we should stick to the facts. Poverty and crime exist in the "North End." Let's find out the numbers provided by different agencies and cite them. Let's keep politics out of the article. By the way, I did live in the West End until recently. The year I moved into my apartment there was a shooting one street over and my downstairs neighbor was arrested for selling drugs. Crime is everywhere. I am white and middle-class and I would move back if I could. Raynethackery 04:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term "North End" is a bit innacurate because people are usually referring to the Northeast section between Main and Albany. The Nortwest end, where Watkinson is located, is an afluent area. -- netdragon 4 July 2006

What's the guidelines/precedent for removing text like the above in these Talk pages? AbsolutDan 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Text like above should not be removed because it's disagreeable. The response is to disagree with it, not remove it.

Coyoty 02:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks AbsolutDan 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the North End or poverty, eh? Don't want people to know what the city is actually like... --163.192.21.45 21:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The part about the North end is an off-the-wall embarrassment. Could it be any more weepy and suggestive?

"have been collapsed" - what does this mean? Who collapsed it?

"Generally identified as consisting of the vast area north of Albany Avenue leading up to the Bloomfield and Windsor borders" - the North end very much extends *into* windsor and Bloomfield, which is a pretty strong indicator that the next line is rubbish.

"racist city planning" - is there an example? This is a huge slander that identifies no particular perpetrator or victim, but indicts city leadership in general? Could this be any more vague and useless as a comment? Somebody turn off the waterworks. Boo Hoo. All the problems of the North end in terms of crime and poverty extend into Windsor and Bloomfield despite the fact that whatever "policies" are being cited in this article did not apply in those towns. You can hardly tell where Hartford ends and Bloomfield and windsor begin. This is hardly a "redlining" issue.

"transformed a once multi-cultural area of African-American, Jewish, and European immigrants into an underdeveloped zone of housing projects and slums that is nearly entirely African-American and poor." - in other words, all the non-black and non-puerto ricans fled the area because they were tired of getting picked off in the street? How is city leadership responsible for this?

"caused the flight of the working and middle class to the suburbs." - crime causes people to flee. This is the same phenomenon in any western city, American or European.

"still suffers from underdevelopment and crime" - unless that crime is being imported, saying that the area "suffers" is an evasive way of saying that the people in the community are not responsible for their own deeds. A better way of saying it would be "a ton of people in this area commit crime with no compunction for the decay it causes in their own neighborhoods, or in Bloomfield and Windsor." People do the crime, "racist" city hall gets the blame? No one has to sell drugs, trick out his sister, steal cars, or create a whole generation of unwed mothers with crack babies. Try being a cop or a high school teacher in Hartford and see how hard city employees work to turn around young people's lives, only to get shot at, beaten, or raped. The city has a healthy share of black and puerto rican gangs in an age where gang violence is considered on the decline in very large cities.

Hartford's actually a victim of suburban sprawl (re the Clinton report), where people -- like locusts -- keep ruining inner suburbs and then moving into undeveloped land in the suburbs up until the late 90s. That is beginning to reverse itself as land is becoming scarce and the downtown area is becoming a very attractive place to live for professionals. -- netdragon 4 July 2006

"The schools are among the most segregated" - this is a similarly-ludicrous statement as the "racist" city policies a few lines up. "Segregated" indicates that someone literally aimed to separate by race. It does NOT mean incidental ghettoization from non-blacks fleeing the area for fear of their lives.

While we are talking about the North end, don't forget the porn shops and strip clubs by the highway.

Hartford is a place with big city problems but small town money to fix those problems. The urban decay cannot be fixed because no one in their right mind would move into Hartford proper when they could easily live in one of the suburbs which are among the nicest places to live in the state. The city swells by day as people commute to work, and they are darn well out by nightfall so they don't get picked off in the street. The city is bankrupt and without hope, but it wasn't always that way. 71.234.31.169 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. There's a re-urbanization of America and Hartford is starting to benefit from it. The downtown area is a prime location to live for professionals, and developers are starting to take note -- netdragon 4 July 2006

This North End section is still "weepy and suggestive," as one user wrote. I came here for useful research and I can't imagine how it would help anyone else, it certainly doesn't contain any information that will help me. It smacks of non-neutral POV. Somebody who knows something about the place and can maybe cite some sources, could we please get something put here that's less vague and moany?--65.16.61.35 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Gazetteer stuff for Hartford, and for Patterson, New Jersey? BobCMU76 03:53 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Try Paterson, New Jersey. :) -- Zoe

Nickname

"Insurance Capital of the World" is the nickname used in Connecticut and most of New England. It may not be accurate anymore but it is still used. Raynethackery 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning "Insurance Capital of the World"? Does it have another nickname?

