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) article 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 pointlessly 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)

Much of what you added is a WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE problem. I am going to revert per WP:BRD. This article has been stable for over two years, and much discussion in the talk archives. Could we go section-by-section and get consensus about what belongs. Despite your attacks on me, I believe you want to do good. But Wikipedia is not a venue for research papers. The sort of synthesis that would properly get you an A at Hopkins is entirely inappropriate here. For instance, the Ivy League discussion is way out of whack. The "Northeast" is no more defined by the Ivy League than it is the huge number of community colleges in the regions that comrpise the Northeast. So is the colloquialism discussion of the definitions. You are "proving" the fact you are asserting, not summarizing a source that says as much. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I added back in the History section with some minor revisions. But it does highlight the problem of considering the Northeast as a cohesive region. Other sections need to focus on the "Northeast" as such, not random things that are found in the Northeast. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth or justice. The information that I added was verifiable. There is nothing biased about adding that Ivy League universities exist in the Northeast. Your ad hominem attack distracts from the point that Ivy League institutions are an important aspect of education in the Northeast. Please stop Wikilawyering by citing obscure Wikipedia policies to gain a "moral high ground". The policy WP:UNDUE that you reference refers to representing all significant viewpoints of a particular idea, not representing all ideas of a particular viewpoint. The policy WP:SYNTH refers to combining sources to assert an idea that was not in the source, not combining sources to reinforce an idea that was in the source. As you already seem to be aware, gaming the system to make a point is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have never had this "problem" before, yet I have expanded other articles successfully without one editor filibustering and politiking my every move. The only reason that the article seems to have "random things" in it is because you pointlessly delete every significant revision to the article that anyone has made in the past 29 months. I don't know what your agenda is, but I will not allow you to usurp the editing process like you have in the past. --Apollo1758 ^talk 03:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean "ursurping the editing process like I have in the past" except when I was discussing on talk to work toward consensus, like this example, for instance. I'm not trying to disrupt anything, and I won't take the bait to devolve into personal attacks. This article has more than doubled in bites in the last 24 hours (and increased several times in words). I think that is great, if done right, and I am glad it has. But not everything you added makes sense on this article. Of course, we should limit our talk here to the article. Just becasue a fact is verifiable does not mean it belongs in this article. Verifiability is a necessary conmdition for any fact to appear here (WP:V), as you know as an experienced editor. But it is not in and of itself sufficient. I could list the mayor of the 12th biggest town in the NE. That would be verifiable, and related to a part of the NE. While it would be proper in an article about that town, it is not sufficiently representative of the NE to include in this article. Unfortunately, with respect to the few sections we disagree on, it seems the higher ed boosterismn primary among them, there is not a real hook for inlcuding those well-verified facts here. In light of the huge changes this article has undergone today, I think maybe you (Apollo) and I should take a rest from editing this article for a bit. Let's see if a few days or weeks indicate other editors consensus to what we've done. Then would should discuss other changes. Just a suggestion. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is about the article. What we're talking about is Ivy League universities, which consist of some of the top collegiate institutions in the world. Just because Ivy League universities are elite institutions doesn't make it academic elitism or boosterism to discuss them in the article. The Northeast has the distinction of having all eight Ivy League universities. I don't understand what is morally wrong with adding information about Ivy League universities when comparable information can exist in other articles such as the New England article, even when there are plenty of people who never attend an Ivy League university in their lifetime. Even if you don't attend an Ivy League school personally, the schools have many notable alumni such as George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and Cory Booker. How about we get a third opinion about this matter so we can resolve this deletionism/inclusionism debate? --Apollo1758 ^talk 04:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is alredy mention of Harvard, the first college in the NE, which is significant because it was the first on the contitent. I just don't see why we would include mention of the Ivy League, let alone a section dedicated to it in this article. None of your argument above indicates why this info belongs in an article about the NE US. Does the Ivy League particularly represent the NE? Does it help our understanding of the NE as a concept? I don't think it does. This is not a moral argument. And despite the rather off-putting personal attacks above, I don't think you are a bad person for trying to include it. I just disagree with you based on WP policies and guidelines. Should discussion of the Ivy League be balanced with discussion of the huge number of NE residents who drop out of high school? Even if the article were to grow much, much longer, I don't see how some of what you added is ok according to Wp:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I'm not saying the Ivy League is an "isolated event" or anything like that, but what you did was to give it far to much significance. It might even be fine on an article about Higher Education in New England or the Northeast. But the sources that discuss the Northeast as such, rather than components of the NE without regard to the Northeast itself as a conicept, focus on statistics (a la the U.S. Census Bureau), not the Ivy League. And UNDUE is not an obscure policy. It is part of WP:NPOV which is a WP policy. As you know, that is a big deal. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I too find it very odd that in a discussion of education of the Northeast, there is no mention of the Ivy League schools. Personally, outside of the personal attack, I wholeheartedly agree with what Apollo1758 has stated here up to this point. Despite what a few argue, consensus was never reached on this topic. Here is a five-point proposal to remedy this situation:

1. The format of the article should mirror the current Southeastern US region article. That article isn't the best but it's a start. If for example there is a listing of AAU institutions in the Southeastern US article (which there are) we should have a listing of all AAU institutions in the Northeastern US article. There should be also a detailed history, economy, culture and demographic section. If necessary, these sections should have links to their own Wikipedia articles.

