Talk:Virginia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Virginia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Faults

Can i list and describe all the faultlines in VA?--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be fine. Just put it in an appropriate place in the Geography section. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There I am still doing research on the faults but i got the quakes!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved your information to a separate article, Virginia seismic zone, because the main Virignia page should just have basic information, with branches off into specific pages. Keep up the good work.--Patrick 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yowzers, thats a lot of info! Thanks for moving that, Patrick. And, Takaomi I. Shimoi, very interesting stuff! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Shouldn't the demographic percentages relating to religion add up to 100%? Or am I confused?

The religion percentages listed do not add up for the Christian denominations. Right now, Protestants, are listed as 49%, Roman Catholics as 14%, and other Christians as 13%. 49 + 14 + 13 = 76, not the 69 as listed. I'm changing it. DBQer 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia...eastern instead of southern?

I found recently that one of the official definitions of Virginia geographically place the state in the direct Eastern United States. Not Southeastern and not Northeastern. Any comments?--Mphifer254 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This may fall into the recent practice of placing Virginia in the Mid-Atlantic (eastern) states. However, historically, culturally, and geographically, Virginia is Southern. Though, in terms of the South, it is referred to as being in the Upper South. The only earlier references to Virginia being eastern is only in terms to as referring to it in the east, in the same manner as any of the states not in the mid-west or west. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree. Historically? yes, but as far as geographically and culturally, Virginia is not southern. Weather and dialect, amongst other things, makes it distinct from the south; moreover, there are other factors that keep Virginia from being northern. Even with that said, I'm sure most people feel that Virginia is northeastern.--Mphifer254 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Geographically, for centuries, Virginia was considered the South, specifically the Upper South. The grand dividing line between North and South, the Mason-Dixon, placed the state firmly to the South geographically. Culturally, speaking, I grew up in Charlottesville, Virginia, home to no less than three statues referencing the Confederate States of America. They were placed there as late as the 1920's. The growing population in Northern Virginia, consisting mainly of individuals not born in Virginia or raised by parents not born in Virginia, is probably the closest to non-Southern as Virginia gets. As is, I'm rather lost to how dialect exempts the state from being of the South. As a child, my family went to New York city. At a hotel, the first thing a clerk said after my mother finished speaking,"So you're from the South?" ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I was born in Virginia, and I was always told it was a Northeast state. Never the South. And I personally have never heard a southern accent in any of the Virginia natives I know. It's almost neutral in a way. And that "grand dividing line" you're speaking of did not divide the states in geographic terms, it divided them by their laws.

You could also look at the Wikipedia articles for the South and the Northeast. Both equally argue Virginia as part of their territory, so it's fair to say that this places it in the direct East. You could even look at a map and see this as it's closer to New York than it is to Georgia. It even looks like it's in the dead East. Smack-dab in the middle. The dictionary defines Virginia as an Eastern state.--Mphifer254 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate is a longrunning one regarding how to classify Virginia. Geographically, it's probably cleanest to classify VA as an Eastern State. Politically and historically, it was generally considered part of the "South". Your disagreement reflects the same ambivalence that I have seen as a longtime Virginian. Residents of Northern VA seem most likely to consider themselves Easterners or even Northeasterners. People from Richmond, Southeastern or Southwestern VA are more likely to consider themselves Southerners. Bottom line is that I think we should be cautious about applying labels. Readers can see for themselves where it falls on the map. Other than that, I suggest merely noting that it was part of the historical "South", as that fact has defined a lot of Virginia history - slavery, civil war etc.--Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, we should indeed note it as being in the direct east. Only because it's debated, and several definitions and sources have conflicting "facts." I motion that it only be listed as historically southern, but geographically eastern.--Mphifer254 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured, why not go to the source? I went to the official website for Virginia and found this line," Located midway between New York and Florida, Virginia is the gateway to the South. It is also sometimes classified in the Mid-Atlantic region." I take that to mean that its part of the south. The same way that St. Louis, the Gateway to the West, was considered in the West (course, now the Mid-west). Though, if one has never heard a southern accent in Virginia, then one needs to get out and drive. Particularly, once you hit the less urban parts of the state, or the Valley or Southwest Virginia, the accent can't be missed. Here's Wiki's own article on the matter. If you don't mind me asking, Mphifer, where did you go to school and grow up? Curious on that matter. :)

Going back to the other Wiki articles. The Northeastern United States only references Virginia three times; twice in the climate section, and once in the urban section (right next to North Carolina). In fact, that article doesn't even list Virginia as part of the Northeast;"As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, the Northeast region of the United States covers nine states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont," and never even makes the claim. For some reason, the map used, is the only thing that actually directly implies Virginia is part of this section, and even then, its in the "disputed region" section. The Southern United States, however, directly states that Virginia is part of the South, in numerous locations. So by Wiki standards, Virginia is part of the South. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So because it's on the "official" website, they know what they're talking about? It goes back to being based on people's various opinions. The Wikipedia maps for the Northeast and South both highlight Virginia as one of theirs. But if you notice, neither map lists Virginia as always being considered Southern or Northeastern. Same thing with Texas. Half of it is in the Southwest, the other half is in the South, and one corner of the state is Southeastern-ish, so in the article it's listed as being in both the SW and S (i.e. direct south). The same needs to be done with Virginia since it is disputed. I'm not saying that we need to list it as a Northeastern state, I'm saying that it needs to be described as a state in the direct east (in the head paragraph). And in the article it can be mentioned about how the region it identifies with is argued. This makes perfect sense. I also feel that the same should be done for Maryland and Louisiana.--Mphifer254 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, thats the "official" website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, created and maintained by the state government. Its what the Commonwealth of Virginia is officially saying. Another example would be to go to the United States Senate website and taking their word for the fact that there are 100 senators. If all you have going for yourself are editor created maps, not the actual content of the articles, then I think you need to go back and find more sources to support your claim. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this dispute unfold over the last couple of days, and I thought I'd jump in now to say that I think RebelAt's right about this. The fact that Virginia is located in the geographic center of the east coast isn't really relevant to the article. And furthermore, Mphifer, if you're so concerned that Virginia ought to be "described as a state in the direct east," then worry no longer: Anybody who looks at the map at the top of the page will be able to see that pretty clearly. Think of it as a pictorial description. Seriously, what could be more clear?

Furthermore, the practice of categorizing geographical areas in a less than geographically-precise way is not limited to the United States, and nobody who bothers to read the article is going to be confused, as things stand. On the other hand, historically speaking, the state has always been considered southern, and to start calling it eastern or northeastern in an encyclopedia entry would be both strange and irresponsible.

Finally, I've got to admit that I'm also curious about where Mphifer lived and grew up, if he or she has never managed to detect an identifiably southern accent or dialect in the speech of Virginians. You don't even need to get as far south as Charlottesville to hear this. My family's in Fairfax county, waaaaay up in Northern Virginia, and it's always been pretty obvious to me that there was a regional accent to be heard there. Granted, most Virginians don't sound like Jesse Helms, but that's because they're from a different part of the south. It's a big country, so regional variations ought to be expected. Buck Mulligan 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal-> I suggest combining the census bureau definition with Virginia's historical definition. Specifically, I propose changing the lead sentence to the following:

The Commonwealth of Virginia is a South Atlantic state historically considered part of the Southern region of the United States. --Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Buck Mulligan 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot do that because it still stands that it's location is disputed. Virginia as a southern state is neither confirmed or generally understood. Many, many people feel that it is a Northeastern state. I think that we just need to list it as being in the exact East U.S. Things that are commonly disputed are better left in a neutral state. It's not hurting or misinforming anyone.--Mphifer254 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying VA is in the Eastern US is not misinforming, but it's not really informing either. I don't think the two assertions in my proposal are disputed or really even disputable. The census bureau defines VA as a South Atlantic state, which I think is as close as you can get to an official U.S. government designation of its regional location. Also, saying that VA was historically considered part of "The South" also seems beyond dispute, given the Mason Dixon line, the Civil War etc. People may feel differently about how to describe VA today, but the two points above are factually correct and informative for the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything Kubigula says, just above. Furthermore, the fact that Mphifer254 disputes the appelation "south Atlantic" does not mean, contrary to what s/he says, that "Virginia as a southern state is neither confirmed or generally understood." In fact, we've now seen two official citations to the effect that Virginia is officially considered (as in, considered by the government) southern. Where are Mphifer254's sources? Now would be the time to show us.

But that's not going to happen, and this discussion is only going to get more and more ridiculous. Look at what Mphifer254 has said so far: S/he begins this whole business (17 April) by saying that "one of the official definitions of Virginia geographically place the state in the direct Eastern United States." Then, when RebelAt actually does cite an official source (18 April) to the effect that Virginia is a "southern" state, Mphifer254 counters with "So because it's on the "official" website, they know what they're talking about? It goes back to being based on people's various opinions." Okay... so which is it? Mphifer254 wanted to talk official, and an official version was duly supplied. Are we going to spend the next month arguing over which people's various opinions we're going to go with, or are we going to go with the official version of the story? If we choose the former, we're basically putting original research on the page, which as we all know is something we don't do around here. If we choose the latter option we're taking our lead from the Census Bureau and the state's own website. Seriously, this is just about the most brainless no-brainer ever.

At the risk of belaboring what ought to be a glaringly obvious point: the purpose of this encyclopedia is not to re-write history or re-draw maps. I could get on the Minnesota page and start claiming that "some people" are of the opinion that it's a northern state, not a midwestern state (hey, it's up north, isn't it?), and that would be roughly as silly as the current objection. Buck Mulligan 04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anymore, lol. Y'all can do whatever you want with it.--Mphifer254 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the opening statement. Virginia has been "historically" considered Southern, but that implies that it was and is no longer considered Southern, which is certainly not the case. There are parts of Virginia (Northern Virginia) where southern language and culture has faded, but to call the state Northeastern is ridiculous. Also, most of the state has a humid subtropical climate like the rest of the South. 71.48.140.3 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you've read the talk page, you'd have seen that this is not the kind of thing that people are just going to watch somebody change without a very long discussion. But more importantly, the phrase "is ... historically considered" does not imply that it is no longer considered a southern state. If we'd said "was ... historically considered" then that would indeed be the implication, but as things stand, all we're saying is that it's geographically located in the middle of the eastern seaboard, but that--geography aside--it's historically been thought of as a southern state. Nowhere in the article does it say that Virginia is a northeastern state, which was the whole point of a very long discussion. Buck Mulligan 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read the discussion and I still don't agree with the use of "historically" in this instance. As a Virginian, I really don't understand this controversy over Southern vs. not Southern that seems to be brought about by the prominence of Northern Virginia in the media. NoVa is only about a third of the population and less than a third of the area of the state. Virginia is not a case like Florida where the non-native population bases are much, much larger. 71.48.140.3 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article on Southern United States, you'll see the same kind of ambivalence that has plagued this article. People keep coming here and trying to change the geographic designation - Eastern, Southeastern, even Northeastern. I completely agree with Buck's analysis regarding the "is...historically considered". The statement is completely correct and not really disputable - Virginia is historically part of the South. However, by using the "historically" qualifier, it (hopefully) prevents people from constantly revisiting the issue of whether VA is part of the "Modern South" or whether some other regional designation should apply.--Kubigula (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. Anyone actually from Virginia and who has traveled the state knows that it is the South. Maryland is historically considered the South (but probably no longer qualifies); Virginia is, was, and continues to be the South. The problem with the opening statement is that it can be applied to states such as Maryland and Missouri where the majority of population does not have a Southern culture or dialect. We might as well say North Carolina is "historically" considered a part of the South because there are a lot of transplants around Raleigh and Charlotte.71.48.140.3 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't really that Virginia might not be considered southern, culturally. Just about everybody here agrees that it is a southern state. Incidentally, I am one of these people who agrees that Virginia is properly speaking a southern state, and I am from Virginia. My parents are still there, and I go back several times a year. The difficulty that led to this intro sentence mainly concerned working out a three-way compromise such that: apart from the majority opinion (which, again: you and I both share), some people, who were concerned that its geographical position was better described as eastern, would be placated, while some others (a small minority, but a vocal one) who were concerned that northern Virginia was becoming culturally less southern, were also placated. I have no idea what people are saying on the North Carolina page, but it's irrelevant to the discussion on this one, mainly because of North Carolina's geographical location. On the other hand, if you look at the Talk:Southern United States page, you'll find a rather long and drawn out discussion of whether or not Virginia qualifies as a "southern" state or a "border" state. This isn't just hair-splitting that happens here and no place else, in other words.

And again, while I guess my heart is with you on this, I think I speak for everyone (mainly since nobody else has been talking) when I say that this kind of compromise is part of life around here, and I'd rather avoid another run-in with some stubborn person denying the obvious southernness of Virginia, outright (for which, see the very long discussion above). On the other hand, if what I'm saying doesn't reflect the general consensus around here, then somebody ought to speak up. Buck Mulligan 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Southern US talk page before and I find the ambivalence there equally as ridiculous as I do here. "Eastern" is a very poor descriptor for Virginia, as Maine, New York, and Florida, for example, are also in the Eastern U.S. The hair-splitting is unfounded and the "historically" description is poor. I understand your position and appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :) 71.48.140.3 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and again I find myself agreeing with the substance of what you're saying. And like I said, I certainly don't mean to play the tyrant here--far from it. If I'm not saying what's on everybody's mind then I really do hope more people will speak up, because quite frankly I was perfectly happy with the way things were before Mphifer254 started this whole crazy discussion, with that business about Virginia being in the "exact East" and so forth. Buck Mulligan 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more discussion on it, because I believe the "sterilized" version that's up now is actually less accurate then simply calling it "Southern." Don't get me started on the "exact East," what in the heck is that? 71.48.140.3 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to keep beating this dead horse, but I don't think saying Virginia is historically considered a Southern state is "sanitized". We are saying the same thing, just in a way that's harder to argue with. I suppose that the fact that this is getting criticized for being both too Southern and not Southern enough means that it's a good compromise. P.S. Buck -I'm glad you're not playing the tyrant here, because you know how Virginians feel about tyrants - Sic semper tyrannis.--Kubigula (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Kubigula's point about having reached the correct level of compromise is probably right on the money. Sadly, it really does seem better not to entirely please anyone sometimes. Still, as I said before, anyone follwing along at home ought to speak up now if they don't like the way this is going. By the way: As coincidence would have it, somebody has just posted a challenge on the [Southern U.S. talk page], insisting that Virginia is not in fact a southern state. Sic semper, indeed... Buck Mulligan 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"insisting that Virginia is not in fact a southern state." Good Lord...ridiculous! "Historically considered a Southern state" *is* sanitized. Just because it's difficult to argue with doesn't make it accurate or a good compromise. I just do not like that word in this context. If we could find a better word similar to generally or usually (which aren't any more vague than 'historically') considered Southern, I'd be more comfortable. 71.48.140.3 04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia! Wow!!! What a subject. Before I state my opinion on the matter let me start out by saying. I was born in Norfolk, VA, I now live in Washington, DC. I've spent my fair share of time in Maryland and through out Virginia. From Baltimore to Salisbury, from Virginia Beach to Radford. And what I have noticed in my travels is this region is a medley of Eastern U.S. culture. Because of this blend I can see why it's such a disputed State. A pattern I've noticed is that the more Urban/suburban areas of the eastern and northern parts of the state tend to be more Northern in culture and have less (or no) "southern" accent or dialect. While in more rural areas and urban towns of the south-central, southwestern and Eastern Shore regions of the state showcase a more Southern culture. Geographically Virginia is in the northern half of the country and definitely in the eastern half now whether or no this constitutes it being in the Northeast is a different story. The border between Virginia and North Carolina running west from the Atlantic coast dividing Kentucky and Tennessee; then Missouri and Arkansas; Kansas and Oklahoma; Colorado and New Mexico; and lastly Utah and Arizona which roughly follows the 36°30' parallel north or 37th parallel north and evenly divides the nation into a northern half and a southern half kind of like the Equator of the U.S. Geographically speaking everything above of this parallel is north and all which is below is south. Culturally Virginia has a lot in common with many other Eastern states. So why wouldn't it be Eastern. Why is Eastern less descriptive than Southern when speaking in terms of "culture". Rural Pennsylvania had a lot in common with Rural Virginia and Maryland. Coastal Delaware is similar to coastal Virginia and North Carolina. Horse racing is popular in Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania as well as New York. Rural South Jersey is reminiscent of that in Virginia's farmland. Pennsylvania's Dutch country is akin to Virginia's Shenandoah Valley Quaker settlement. Today's modern U.S. is a far cry from what divided the nation over a century ago. Historically Virginia was a Confederate state. Since the Mason-Dixon Line is the legal North-South Divide then Virginia, D.C. West Virginia and Maryland are indeed legally in the south. And all of the above listed have very "Southern" Characteristics but it can't be denied that they all also have a very "Northern" character about them. Relatively speaking. Many residents of the "Deep South" don't identify with Virginia as being in the South. Out West a great majority of Californians look at Virginia as just being another East Coast state While a New Yorker may think that a trip to Delaware was "going down South"! In another instance residence of Emporia, VA may think of Alexandria, VA as being "Up North". What I'm trying to say is that Virginia as is the rest of the Mid-Atlantic is a very disputed region. A region so disputed that during the Civil War is was divided into 2 separate states. By no means is West Virginia more Northern in culture just because it was a Union state. Finally I think Wikipedia should come up with a unified labeling or wording method for every State entry. Meaning a reader could expect to find certain specific content on whatever state article they read. There should always be an introduction with "this" info stated in "this" way followed by what ever sub-categories that may pertain to the article. In my opinion Virginia is a Northeastern state with Southern Roots. Growing up in the Hampton Roads area I always identified with being from the East. I never really considered myself or my state Southern. dlaw1979 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not just a matter of your opinions. I don't think it is up to wikipedia editors to decide. If Virginia defines itself as Southern, which it does, then use that. You can qualify it all you want in the text, but it is not definitely not a northeastern state. It was long considered part of the Upper South because of the character of its slaveholding and agriculture, but was certainly part of the South during the Civil War and a major battleground. In addition, its voting patterns and homicide patterns through the 1960's were consistent with those of the south, not the northeast. The northern VA suburbs do not make the state a northeast state.--Parkwells 02:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The commonwealth of Virginia is not northern but is not really southern anymore either. Therefore, the term "Mid-Atlantic" would most appropriate for the state because of elements of both North and South represented in the state. Parkwells mentioned Virginia was considered part of the Upper South and fought for the South during the Civil War. The key word in his argument is the word "WAS", which means past tense. Modern Virginia has changed a lot since its Civil War days. The commonwealth is shifting from a conservative state to a more progressive modern state. Recent election patterns have affirmed this shift. Virginia, itself is rather a unique state, and has a class all of its own. Not everyone is going to agree on what to label it, but to be politically correct it should not be labeled Northern or Southern, rather East Coast or Mid-Atlantic

This is left in the comments: Editors should be wary of changing the first sentence: is Virginia "southern", "eastern", "southeastern", "mid-Atlantic", or "Atlantic coast"? The lead carefully described Virginia as "historically part of the southern states." I consider it negligent and failing at criteria 1b not to note this much. I don't really want to get involved in this. I don't care for "Southeastern" in the first sentence, but I believe it was a consensus from this discussion. I do want "Although traditionally conservative and historically part of the Southern United States" as this is a summary of the Culture section, and not intended to necessarily reflect on modern Virginia.--Patrick Ѻ 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was a solid consensus on Southeastern - seems like the adjective has bounced around quite a bit over the years. Personally, I can live without it too, though the lead sentence is now a bit bland. However, I agree 100% with Patrick that "historically part of the Southern United States" has to stay in the lead/intro. WP does not have to be politically correct, but it must be accurate and hopefully comprehensive. Being part of the South is incontrovertible and was an absolutely defining element of Virginia's history.--Kubigula (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech shooting inclusion

I removed the following text from the main page in the history section:

(Main article: Virginia Tech massacre) On April 16, 2007 a man shot and killed 32 people, wounded many others and killed himself. This is the worst civillian shooting in United States history surpassing the Luby's massacre of 1991, and the infamous Columbine shootings which left sixteen dead in 1999.

While the event is indeed tragic and ghastly, as well as momentous as being the worst shooting in American history, I'm not sure if it belongs on the main page for the commonwealth. For example, Columbine High School massacre is not on the main page for the state of Colorado. In terms of tragedy, it pales in comparison to the American Civil War (which preceded its last entry). Also, I'm not sure how the shooting will end up in terms of Virginia's over all history. At the moment, I think the best location may well be this spot in the History of Virginia article and the section reserved for recent events. In brief, this event, as terrible as it is, may be too recent to be accurately judge for placement on in the main Virginia article. Thoughts? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, this page should be general info about the state with gateways to specific topics.--Patrick 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the edit comment when I removed it myself, recentism is evil. --Servant Saber 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

This article is in need of revamping of the economy section. If anyone is knowledgeable about the economy than they could probably also create a Economy of Virginia article. It also needs a culture section, something that shouldn't be too hard considering Virginia's history. T Rex | talk 10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say the biggest issue with the article right now is the lack of referencing. If we want to move it up to GA or FA, we absolutely need more references (and uniformity in the citation style). Beyond that, several of the sections needed better organization and more flow to the prose. I agree with T Rex that the "Economy" section probably needs it the most, though the "Important Cities and Towns" is not far behind. "Laws and Government" needs tweaking too, particularly in separating the historical info from the current structure. Overall, I'd say there's a lot of good stuff here, though there is certainly lots to do to bring it up to GA class. I'll try to start work on the referencing soon.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

T Rex is right that there should probably be a culture section too. Please pipe in if you have ideas, but general copyediting would help or perhaps taking an individual section and running with it. I think I'd enjoy working on the Laws and Government section, though I'll defer if someone else wants it and I'll commit to working on whatever's left.--Kubigula (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying that revamping. I created that Economy of Virginia mentioned here with most of the lengthy economy section from this article. I've also labeled section that I feel need some work. The article is woefully undercited, and I'll try to get more in here, and add fact tags where I can't find anything.--Patrick Ѻ 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work Patrick. I'd yet to find the energy to tackle this dragon, so I'm thrilled to see what you've done.--Kubigula (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in a lot of fact tags in hopes that we can get this article better cited. That's the first thing a GA review would bring up, the lack of proper citation. I think we can get GA before the year is out, and that's my goal. I also flagged the climate section, which I think reads too informally.--Patrick Ѻ 14:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

East Virginia

why isn't Virginia called East Virginia if there is a West Virginia? 130.13.99.152 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

Here is the revision of the page I assessed, but I have since made subsequent edits. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
(no edit wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Further anaylsis on findings:

All images were correctly tagged, captioned and appropriate to the article in question. They also helped to enhance the reading of the article Y
Grammar, prose and spelling is excellent.Y
Everything is readable, and doesn't incorporate words that a beginning editor or reader wouldn't understand.Y
It is very good for the single-handed work of Patrickneil, and avoids POV-style content, something important for an GA nominee.Y
The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. Y

However, there are some concerns with the Virginia article that I feel are in the interests of the reader, but also the article.

There isn't a proportionate amount of sources backing up the many claims that are situated throughout the page. Some sections like have two or less references which are cited, they are listed below:
the lead - no references
the independence section - no references
the Civil War section - no references
the Twentieth century section - two references
the Cities and towns section - one reference
the Religion section - two references
the fine and performing arts section - no references
the transport section - two references
the sports section - no references

I understand that you should only reference the lead when there are claims that are challenging as per citations in the lead guidelines, and most are mentioned again later down the page and are referenced, which is good. But it may help to reference the the lead, as most readers strangely only read the lead of most articles. But for the rest this is unacceptable. For what is wrote, (which is very good by the way) isn't referenced at all, and so no claims can be effectively referenced. Not something that can occur with a GA status article. It is because of this, with regret, that I am going to have to put this article on hold for 7 days which is in line with GAN guidelines. This should be more than enough time to proportiontely reference the article. I would like to see, when I come back, at least 5 for each paragraph. I have every faith you can do this, and I wish to pass this when I return. Regards, — Rudget _speak.work 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick - I've cleared out a few other things I've been working on, so I can give this some time. I have a couple of Virginia history books, so I can help reference the history sections. You've been driving this very admirably, so let me know if there are any other specific tasks I can help with.--Kubigula (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. For the purposes of the GA review, that's a really good idea. Make sure to use the right cite book template though. Best, — Rudget _speak.work 19:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I do agree it could use more references. I also remember the days when 70 references were more than adequate for a GA. I'm not sure 5 per paragraph is either necessary or an appropriate measure of verifiability. That would require over 325 references. The culture sections tend to be listing things like museums and musicians, and I don't know what need be cited. If you could perhaps be more specific. I will add more fact tags today, and if there is anything I miss, please feel free to post it.

Kubigula, thanks! I see you're already adding to the sections. But references for the history section, while necessary, are the easiest to add. I'd say Religion, Transportation, and Sports are the difficult ones.--Patrick Ѻ 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably true. I can finish out the history section in the next day or two, then help out with the others. My natural inclination would be to do sports next, but I'm willing to accept assignment. I will also drop on note on the WikiProject VA page.--Kubigula (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can get the history and the sports, I'll try to get the others. I've loaded the page with a fine level of fact tags, and it definitely looks like we could use some help from the WikiProject.--Patrick Ѻ 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there is quite a large amount of {{fact}} tags, it may be an idea to put this in a sandbox. — Rudget _speak.work 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick - you weren't kidding about sports being difficult to reference. I've spent literally hours trying to find reliable sources for what was tagged in the sports section. I had just given up and decided that we would simply have to re-write, when I saw you beat me to it!--Kubigula (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked into it. The sentences that said "so-and-so is popular in Virginia" are just not citable. I got around it for the Orioles and Nationals, saying that they are broadcast in the state. Excellent job with the history references, and rewriting where necessary.--Patrick Ѻ 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name

This page says that Walter Raleigh named Virginia in honor of Queen Elizabeth, with a good footnote reference stating the same. I've often heard this as fact as well. But in reading the "classic book of American toponymy", Names on the Land, the origin of the name is described as slightly more complicated. According to the author, George R. Stewart, Raleigh presented a report of his voyage to the queen, which had been written by Raleigh "and his captains". In the report they had written that the name of the whole country was "Wingandacoa" and was ruled by a king named "Wingina". But when the final report was published the account of the names said "The king is called Wingina, the country Wingandacoa -- and now by her Majesty, Virginia." Apparently it was Queen Elizabeth herself who decided on the name Virginia, not Raleigh. Stewart speculates a bit on how and why Elizabeth may have made his decision, which can be discounted as unknown guesses, but he seems quite sure that the name Virginia was chosen by the queen, based not on the country name reported by Raleigh, but on the name of the king of that country, Wingina.

Anyway, rather than adding this info to the page, I thought I'd mention it here first. I know there are many sources that say Raleigh named it Virginia, but Stewart is a major authority on American toponymy. Should the info be added? Perhaps someone has a source that discredits Stewart? And lastly, is it worth going into this much detail over the origin of the name? Perhaps it would work to simply say that the name comes from Raleigh's voyage, rather than from his own mind? Thoughts? Pfly (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually had wondered about this. I changed that sentence on the page last week because previously it passively said "the country was named Virginia in honor of...", and I wanted to know who had actively done the naming. It actually wasn't that easy to find a reliable source that fingered Raleigh, though most websites said he was involved. That info might be better included in the History of Virginia article. Though many places have do origin of name sections. Until there's more source material, I don't think we need that, but some tweaking to the sentence could be in order.--Patrick Ѻ 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pass of Fail?

