Talk:Northeastern United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Environment section

Seeing as the possible definitions for this "region" listed in the examples now span Ohio, Michigan, and many other parts of the United States well outside the Census Bureau region, while other examples limit the region to be coterminous with New England, shouldn't we be clear when statistics are given what area they are covering , especially when they cover an area other than the Census Bureau region? The Demographics section and discussion of the area of the region makes clear it is based upon the Census Bureau definition. So does the history section. I think the Environment section, and especially the climate paragraph with averages and other hard data, should also be based on this, the most widely used regional definition for statistical purposes. At the very least, departures should be noted (and probably have a reason). I noted as much, though with less explanation, with this use of a template [1]. HokieRNB reverted my insertion writing[2]: "its clear enough as it stands, and consensus is this article is not just about CB, it's about Northeast, as defined a variety of ways." Hokie missed the point. I wasn't even saying with the template that everything needed to be Census Bureau only (though I am suggesting statistics should be with my comment here) and I most definitely wasn't trying to reopen old wounds or annoy Hokie or Maher-shalal-hashbaz. I was merely noting that statistics need to be based on something and we should not keep what they are based on a secret. Hoppingalong (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Census-Bureau qualification should be mentioned whenever it artificially limits the states in question, such as it does when the article lists the 10 largest cities in the Northeast, without including Washington, D.C. Several other statistics in the article come from sources where "Northeast" isn't limited to the Census Bureau's definition. If readers are curious to know which states are being considered, the references should be sufficient to discover that. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Census Bureau realignment

Is it worth noting that the Census Bureau itself no longer uses the regions it has defined for its own administrative organization? (http://www.census.gov/regions/pdf/RO_realignment_OnePager_FINAL.pdf) This is not to say that the CB regions are not still the way they collect and analyze their statistics, just that it has restructured how its offices are aligned. It certainly does not need to be the lead sentence in this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert it into the lede then? I don't think it is really relevant to the article at all, definitely not in the lede. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My first entry ever on a main Talk page. I hope that I'm not somehow out of order here. I agree that the census no longer needs to be the lede. Also, the top map that claims to be from the Census Bureau is no longer applicable (just trying to stay current here). The CB's new map (which would no longer be usable in this section), is easily available by clicking on one of the CB's regions, then click at the map. Very interesting debates and information here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.3.175 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it would be a complete misapplication of this new realignment to say that the CB regions are no longer applicable. To be sure, their significance is very likely to diminish, but as of the current publication of the Census (2010), these regions still reflect how statistics are collected and analyzed, and should be included in this article. (Not with two separate maps, as I've noted above.) HokieRNB 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what HokieRNB is basing the future diminished importance of the Census Regions on, but as of earlier this week, they are still very much in full force as noted on this page (and elsewhere) on the Census Bureau website which at the very bottom states: "Last Revised: July 22, 2013". Hoppingalong (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hopping- Well, you got me. There still is a reference to Northeast Region on the CB website. But what do you think of the Map link on that page going to a map that no longer has a Northeast region on it? And is it possible that some automatic update went to that page, explaining the recent update? Why would they take down a map of their regions and replace it with another? Technically, you are absolutely correct, they do have a reference to the Northeast Region on the CB website. But based on the inconsistency of the CB page and its corresponding map, I do agree with Hokie that there is a "future diminished importance of the" Northeast Census Region. I think Hokie's outlook on this is very pragmatic. But I do disagree with Hokie on how selective he wants to be on which maps to include on this page. I think all federal maps, and large national organizations maps, have a place here. -Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.246 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As of 10 a.m. this past Wednesday, the Census Bureau was still issuing new data based on the same old 4 regions ([3]). And after clicking on the map link you mentioned ([4]), click on General Reference Maps where you will see the Regions PDF and text file. No change. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hopping-Wow, that map link did NOT work the previous times that I've tried, including yesterday, but it absolutely did now! There IS still a NE US region map on the CB website! Do you work for the CB? Haha. Well, as long as there is a NE US map to be found on the CB website, it should be acknowledged absolutely. Seems strange for the CB to have two sets of regions, but it appears that they do. Also, I could not find any literature out there that the NE CB region has been disbanded. Well, decision time. How relevant do we make the CB in this article? Should the lede be changed back to noting the CB, or should it stay as is? I can see points for both sides. One the one hand, the CB is possibly the most notable organization of those listed. On the other hand, it is very interesting and informational to see what other national organizations consider to be the NE US. Perhaps it is time to create a new subject? -Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.211.65 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The four Census Bureau Regions, intended to be regions for geographic, sociological, demographic, etc., purposes have not been the same as their administrative regions for a long time (at least since 1961, if they ever were the same). As the link Maher-shalal-hashbaz pasted in the first posting in this section announcing the field office changes notes, the old Census Bureau administrative field office regions used to be 12 in number (more than even the "divisions" the CB breaks the regions down into). This change was not to the regions the Census Bureau defined for purposes of nation-wide statistical gathering, etc,, but just CB's internal coverage of field offices. This does highlight the fact that administrative "regions" not used for anything other than internal purposes by a particular organization are less important (or entirely unimportant) than regions defined to be regions for regions' sake and which are used by many different types of demographers, etc. I hope this is the end of the discussion of this entirely unimportant issue with respect to this article. Hoppingalong (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Flexible map

