Talk:Northeastern United States

organization of the composition paragraphs

This is just FYI, when I reorganized the section on "Composition", here is the rationale behind it: In the first paragraph is the Census Bureau definition, along with some of the references that demonstrate this is the most widely-used and highly-cited definition of the states that make up the region. The second paragraph has more of the research-based and scholarly definitions - in other words, definitions that are used in academic work vs. those that are used in real life. The third paragraph collected the definitions that are in use by organizations and agencies that actually contribute to the discussion of the region as a whole, not just as a collection of states (such as NOAA). The fourth paragraph, by contrast, contains definitions that are in use by entities that really don't say anything substantive about the region, but may be used as administrative groupings to subdivide larger organizations into smaller regional chapters (such as the American Lung Association). All of these may be helpful, but this last category should probably be kept fairly minimal, and perhaps only contain regional definitions that are already represented elsewhere in Wikipedia (such as the BSA's Northeast Region page). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

May I offer an alternate proposal? Here is the framework I suggest:

Since [insert year], the Census Bureau-defined 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 the early Twentieth Century.^[sources] 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 are sometimes considered to be part of the Northeast United States include [State 1],^[sources] [State 2],^[sources] [etc...].^[sources]

No definitions should be included in these sources that are merely administrative divisions, and eventually any source that is referenced should also be contributing content to the rest of the article. Wherever multiple sources offer differing information based on a different definition of states, sources that follow the CB should be given priority. That would be an appropriate application of WP:DUE. HokieRNB 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is constructive. My only real problem is with the last sentence, the "sometimes considered" sentence. Somebody or some organization considers just about any state not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean or Mexico as "Northeast," while others would limit it to Maine and northern New Hampshire and Vermont. That is an exaggeration of course, but reading the talk archives here, not as far off as one (me) might expect. This is the problem I have with the "may or may not be considered" language in the first map's caption (and why I added a template to it).

I think the only way around the imprecision and weasel-word-ness of the last sentence in your proposal (as good intentioned as it is) is to limit that sentence to be based on definitions that themselves are used more than just for the purposes of the entity creating the definition. Sorry to sound like broken record, but maybe I haven't been as clear as I should have been on this before. For example, if the Park Service splits the country into regions with roughly the same number of parks, not because they view any particularly cohesive region (Parks could be clustered for many unrelated reasons), but rather for ease of administration, and nobody but the Park Service cites the Park Service's definition for any other purposes, then I don't think that definition is relevant here. If this is what you mean by "No definitions should be included in these sources that are merely administrative divisions," then I agree. But so far as I can see, that would leave the CB, maybe Gale's (which is the same as the CB anyway), the plant one, and maybe the Library of Congress (I'm not sure about that one, but I think they are looked to for that sort of definitional thing). This is not all that different than the version that existed before the nastiness broke out here at this article ([1]), though the notes included less relevant definitions, too.

Believe it or not, I have never wanted to limit this to the Census Bureau, so long as the article is based on something objective (or multiple things) and the article doesn't succumb to the personal knowledge and feelings/Original Research that the talk archives are full of. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What about Jean Gottman's study of the Northeast megalopolis? Surely a notable geographer's study of the region is an objective example of how Maryland, Delaware, and DC are considered "Northeastern." The "Northeast" clearly refers to the same region of the United States whether we're talking about states or urban areas. Urban areas being considered "Northeastern" (Baltimore and DC) clearly indicate that the states they are located in are also "Northeastern." 173.16.194.59 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The megalopolis and this article are not the same. I think you are reading too much into one adjective in the name for the megalopolis (which also has synanyms without NE). Regions can be entirely subsumed within the region covered by this article (Upstate New York), cover far more than this article (Eastern United States), or include some areas outside this region while simultaneously excluding parts of this region (similar to the case with many metro areas: the Chicago, Illinois metro area still includes part of Wisconsin and Indiana even though not referred to as the ”Chicago and parts of the rest of Illinois and parts of Indiana and Wisconsin Metro Area”). The megalopolos is already linked from this article. Hoppingalong (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same, but they are clearly strongly related enough to determine that the adjective "Northeastern" is referring to the same thing, whether urban areas or the states they are located in. None of those examples you mentioned used the exact same adjective to describe different aspects of the same region. The Chicago metro area doesn't need to describe the states it is located in because "Chicago metropolitan area" claims nothing except that it is an area surrounding Chicago and says nothing about what states it is located in. If it was called the "Illinois metropolitan area" and it included parts of Wisconsin and Indiana it would indeed be a contradiction, in exactly the same way that the "Northeast megalopolis" including parts of the "South Atlantic" would also clearly be a contradiction. The same is true for Upstate New York or the Eastern United States, it is clear in the name what region is being referred to, whether or not it is part of or includes the "Northeast." There is no contradiction here, since the names of these regions never claimed to represent anything other than what's in the name itself.