"New England's Rising Star" is plastered all over billboards in the region, but that nickname seems to be more self-promotion than an actual commonly-recognized nickname AbsolutDan 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can find no source for the nickname "Des Moines of the East", so I reverted the nickname back to Insurance capital of... and rising star... AbsolutDan 14:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup - POV and other concerns

Does anyone get the feeling that they are reading something out of a travel brochure? I have been trying to rid the article of as many of these problems as I could. Pentawing 02:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to go through the entire article and clean it up as much as I could (format, wikilinks, POV issues). However, I am keeping the cleanup notation up and would appreciate someone else going through the article to determine if the article is indeed cleaned up. What concerns me is that someone might attempt to restore many of the POV problems that the article originally had. Wikipedia is meant to show facts, not to be an advertising board. Pentawing 21:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the city, but I somehow doubt that this city is a major center of finance etc. :-) Perhaps a regional center at best. David.Monniaux 20:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair... Hartford is bigger than it looks (the city has about 100k, but the metro area is well over 1m, due to a level of suburbanization that you'd never see anywhere else in the Northeast), but isn't one of America's financial capitals or anything... but there's a lot of insurance. MMzach, 00:52, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would actually characterize Hartford as a major center of finance. It is known as the insurance capitol of the country and is home to most of the US's major insurance companies, and as such, certainly qualifies as a financial center. Keep in mind that CT is for all intents and purposes one large city that stretches between Boston and NYC so although Hartford, New Haven, etc. seem provincial, they aren't really.

I would also characterize Hartford as a major center of business....although some of the corporations that were in Hartford have moved to the suburbs they would never have been able to move to the suburbs if it were not for Hartford. Hartford is home to/ has offices for AETNA, St. Paul Travelers Insurance, MetLife, The Hartford, Phoenix, ING, United Technologies, Bank of America and Henkel Loctite just to name a few. 68.9.78.146 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we ready to remove the cleanup tag? RJFJR 03:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I went through the article, and after some copyediting removed the cleanup tag. Pentawing 21:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Capital Community College helps train (mostly) adult students in specific career fields. Many of these careers will not provide the kind of paycheck needed for them to move into a downtown highrise." I think the latter sentence here is more than a bit biased. Walksonground 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs more photos.

Although the article has photos, it needs more photos especially pictures of its skyline. This should show the obvious developement of hartford.

I have lots of Hartford photos that I have taken myself I am just slowly trying to figure out how to put them on the site....if anyone knows how to easily get the photos on here let me know...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctman987 (talk • contribs)

Famous Hartford Residents

Should there be a subpage for this section? It seems a little lengthy. Any thoughts? Raynethackery 04:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit lengthy still, but some of it is due to the fact that it includes Hartford area residents as well as people who are actually from Hartford. Recently Laura Ingraham has been added and removed and replaced from/to the list. I can see how since she's actually from Glastonbury and not actually from Hartford, that she shouldn't be here. My personal opinion is that if you want to list people from the Hartford region and not just people from the city proper, they should be listed under the Hartford County, Connecticut article rather than here. --Elipongo 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this section should only include people who actually live or have lived in Hartford. Just being born in one of the city's hospitals shouldn't count, and living in one of the adjoining or nearby towns shouldn't count either. If nobody has any objections, I will edit the section accordingly in the next few weeks. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Skyline

This article is lacking photos of Hartford's skyline and surrounding city. This needs to be worked on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.81.116 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2007

For the skyline, I'm waiting until Springtime so I can get a picture with all the trees green and without all the grey slush and yuck. I know a great spot where downtown fairly glows at the right time of day. As to the surrounding city, I'm not sure what you mean. We have some shots here and there are plenty in the Neighborhoods of Hartford, Connecticut sub-article. —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

pictures

I noticed that there were no pictures of Hartford's neighborhoods in this article. So, yesterday I put a few on. I took the pictures, and they thus had no copyright, which I noted on them. They were deleted with no indication of why. I think it is important to show what Hartford actually looks like. 3 of these pictures are in the contributions section of my mexognosis. If you have any thoughts please share them in the Hartford discussion page.

?? no sign of such on the history page?? Gzuckier 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is important to show how Hartford loooks, pictures of a high quality such as the rest of pictures on Wikipedia (for the most part) are important also

This version of the article is I think what the anonymous user was referring to above. The pictures look ok. I think the only problem was their size and placement. --Polaron | Talk 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it's Emsley who doesn't like the pictures. He seems to have missed this discussion here because per his last edit, "if someone wants this photo gallery back, can you explain why (they are of poor quality and are barely indicative at all of the areas that they are claimed to represent". I myself think they look okay enough and will do until someone can take higher quality photos. I think they would look better placed into the sections on the various neighborhoods- in thumbnail size this time! I'd put them in that way, but I'm reluctant to get into a revert war over it. Any other thoughts on this?--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Im responsible for the Hartford photo gallery. I agree that they are not spectacular, but they certainly don't need to be deleted. If anyone takes better quality pictures of the non-downtown areas, I agree that the photos should be deleted. But in the mean-time, I think that the pictures add to the article. Elipongo's idea makes sense. Although, I lack the technical skill to do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.15.0 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2006

I've invited some of the people involved to join the discussion here. We all need to remember that reversion is mostly used to combat vandalism and we should respect other editors' contributions (WP:REVERT#When to revert).--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Hartford instead of Hartford, Connecticut, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The inconsistency with other U.S. cities would last only during the interim period while everything is being fixed. Once completed, U.S. cities would be named consistently with every other article in Wikipedia - only those that require disambiguation would be disambiguated. --Serge 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not to change every city, just to change a selected number. Or is there yet another new proposal, one which this time changes every city and town? -Will Beback 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greater Hartford Metro is the sixth largest in New England?

I looked through the links, and I don't see any reference to the Greater Hartford metro being the 6th largest in New England. I'm thinking this is wrong, how can it be the largest in CT, but only the sixth largest in New England? Boston and maybe Providence have larger metros outside of the State, Worcester and Springfield? I'm thinking no, and please find me the fifth....

According to New England, Hartford is behind Bridgeport, Springfield (MA), Worcester (MA), Providence (RI) & Boston in terms of city size, I'm not aware of a metro regional ranking. I agree, that part of the sentence should be moved. Markvs88 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't talking about city size, I was talking metro. Thanks.

Mayor Segarra

Now that Pedro Segarra is officially the mayor, I'm changing the box to reflect that. I'll ask the Perez fanatics to please not revert this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.128.237 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs

I realize there is a policy about blogs, but the Hartford, CT page has 14 blogs - many of which are inactive, none of which have the following and media coverage of Sad City Hartford. Why list 14 mostly irrelevant blogs and not the city's most relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.200.214 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to which ones are inactive and which ones are "more relevant"? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

h22: 2 updates last 8 months. Not Hartford specific.

Hartford IMC: More general than Hartford specific.

Live In Hartford: Updated maybe once a month

Urban Compass: Updated about once every 2 months

Kenyon St: A real estate blog about one street

Urban America Northeast - Hartford: Last update was May

Sad City Hartford is read and followed much more than the others. The blog writers have been on Colin McEnroe's show on WNPR, have a regular weekly slot on WCCC, and were a cover story on the CT NOW section of the Courant December 1. The Facebook and Twitter followers for Sad City are much, much more than the other blogs.

If there is going to be blogs listed, not having Sad City is a gross misrepresentation of the Hartford blogging community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.200.214 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs' neutrality?

This comment echoes and expands on the previous discussion re: the Knowledge Corridor, in that it is a question about the article's undue weight and neutral point of view.

While the entirety of the article is thorough, and the emphasis on attractions the city has to offer is useful and honest, it seems to me that if the Knowledge Corridor, the Courant, and the Wadsworth are significant to mention in the opening paragraphs, then so is Hartford's rate of poverty (second in the US, as the article notes down the line), and Hartford's economic decline.

In fact, there is no mention of anything negative about Hartford in the article's opening paragraphs, which seems to belittle the very real and very significant struggles taking place in the city over all. As this is a major point of discussion within and around the city, and a daily reality for the 30% of the population living in poverty, this seems to be an oversight in the name of presenting the most appealing parts of the city first. Is that neutral?

For that matter, the opening also leaves out a positive of the city: its diversity. Hartford has the second-largest Puerto Rican population of any city in the US. But you have to read all the way down to the end of the Demographics section to find that out.