This article needs a map that is flexible the same way the map at Western United States is. It should color the states that are in the Census Bureau definition solid and those that are in other definitions with stripes, just as the map at Western United States does. Go to the second paragraph of the Composition section of the article for revealing alternate definitions. Georgia guy (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Western United States article, especially the unreferenced "Region and concept" section and its unreferenced map is terrible and not a good example to point to. It does highlight the problem of Wikipedians relying on their own insight rather than summarizing Reliable Sources. As for this article and map, the Reliable Sources make clear, like it or not and regardless of how terrible it might be, the Census Bureau region is the most used/important by a huge margin. It would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to synthesize the various one-off definitions listed as examples of alternate definitions into a map. Likewise, picking one or two of the alternate definitions and including them in the map would violate WP:UNDUE, especially without third-party Reliable Sources establishing the importance of a particular definition. If there is another definition that even comes close to the Census Bureau definition in importance, there would be Reliable Sources that say as much (just as there are many noting the importance of the Census Bureau definition). On top of that, all of the stats in the article are based on the region as defined by the Census Bureau. As it is, the article already probably gives too much weight to alternate definitions, but that seems a battle not worth fighting. We shouldn't make it worse. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, "flexible maps," armchair cartographers, and Wikipedians' personal definitions have been a recurring problem on this article for years. Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1#Why_is_Virginia_shaded.3F, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1#Ohio, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1#What_is_this_article_about.3F,Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1#Ohio_and_Michigan, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1#Census_Bureau_defined... and that is just Talk Archive 1. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the new map should include as solid areas the states that included in the Census Bureau's definition, and should include as shaded areas any states that are included in alternate definitions according to reliable sources. HokieRNB 01:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Census Bureau definition is at the very least the principal definition and deserves its own map. So far no definition other than the Census Bureau definition has any third party Reliable Sources as a reference. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented this map, as it was already available in the project space (Wikipedia:WikiProject United States regions/Maps). HokieRNB 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on this page is to include alternate definitions that have reliable sources, so the map shaded per the Wikipedia project on US Regions fits perfectly, as multiple reliable sources show the 9 states defined by the Census Bureau and the 3 states that are shaded in stripes. See these sources (already used in the article) - National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service. Please don't revert the map again. HokieRNB 01:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Other RSs list several unshaded states, too. There has been much talk over the years and consensus is to note include VA, for example. Until consensus on a particular map is reached, the status quo is in effect. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since apparently 2 to 1 is consensus, despite much talk in archives against this particular map, I went a head and added context to the caption to make it less misleading. [5]. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while 2 to 1 is a clear majority, in the last year and 2 days, I count no fewer than 10 editors with accounts and at least 2 different IP editors, none of whom have agreed with you. You have been the lone voice of opposition to this change. For a year. Every single editor to have commented on this page has been in opposition to you. Consensus is crystal clear. It's time for you to stop now. HokieRNB 02:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree consensus is for some other map, but not just any other map. Consensus is against the map you inserted, as is the text of this article. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The two CB maps at the top of the page are entirely incorrect and outdated. The CB regions no longer have a "Northeast" region. -Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.247 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is probably no need for two maps that show exactly the same thing; i.e. the top map shows the C.B.-defined states and some of the states that are used in other definitions in the article (although it's not clear why Hopping decided to eliminate VA, even though the article clearly has multiple reliable sources showing that some definitions include VA - seems to go against even his own warped sense of what constitute WP:OR), and the second map also shows the C.B.-defined states. One map should suffice, and it should have in a solid color the C.B.-defined states, and in a secondary color (lighter, patterned, whatever) all the other states that are used in alternate definitions within the article. And, no, it doesn't need to be any state that in any definition has ever been included, but it should cover the ones that are used for information in this article. For instance, if the climate section refers to reliable sources that include MD and DE in climate data for the Northeast, then MD and DE should be shaded. If the geography section refers to reliable sources that include WV, then WV should be shaded. If the culture section refers to reliable sources that include VA, then VA should be shaded. No reason to include (for instance) U.S. Virgin Islands or parts of Canada, since the definitions that include those regions are really just examples of other definitions and not contributing to the discussion of the region in general. The other maps are interesting for contrast, but not sure they really have a place in this article. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps the second map down should be the first to "go." That map is NOT from the CB website. According to the reference, the map is supposedly from a 1982 book, but I can't even verify that because the reference just takes me to a book review/selling website. It appears to use a very poor reference. -Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.244 (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are to continue to utilize the outdated CB map, then it should probably be labeled as a "historical map." -Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.244 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the second CB map should go. One map showing both the C.B. states and the other Northeastern states that are included in reliable sources. (Which is precisely what I added and User:Hoppingalong removed.)