By contrast, the use of the exact same adjective "Northeastern" for both the megalopolis and the region of states it is located in is clearly referring to the same thing. They are different subjects, but there is a commonality between them, and that is the adjective "Northeastern" which is clearly claiming that the megalopolis is part of the "Northeastern United States." Just because Gottmann's study was specifically about urban and suburban areas doesn't change the fact that the region these areas are located in is called the "Northeastern United States." He would have called the megalopolis something different if this was not the case, in exactly the same way that the "Chicago metro area" would be incorrect to call the "Illinois metro area" since it is not entirely located in Illinois. It would indeed be a contradiction if a "Northeastern" region was not located inside the "Northeastern United States" because that's exactly what the name claims, while part of the "Chicago metro area" being located in Wisconsin and Indiana is not a contradiction and does not necessitate naming the states it is located in since the term "Chicago" doesn't imply anything about the states it is located in, just the city it surrounds. In contrast, by being named the "Northeastern" megalopolis it is very clear that it is a region located in the "Northeastern" United States. "Chicago" and "Illinois" are clearly not the same thing, while the adjective "Northeastern" is exactly the same because it is indeed referring to the exact same thing, which is a region of the United States known as the "Northeastern United States." 173.16.194.59 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying we should define the geographic boundaries of the "Northeastern United States" here in this article as "exactly the same" as that of the "Northeast megalopolis". No way. (I always suspected this IP had it out for Vermont, which would be removed from this article I suppose.). Nobody denies that, depending on how one defines the NE, the megalopolis is housed mostly in the Northeast with some extension outside the region or entirely in the Northeast but not the entire Northeast; either way that would be a fine use of Northeast as an adjective which was intended to help describe this then-neologism, not the NE US. This argument about the megalopolis is getting ridiculous and has little to do with what Maher-shalal-hashbaz, HokiRNB, and I have otherwise been discussing in this section, so unless there is a point to this offshoot discussion that I don't yet see, or others want to discuss whether to make the geographic coverage of this article the "exact same" as that of Northeast megalopolis, I'll bow out here. Hoppingalong (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. I never said that the two regions cover the exact same area (as you keep claiming I did in your straw man arguments above) but that the adjective describing them both is the same. And that is because the Northeast megalopolis is an area within the geographic region of the Northeastern United States, which also includes rural areas like Vermont. If Burlington, VT were much bigger and connected to NYC, then yes it obviously would be part of the megalopolis since Vermont is indeed located inside the Northeastern United States, as the megalopolis also is. If two of the megalopolis' five main urban areas were located outside the Northeastern region of states, why on earth would it be named the "Northeast megalopolis?" Why wouldn't it be the "Atlantic megalopolis" or something like this if a huge portion of it is seriously considered by anyone other than the Census Bureau (or those who use its century old definitions out of convenience) to be located inside the "Southern" region of states? The majority of the population, economic activity, etc. of the Northeastern United States is located inside the megalopolis, which is not of course to say that there are not also rural areas within the same region of states, but that both the megalopolis and the region of states are clearly interconnected (as determined by virtually every relevant measure which has been noted by reliable sources) and certainly include Maryland, Delaware, and DC.