I would have less of a problem with this if the opening were shorter. As multi-decade former resident of both the city and its metro area, I'm a little concerned that this article is written to make the city seem as appealing as possible to investors and potential homeowners, rather than to provide information on the actual city. Hammeritout (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I've made a few more edits to "unKnowledge Corridorify" the article. Please feel free to add any citable points you want! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge Corridor & Springfield

This is an article about Hartford, not Springfield. While there is some inter-related topics between the two cities, the Springfield & Knowledge Corridor aspects of this article were given undue weight. I've trimmed things up, and was mildly surprised (given some of the stuff in the article) that there weren't directions to bicycle to Springfield. Right now the Knowledge Corridor is in four pieces in this article (not counting the train), which probably should be tightened as well. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As a lifelong resident of the Hartford area, I have never heard the term Knowledge Corridor used to describe Hartford-Springfield. I'm sure 99% of the rest of the state hasn't either. I think it's given undue weight just for that reason. 99.98.221.223 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Insurance companies based in Hartford

While UnitedHealthcare does have offices in Hartford, the company's headquarters is in Minnesotea24.91.172.200 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox collage

Has there ever been a concerted effort to make a photo collage for Hartford's infobox? If not, then I certainly think such a thing is long overdue. There are far less noteworthy American cities that already have one. Just throwing the thought out there 50.136.74.20 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Hartford, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Hartford, Connecticut

What is missing from the city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Hartford, Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Links in the infobox

Can you stop reverting links to the infobox. The multiple links are still appropriate, including the links to the county and metro area. —JJ B^e ^rs 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@JJBers Public: Do not link simple words and concepts such as State or State capital. Do not make links unnecessarily complicated, such as Connecticut. Do not link to pointless lists, such as County.

Finally, do not call out a user by name in the header on a talk page. —Dilidor (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, fair point in some of those links, but the link to the Hartford Metro area in the infobox isn't overlinking. —JJ B^e ^rs 12:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors are discouraged from linking to cities and such, but if you feel that the Htfd metro one is needed, then please do restore it. —Dilidor (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I restored it since there is no other link in the article. —JJ B^e ^rs 16:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Manufacturing history

The coverage on 19th-century manufacturing history is comprehensive, but I am wondering if this is too long and too detailed. Some allowances need to be made for Colt's influence, since this is clearly of the highest importance to the history of Hartford. The sourcing needs to improve here, but I will need to do some more reading, though I plan to start with the parts on Weed Sewing Machines and Pope Manufacturing Company. I will not be able to contribute to this until sometime in 2019. Is there anyone interested in collaborating? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the 19th century section is large (and could be even further expanded upon). If it did get any longer I would certainly support splitting it off into its own article. As for expansion, I'm more focused on stuff in Fairfield/New Haven counties. Markvs88 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge Corridor

This is the Hartford, Connecticut article. While a small mention about the KC might be warranted, it should not be anywhere near a major section. Like all things Springfield-related, it's not terribly relevant to the article about the city. Markvs88 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88: the Knowledge Corridor article redirects to the Hartford–Springfield region, whose partnership does influence much of the city's developments. If you buy a ticket from Bradley, oftentimes both are listed as such in the originating location, this change is to reflect the regions mention of Hartford in Springfield's own leading paragraphs. --Simtropolitan (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it deserves a small section. A VERY small section. Nowhere near the lede. Ah, the Springfield use of Bradley Airport... yeah, that only occurs on certain carriers, and because they list Springfield as a destination. If you're interested, look at the Springfield talk page to see that discussion. The KC deserves greater coverage in the Greater Hartford page, as you correctly state, but it really is not very important to the city. Markvs88 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88: Not important? You do realize almost 1 in 3 workers in the Hartford city limits work in educational and social services? It's the largest sector in the city economy. And again, the Hartford–Springfield region is given its own paragraph in the lede of the Springfield article; this precedent for calling back economic corridors exists in other cities with similar economic ties, an example being Dallas and Fort Worth. In this case you have made no case other than your opinion that Knowledge Corridor is "not very important" to merit mention in the lede. --Simtropolitan (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First, stop edit warring.

Second... yes, not very important. The KC exists *because* of Hartford (and Springfield), Hartford (and Springfield) do not exist because of the KC. The KC did not create those jobs, nor does it pay any of them.

Third, Region - again, every time you mention "region", it is not relevant. This is the CITY article. Having a sentence or two and links to the Hartford Region page, and the Hartford-Springfield articles is sufficient.