I also believe that User:Hoppingalong's edits on this article are not constructive, are against consensus (or often without even bothering to seek consensus), are frequently disruptive, and are now bordering on WP:POINTy. There is no way that it helps improve this article to include the following definitions:

• Uniform Crime Reports of FBI - unless there is something in the article about crime statistics for the Northeastern United States.
• National Energy Modeling System - unless there is something in the article about the production, consumption, conversion, import, or pricing of energy in the Northeastern United States.
• International Nuclear Safety Center - unless there is something in the article about nuclear facilities in the Northeastern United States.
• Boy Scouts of America - unless there is something significant about Boy Scouts as it relates to the Northeastern United States (e.g., if there were twice as many Boy Scout troops per capita as compared to other reasons, a completely made-up fact).
• Northeast Regional Ocean Council - unless there is some significant contribution that this council makes to the understanding of the Northeast as a region (which I admit is entirely possible).
• Food and Drug Administration
• Department of Defense
• American Lung Association

These last three, I can't see how they contribute to the article in any substantive way. Alternate definitions are fine to include, but they should be alternate definitions that contribute to the content of the article. We should work to eliminate definitions that are merely there because such-and-such an organization has an administrative regional division named "Northeast". A good example of a recent addition would be the Plant Taxonomic Database Standards, which at first glance seems like it would be a source for describing the flora of the Northeastern United States. The Fish and Wildlife Service reference should be a good source for similar information about fauna of the Northeastern United States. The Library of Congress reference is good for finding historical maps of the Northeastern United States. HokieRNB 13:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

While I do find it interesting to see how all these separate federal agencies view the NE US area, I would agree with you that some agencies hold more weight than others. But I have to admit that I am a bit biased by looking at this overall subject as more of a "gee-whiz" subject rather than a "scientific" subject. My only exception to that bias is the use of the CB map(s). I do acknowledge your point that the CB's Northeast Region may still be being utilized for some statistics, even though the region was apparently disbanded by the CB website in January of 2013. I do think that should somehow be stated on the CB map(s), but I now see your point as to why a CB map could/should stay. -Ed

But why not any of the particular definitions, especially the government examples? (Heck, why isn't there mention of nuclear power in the region or major non-profits or crime rates?) Why is the FDA less important? I think how we would know the important definitions from the unimportant or one-off/administrative-only definitions would be those definitions themselves covered in Reliable Sources. What I mean by that is which definitions are consciously used by people other than the entity that created it. (We already know there is not a cohesive "northeastern culture" or geography or history calling into question whether this region is a region in any significant, non-arbitrary sense, though sub-parts of it definitely are, like New England.) The only definitions that are cited by others outside the organization creating it, referenced here or that I could find, at least, are the CB and the plant one you mentioned as a good example. But few folks, currently, seem to want to limit this to the CB or other wide-cited definitions. As an aside, I was the one who added some of the good examples you listed above, so I am not sure how that factors into your personal attack. Furthermore, most of the less/none-cited definitions were grouped together in a note, but recently brought to the main text by an editor other than me. I repeatedly noted I thought they should go back in a note, if they belonged in the article at all. And to the IP editor who keeps going on about the "new" and "disbanded" Census regions, the Census Bureau regions are the same as they have been. The CB regions have not changed. The area particular field offices cover changed, irrespective of the regional definitions. That is already mentioned in the article. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"We already know there is not a cohesive "northeastern culture" or geography or history calling into question whether this region is a region in any significant, non-arbitrary sense, though sub-parts of it definitely are, like New England." How do "we" know that? This is your own original research. I guess you still don't see the point of why I brought up Northeast megalopolis which very clearly demonstrates that the "Northeast" is a distinct region culturally and economically and includes Maryland, Delaware, and DC. The megalopolis would not be called the "Northeast megalopolis" is the region of states it is located in is not the "Northeastern United States" and it is not even questioned whether part of it is in the "South Atlantic States."

"French geographer Jean Gottmann popularized the term in his 1961 book Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States, his landmark study of the region. His conclusion was that the various cities contained in the region—especially Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston—are, while discrete and independent, uniquely tied to each other through the intermeshing of their suburban zones, acting in some ways as a unified super-city: a megalopolis. Since the publication of Gottmann’s book, the concept has gained prominence in both popular and academic media." The CB's century old definition is notable, but it is not dogma, and the consensus is clearly against treating it as such. It is time to stop hijacking this article and accept this. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hopping-Upon some thought, I do agree with you that all federal agencies and large national organizations could/should be included in this map, no matter what the scientific relevancy or irrelevancy is. But I disagree with you that the CB still has a "Northeast US" region. Please go onto the CB website. You will see that those maps have been omitted, and the regions have been changed as of January 2013. Or please guide me to the CB page which refers to a CB Northeast Region. @Hokie- I do believe that all federal maps which contain a "Northeast" region should be included. @All- being a rookie at this, I have gone back and manually signed my name "Ed" to my comments. I hope that works for now. -Ed

See below Talk:Northeastern_United_States#Census_Bureau_realignment. Hoppingalong (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus sought for Maryland, Delaware, and DC being prominently mentioned in the Composition section

I added important information about a major 1950 review by the Census Bureau (see pages 18-19) http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf which contradicts its official definition dating from 1880 and states that the official definition is kept solely out of convenience, and included the relevant notable source here:([6]) I also included information about geographer Jean Gottmann's 1961 landmark study of the region, Megalopolis. User:Hoppingalong reverted it (as part of a long-standing continuing pattern of disruption without consensus to this article,) claiming that I didn't get consensus for the edits. I am seeking consensus, since it appears to me that Hoppingalong is the only editor who does not believe that MD, DE, and DC should be prominently mentioned in Composition. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For some reason this IP editor abandoned the discussion where it was happening below(Talk:Northeastern_United_States#organization_of_the_composition_paragraphs) and started this new section at the top of this talk page. The section below more than clarifies why the IP is wrong. The IP is misconstruing the Reliable Sources ( 1.) the Census Bureau source notes why this formulation was rejected and 2.) Gottmann explicitly did not seek to define the Northeast region) and is otherwise engaging in interesting, though inappropriate for Wikipedia, Original Research. I think editors should focus on HokieRNB's reasonable proposal that we had just started discussing (Talk:Northeastern_United_States#organization_of_the_composition_paragraphs) when IP joined the conversation. Hoppingalong (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't abandon the discussion below, it was simply a formatting choice as the section the discussion was in has grown so long as to become unwieldy. By all means I encourage all editors to visit that section and see how a major review by the Census Bureau that occurred 70 years after the official definition was determined decided on a Northeast including MD, DE, and DC, but was rejected by data analysts in favor of the 1880 definition (which is more than twice as old as the major review) solely out of reasons of their own convenience (rather than truly significant geographical factors) as the Bureau itself states on page 19 of http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf:

• "The proposal assigned many States that were on the border of an existing region to a different region, and some to entirely new divisions. For instance, it shifted Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maryland from the South Region to the Middle Atlantic Division of the Northeast Region"

• "This suggested reclassification had its merits, for on a purely statistical basis it provided a more homogeneous set of areas than any others then in use by the Department of Commerce. However, the new system did not win enough overall acceptance among data users to warrant adoption as an official new set of general-purpose State groupings. The previous development of many series of statistics, arranged and issued over long periods of time on the basis of the existing State groupings, favored the retention of the summary units of the current regions and divisions"

Additionally, I included geographer Jean Gottmann's 1961 landmark study of the region (while not defining the region explicitly, nonetheless identifies the many common factors that constitute the region, such as "interpenetration of land and sea" including Chesapeake Bay specifically mentioned in one of many examples) which notably agrees with the Census Bureau's review that MD, DE, and DC are part of the Northeast. The funny part about this is, I didn't even remove the offical Census definition from the very beginning of the section. I simply tried to add highly relevant information based on reliable sources. How exactly is a major review conducted by the Census Bureau, the same source you consider to have a monopoly on the term "Northeastern United States," not notable or relevant to this article?

Also, according to HokieRNB's proposal, "Wherever multiple sources offer differing information based on a different definition of states, sources that follow the CB should be given priority." Please forgive me if I misunderstood the meaning of this, but since the major 1950 review's definition is indeed from the Census Bureau itself shouldn't it also be given priority over information not from the Census Bureau? Second after the official definition is an appropriate place for this alternative Census Bureau definition. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you will continue revising your comments making this a moving target, but simply put, the Census Bureau Regions and their configurations are well known. The document you quote above briefly highlights why the Census Bureau's regions are what they are, and why various reclassifications have not been adopted. You can say the Census Bureau came up with new regions all you want, but the four are still the four in the same configuration they have been for decades. That is repeated throughout that document. You go from not wanting to focus on the Census Bureau to wanting to misuse Census Bureau references to establish something not stated in those sources. On the last page the Census Bureau notes: "New geographic designations appear frequently, and a few find their way into public usage... However, the acceptance of new general-purpose geographic regions by the Census Bureau hinges upon an overall favorable consensus of the data user community regarding a long-standing set of statistical entities." There is no such consensus yet, your learned argument notwithstanding. Hoppingalong (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough to solely state the official definition if there's important information from the Census Bureau itself about why the official definition is what it is, and not another significant proposal that was strongly considered. All I tried to do was provide this relevant information to the readers about a significant alternative opinion from within the Census Bureau itself. I never implied it became the official definition, the very first sentence of the section still explicitly defined what the official definition is. I never argued that the Census Bureau isn't notable, just that there are other notable definitions. I am not making this a moving target, you are free to revise your comments as well if I add something you missed the first time around. I'm not doing it after you reply (except to occasionally fix typos and grammatical errors.) 173.16.194.59 (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This information is far more relevant than a sentence about the administrative regions of the CB not aligning with its own statistical regions. I would amend my suggested composition paragraph and split it into two as follows:

The Census Bureau has defined the Northeast region as comprising nine states: [list states here].^{[CB source][note explaining how reorg doesn't impact regional definition]} This definition has been widely used as a standard for data tabulation since 1950.^[sources] The CB has acknowledged the limitations of this definition^{[National Geographic Areas Conference, April 1984]} and the potential merits of reforming regional boundaries to include Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia with the Mid-Atlantic states, but ultimately decided to keep this grouping of states intact for statistical purposes.^{[Statistical Groupings of States and Counties]} Many organizations and reference works follow the CB definition for the region,^[sources] however, other entities define the Northeastern United States in significantly different ways for various purposes.

One of the broadest definitions includes all the states east of Mississippi River and north of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers.^{[LOC source]} The narrowest definitions include only the states of New England.^[sources] States that have been considered by researchers to be part of the Northeast United States include [State 1],^[sources] [State 2],^[sources] [etc...].^[sources]

I hope this change addresses some of the concerns of the earlier revision, and I'd like to see this proposal move forward with more efficiency than this page is accustomed to, thanks to the staggeringly unsupported work of User:Hoppingalong. HokieRNB 12:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack aside, I think this is a good proposal. My only hesitation in supporting it unequivocally is the last sentence. If we focus on definitions, rather than tallying votes for particular states, and limit that to definitions actually used in the world (the plant taxonomy, for example), that seems fine. Otherwise, I am afraid this will lead to additional example cruft and definitions that have no importance to anybody other than the creator (to whom it might even only have been arbitrary, if necessary grouping). Hoppingalong (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I support HokieRNB's amended proposal. Except I would state that the official definition has been essentially unchanged since 1880, highly relevant information to include in the article. The 1950 major review's definition is clearly the most notable alternative Census Bureau definition based on that source. The Census goes into considerable detail about its "merits" and why the 1880 definition was retained nonetheless, which is important information for this article. As for the last sentence, if we're careful to stick to the truly notable definitions, I think we can avoid cruft whether we're "tallying votes" or not. Virginia must be partially shaded on the map as well.