To be clear, the fact that the urban areas of Baltimore, DC, and Wilmington, DE are clearly closely tied to the Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston areas through transportation, economic activity, etc. as seen in Northeast megalopolis is a clear indication that the states they are located in are also tied together in a unified region since the majority of the population, economic activity, etc. of these states is so obviously interconnected. To deny this is to deny reality and the reliable sources which have studied the Northeast. There are, of course, rural areas of the Northeastern states that are not part of the megalopolis, but they are clearly in the same region of states as the megalopolis is. The adjective being exactly the same is not implying that the regions cover exactly the same area or are synonymous, but that the Northeastern megalopolis, since it specifically excludes rural areas, is a subset of the Northeastern region of states which it is located in and named after, along with the rural areas of those same states. The megalopolis is specifically about the region's urban areas, while this article is about the region of states those urban areas are located in (which also includes rural areas that are not part of the megalopolis.)

Once again to be very clear, the use of the term "Northeast" for the megalopolis doesn't imply that it's synonymous with the region of states it is located in. This is ridiculous and I never said it was the case, as you claim I did in your straw man arguments. It does imply however, that it is located inside the region of states with which it shares the regional adjective of "Northeast" which is clearly referring to the same Northeast of the United States in both instances. The difference between the two subjects is not the term "Northeast," which is indeed referring to the same thing, but the latter part of their names ("States" vs "megalopolis"), which clearly differentiate the megalopolis from region of states it is located in. You're implying that the difference between urban areas and states also indicates that two different "Northeasts" are being referred to, which is simply not true. The difference between the two subjects is clearly not between two different Northeasts. It's the term "Northeast" that's the same, as the names indicate, not the distinction between urban areas and states which is what makes them distinct subjects. And just because others are discussing different things doesn't mean that what I'm saying isn't true or relevant to this article. If you wish, we can discuss this in a new section. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1969, Jean Gottmann noted that Virginia was too near the "northeastern cities" not to benefit from them economically (Virginia in Our Country, p.127). Interesting. Being near the northeastern United States, not in. And in the Megalopolis book, the use of Northeastern was not to describe a region (reviewers note he explicitly disclaimed doing that in the book[2]), but as a general bidirectional indicator. The book was about a particular phenomenon. But your Original Research is something, just not something for Wikipedia. Hoppingalong (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that Virginia was in this region, although Northern Virginia specifically is and it would be appropriate to include this in the Composition section and Virginia as partially shaded on the map to indicate this. Also, the growth of Northern Virginia from DC southward is largely a phenomenon more recent than the Census Bureau definition as well as Gottmann's study. I don't see anything from that link which indicates that Gottmann did not believe that the region was distinct and unified. Simply that the focus of the book was not about description but the dynamics and history of a region he continuously makes generalizations about and refers to as having a common history, economy, and geography. He also indicates that there's a "symbiosis of urban and rural" in the region in that the rural areas are strongly influenced by the megalopolis, lending further evidence to the notion that the entire states are interconnected in a unified Northeastern region.

