Talk:Northeastern United States/Archive 4

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


 * @Hopping- Well, you got me. There still is a reference to Northeast Region on the CB website.  But what do you think of the Map link on that page going to a map that no longer has a Northeast region on it?  And is it possible that some automatic update went to that page, explaining the recent update?  Why would they take down a map of their regions and replace it with another?  Technically, you are absolutely correct, they do have a reference to the Northeast Region on the CB website.  But based on the inconsistency of the CB page and its corresponding map, I do agree with Hokie that there is a "future diminished importance of the"  Northeast Census Region.  I think Hokie's outlook on this is very pragmatic.  But I do disagree with Hokie on how selective he wants to be on which maps to include on this page.  I think all federal maps, and large national organizations maps, have a place here.  -Ed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.246 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As of 10 a.m. this past Wednesday, the Census Bureau was still issuing new data based on the same old 4 regions . And after clicking on the map link you mentioned, click on General Reference Maps where you will see the Regions PDF and text file. No change. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hopping-Wow, that map link did NOT work the previous times that I've tried, including yesterday, but it absolutely did now! There IS still a NE US region map on the CB website!  Do you work for the CB?  Haha.  Well, as long as there is a NE US map to be found on the CB website, it should be acknowledged absolutely.  Seems strange for the CB to have two sets of regions, but it appears that they do.  Also, I could not find any literature out there that the NE CB region has been disbanded.  Well, decision time.  How relevant do we make the CB in this article?  Should the lede be changed back to noting the CB, or should it stay as is?  I can see points for both sides.  One the one hand, the CB is possibly the most notable organization of those listed.  On the other hand, it is very interesting and informational to see what other national organizations consider to be the NE US.  Perhaps it is time to create a new subject?  -Ed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.211.65 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Flexible map
This article needs a map that is flexible the same way the map at Western United States is. It should color the states that are in the Census Bureau definition solid and those that are in other definitions with stripes, just as the map at Western United States does. Go to the second paragraph of the Composition section of the article for revealing alternate definitions. Georgia guy (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Western United States article, especially the unreferenced "Region and concept" section and its unreferenced map is terrible and not a good example to point to. It does highlight the problem of Wikipedians relying on their own insight rather than summarizing Reliable Sources. As for this article and map, the Reliable Sources make clear, like it or not and regardless of how terrible it might be, the Census Bureau region is the most used/important by a huge margin. It would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to synthesize the various one-off definitions listed as examples of alternate definitions into a map. Likewise, picking one or two of the alternate definitions and including them in the map would violate WP:UNDUE, especially without third-party Reliable Sources establishing the importance of a particular definition. If there is another definition that even comes close to the Census Bureau definition in importance, there would be Reliable Sources that say as much (just as there are many noting the importance of the Census Bureau definition). On top of that, all of the stats in the article are based on the region as defined by the Census Bureau. As it is, the article already probably gives too much weight to alternate definitions, but that seems a battle not worth fighting. We shouldn't make it worse. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, "flexible maps," armchair cartographers, and Wikipedians' personal definitions have been a recurring problem on this article for years. Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1,Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1, Talk:Northeastern_United_States/Archive_1... and that is just Talk Archive 1. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the new map should include as solid areas the states that included in the Census Bureau's definition, and should include as shaded areas any states that are included in alternate definitions according to reliable sources. HokieRNB 01:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Census Bureau definition is at the very least the principal definition and deserves its own map. So far no definition other than the Census Bureau definition has any third party Reliable Sources as a reference. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented this map, as it was already available in the project space (WikiProject United States regions/Maps). HokieRNB 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus on this page is to include alternate definitions that have reliable sources, so the map shaded per the Wikipedia project on US Regions fits perfectly, as multiple reliable sources show the 9 states defined by the Census Bureau and the 3 states that are shaded in stripes. See these sources (already used in the article) - National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service. Please don't revert the map again. HokieRNB 01:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Other RSs list several unshaded states, too. There has been much talk over the years and consensus is to note include VA, for example. Until consensus on a particular map is reached, the status quo is in effect. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since apparently 2 to 1 is consensus, despite much talk in archives against this particular map, I went a head and added context to the caption to make it less misleading. . Hoppingalong (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, while 2 to 1 is a clear majority, in the last year and 2 days, I count no fewer than 10 editors with accounts and at least 2 different IP editors, none of whom have agreed with you. You have been the lone voice of opposition to this change. For a year. Every single editor to have commented on this page has been in opposition to you. Consensus is crystal clear. It's time for you to stop now. HokieRNB 02:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus is for some other map, but not just any other map. Consensus is against the map you inserted, as is the text of this article. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * I agree wholeheartedly that the second CB map should go. One map showing both the C.B. states and the other Northeastern states that are included in reliable sources. (Which is precisely what I added and User:Hoppingalong removed.)
 * I also believe that User:Hoppingalong's edits on this article are not constructive, are against consensus (or often without even bothering to seek consensus), are frequently disruptive, and are now bordering on WP:POINTy. There is no way that it helps improve this article to include the following definitions:
 * Uniform Crime Reports of FBI - unless there is something in the article about crime statistics for the Northeastern United States.
 * National Energy Modeling System - unless there is something in the article about the production, consumption, conversion, import, or pricing of energy in the Northeastern United States.
 * International Nuclear Safety Center - unless there is something in the article about nuclear facilities in the Northeastern United States.
 * Boy Scouts of America - unless there is something significant about Boy Scouts as it relates to the Northeastern United States (e.g., if there were twice as many Boy Scout troops per capita as compared to other reasons, a completely made-up fact).
 * Northeast Regional Ocean Council - unless there is some significant contribution that this council makes to the understanding of the Northeast as a region (which I admit is entirely possible).
 * Food and Drug Administration
 * Department of Defense
 * American Lung Association
 * These last three, I can't see how they contribute to the article in any substantive way. Alternate definitions are fine to include, but they should be alternate definitions that contribute to the content of the article. We should work to eliminate definitions that are merely there because such-and-such an organization has an administrative regional division named "Northeast". A good example of a recent addition would be the Plant Taxonomic Database Standards, which at first glance seems like it would be a source for describing the flora of the Northeastern United States. The Fish and Wildlife Service reference should be a good source for similar information about fauna of the Northeastern United States. The Library of Congress reference is good for finding historical maps of the Northeastern United States. HokieRNB 13:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * While I do find it interesting to see how all these separate federal agencies view the NE US area, I would agree with you that some agencies hold more weight than others. But I have to admit that I am a bit biased by looking at this overall subject as more of a "gee-whiz" subject rather than a "scientific" subject.  My only exception to that bias is the use of the CB map(s).  I do acknowledge your point that the CB's Northeast Region may still be being utilized for some statistics, even though the region was apparently disbanded by the CB website in January of 2013.  I do think that should somehow be stated on the CB map(s), but I now see your point as to why a CB map could/should stay. -Ed
 * But why not any of the particular definitions, especially the government examples? (Heck, why isn't there mention of nuclear power in the region or major non-profits or crime rates?) Why is the FDA less important? I think how we would know the important definitions from the unimportant or one-off/administrative-only definitions would be those definitions themselves covered in Reliable Sources. What I mean by that is which definitions are consciously used by people other than the entity that created it. (We already know there is not a cohesive "northeastern culture" or geography or history calling into question whether this region is a region in any significant, non-arbitrary sense, though sub-parts of it definitely are, like New England.) The only definitions that are cited by others outside the organization creating it, referenced here or that I could find, at least, are the CB and the plant one you mentioned as a good example. But few folks, currently, seem to want to limit this to the CB or other wide-cited definitions. As an aside, I was the one who added some of the good examples you listed above, so I am not sure how that factors into your personal attack. Furthermore, most of the less/none-cited definitions were grouped together in a note, but recently brought to the main text by an editor other than me. I repeatedly noted I thought they should go back in a note, if they belonged in the article at all. And to the IP editor who keeps going on about the "new" and "disbanded" Census regions, the Census Bureau regions are the same as they have been. The CB regions have not changed. The area particular field offices cover changed, irrespective of the regional definitions. That is already mentioned in the article.  Hoppingalong (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "We already know there is not a cohesive "northeastern culture" or geography or history calling into question whether this region is a region in any significant, non-arbitrary sense, though sub-parts of it definitely are, like New England." How do "we" know that? This is your own original research. I guess you still don't see the point of why I brought up Northeast megalopolis which very clearly demonstrates that the "Northeast" is a distinct region culturally and economically and includes Maryland, Delaware, and DC. The megalopolis would not be called the "Northeast megalopolis" is the region of states it is located in is not the "Northeastern United States" and it is not even questioned whether part of it is in the "South Atlantic States."
 * "French geographer Jean Gottmann popularized the term in his 1961 book Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States, his landmark study of the region. His conclusion was that the various cities contained in the region—especially Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston—are, while discrete and independent, uniquely tied to each other through the intermeshing of their suburban zones, acting in some ways as a unified super-city: a megalopolis. Since the publication of Gottmann’s book, the concept has gained prominence in both popular and academic media." The CB's century old definition is notable, but it is not dogma, and the consensus is clearly against treating it as such. It is time to stop hijacking this article and accept this. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Hopping-Upon some thought, I do agree with you that all federal agencies and large national organizations could/should be included in this map, no matter what the scientific relevancy or irrelevancy is. But I disagree with you that the CB still has a "Northeast US" region. Please go onto the CB website. You will see that those maps have been omitted, and the regions have been changed as of January 2013. Or please guide me to the CB page which refers to a CB Northeast Region. @Hokie- I do believe that all federal maps which contain a "Northeast" region should be included. @All- being a rookie at this, I have gone back and manually signed my name "Ed" to my comments. I hope that works for now. -Ed
 * See below Talk:Northeastern_United_States. Hoppingalong (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus sought for Maryland, Delaware, and DC being prominently mentioned in the Composition section
I added important information about a major 1950 review by the Census Bureau (see pages 18-19) http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch6GARM.pdf which contradicts its official definition dating from 1880 and states that the official definition is kept solely out of convenience, and included the relevant notable source here: I also included information about geographer Jean Gottmann's 1961 landmark study of the region, Megalopolis. User:Hoppingalong reverted it (as part of a long-standing continuing pattern of disruption without consensus to this article,) claiming that I didn't get consensus for the edits. I am seeking consensus, since it appears to me that Hoppingalong is the only editor who does not believe that MD, DE, and DC should be prominently mentioned in Composition. 173.16.194.59 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For some reason this IP editor abandoned the discussion where it was happening below(Talk:Northeastern_United_States) and started this new section at the top of this talk page. The section below more than clarifies why the IP is wrong. The IP is misconstruing the Reliable Sources ( 1.) the Census Bureau source notes why this formulation was rejected and 2.) Gottmann explicitly did not seek to define the Northeast region) and is otherwise engaging in interesting, though inappropriate for Wikipedia, Original Research. I think editors should focus on HokieRNB's reasonable proposal that we had just started discussing (Talk:Northeastern_United_States) when IP joined the conversation. Hoppingalong (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

I hope this change addresses some of the concerns of the earlier revision, and I'd like to see this proposal move forward with more efficiency than this page is accustomed to, thanks to the staggeringly unsupported work of User:Hoppingalong. HokieRNB 12:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal attack aside, I think this is a good proposal. My only hesitation in supporting it unequivocally is the last sentence. If we focus on definitions, rather than tallying votes for particular states, and limit that to definitions actually used in the world (the plant taxonomy, for example), that seems fine. Otherwise, I am afraid this will lead to additional example cruft and definitions that have no importance to anybody other than the creator (to whom it might even only have been arbitrary, if necessary grouping). Hoppingalong (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

I have added several non-CB definitions to this article, and the only non-CB definition that is regularly and widely used by anyone other than the creator (the plant taxonomy one). I have also resisted opinion-based definitions based on editors "knowledge", not well reasoned standards for inclusion that merely summarize third-party Reliable Sources and discussed this regularly on talk. And I brought up the source cited above (in response to the IP wrongly claiming the CB never discussed why the definitions are what they are). Specific to issues mentioned above...
 * I agree with the IP that only "notable" definitions should be included in the last sentence, though one wouldn't need to be anywhere notable in the strict WP:N sense to be included. We know what definitions or groupings are "notable" in this respect by the coverage they receive. A definition that receives any real third-party coverage or use (not specious coverage or otherwise worthless) is probably good enough.
 * As for the top map, if we are to include more than one definition per map, all states included in any of the "notable" definitions should be shaded. I can't think of any other principled way to do it. I still think it better to make the top map only the most significant, widely used definition, with other definitions represented in maps in the composition section.
 * As for Gottmann, he explicitly disclaimed doing what the IP would cite him for (defining the Northeast). Other than mention that the Megalopolis is centered/primarily in the Northeast, I don't think there is much to cite Gottmann for in this article.

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


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


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

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. 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 (]). 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)

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, 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), 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 . I reverted those changes . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 & Or). 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)

Missing states in certain sections
Why do we exclude Delaware and Maryland in some sections like history and demography while making a brief reference about them being northeastern states? I know most people use the 11 state and DC definition. I think we should use the popular definition. Someone needs to recalculate the total population of the Northeast so the population would include DE and MD. This is how I would do the map. I would color the New England states and New York dark red because the 6 NE states and NY are the heart of the Northeast, while coloring NJ, PA, DE, MD, WV and OH lighter red because they are the Mid-Atlantic states. However, I would leave the Great Lakes states and Virginia gray on that map because they are not northeastern at all (Maybe lightest red would go well). MuppetHammer26II (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I just expanded the history with the inclusion of Delaware. MuppetHammer26II (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It all has to do with reliable sources. Where there is discussion of population (demography), the reliable sources come from census data, which does not include DE, MD, and DC. With regard to history, the information here should not be a rehash of the history of each of the constituent states, but rather a history of the region as a whole. In your comment, you said "This is how I would do the map." That statement is a bit silly, since how you would do the map doesn't really matter on Wikipedia. The map is colored based on the frequency of how reliable sources portray the region. Since there are reliable sources (albeit not many) that include VA, it is shaded. It's just that simple. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply
"The Northeastern United States, or simply the Northeast," - I struggle with this sentence. Was going to change it to "known locally as "the Northeast",", since worldwide there are many Northeasts which makes the word "simply" problematic. Any suggestions? Not edited it yet. Dojo99 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Michigan, Wisconsin, et al.
To continue from the above section: Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio are defined by the Census Bureau as "Midwestern" and any American with a modicum of common sense will affirm that this is the universal cultural understanding. The claim made by the article that the Library of Congress to some extent "defines" the Northeast as including these states is absurd. It appears to rest entirely on one map, that can be found in the article, as well as here here. If you look at the actual website, it is the "Region II Map", meant to serve the purpose of categorizing of the Library's map collection. It does not claim to represent the Library of Congress's "definition" of the Northeast, it is merely one of multiple different interactive maps which provide access to regionally-categorized map collections for the sake of convenience. I know regional definitions vary, but this is stretch of ridiculous proportions and I think this map is being completely misrepresented as a reliable source on the subject and given that it contradicts nearly all other reliable sources to be found, it's being assigned a drastic amount of undue weight by even highlighting these states. Frankly I'm nothing short of shocked that this hasn't been remedied by now but I will be removing the mention of these states from the article presently. S warm  ♠  03:49, 15 August 2015 (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 (Northeast, 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 Northeast 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 tables 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 prefaced 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)
 * Something you can do is to try to make the map with states highlighted red have more light red states. Ohio already is colored as such to indicate that it is sometimes included. Georgia guy (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ohio is not colored at all on the current map, even though it is listed twice in the Composition section. Iahklu (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed the map a few months ago on the image page. I changed it back. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @KenHigh, no argument here. Just reiterating that the article has reliable sources for alternate definitions that include 4 of the 5 states mentioned. I was responding directly to the statement, "...why the Northeastern United States page doesn't include..." I in no way advocate their inclusion in the data tables. HokieRNB 18:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)