Additionally, Gottmann's study must be prominently included in this article with a link to Northeast megalopolis, even if not in the Composition section (Demographics, perhaps?) Since it is highly relevant research about the region, it deserves at least a sentence.

It isn't a personal attack to point out that just about everything you have done with this article (removing any prominent mention of anything other than the official Census definition) has been without any consensus whatsoever. This even includes moving the entire page to include the Census Bureau in the title which was quickly and overwhelmingly determined to have been inappropriate, see the discussion about the proposed move above where you are virtually the only editor supporting the move. A number of other editors have agreed with this assessment of your behavior. Then you turned around and claimed that I acted without consensus for adding a few sentences based on important information from reliable sources (even including the Census Bureau itself) which support the consensus opinion here without removing any information whatsoever about the official definition. Please stop disrupting this article. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also support HokieRNB's proposal, and also support his/her earlier proposal of a WP:TBAN for Hoppingalong to stop disrupting the article. I agree that there is no personal attack - it is merely a simple statement of fact. Multiple editors have tried to work with Hoppingalong for more than a year, and most of them have given up after being needlessly reverted multiple times. Hoppingalong recently attempted to report me for WP:3RR, an accusation which was completely without warrant and was completely ignored by administrators. According to WP:NPA, "accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a WP:TBAN for Hoppingalong as well. Hopefully then we can actually start improving this article according to the consensus of both the reliable sources and the editors rather than deal with one editor's uncompromising opinion. It's impossible for anyone to do anything constructive with this continuing disruption. This has gone on for far too long. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added several non-CB definitions to this article, and the only non-CB definition that is regularly and widely used by anyone other than the creator (the plant taxonomy one). I have also resisted opinion-based definitions based on editors "knowledge", not well reasoned standards for inclusion that merely summarize third-party Reliable Sources and discussed this regularly on talk. And I brought up the source cited above (in response to the IP wrongly claiming the CB never discussed why the definitions are what they are). Specific to issues mentioned above...

• I agree with the IP that only "notable" definitions should be included in the last sentence, though one wouldn't need to be anywhere notable in the strict WP:N sense to be included. We know what definitions or groupings are "notable" in this respect by the coverage they receive. A definition that receives any real third-party coverage or use (not specious coverage or otherwise worthless) is probably good enough.
• As for the top map, if we are to include more than one definition per map, all states included in any of the "notable" definitions should be shaded. I can't think of any other principled way to do it. I still think it better to make the top map only the most significant, widely used definition, with other definitions represented in maps in the composition section.
• As for Gottmann, he explicitly disclaimed doing what the IP would cite him for (defining the Northeast). Other than mention that the Megalopolis is centered/primarily in the Northeast, I don't think there is much to cite Gottmann for in this article.

Hoppingalong (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am 173, I created an account. What you are doing is ignoring the more nuanced position that the Census itself has historically taken as well as the common inclusion of other states in numerous sources. And I wasn't wrong. I still have seen absolutely no explanation for the 1880 definition, just why the 1880 definition wasn't officially revised in 1950. And tallying the number of sources that use the Census isn't the whole story, since the Census Bureau itself told us that it's out of convenience for the data analysts rather than truly common statistical factors. The map should reflect the difference in definition taking a full view of the relevant sources. I am not citing Gottmann to define the Northeast, I am citing him to identify the Northeastern phenomenon including traits indisputably shared by MD, DE, and DC. Like I said, if it's more appropriate in another section, that's fine. Perception Dimension (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought you meant that Gottmann should be prominently referenced in the composition section (partly because of the title of this talk section). That is what I was disagreeing with. I do agree the concept is important and should be mentioned (I added the see also link.). I tried to work it in with this edit ([7]). Hoppingalong (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That is fine with me. What really needs to be in the Composition section is a prominent mention of the merits of including MD, DE, and DC specifically (and a brief description of why they are not included in the official Census definition.) HokieRNB's proposal does this, and I hope we can now start to improve the section without further distractions. Perception Dimension (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)