It is not WP:OR to point out that reliable sources clearly indicate that the region (including Maryland, Delaware, and DC) is unified historically, culturally, economically, etc. as the "Northeast." It is WP:UNDUE, on the other hand, to assume that a single source, notable and widely used as it may be, has a complete monopoly on the term "Northeast," since there are other, much more recent, reliable sources which dispute this. You seem to believe that the Census definition is so significant that any other use of the term "Northeast" which differs from it is irrelevant or referring to a completely different "Northeast" than the Census is. This is not true, and there are no sources which indicate that there are two (or more) different "Northeasts." The use of "Northeast" to indicate different definitions does not imply that there are different "Northeasts" just that our understanding of the region has changed over time. Yes, there are a few definitions that include Ohio and other states but they are rare (and are solely found in various agencies' administrative divisions and not based on economic, cultural, and demographic factors as Gottmann's study and other sources are), much rarer than including Maryland, Delaware, and DC which are very commonly included. When presented with conflicting reliable sources as to the exact definition of this region, the appropriate response is to compromise and point out in the article (and on the map) the different definitions (which is indeed being attempted.) 173.16.194.59 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You should write a letter to the Census Bureau or create a website or something. You sure do have a lot to say, I'll grant you that. Nobody is arguing that any mention of any other definition should be banished from this article. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks, I take it then that you wouldn't object to Maryland, Delaware, and DC being more prominently mentioned in the Composition section (after the Census definition) or Virginia being partially shaded on the map? 173.16.194.59 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would object. I think HokieRNB's proposal above is a good start, not your proposal, IP173.16.194.59. You are trying to cobble together an argument from your interpretation and analysis of Gottmann when Gottman did not claim to be analyzing the Northeast as a region. Call it Synthesis or Orignal Research or whatever, Wikipedia is not the venue for your analysis. Furthermore, Maryland, Delaware, DC, and Virginia are already more than sufficiently mentioned in the Composition section. Hoppingalong (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying isn't WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I only had to take so long to explain it because you seemingly misunderstood it as conflating the megalopolis and the region of states when I was only conflating the descriptive term "Northeastern." I'm simply saying that a notable source which identifies an area of the United States as "Northeastern" with significant commonalities across the region should be taken into account in the article. Unlike any other that I'm aware of, this source actually specifically explains the qualities that make the region uniquely "Northeastern" (common history, geography, demographics, economy, degree of urban/rural symbiosis, etc.) even though he wasn't actually giving a description of the region itself (such as specifically describing each of the region's five main urban areas or the states they inhabit.) He examined in depth the numerous common factors that led the Northeast to become what it is and the Northeast as he envisions it should be prominently included in the article.

The Census Bureau has given no explanation whatsoever for its definition (and those who decided it have been dead for a few decades so we couldn't ask them.) For all we know, it could be a fairly trivial reason, such as not wanting to divide the Washington metropolitan area into two regions (but not wanting to make the entire state of Virginia a Northeastern state either.) This is of course speculation, but my point is we have no idea why the Census decided what states are Northeastern since they never told anyone. The Census Bureau is part of the federal government after all and could possibly (for all we know) have decided simply based on what's most convenient for the operation of the federal government, rather than the truly significant geographical commonalities as Gottmann does (and as far as I'm aware Gottmann is the only notable source that does this.) If the Census definition was really that important as it relates to the study of geography, wouldn't they have at least given some kind of explanation for it? On the other hand, a notable geographer, decades more recently, spelled out in an entire book exactly what it is that makes the region uniquely "Northeastern". But since the Census definition is fairly widely used for research purposes I'm willing to compromise and accept it being first.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, Gottmann identified a number of geographic factors that constitute "Northeasternness" (for lack of a better word, I'm trying to be as concise as possible.) This is based on his identification of the region as unique due to numerous significant common factors even though he didn't describe the region itself in depth. Maryland, Delaware, and DC are clearly identified as sharing these common "Northeastern" factors (factors which make the Northeast unique), even if not explicitly described, and this notable fact should be prominently included in an article about the "Northeastern" United States. This is not WP:OR since I did not add anything that was not already in the source. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP's argument might be compelling, if it were true. In addition to attributing dubious positions to Gottmann (though in a maddening number of post-posting edits, has softened it with phrases like "even if not explicitly described"), the IP entirely misconstrues the Census Bureau. According to the IP editor: "The Census Bureau has given no explanation whatsoever for its definition... we have no idea why the Census decided what states are Northeastern since they never told anyone." Of course, this is not true. Whether the IP agrees with them or not, the Census Bureau has explained the reasons for keeping the same Census Bureau Regions in great detail, for example in the Geographic Areas Reference Manual, in Chapter 6 (especially pages 18 onward). Hoppingalong (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What specifically have I said that isn't true? That Gottmann identified Maryland, Delaware, and DC as part of a distinct region sharing many important characteristics? Because that's the entire point of his book, that there are certain traits which make the Northeast unique. To take yet another clear example, the "interpenetration of land and sea" leading to the growth of large cities is a major distinguishing factor of the Northeast according to Gottmann, with the Chesapeake Bay and Baltimore specifically mentioned as part of this "Northeastern" phenomenon. I went to your links and could not find any relevant discussion of this subject in the first one, forgive me if I missed it but I looked. In the second one, and in the area you explicitly mentioned as "especially" proving your point (pages 18-19), I found this:

"Because the existing State groupings resulted largely from tradition, with few major changes from the 1880 set of summary units, it seemed worthwhile to test these combinations by using more modern statistical approaches and techniques.

