Talk:New Hampshire

Drug infested Den

I am from the UK.

Why did President Trump call New Hampshire a "drug infested den"? What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@87.224.32.138: "Drug infested" is a reference to the Opioid epidemic and "den" is a reference to an Opium den. See also the phrase "den of vice", among others. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@Ken Gallager: You don't understand the purpose of the IPAc-en template. It is not to provide a local pronunciation but one transcription that can be 'translated' into General American and Received Pronunciation. Therefore, a speaker of the former will know to say [nu ˈhæmpʃər], whereas an RP speaker will know to say [njuː ˈhæmpʃə]. Sorry, but you're wrong and need to read Help:IPA/English. Reverting. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Lux, Jr.: Sorry, but you're another user who doesn't understand the purpose of IPAc-en. (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the article and section. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Lux, Jr.: (Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before and the consensus was to use the local pronunciation. Additionally, the IPA translation is probably not even necessary for New Hampshire because it is not difficult to pronounce. It may be best to remove it altogether anyway. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Lux, Jr.: It's a misuse of the IPAc-en template, which should be used in a certain manner (see my original post and Help:IPA/English). The consensus you're talking about was clearly among editors who didn't understand that and therefore isn't very relevant, I'm afraid. (Redacted)

I have no strong feelings towards keeping the IPA, but if we decide to do so, we must retain /j/ in the first word. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just curious if anyone has thought to use IPA the way in Wikipedia we handle spelling: for US articles we use American spelling, for other nations, we use their spelling. Why should the pronunciation of "new" be described in a way that is not used in the U.S. when it's a U.S. article? And yes, several years back the solution was to designate the "nu" pronunciation as a local one. But this clearly offends the "nju" people. Basically, if the IPA template requires intense study for editors (let alone the general article-reading public) to understand how to use it, it's probably not worth using in this context. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ken Gallager: We're not describing the pronunciation of "new" in a way that is not used in the U.S., it just looks like that to laymen. Transcriptions enclosed within IPAc-en are diaphonemic, rather than phonemic. I think "intense study" is an exaggeration. Either way, you should raise this issue on Help talk:IPA/English. I'm not a huge fan of diaphonemic transcriptions either and I think that having a separate General American and Received Pronunciation transcriptions would be a good idea. However, we'd need to have a consensus for that. That issue was discussed in the past and, AFAIK, the diaphonemic transcription was chosen each and every time. As long as Help:IPA/English is diaphonemic, we should respect that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For posterity, it seems worth noting that the IPAc-en template does not output any of the notation styles currently described in the diaphoneme article in its Representation section and that Help:IPA/English originally didn't mention anything about diaphonemes and in fact up until a couple of years ago explicitly included an instruction to list multiple differing pronunciations that was deleted without any apparent discussion, when in fact in the corresponding talk page archives there didn't even appear to be consensus about conveying diaphonemes via the International Phonetic Alphabet. Similarly, until late last year the documentation for the IPAc-en template explicitly said that it dealt with phonemes and did not mention diaphonemes at all, until in a single edit every instance of "phoneme" and "phonemes" was replaced with "diaphoneme" and "diaphonemes".

Also, the word "diaphoneme" does not appear at all in the current article on the International Phonetic Alphabet itself.

To reiterate my position from previous discussions here which occurred before the above changes were made, it's completely bizarre to me that anyone would want at the top of Wikipedia articles, often right next to an audio file representing one specific way of pronouncing a word, a written representation not of one or more specific ways of pronouncing the word but rather a string conveying a linguistic abstraction that's sort of like a tolerance specification for how it might be pronounced if you took the conventional IPA symbols and had some type of lookup table to translate them into a particular accent. But, you could read the entire article on the IPA and still not understand that's what you have to do to arrive at a particular pronunciation that might match up with an audio file of someone pronouncing the word. And even if you did, you'd actually end up with a second IPA string with no way to tell by looking at them that one represents diaphonemes and the other phonemes.

So I 100% agree with Ken Gallager's characterization that adding such a diaphoneme string to the top of an article is something an editor or reader would require "intense study" to understand. For articles in general, and this article in particular, I concur that it's better to have the status quo of nothing at all rather than something so complicated and potentially misleading. —▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 04:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames in the infobox

