Talk:Northeastern United States

Demographics

I added the population under the demographics section, it seemed weird that it was missing. Red Hair Bow (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of unnecessary/pointless information

This article is somewhat of a joke, especially compared to articles on the other US regions. A year or two ago there was a decent, far more informative (though far from perfect) entry about 5 times the length of this one. I'm sure what happened was that one or two rogue editors decided to delete all of the existing content and replace it with their own definition (in this case the CB's).

First of all, it uses the antiquated Census Bureau definition of the "Northeast" as the sole definition region (totally ignoring any others, against wikipedia policy). Secondly, there's no useful information in the article whatsoever, except for the list of cities in the region. Finally, and perhaps the worst attribute of the article, is that 50% of the text is random nonsense about the Census Bureau and some obscure "sources" (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the National Energy Modeling System, and Gale's Almanac[?!]) which add absolutely nothing to the article and look totally out of place here.

The "Other definitions agree." sentence is one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia. Not only because that goes without saying, but also because of the sheer randomness of it and the fact that whoever wrote it was trying to boost their opinion as fact. As for the sources it would probably take all of two minutes to find more distinguished sources. The FBI doesn't even use this definition of Northeast operationally (FBI North East region), only using the Census def. to report crime statistics.

Regardless of what definition is used, the ridiculous part of the sole paragraph on the page should be deleted. There should also be links to other articles that actually provide information on the region, such as the pages on the Northeast Megalopolis as well as the Mid-Atlantic and New England subregions, which are far better than this garbage. Of course I did that and it was immediately changed back since it was claimed that the in-line links to the Mid-Atlantic/New England pages were enough. However, there is no Northeast Megalopolis link so I will add that, as well as remove the unnecessary text outlined above. 69.250.224.16 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You say the CB definition is antiquated, but then knock the sources and quotes noting why it is paramount (WP:UNDUE). Whether the FBI or anybody else uses a particular definition is irrelevant unless that gets coverage (also UNDUE). You are right, Mid-Atlantic and New England are relevant, and linked in the lead, not in a see also section. That is not my policy, it is Wikipedia's at WP:SEEALSO. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the archives of this talk page and obtain consensus before removing sourced text, again. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So of course my changes were deleted. I looked at the archives and there was no consensus at all supporting the CB definition. It was actually you (shocker there) who took it upon yourself to rip up the page and use that definition. While obviously you think otherwise, most people view MD, DE, DC as Northeastern. That presumptuous nonsense that the CB definition is the standard is ridiculous since most federal agencies (FBI, LOC, DOE, etc.) use more realistic and accurate regions, not to mention most other organizations (private and otherwise) from the Weather Channel to the to the Princeton Review to the Methodist Church. Practically all of them include MD, DC, and DE. The only reason the CB even continues to use it's antiquated def. is for historical purposes. Accordingly, most posts in the archive support at least some mention of Maryland, DC, and Delaware.

I'm not even trying to change the definition of the Northeast since I'm sure you'll instantly undo any edit that changes it. You keep posting links to wikipedia policy for no reason since don't even abide by them yourself and they have nothing to do with my changes. I was simply trying to link to articles that gave actual information on the region and remove the embarrassing POV garbage on this page, but I see you're determined to police the page and block out any edits that don't conform to your narrow view.69.250.224.16 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources make clear the CB definition is the most widely used. We follow the sources (at the risk of citing WP policy and unleashing a diatribe, maybe read WP:V & WP:WEIGHT). Rhetorically only, I wonder what makes a particular grouping of contiguous states ”more realistic and accurate”? The ”Northeastern United States” exists as a concept because of the CB. Other designations like New England have more relevance culturally, historically, geographically, etc. And the wikilinks to the articles you have deemed useful are in there. Thanks for your input. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As it is currently written this is quite possibly the most inaccurate (and quite frankly ludicrous) articles on geography on the Wikipedia website I have ever seen. According to this article, states such as Maryland, Delaware and DC are NEVER considered part of the Northeast. The only consensus that was reached is that these states could be considered both part of the Northeast and Southeast regions. Yet, there is at least one editor who seems to be bent on using only one definition and perhaps a couple of sources and immediately snuff out any and all other definitions and sources that does not fit his (or her) viewpoint. I’m somewhat surprised the Wikipedia community allowed this to happen. Also, for a region as populous as the Northeast, I find it very odd that there is so little information on the region. Let’s be clear, this is a shockingly bad article. It is articles like this that casts doubt on the credibility of Wikipedia. G. Capo (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a shame that so much deletion occurred without anyone contesting it. From now on, I'll be guarding this page closely to make sure that no one user can usurp the editing process. Luckily, though, this is Wikipedia and what can be broken can be fixed just as easily. It is ludicrous that anyone would suggest that the Northeastern United States exists solely because of a government agency. --Apollo1758 ^(talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not as Worthy?

It's ridiculous that the other three census region articles have long been developed into fairly extensive pages covering everything from culture to Native American history while this one is left to whither mostly due to the work of certain crusading editors with an agenda.

This article needs much work and many sections. History, Culture, Weather, Education, Economy, Politics, Cuisine, Geography both political and natural, subsections on New England and the Mid Atlantic, The Northeastern Megalopolis, and alternate definitions which are discussed on the other said pages, all for starters. Though I doubt anything will get done. I'm not much of an article writer myself, I only ever joined to correct minor mistakes, ah well. Red Hair Bow (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the article back to how it was in 2010

Look at the article history.[1] It shows that one editor gradually deleted 97.6% of the article's prose (5,816 words → 142 words) without consensus. Here is a link to the last civilized version of this article: [2]. That version of the article has sections on Geography, History, Culture, Cuisine, Economy, and Elections comparable to the other U.S. region articles. I've never seen anything like this before. For now, I'm creating empty sections so that the info that was deleted can be added back by anyone who wants to help out. --Apollo1758 ^talk 00:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All you did was add many blank sections and reinsert rather worthless material noting the region's "wealthy" status and that it is home to the Ivy League. Adding many blank sections is unhelpful and borders on disruptive. That is not how articles grow on Wikipedia. Much of what was removed was unsourced and discussed here and the archives. Apollo1758's actions were done without consensus. I am going to revert. Please obtain consensus here before doing this again. You can read about how to obtain consensus at Wikipedia at WP:CONSENSUS. Hoppingalong (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Hoppy. Glad to see you editing again. Perhaps you could become a Wikilawyer because you enjoy criticizing other people's work without making improvements. Ironically, your actions were done without consensus, and hopefully you recognize that your own actions are unhelpful and disruptive before criticizing other people for improving the encyclopedia. If every editor on Wikipedia had your attitude, then maybe Wikipedia wouldn't exist. You are not morally superior over other users. Your personal opinions are not synonymous with group consensus. You should not act like I haven't been editing for four years. You did not did have consensus to begin with. And most importantly you do not own this article or any part of Wikipedia. Next time, if you're going to lecture an experienced user then please don't misinterpret Wikipedia's policies. I would sincerely prefer to talk about this in a more civil manner, but you have disrupted the editing process for this article by reverting other people's edits and pretending that you have a consensus to do so. Look again at the article history, and you will realize that your claim that much of what was removed was "discussed here and the archives" is misleading because there was no consensus that 97.6% of the article's prose should be removed or that the Northeastern United States exists solely because a government agency said so. It's disrespectful for you to act like I haven't been editing for four years by presenting me with links to basic Wikipedia policies. For a change, how about you add something instead of deleting something? --Apollo1758 ^talk 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)