Talk:Holyoke, Massachusetts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance).

Cleaning up

Made some changes, if you think they were wrong just revert them and i'll tag it with wikify so the article will get cleaned. Warrush 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of cleanup, I just did a bunch. RGTraynor 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Log Cabin

While the Log Cabin is a fine banquet hall, it remains un-cited as to the claim it is one of the best in New England. Since this was first flagged in February of 2007, I'm removing it now. --Mmpartee (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why is the Log Cabin is mentioned at all in this article on Holyoke? Nothing against the place, but why does it rate mention over other establishments? The Delaney House, Yankee Peddler, or Friendly's for that matter? My suggestion would be to remove the reference entirely - it does not rate mention in an encylopedic article on the city. In the same vein, I think the Points Of Interest mention of Nick's Nest should also be removed. How about something about the dam and it's fish elevator, though?Perkunas170 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor

There seem to be repeated vandalisms declaring Alex Morse to be mayor. He gets sworn in in early January. I suggest we wait until then to change the article. BeIsKr (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of the word Holyoke

Is the word Holyoke Indian in derivation & if so, what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.139.106 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holyoke, Massachusetts. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419222705/http://newsite.holyokestpatricksparade.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27 to http://newsite.holyokestpatricksparade.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=27

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holyoke, Massachusetts. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Greater Springfield

Hi all-
Because of the breadth of history, geography, culture, and other details which tie into Springfield, Holyoke, and Chicopee, I am currently proposing the creation of a Wikiproject under WikiProject Massachusetts, not unlike WikiProject Boston or WikiProject Lowell. Since this page receives far more views than Greater Springfield I figured I would leave this here. There are so many primary resources out there on this area's history, economy, culture, that I think it would be useful to have a single location to discuss using them for building and improving multiple related pages. If you're interested, please leave some support here.
--Simtropolitan (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Rocco Francis Marchegiano.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose change: Puerto Ricans aren't immigrants

I know that these debate has been going on for years, but the fact remains that Puerto Ricans are US citizens, not "immigrants." Therefore, we shouldn't state that PR it is one of the immigrant countries, for this very reason. Readers must be crystal clear about this fact. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your change is not supported by any cites. It is also incorrect because you are claiming that citizens cannot be immigrants, which is incorrect. You are equating immigration with citizenship and the two have nothing to do with each other. Definition of "immigrant": “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Where does it say anything there about citizenship? Nowhere. That's because immigration and citizenship have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, it is correct to call Puerto Ricans who move to the US "immigrants". Now, for a bit of common sense: A person with dual British and US citizenships moves to the US is also considered an "immigrant" because his situation falls under “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence”. This related example shows that despite someone being a US citizen already, it makes no difference, and he is still an immigrant because he moved to a country. This shows that immigration and citizenship have nothing to do with each other. This is also why people who come into the US who are not US citizens are also called immigrants (illegal immigrants but "immigrants" nevertheless). That said, Puerto Ricans are immigrants. I have undone your edit. Please do not change the article again.

Now, some unsolicited but friendly advise: I invite you to check out this conversation HERE and see how editor Samuel Malik argued for 4 days against some 5 other editors that Benicio del Toro wasn't Puerto Rican but American. There was clear consensus that Del Toro was Puerto Rican, but Samuel Malik persisted and more than one month after the discussion was done, at 13:05, 27 September 2019 (you can see yourself at the bottom of that discussion link), he returned threatening that he was going to make a change to Benicio del Toro's nationality. Now, see HERE how on 11:06, 28 November 2019 he was blocked for Disruptive editing. Now, you seem like a nice guy but you continue to make changes to accommodate your political preferences. This is just another version of your view that "Puerto Rico is part of the US", and I am afraid that even my comments, cites, definitions and examples above aren't going to persuade you that this is not how we edit in Wikipedia. Hopefully, your insistence will not encourter the same fate as Samuel Malik's. Oh, and BTW, "these debate" (sic) have not been going on for years: We know what official sources state regarding these issues and edit WP according to those official sources. What has been going on for years is the disruptive editing from editors who, without cites, want to change what WP discussions, supported by cited official sources, have already determined. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Sorry, I hadn't realised that you replied to this talk page. As I explained on my talk page, I still disagree. United States nationality law treats PR as part of the US for immigration purposes; immigration is mostly used in a legal sense to say that someone moves to a "different" country to take up residence; they would also have to go through an immigration check. This is not true for Puerto Ricans (see Geography of the United States and page 7 of [1] for another definition of the "US".) However, you would argue that PR and the US are "different" countries, and I request you to read the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [2]. I would also like to here others' opinion on the matter. Upd: I like this explanation on the matter [3] - Thanks. (Also, to clarify, I know that Puerto Ricans have "Puerto Rican" nationality, and citizenship. They are absolutely entitled to call themselves Puerto Ricans. I don't disagree on that). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After getting frustrated about the HPD continuing to hold press conferences exclusively in English despite the fact sizable portion of the population only speaks spanish, a language native to America, and predates English in the Americas by a century, I wrote an email to whatever officer was holding whatever press conference made me so frustrated(There's more to it).

'Puerto Rican' means different things when spoken depending on the context, and really what I mean is who the speaker is. Puerto Rican is more well defined than 'white'(There are thousands of exclusively European descended Puerto Ricans) b/c it's is so nebulous.

In the email, I didn't use "Puerto Rican" and there's no context in which a white person should be using the plural form

Americans from Puerto Rico"

It's a little clunky like partners for same sex couples, but if recent history has taught us anything, is that language matters a lot. Sweat the details.

Obviously you don't know the speaker of Wikipedia context and I think it's far less of a problem written but it's not absent. And because the speaker is kind of nobody in particular the meaning of Puerto Rican is read differently depending on the reader.

Though obviously The Puerto Rican pride movement is both effective and also uses the term well. I don't have any suggestions.. 2601:19B:4580:AE0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: