Talk:Northeastern United States

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)

VA was the state with the largest slave population at the time of the American Revolution; it was part of the Upper South and strongly influenced southern culture, and had a separate identity from Northeastern states in terms of religious background, historical settlement and development patterns. It is totally inappropriate to include it and WVA in the NE. If there is current thinking for linking it, this must be explained, not just lumped together on a map.Parkwells (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen in the "Composition" portion of the article, VA is included in two notable definitions - those for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. WV is included in multiple other definitions. That's why the map says "See Composition". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I mostly agree with Parkwells in substance. This just highlights why we should not include definitions that do not themselves get some coverage or usage beyond the organization that made the definition (as I have argued in several talk sections before). I don't think the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service administrative regions are particularly illustrative. That said, if we are going to include such definitions, I think we should include a broad group of definitions created by organization that are notable and authoritative - if for reasons other than defining regions - as there are in the article now. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would first like to say that maps from the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, while interesting, have no explanation and are arbitrary maps by bureaucrats, they are not cultural or social studies of the Northeast. The MAIN reason these maps include WV in the northeast is because of the southern sociologist Howard W. Odum. His "Southern Regions of the United States" of 1936 was a quantitative study of the region using data on farms, industry, income, population, etc. In his final map based on "Twenty Three Cultural Tables" (pg. 216) he shows WV as part of the south. However, he arbitrarily placed WV in the map of the "Northeast". Why? Because Odum was an old-time southerner who could not see WV as part of the south because of what he believed was the states' Civil War history. Michael O'Brien (The Idea of the American South), stated that Odum "offered no explanation" for putting West Virginia in the northeast. But he told Rupert Bayliss Vance the reason, and it was solely because of the Civil War. In other words, he made WV part of the northeast because of an old Lost Cause bias while ignoring the results of his own study. And Odum's work was the standard for decades and was used by schools and government bureaus in their own work. This is why WV shows up in those maps. Dubyavee (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2014 (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)

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)

Change District of Columbia to Washington, DC

I understand the desire for this change, but perhaps we should have a consensus here before we make the sweeping edits (WP:BRD). In addition, I reverted the recent anonymous editor who included that change with a bunch of other unexplained edits. It appeared the editor was removing PA from the NY MSA, while adding WV and OH to Pittsburgh, Ontario to Buffalo, and CT to Worcester. These may be supported, I will look into that. However, the edit also changed the definitions for NOAA, EPA, and USGCRP to include Virginia, which they do not. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin

If the Southeastern United States page on Wikipedia includes Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi, why the Northeastern United States page doesn't include Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin? Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin are Northeastern geographically, just like Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi are geographically southern. Plus those 5 northeastern states fits well with the other northeastern states when you go by northeast, southeast, southwest and northwest. MuppetHammer26II (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Muppethammer26II: I believe the reason for the inconsistency is because it seems all of the articles on the four U.S. Census Bureau regions of the United States (North, South, Midwest and West) use the Census Bureau definition of the region as the "primary definition" and then have explanations, including references, of other definitions. For example, there is a section in the Northeastern United States article that states that one definition of the Northeasst includes all of the Northern states that are east of the Mississippi river, which tends to agree with your preferred definition, except for Kentucky which is generally considered to be part of the South. The Southeast is NOT a Census bureau defined area so its definition cannot, IMHO, shed any light on what "should" be considered the Northeast. The Census divisions of the South are the South Atlantic, East South Central and West South central...no mention of the Southeast. By the way, I have reverted some of your edits to population tables, etc. because these tables are clearly using Census bureau data, and as such, I believe they should agree with census bureau definitions of division and regions. BTW, I tend to agree that most people would include Delaware and Maryland in the Mid-Atlantic region and the Northeast rather than in the South Atlantic division and the South region. This seems to be amply discussed in the article, but doesn't warrant adjusting tsbles to agree with this point of view when the census bureau is clearly noted as the source of the information. If you wanted to add an additional table showing data for Maryland, Delaware and DC for example in the article that might be OK, if preferenced with something like: The following table shows the population, etc. for states which are sometimes included in other definitions of the Northeast. For completeness, however, I think you would also need to include data for all of the other states such as Illinois, West Virginia, etc. that are sometimes defined as Northeast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenHigh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It does include Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but not Kentucky. The reason it does not include Kentucky is because there are no significant reliable sources contributing to the article which include Kentucky as part of the Northeastern United States. HokieRNB 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

HokieRNB. The census bureau definition of the Northeast does NOT include the states you mentioned. It only includes the New England states and New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Some other definitions do include these states is clearly explained in the article. My main point is that the table which shows land, population and population density is clearly using the census bureau definition and therefore states that are not part of the census bureau definition should not be included in it. I plan to add a similar table to the articles on the Midwest, South and West regions. The states that you mention are all part of the Midwest region per the census bureau.KenHigh (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)