As for the Dallas-Fort Worth example, that's a far cry from what we are talking about here. D-FW is basically a twin-city megapolis, akin to Minneapolis-St. Paul or San Franciso-Oakland. All of those areas work together on regional projects, have intertwined economies, and attract businesses because of those strengths. Hartford-Springfield is by comparison the lumping together of two geographically related cities with little actual interaction *outside of* this KC partnership. It's a statistical trick, not a governmental body like the North Central Texas Council of Governments . I cannot think of a single firm that came to the region due to the KC. Markvs88 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88: Again, where are your sources? You will absolutely invite these edits if you keep saying "I cannot think of", or "most people don't know"— offer something besides an opinion. To expand, the two both share a marked history in the insurance industry as well, and the arms industry— whether it's known as KC or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are very clearly economically and geographically entwined.

If you go on Hartford's own website they frame their location in terms of both Hartford County and the Knowledge Corridor, should I remove Hartford County from the lead? After all it doesn't have a government and it hasn't ever attracted any firm to the region because it's Hartford County. Again, both cities are closer together than the centers of Dallas-Fort Worth, only slightly more distant than the furthest reaches of the Bay. Both coordinate transportation, hold regular meetings, and annual conferences in which planners from the cities of Springfield and Hartford specifically meet (take the State of the Region for example). It's more than statistics and less than a formal government but your opinion on a region's performance economically or clerically doesn't reflect its notability to the city.--Simtropolitan (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not need sources in this situation, because you're asking me to cite something that does not exist. Can you name a company that moved here due to the KC? No? Then QED. No one needs a citation that Hungary has never landed on the moon, either.

My point remains: the content is very relevant in articles other than this one. However, this is the CITY article. I'm not arguing that there is no relationship. I've clearly stated numerous times that it has a place in this article -- a small one. As in, what's already IN the article. Note that I have never removed that, nor would it be proper for it to be removed. It has as little business being in the lede as the Hartford Whalers would have in Springfield's. Or Bradley Airport. Etc. As for your examples, every single one is in regards to Hartford & Springfield together, and that interconnection. And that's great -- for the regional articles.

Okay, reality check: that page states the population of the KC area, and how much of that is Hartford's. It does not say anything else. As for Hartford County, note that it is mentioned only in passing in the lede -- and takes up precisely one sentence, not a 1300-1700 byte screed. Thank you for proving my point!

And again, comparing D-FW to H-S is not an apples to apples comparison. as there being no formal governmental body for the "region". They do not share an MSA. They do not are not in the same state. They do not share an airport (as in, Springfield residents use it, but the city pays nothing as it is wholly Connecticut's airport), etc.Markvs88 (talk)

@Markvs88: I'm asking you to cite something that proves it irrelevant. Mentioning a region for which is derived by the city is not asking to prove that Hungary landed on the moon, or that it's some sort of siren song to attract companies (what notability is that? should GE be in Boston's lede?)

So a "screed" which contextualizes the largest sector of the city's economy and institutions is too much? Much less the single sentence mentioning the region with which Hartford lends its name. The point of the lede is to contextualize that which can be found in the article. A quote by Samuel Clemens has sat there for years, but an economic region which the city lies within is not notable? Nor its reputation for its educational institutions? Whether a handle for region is unsuccessfully used to market new companies, has nothing to do with mentioning an already-existing socioeconomic region in a lede, especially one which defines transit such as the Hartford Line.--Simtropolitan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is exactly the same thing, and nothing you've cited has shown that the KC is anywhere near a major focus of or benefit to HARTFORD, the city. And you've proved my point again re: GE being in Boston's lede. Thank you AGAIN! Heck, let's take that a step further: how much text does the Dallas article use to talk about the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex? ONE SENTENCE. And that's for an real dual-city relationship, as I noted the reasons for above, which you've wholly failed to reply to.

In a word, yes. The screed about what is basically a minor arrangement to leverage existing resources and is totally beyond what would be called normal per undue weight. Yes, and what you're trying to add is not context, it's a screed -- it's much longer than a sentence... like the one pointing out that the city was once the county seat. It is way too long.

I very much agree with your point re: Samuel Clemens, it certainly shouldn't have been there. Likewise, if you look above in talk... back in 2011 I had to purge a positively stupifying amount of KC cruft in this article.

So in summary: every argument you've provided thus far has been regarding the region and not the city. The KC derives its existence and attributes from Hartford and Springfield, not vice-versa, and in any event, the KC does not fund and does not control the educational institutions nor businesses in the area. Therefore my compromise is that it gets one sentence in the lede. I've made this change. Can we agree on this?