I've brought this article to the attention of other GAN reviewers, since I am unsure of possibly violating and risking a reassessment on this article by passing it, and the same for not. I hope the article does pass, and I appreciate all the co-operation I received. — Rudget^Talk 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And we very much appreciate your review and all the input. However, note that it hasn't quite been a week yet - we are still polishing.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Sorry I somehow managed to add 6 & 7 together to make 11. — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pass

I'm now passing this article due to the lack of referencing problem being swiftly sorted out. Well done to all those involved. All the best, — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and good work, guys! I'm buried deep in law school, but I've kept an eye on things. Again, congrats!~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

City gallery

Vpuliva added a gallery of city pictures in the Cities and towns section. What do we think of it? I'd just assume have one or two in-text images, and am not sure how those cities deserve highlighting or how to decide which cities to include there. Even if it has been added to other states, I don't find it necessary. Thoughts?--Patrick Ѻ 06:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it, but it doesn't bother me, either. So either way is fine with me, really. faithless (^speak) 06:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Media and Health

Looking at Oklahoma and Minnesota, the two states to get to Featured Article status, for structural suggestions, I see each has two sections that Virginia doesn't: Media and Health. Media is about the radio, television and newspapers in the state, and Health is about hospitals and health statistics. Do we need these? If so, anyone want to get these started?--Patrick Ѻ 13:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Town twinning

I thought I read once that Virginia had been twinned with another region outside the US, much like the city of Toledo, Ohio is twinned with the city of Toledo, Spain. Can this be verified? Are countries ever twinned? Zidel333 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits of history/social history

It does not seem sufficient to say that the history section is "just too long", and then delete brief sourced material having to do with what is extremely limited coverage of the state's complex social and economic history. Given the complicated history of whites and African Americans and many myths about the slave years, it would be useful for readers to learn that most free African American families before the Revolution descended not from white fathers and enslaved mothers, but from free or servant white women and free, servant or slave African or African-American men. The material I put in from Paul Heinegg is well-documented and he has received awards for his work. --Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think the history needs to be that sort of social history. That should be kept to the subarticles, both Colony of Virginia and History of Virginia. The history section in this article should just hit the big events, like Jamestown founded, revolution begun, succession, civil war, and civil rights. That information from Paul Heinegg is also presented in the Demographics of Virginia article, and there are still two paragraphs on origins of African Americans in Virginia under the Demographics section. It already seems odd that there's so much info on African families, and almost nothing on the English, German, and Irish groups in Virginia.

The history section is way too long, about twice as long as it should be. Compare it to the sections in other states that have achieved Featured Article status, Minnesota and Oklahoma. The Colony subsection under History has five long paragraphs before the history of the article's subject (Virginia as a state) really starts.--Patrick Ѻ 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK on suggestions about placement. I agree that VA and other articles need more social history of different ethnic groups. In the general state articles, Wikipedia is weak in this.--Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Virginia Tech

To put this image and caption in a portion of the "Statehood" history section seems odd. I don't know where it should be, but it's about a contemporary event, not 1900-era as is the text nearby.--Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I put that there almost as a place holder. There isn't a good picture to go here. There was previously a poster for Wilder, but I saw that it was not a fair use image. I found a good photo of Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill, and emailed the webmaster about it. He got back to me and said it was from the Norfolk Journal and Guide archives, but he didn't know about the copyright status. I haven't looked into contacting them about it.

Also, could the paragraphs you added today be made more concise? Like to say "this disenfranchised voters" is repeated in "Without the power to elect one person" or "until after passage of national civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s" is repeated two paragraphs down in the bit about the 60s. The content is ok, but could be smoother. Maybe some of the Constitution stuff could work in the Law and government subsection.--Patrick Ѻ 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I make some summary edits, but tell me if its too much and why. I've also found two possible photographs on the LOC: one of a KKK march in Northern Virginia, and one of Oliver Hill with the first black DOJ trial lawyer, the later I've added to the page, though the other, which I added the the History of Virginia page, may be better, as it actually takes place in VA rather than DC.--Patrick Ѻ 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)