The following ground rules guided the study:

• Socioeconomic homogeneity is the principal criterion for grouping States into regions.

• Each combination should consist of two or more adjacent States.

• Objective statistical analysis is the primary basis for the classification.

• The number of eventual combinations should range from 6 to 12.

By using various statistical indexes, it was possible to identify almost three-quarters of the States (34 out of 48) as homogeneous cores of a region or division. The remaining 14 States proved to be somewhat marginal; the statistical evidence was less certain; they fell between two regions and, therefore, could belong to either. It is interesting that the proposed new arrangement contained the same number of groupings(four regions and nine divisions) as the existing system. It retained the same names for the four regions, but made a number of changes in grouping the States. 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"

As you can clearly see, even the Census Bureau itself agrees with my, the consensus of this page's editors, and Gottmann's position on the regional status of Delaware, DC, and Maryland. In fact, because of this further evidence by a notable source on the subject, I now believe that Delaware, DC, and Maryland should indeeed be the first definition in the article. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Census Bureau agrees with you? You conveniently failed to quote the very next paragraph in the document (after the "For instance, it shifted Delaware..." sentence): "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." So, yes the Census Bureau considered it, and rejected it. Believe all you want, it doesn't make it so. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So you agree then, that the 1880 definition is used only out of convenience, and a more recent determination by the Census Bureau itself includes MD, DE, and DC? That's rather important information to tell the readers of the article isn't it, that a "major review" by the Census Bureau of its own definition 70 years later determined that MD, DE, and DC are Northeastern? I'll tell you what, I'll still leave the "official" definition first, but I'm adding this notable information immediately afterward. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than address the fact that the IP entirely misconstrued (at best) the Census Bureau reference I provided, the IP made non-consensus changes just now ([3]). I reverted those changes ([4]). Anything like that should be based on consensus here. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I do not agree. That is not at all what the source says. And it was a Department of Commerce proposal, not the Census Bureau.Hoppingalong (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what the source says. That a major review was conducted, the Bureau determined that MD, DE, and DC are Northeastern, but since the definition was used by data analysts since 1880 it was determined to keep the old definition out of convenience. That is relevant information that I added. I did not remove the official definition, it is still first. And you have a lot of nerve talking about consensus when you're virtually the only one arguing your opinion. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, you do have a lot of nerve referencing "consensus." I'm not a part of this debate anymore, but I have just read through the posts made by you, Hoppingalong, and the IP. Your poorly founded oppositions are offensive. Myself and many others have given you plenty of notable sources over the past couple of years, referencing a plethora of organizations that currently define the Northeast to include MD, DE, and DC (negating your claim that it's just been personal research) and you have refused to accept any of it. You're a hypocritical tyrant. --oldlinestate 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldlinestate (talk • contribs)