2. Maryland, Delaware and DC should be included in both the Northeast and Southeast US articles, with the emphasis that these states are sometimes considered part of both regions. Despite what some may argue, all previous discussion on this discussion page (and previous discussion pages) points in this direction.

3. All institutions, parks, landmarks and other significant items in Maryland, Delaware and DC should be included in both the Northeast US and Southeast US articles.

4. Under the largest cities and largest metropolitan areas data, Baltimore and Washington DC should be included in both the Northeast and Southeast US articles, with a footnote that these cities are sometimes considered part of another region (Southeast in the Northeast US article, Northeast in the Southeast US article). The data should include Northern VA, which is considered part of the DC Metro area.

5. The map on the current Northeast page should be changed to reflect the fact that Maryland, Delaware and DC are sometimes considered Northeastern, much in the same way that these states on the Southeastern US article are noted as being "sometimes southeastern"

Thoughts? G. Capo (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As to 1, the Southeast is a more cohesive region (per RSs) and is not a Census Region (the Southern United States is). Most of the other Census Regions also are well-attested as regions before the Census Bureau made them such. This one isn't, though New England and the Mid-Atlantic certainly were (New England more so than Mid-Atlantic, in the MA, the individual states seem to have been more important). So this one should not necessarily parallel those. New England, for instance, would be the place to put that level of detail. But if you can cite sources showing the importance of any institution to the Northeast U.S. as such (rather than a city, state, New England, or the like), then it might make sense in this article. As to 2, 3, 4, 5, no way. That is OR and has been discussed ad naseum on talk and its archives with consensus going the way the article has been for over two years and sporadically before then. You would need to establish a definition that includes them that itself gets coverage as such in RSs. IMHO, editor's efforts would be better spent perfecting the New England and Mid-Atlantic articles. That is the level that makes the most sense historically, culturally, etc., to cover these areas. Sometimes a short article is just right, especially when dealing with a somewhat artificial breakdown, with linking to both lower level detail (i.e., New England) and higher-level detail (United States). Hoppingalong (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the personal attacks, Hoppingalong. I am inexperienced with edit wars and I recognize that you are editing with good faith. For clarification, here is a summary of my current thoughts:

• I agree with G. Capo's first proposal that there should be sections similar to the Southeastern U.S. article, at a minimum. If information is verifiable and applies to the whole Northeast, then it should be included in the article. Articles about the Mid-Atlantic states and New England exist, but these articles do not discuss information in the wider context that this article discusses information.
• I agree with G. Capo's other proposals of including Maryland, Delaware and D.C. in the article, with the context of them being in both the Northeast and Southeast. There is a precedent for doing so because this is already how the Southeastern U.S. and Mid-Atlantic articles are structured.
• Hoppingalong argues that the Northeast is not a cohesive region (and it would be useful if specific examples were provided), but I do not believe that that the article length should be artificially limited. The Mid-Atlantic states and New England are unified by history and geography, even if they are not as cohesive as the Southern U.S. For example, the Northeast was the first American region to undergo industrialization, its major cities have been traditional entry points for immigrants, and the Boston, Hartford, New York City, Philadelphia, and D.C. metropolitan areas constitute a megalopolis. The article doesn't have to be excessively long, but it should summarize information that is mutual to New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Specific concerns about the article length should be discussed individually.
• Although the Northeast is a Census region, this should not imply that the Northeast is not a cohesive region. The article might be comparable to the Western U.S. article, which has a variety of sections even though the region as a whole is culturally diverse. There are articles for the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, and Mountain States, but the Western U.S. article still has a variety of sections. Delaware, Maryland, and D.C., which have been historically considered part of the South, are said by certain sources to have cultural similarities to the Northeast. The Northeast exists independent of the Census definitions.
• I agree with G. Capo that consensus was not reached on the topic. In general, consensus was not reached that my edits or Hoppingalong's edits reflect consensus, hence the discussion. Although this topic has been discussed before, these discussions seemingly involved one other editor at a time and did not discuss the general topic of whether the sections should be removed. Regardless of whether or not consensus was reached, the previous discussions need not apply and a new consensus can be established right now (per Wikipedia:Consensus). I do not believe the prose should be the way it was before, but I believe that the article deserves to have sections the way it did in the past.

I am taking a break from this discussion, but feel free to look at the Geography, Culture, and Education sections in this version of the article that I wrote. --Apollo1758 ^talk 02:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)