Talk:West Virginia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article West Virginia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for West Virginia:
  • Article is getting long (currently 42k). Some details might fit better in sub-articles.
  • Fix the history section.
    • History section is improved, but it ends with the separation from Virginia and the payment of debt in 1939. There is almost no history from the time West Virginia actually became a state!
  • Fill in new sections on Economy, Transportation
    • Economy section and Economy of West Virginia need improvement
    • Transportation section needs to be written
    • Is there anything to be said about education in this article?
    • Is there anything to say about sports, other than providing a list of pro teams?
    • Can anything be said about film and television, other than linking to this list?
  • Create appropriate sub-articles
  • References need to be changed to footnotes of specific items. There is nothing wrong with one or two "general" references, but something needs to be done with that long list.
  • Request peer review on January 30, when USCOTW ends.
  • Image licenses need to be checked.



Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.


Size by rank is 10th, not 9th.[edit]

In the opening paragraphs it says that WV is the 9th smallest state. Yet, when you click on the link to the listing of states by size, it is clearly listed as 10th. Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.113.43 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The correct phrase is "rank by size", not "size by rank" as you put it.BLZebubba (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wind generation[edit]

There is a table here which appears to be keeping a month-by-month tally of West Virginia's wind generation. This table seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and does not contribute a lot to the article. The table was added here by a banned sockpuppet. The opinion of others about removing this table would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello?? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd support removal. Far too detailed. Perhaps useful in some sort of wind-energy-in-WV type article, but not here. AlexiusHoratius 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

my text removed[edit]

The article misleadingly states: West irginia was part of the Virginia Colony from 1607 to 1776. However for much of this time the English had no control over that area. It was only the fiat of King James I of England who declared the claims oyou to native nations were invalid because they were at that time not baptized Christians. This is widely known to natives today and we hope so barbaric a rationale is not relied on for claiming this was Virginia Colony from 1607 when no white had set foot anywhere near WV. 172.58.185.136 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You are trying to make a point that no historian of Virginia has ever made. If you want to make this point then you need some backup from historical sources. This would be true of Kentucky as well. You should read the article Colony of Virginia. I am part Shawnee myself and understand the point you are trying to make but this is not the place or the means to address this issue. Dubyavee (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I have seen plenty of sources make this point. So many that this does not seem too controversial. Now I have to dig up a reference verifying no Europeans had actually set foot in West Virginia until 1671? 172.58.185.136 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You don't understand what I am saying. It is not about the presence of Europeans. What you are writing is called POV, or "original research", in other words you are expressing your own definition of the Colony of Virginia in a way that I have not seen in any books. "On paper" is non-sensical. Almost all deeds, grants or land charters are "on paper", that does not invalidate them or qualify them in any way. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia's rules of editing. I made similar errors when I first started here. Dubyavee (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The text in that section as it stands now is misleading because as numerous sources point out the English had no presence in West Virginia before 1671, and this undisputed fact is already cited correctly in the detailed section. It is not my intention to insert any original research, simply to find some agreed way to tweak the wording to reflect the already cited fact that there was no actual English presence in the area before 1671, and present a more accurate and less misleading picture. 172.58.185.136 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The presence or non-presence of Europeans in West Virginia or Kentucky has no bearing on the matter of the definition of the Colony of Virginia. It was established by the British king. You are trying to change the definition of what constituted that Colony. The Catholic Church gave Brazil to Portugal despite non-European presence in almost all of Brazil. You are trying to make a point that is irrelevant. Your edit as it stood was not justifiable on any ground. It constitutes "original research", which is not allowed. Dubyavee (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you are making the case that the land became part of Virginia in 1607 because King James I said so, when it is fully documented that this territory was diputed by other nations until 1774 and the claims of your King James were empty and disputed. For you to pretend this is not fully documented and that I am fabricating original research, is disingenuous, and for the article to endorse an empty claim that was disputed is pov pushing (a very badly outdated colonialist pov too) as well as misleading and deceitful. Do we need request for comments? 172.58.185.136 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If you want to make such changes I suggest you go and do it on the main page of your concern Colony of Virginia, and if they agree to it there then that would be fine. Dubyavee (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's this article that contains a misleading statement, and you seem keen not to rectify it and argue that James I saying native nations don't count, means native nations don't count. That doesn't wash nowadays, Dubyavee. How about we fix it by saying for example "West Virginia was originally part of the English (later British) Virginia Colony from 1607 to 1776. However, parts of these claims continued to be disputed by native nations until 1774". That is an already referenced fact, but note that "original research" accuses me of making this up myself, as if it were not a verified fact. 208.54.37.160 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on West Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on West Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)