Proposed map

I propose that this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Northeastern_states.png be used as the lead map. It accurately reflects the vague definition that the region has (as its author indicates.) The official Census definition is entirely the darkest shade, Maryland, Delaware, and DC (included in the most notable non-official definition) are intermediately shaded, and West Virginia and Virginia are the lightest shade. The official Census definition should have its own map in the Composition section where it is discussed. Perception Dimension (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't include Ohio at all, though Ohio is featured in many of the definitions. And it shades WV the same as VA, even though WV far more regularly appears in definitions. I think this is more of a Synthethis rather than a summary, and doesn't seem accurate in any case. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to have a map that includes only the CB states in dark red, DE, MD, and DC in light red, and WV, VA, OH, IN, and MI in pink. This would be in keeping with the CB's findings that DE, MD, and DC really do belong in the Northeast region, but continue to be dis-included for merely statistical purposes. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we agree that this map is wrong, isn't no map better than an inaccurate map until we can get one as you describe? Also, is there some way to note that WV seems to be included more often than the other pink states, especially in the more significant definitions? And shouldn't Illinois and Wisconsin at least be very lightly shaded per the Library of Congress? Finally, couldn't the New England states by even darker or striped or something to show that they appear in every definition (without any exception so far as I have seen and is represented here)? Hoppingalong (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The current map isn't wrong; it has shaded the most frequently referenced states, which is a good start. It just isn't best. Having no map would be worse. HokieRNB 10:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The map is misleading. A fact cannot be "not wrong", yet not best. A map is either precisely defined and accurate or it is inaccurate. Graphics on Wikipedia are not supposed to be anything other than a visual summary of cited facts (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE & Wikipedia:Or#Original_images). Anything else is analysis, which is not appropriate here in Wikipedia. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is more accurate than the map that was previously there. Until a new map is created to incorporate the less common definitions of the Northeast it's the most accurate map we have. Perception Dimension (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To say that the map "cannot be 'not wrong', yet not best" is utter nonsense. You are conflating accuracy and precision. A map can be absolutely correct in everything that it represents, but if it doesn't show the borders between the states, it would not be as precise as possible. A map is not a fact. A map is a representation. And this particular map accurately represents exactly what it says. Most definitions of the Northeast include DE, MD, and DC - only the CB, entities that follow the CB, and a handful of others exclude them. Many definitions also include WV and some include VA. In the article, we only have one fact cited that includes OH - the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The fact that is included is barely worth noting in an article about a geographic region. However, the others that include information about climate, wildlife, culture, etc, actually talk about the region as a cohesive whole. The vast majority of geography textbooks discuss the Northeast region as including DE, MD, and DC. In fact, all of the geography textbooks cited in the article do. I have yet to find a discussion of the Northeast region in an elementary, high school, or college textbook that does not include DE, MD, and DC. HokieRNB 11:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think many people would accept VA/WV as Northeastern. While some government maps do sometimes include them the purpose of those maps is often bureaucratic and not for defining a region. I don't see any references to the Association of American Geographers which I would think to be a better source than a plant taxonomic database. The inclusion of VA/WV also contradicts much of the opening paragraphs of the article-

"the Northeastern region is the nation's most economically developed, densely populated, and culturally diverse.[3][4] As of the 2010 Census, the Northeast is the second most urbanized of the four U.S. Census Regions.[5]"

While that might be true for the area around DC for most of VA and almost all of WV that is decidedly untrue. How are you going to work them into the demographics as to religion, dialect, politics, identity? That will have to be done. While the current map might please some editors of this page it can only raise an element of scepticism from many who reference the article. Dubyavee (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

NPS definition

HokieRNB removed an FDA definition and a DoD definition of Northeast, both more restrictive than the CB definition, while putting a more expansive NPS definition on its own line with this edit ([5]). These three definitions seem nearly the same to me in importance. The DoD one might be less so. The NPS definition also seems less so since it appears to be purely administrative as evidenced by the National Capital Region cut out for administrative purposes. The FDA definition at least affects ongoing events with recalls, etc. HokieRNB didn't note why he was removing the two definitions. I propose that all three should be removed as administrative and, so far as I can tell, are not used significantly outside their respective organizations (other than to describe the respective organizations' structure). But for balance and to avoid Undue Weight, if we draw the inclusion line to include the NPS definition, it seems only natural for the FDA definition to remain. I'm going to reinstall the FDA and DoD definitions. I'll leave the NPS definition on its own line since that nicely clarified the bullet. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I went to reinsert the sentence and Reliable Sources, the old language I had added before struck me as convoluted. Instead of adding it back as it was, I added a sentence with the additional restrictive definitions following the New England-only sentence and clarified the next sentence ([6]]). I think it flows better and still presents the facts accurately. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The reasons that the NPS is appropriate, and the FDA and DoD are inappropriate is that they have no bearing on the current article. We could pick a dozen more random departments, administrations, divisions, or agencies, and they would all have their own reasons for defining the Northeast in their own way. Unless we are going to integrate the source into the content of the article, the definition has no place in this list. The NPS source has a page about the Northeast region and the article references information from that page. The fact that the NPS slices out a portion of the region due to the extraordinarily high concentration of historical sites in and around the nation's capital doesn't make their definition of the Northeast less important. HokieRNB 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Still another comment on the map

The map's caption says:

...while some states not shaded also are included in some definitions.