Also, you're very inflexible about this. Do you have a personal or professional tie to the KC? If so, you must disclose that. Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88: Of course I'm being very inflexible about this- because all I want is the one sentence mentioning the greater Harford-Springfield region and the schools, you have not made any compromise saying none of this deserves to be mentioned in the lede. What I see is you pulling WP:Ownership of content and edit-warring others over this for the last at least 7 years— have you anything to disclose? I have no ties to the KC or its affiliates other than living in the area and studying its history in my own time. Let the region stand as a single sentence then in the article, let the largest economic sector stand, as in stop erasing the universities or the fact that they are the largest employers in the area. I have cited the fact that the Knowledge Corridor is so-named because the city's (not just the region) largest sector is in education and health. This is not about a single entity like GE, this is about a diverse number of bodies which make up the city today arguably as much as the insurance industry does. --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll find that one sentence > zero sentence, and I *did* put the sentence in the lede. If you're saying that the "Knowledge Corridor" is more important than Hartford's role as a capital city, having been a county seat, etc... then that's just plain laughable. No, I have nothing to disclose, I'm just here improving articles and getting rid of cruft. If you want to expand KC under the Education section go for it, but remember that it is a REGIONAL issue and is only tangentially important to the city. As for the largest economic sector: again, the KC is derivative OF the Hartford and Springfield investments in education and not vice versa. Further, Connecticut's spectacularly bad government chasing out so many companies has no small role in that fact. Markvs88 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88:"Further, Connecticut's spectacularly bad government chasing out so many companies has no small role in that fact.” Yikes... Thats not objectively true at all. I hate to butt in here but Simtropolitan doesn’t appear to be inflexible, in fact they appear to have bent over backwards to accommodate you in the name of consensus editing. The knowledge corridor is indeed more than tangentially important to Hartford whether you believe so or not. Asking if Simtropolitan has “a personal or professional tie to the KC?” doesn't appear to have been called for, the only indications I see of editorial bias are on your (Markvs88’s) part. The compromise (one sentence in the lede) works for now but in the future it would be reasonable for other sections of the hartford page to at least mention the knowledge corridor, however as you’ve both noted it is more of a regional issue. There was no reason for this to get nasty. --Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Horse Eye Jack. You're saying that companies haven't been fleeing Connecticut for the past 30 years? That Hartford didn't nearly go bankrupt? Really? [1], [2]... And as for "bending over backwards"...when was that? Was it when they reverting and restoring the entire text and risked wp:3rr, or making spurious strawman examples for me to debunk?

Asking if he has/d an interest is not out of bounds, particularly after looking at that editor's edit history. Again, even if it IS "more than tangengly important to the city", does it deserve more than any other mention in any other city lede? I say no. As stated, I have no problem with the KC having some part in the article... but go do a diff from January 2012...and then come back and tell me that the amount cruft was not overwhelming the article. As for nasty, I'm sorry if you're reading it that way. It is not my intention to be brusque.Markvs88 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those things has anything to do with "Connecticut's spectacularly bad government.” As the CNBC article you provided makes clear business cycles in the state are driven by federal (e.g. defense spending) and global trends, in fact that article argues that the prime reason theres been growth outside of those cycles has been *effective* government policy in the form of incentive packages (not that I would necessarily agree with the author, but thats not really the point). On a statistical level companies aren’t fleeing Connecticut despite your anecdotal evidence, productivity remains as high as it ever was and outflows are balanced by inflows (infosys for example). I also don’t think many are convinced that a company moving from CT/Hartford (not the #1 city on the globe to do business in) to NYC (the #1 city on the globe to do business in) is necessarily because of any unavoidable failing on Connecticut's part... As for Hartford’s (repeat) near bankruptcy/tenuous financial situation there is near unanimous agreement among economists that it is a structural consequence of redlining, a practice which would appear to continue even today,[3] combined with the inflexibility of Capital region municipal boundaries. I’m not sure redlining and racism can be written off to "Connecticut's spectacularly bad government.” This is of course all a tangent, I don’t get why you insist on being so negative and nasty. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

CT has had a horrible business climate for years [4], [5]. We haven't had a pro-business Governor in decades, and the state is underpopulated by 3/4 to 1 million people even if we'd had the anemic growth rate of Massachusetts over the past 20-30 years. That's indicative of bad government, nevermind other problems like our crumbling infrastructure, high taxes, and high debt load. As for companies not fleeing, you have the right to keep your opinion but I disagree. I don't know why you're talking about redlining or racism as it's irrelevant to our current discussion, but IMO they're likely secondary or tertiary issues, as are illegal immigration and state workers retiring with multiple pensions. You also don't have to like my POV about our horrible state government, nor am I asking you to. I understand your disagreement with the point, but your calling it nasty or negative is IMO just being overly sensitive.