There is a mild back-and-forth about nicknames in the infobox. My position and the position of at least one other editor is that "The Granite State" is the only nickname for New Hampshire that is commonly used and thus the only one that should be noted. The infobox isn't for comprehensive lists of information - it's there to provide a quick look at the most important characteristics. The fact that it is possible to find some other nicknames for the state used by some people at some time may or may not be worthy of the article, but I'd say it's definitely not worthy of the infobox. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed not the place for local media catch phrases. We are looking for recognizable terms that are used.--Moxy (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems very anecdotal criteria; I admit I have not heard someone call New Hampshire the "Mother of Rivers" or "Switzerland of America", however it is still referred to as "White Mountain State" by many. The source provided is not a local media catchphrase but an academic source, and one of many, including Collier's, and NH and Federal gov literature. Many states provide additional nickname(s), the infobox is deliberately designed to accomodate more than one, which are almost entirely traditional at this point. Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, being some examples.--Simtropolitan (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the way the state website puts it: "New Hampshire has 4 nicknames. The first is the one by which the state is commonly known. Granite State: for our extensive granite formations and quarries"[[1]]. As a reporter in New Hampshire I can affirm that The Granite State is commonly used as a stand-in for New Hampshire. The term is widely known Putting this in the infobox is useful to readers. But I have not in three decades here seen or heard any of the other nicknames actually used, including White Mountain State, although of course there's plenty of reference to the White Mountains.

As wp:infobox notes, the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject" - the key word (so to speak) being "key". Nicknames that are not actually used in common discourse are not, I would argue, key. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, to rely on one's experience alone is to rely on original research, "most common" doesn't mean exclusive, and having additional nicknames does not compromise the integrity of an article. The state thought it was relevant to include and explain all 4 in their "fast facts" beyond the one you've quoted here, and generally valid reasons for removing content are it being unsourced, inaccurate, irrelevant, or inappropriate. Can we accept the addition of White Mountain State and then leave it at that then? --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious: can you find a use of "White Mountain State" as a nickname in any source except the FAQ in the past couple of decades? I can't. By the way, if you want to put these nicknames in the article I think that would appropriate, although not very useful. It's cluttering the infobox with them that I think is a disservice to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If the state's own equivalent of an infobox isn't enough, nor an academic work on American English, which is still in print, in your opinion what is? Since local media is all that would be left, a quick search turns up the following in commerce- [2], [3], and literature [4] [5] [6] [7]. WP:Clutter is pretty broad and clear on what is problematic, I fail to see how this makes it any more difficult for people to read the words "The Granite State".--Simtropolitan (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I must say that's a reasonable collection of references you found which does imply that people might stumble across White Mountain State used as a synonym and thus find it useful in the article. So I guess I'm not opposed after all. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it, only trying to be thorough.--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

But just because something can be sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the infobox. I'm against this for the same reasons I'd be against adding a list of former capitals to the infobox. The infobox should be a simple presentation of key facts that people are likely to want to know, not an exhaustive list of things that someone found in a book or through Google. AlexiusHoratius 19:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Would people not like to know a state's nicknames? Particularly if they still have contemporary usage and are included by the government of that state? I would not be opposed to removing "Switzerland" and "Mother of Rivers" but it's not as though these were picked from someone's novel or a random 19th century gazette --Simtropolitan (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As argued above, all of the obscure nicknames would be interesting in the body of the article. It is misleading and confusing to put all of them in the infobox. You've made a good case for including "White Mountain State" as a currently-used nickname in the infobox, but not for the others. It looks like the sources you provided that list Switzerland or Mother of Rivers are simply citing the original State Library reference. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully I haven't listed any sources specific to the others, the only one I have provided for those is a reference book which cites all four. There are other contemporary sources that could be used for these in informal literature and recent encyclopedias of geography, but if an official state shortlist is not ample, that is not something I will pursue at this time. I have only found this discussion more discouraging than constructive in attempting to contribute relevant content to this article.--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't get discouraged - disagreement among editors is how wikipedia works! If everybody automatically agreed, there'd be no need to have editing. The fact that three edfitors think you went slightly overboard may be an indication that ... well, you may have gone slightly overboard. All of us have done much worse in our wiki-years, I'm sure. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the government source, which refers to 4 different state nicknames:

• https://www.nh.gov/nhinfo/fastfact.html

New Hampshire has 4 nicknames. The first is the one by which the state is commonly known. Granite State: for our extensive granite formations and quarries

Mother of Rivers: for the rivers of New England that originate in our Mountains White Mountain State: for the White Mountain Range

Switzerland of America: for our beautiful mountain scenery

The question is:

1. Whether to list just the one main nickname in the infobox, or
2. Is "White Mountain State" significant enough that it needs inclusion in the infobox.

Is this what you guys are discussing about? WinterSpw (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• One nickname in the infobox is sufficient. The article text is the place for being comprehensive. Put Granite State in the infobox, and the others in the body.--Jayron32 04:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Hampshire. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014112959/http://www.visitnh.gov/welcome-to-nh/state-facts.aspx to http://www.visitnh.gov/welcome-to-nh/state-facts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411025556/http://www.tolatsga.org/aben.html to http://tolatsga.org/aben.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/category/politics/face-the-nation/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news+and+events/college+news/news/2007-11-29-primarydebates.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"New Hampshre" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Hampshre. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"New Hampster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Hampster. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)