Any thoughts on whether the map should be altered slightly to shade these states differently?? Look at Southwestern United States. It has the dark red states being the states almost always included, and then it has 2 different colors for states sometimes included. Perhaps this article's map should as well. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the map so that states with multiple reliable sources listing them among the Northeastern United States are shaded in some way. States that are only in "single-purpose" definitions with their own maps (LOC and PTDS) were not included. The lighter the shade, the fewer the reliable sources. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued editing abuse by Hoppingalong

I would just like to point out that after a month of relative peace on this article, Hoppingalong seems to be continuing the trend of holding the article hostage. The first real substantive edit was reverted without any attempt at discussion about an hour after its addition. How about trying to work with other editors toward a better article, rather than trying to prevent progress? I have restored the edits that you reverted, but with additional commentary and several reliable sources. Just to preempt you at your game, it should be noted in no uncertain terms that what you did was revert, what I did was make a constructive edit. Just in case someone wants to count. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am so sick of watching User:Hoppingalong just completely undermine any good work done on this article. I tried to edit it several years ago and came across the same problem. Enough is enough. Elpiseos (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Curious timing, though. Is anyone who disagrees with you and Maher-shalal-hashbaz, if you are different, and explains why in good faith engaging in abusive editing? Hoppingalong (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, make that just "Welcome!". Elpiseos's edit history indicates this is your first edit ever on this article. Very curious timing. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Politics section

The inappropriate ad hominem attack in the section above notwithstanding, I did revert Maher by removing the substantial table listing presidential election winner back to the 1920s. I said why I did that in the edit summery: "There is no doubt this is a good faith effort. Although, it needs a Reliable Source, for one, and it is rather too much in one sub-subject anyway (why not Congress, state legislatures, governors, etc?). No featured article would contain a table like this." I still think these new tables are overkill and don't belong in a featured article. They also are POV. I have since made an attempt to edit the text that had some worth while getting rid of the tables that are detrimental, if added with good intentions. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the new tables are an excellent addition and I support their inclusion. Also, there is nothing POV about a table stating facts as found in reliable sources. And where is your evidence that no featured article would contain a table like this? I did a search with category intersection Regions of North America and Featured Articles, and was able to easily find a half-dozen that had tables. I have reverted you, and I think the warning in the previous section is warranted. HokieRNB 02:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant a table with this sort of information, not tables themselves. Which featured articles about a region in the U.S. have a table noting presidential election winners in the region at all, let alone back to a random year? The facts are fine, the tables are useless. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are currently no featured articles that are specific to one of these geographic regions. Perhaps that could be because this is the first one of its kind to try to address regional issues like patterns of election results. If you are bent out of shape about the year, why not be helpful and expand the table back to 1900? But just removing the table isn't helping the article. For starters, the text of the article stated "Below is a table..." So removing the table was just poor editing on your part. Also, your edit attempted to insert language about the Census Bureau regions that was totally inconsistent with the cited source. I have reverted you again. HokieRNB 02:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain your rationale behind suggesting that the insertion of a table of election results would in any way violate WP:NPOV? Regarding the amount of data in the tables, I would have preferred sticking with post-WWII, which is really when the democratic shift started, but ultimately opted to include everything post-WWI to better see the established trend. The reason I didn't want to go all the way back to 1900 was because it causes the table to exceed the width of my monitor (which is 1280 X 1024). I have since added information about other election results which help paint the picture, and included a number of third-party sources (Political Geography of the United States, Counter Realignment: Political Change in the Northeastern United States, and Interest Group Politics in the Northeastern States) along with two second-party sources (Gallup Poll and the National Archives). You may find it interesting that all of these sources took "Northeastern" to include at least DE, MD, DC, and one included WV. All the more reason to not artificially limit the scope of this article to U.S. Census Bureau. Finally, you may want to read up on ad hominem if you're going to make that claim. What I complained about was your editing behavior. I made no assertion about your character. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)