I agree, this is all tangent at this point. Are we now all good with the sentence in the lede, and can agree that this article is about the city of Hartford? To me, that means that "any addition of Knowledge Corridor information should be in regards to the city and not the region, which should go into Greater Hartford or Hartford–Springfield pages, as relevant. Markvs88 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re allowed to have your opinions, however it is not possible to talk about Hartford’s financial situation (which you brought up, not me) without talking about redlining... A basic knowledge of CT history would tell you *exactly* why redlining is not “irrelevant to our current discussion” (Maybe check out the Sheff v. O'Neill page) Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, but we're still on a tangent here. Do you agree with my second sentence from 20.15 on the 20th or no? Markvs88 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markvs88: ---> 'Knowledge Corridor' is more important than Hartford's role as a capital city

That was never my claim. You don’t need to define what a state capital is in a lede. Readers may want to know why a state capital is called something or why the city grants its region the name the "Knowledge Corridor", whatever its or the state gov's economic prowess. What I said before was "all I want is the one sentence mentioning the greater Hartford-Springfield region and the schools.” You have been very adamant about not allowing me to mention the role of the education economy in the lede.

--->As for the largest economic sector: again, the KC is derivative OF the Hartford and Springfield investments in education and not vice versa

The City of Hartford's economy today is largely derived from investments in education, healthcare and research, that alone should warrant explanation in the lede, even if it only includes a sentence about the city’s colleges contributing to the KC handle.

--->Connecticut's spectacularly bad government chasing out so many companies has no small role in that fact

This is not about state economic performance, but the city's economic base. The CT government does not directly govern the KC. Two partner cities, their economies, and affiliates do. Your opinion may or not may not be supported with sources, but performance ≠ notabilty. Institutional support like Hartford gov identifying itself being within "the KC" = notability- maybe readers would wonder why.

--->Asking if he has/d an interest is not out of bounds, particularly after looking at that editor's edit history

You're right, it's not- you have still not addressed any COI's of your own despite asking me. Your name appears on this discussion page for years on-end regarding the lede and contesting that specific content. If it wasn't plainly clear I, w:Simtropolitan, affirm to being unaffiliated with any organization coordinating planning or governance in the Hartford-Springfield region, also known as the Knowledge Corridor, or its so-named initiatives. You've repeated opinions and reframed discussion– I express my opinion here, and not in the article, that you're not discussing this with an aim toward improving the page’s lede, but minimizing it for your personal opinion of its government. Thank you @Horse Eye Jack: for contributing to the conversation constructively. I hope other future editors take notice.--Simtropolitan (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What I said before was "all I want is the one sentence mentioning the greater Hartford-Springfield region and the schools.” You have been very adamant about not allowing me to mention the role of the education economy in the lede.

Yes, and you have that one sentence. What you're asking for is cruft. Let's look at Boston's lede: "The Boston area's many colleges and universities make it an international center of higher education,[19] including law, medicine, engineering, and business ..." ...and that's is it. Everything else is in the Education section, where it belongs.

The City of Hartford's economy today is largely derived from investments in education, healthcare and research, that alone should warrant explanation in the lede, even if it only includes a sentence about the city’s colleges contributing to the KC handle.

Again, the KC had exactly nothing to do with those investments, and there is no citation for such a claim, nor have you refuted my point in repeating this. Does it belong in the regional lede? Sure. For the city? No. Why? Because the KC agreement is just that -- an agreement. It has no direct economic value per se, and the entirety of the Hartford–Springfield article is nothing but a walk through history and a listing of each city's assets.. with the exception of ONE sentence that claims the KC brought in a few hundred jobs. But here the source doesn't exactly back that up as it does not state that all of them came to the REGION due to the KC. Even more notably exactly zero of those jobs were in Hartford.

The CT government does not directly govern the KC. Two partner cities, their economies, and affiliates do.

This is true. However, as I've irrefutably shown previously: the partnership is of REGIONAL importance, and it is derivative of the cities. It is not in and of itself a governing body, and it is only of ancillary importance to the city.

Institutional support like Hartford gov identifying itself being within "the KC" = notability- maybe readers would wonder why.

Who's saying it isn't notable? Not I. If you've been reading, I've consistently said it is REGIONALLY notable, and does deserve some expansion in the educational section in this article. All I've been saying is that what you had in the lede far beyond wp:undue. Why you're arguing something I'm not is puzzling.

u have still not addressed any COI's of your own...

LOL, yeah, you've got me there. I joined Wikipedia in 2005 expressly to work against the future KC.</sarcasm> The 2012 edits I had to make were because there was so much cruft the city article was about 25% about KC and Springfield. Again, far past UNDUE. But, in the spirit of transparency: "I, Markvs88 affirm that I have no affiliation with Hartford, the KC, Springfield, et al, other than these are Wikipedia articles that I edit as a member of WikiProject Connecticut. Markvs88 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Average Income?

In one section the article says the per capital income is roughly 13k, with the median incomes ranging from 24k to 27k. Yet then in another section it says the city has the highest per capita income in the world at 75k. So which is it? Is one referring to the actual city and another to the greater metropolitan area? Why is one figure so low and the other so high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This does need to be cleared up, also: "Today, Hartford is one of the poorest cities in the nation with 3 out of every 10 families living below the poverty line. In 2004, the Hartford metropolitan area ranked second nationally in per capita economic activity, behind only San Francisco."

This is odd back to back, they should be combined or something to explain what it means exactly. It just seems contradictory as is.

Income numbers completely wrong!

Anyone can see that the numbers must be wrong and of course they turn out to be wrong, see www.city-data.com/income/income-Hartford-Connecticut.html ––2001:16B8:6851:1600:F4D9:49A0:49FB:8C97 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How so? Can you expand upon your point please? Markvs88 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation

Move Hartford, Connecticut to Hartford and Bridgeport, Connecticut to Bridgeport. 2A02:C7F:31CF:6400:B55F:3868:7D48:BA90 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Update the page!

I was moving to Hartford when I first came to the page. The impression it gave wasn't what I experienced in the city by myself. I was wondering if there is some wikiexperts who could updates the images put some nice skylines a collage on the right top table for the page so it could look like more to other big cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.236.29.35 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article Status - Community input

Dear Wikipedia editors and Connecticut Wiki-project Members. I would really like to see this article has a good article. However my interpretation of the guidelines for good article status is light. I am extremely new in the wikipedia sphere, so I would like community input to see whether this article is ready and if not what I and others can do to get it to that point. This would really be a learning experience for me so I am completely open.

--Trey Wainman (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hartford, Connecticut/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Will review, but the article seems to have several citation needed tags that need to be resolved. Sounder Bruce 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm kind of barging in here, but this article is of interest to me and I will help out somewhat when I have a chance, hopefully starting tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

From a quick look, I see some aspects of the history missing, and way too much emphasis on Elizabeth Colt and the Colt family for some reason. Will work on those areas when I get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

From a more comprehensive look, I don't think this article is ready for GAN at all, though it's ultimately up to the reviewer to decide. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 12, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The prose needs to be polished, with informal language such as "gotten" and "like" used too often. Weasel words such as "vibrant" are also used several times and need to be cleaned up to comply with NPOV. The Points of interest section is tagged with needing conversion to prose, which I agree with; in its current state, it's long and not particularly interesting due to the loose selection criteria.

2. Verifiable?: Many sections are lacking suitable citations, especially parts of the pre-20th century history, the Sports table, and Government.

3. Broad in coverage?: Coverage of parks, media, and arts leave much to be desired, while there's overemphasis on emergency services and recent developments.

4. Neutral point of view?: Seem to be promotional at times, especially in the "Recent developments" section that uses booster-ish language. Other issues include the Government section, which seems to praise mayor Perez ("widely credited", with only one citation) and does not present a balanced view of the government system.

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: Fire stations gallery has to go, as well as the mismash in the Points of interest.

The article has improved slightly since the nomination was opened (mainly with the removal of undue coverage in the History section), but has a long way to go before it's ready for another attempt.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sounder Bruce 06:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Underground Coalition

I was not able to find any information about the first annual hip hop festival and the underground coalition. If anyone can find any sources for it feel free to revert the change and add the citation. I couldn't scrounge even a passing mention in any newspaper or media source. --Trey Wainman (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)