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

The last paragraph is badly written as througout the article New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey are routinely included as part of the Northeast, and yet the population is cited as 12 million. Shouldn't that be closer to 55 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieBob ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Which colleges/universities should be mentioned in this article? Under the subjeading of "New England" (which incidentally has its own article), this article currently mentions:

• the New-England-based ivies (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Dartmouth);
• MIT, obviously notable;
• the New-England-based "little ivies" (Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams: as I understand the term, these are all of the little ivies)
• two of the four New-England-based "seven sisters" (Wellesley and Smith; Radcliffe seems redundant with Harvard, but Mount Holyoke is excluded).

There is no mention of New-England-based NESCAC schools other than the little three: Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut College, Middlebury, Trinity (CT), Tufts are not mentioned.

Under the subheading of "The Mid-Atlantic", there is zero mention of Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, or Penn; none of Vassar, Bryn Mawr, or Barnard; none of Swarthmore, Haverford, Colgate, Hamilton, Bucknell, Lafayette, Bard, Franklin and Marshall, Dickinson, Union, Skidmore, etc. (I'm looking at the USNews rankings and it is hard to stop listing.)

What basis should be used for selecting which colleges to put in the list? More to the point, where should we draw the line? Is such a list necessary? Would it be a copyright violation to make a page of the US News rankings (particularly of the top, say, 50 schools in both major categories), a second page listing top schools by state, and link from this page to that? ("According to US News, x of the top y universities, and z of the top w liberal arts colleges, are in the northeast...")

- Rjyanco 18:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Recent edit to "Culture"

The following was recently added to the "culture" section:

Nor in general, tend to be less assimilated into mainstream American society than Midwesterners, Westerners, or Southerners. Rather, Northeasterners tend to retain the cultures of their ancestors more than natives of other parts of the country. While this results in more ethnic conflict, it also provides the Northeast with the most diverse culture in world.

Is it NPOV? Is it even true? Is it really the case not that Northeasterners assimilate less, but merely that more immigrants come to the Northeast, so there's a greater supply of not-yet-assimilated people? Etc. I don't find this paragraph convincing at all. AJD 05:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took it out. I think what the author is getting at is that some, urban and suburban Northeasterners of European origin sometimes hold on to their European-ethnic identities in particular ways, although in practice this can mean little more than a fourth-generation Italian American saying "I'm Italian" even though he or she doesn't speak more than two or three words of the Italian language. Is this even tenuous "holding on" to "the culture of their ancestors" (if you can call the above that) even that prevalent everywhere in the Northeast? No. It's not in places like New Hampshire or Vermont or in many more rural parts of the Northeast.

I can only assume the above is what inspired the anon user to post that paragraph. If he was referring to newer, non-European-origin immigrants, the case falls apart entirely. The West is currently home to a large population of new immigrants who are just as unassimilated, I would argue more so in the case of Hispanics vis a vis those in the Northeast, as those in the NE. Moreover, even by the old European American definition, many whites in the Midwest "hold on" to their "culture" in the same way as Northeastern - i.e., a self-identification (Polish Americans in Chicago, German Americans in Wisconsin, Swedish Americans in Minnesota) that is generally expressed in a superficial sense.

In short, I find that paragraph to be POV and not supportable by fact. Moncrief 10:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

While I won't change the page, I believe that someone is lacking an intimate knowledge of the Northeast. Hispanics were mentioned, but you neglected to consider the Amish, Mennonites, Shakers and Quakers. The northeast is definitely very Euroethnicentric.

The Amish and Mennonites formed separate religious communities and had a strong reason to live apart from the main culture, which is different from what most people think of when they talk about ethnic identification. Shakers were religious, not from one nation. Quakers were (and are) mostly of English and northern European descent but may identify religiously, not so much ethnically, unless they were to say American or British. Sources could be found for much of this discussion. After the massive new immigrations of the late 19th and early 20th century, it seems I recall the changes in ideas as people realized that these batches of European ethnics retained more "groupness" than after 200 years of the previous immigrants assimilating. So much is a question of whether there are sufficient numbers to allow staying apart, but as the generations go on, there is usually marriage "out" unless there are strong religious strictures. My sister's Polish-Catholic/Polish-Jewish_Swedish Lutheran niece recently married a man of Italian Catholic descent. They married and will raise their children in the Catholic church, but it's a big change for this generation.-- Parkwells ( talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While it makes sense to place the northeast together for other reasons, calling them "culturally similiar" is bizarre. Probably the least culturally similiar peoples in the country. New England may be fairly similiar culturally to each other. Originally Puritan roots. New York has been called, correctly I think, an "Eastern European city" and the only one in the US, apparently because of its huge Russian Jewish roots and Polish immigrants. The Middle Atlantic states are a mishmosh of peoples from all over. Baltimore was clearly "Southern" in outlook in the 19th century, hardly that now, but hardly "culturally similar" to New England or New York either. I think, without a really good citation that the "culturally similiar" phrase ought to be removed. Student7 ( talk) 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

According to new policy approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions this page should be moved to Northeastern United States, and likewise its related sub-articles as well. Thanks. - JCarriker 10:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I'm going ahead with the move. - JCarriker 10:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why aren't Ohio and Michigan on the map? I know alot more people that call Ohio and Michigan Northeastern than Midwestern. They should be striped on the map.

I agree, I see a lot of sources counting Ohio as Northeastern. WacoJacko 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a new map of what could be the Northeast. The red states are what are always part of the Northeast. The striped states are what may or may not be in the Northeast, and the pink states are rarely considered part of the Northeast.

Link: http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1176/usmapnortheastmk8.png

You should see the discussions on the Midwestern Page. I'm from Western Ohio and that part of the state is most certainly Midwestern, as are parts of Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana. Frank12 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sources for Ohio to be striped on the Northeast Map [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Ohio and Michigan should never, ever, ever be considered part of the Northeast. They aren't even geographically -near- the Northeast section of the country (considering people in the Northeast consider Pennsylvania as the start of the Midwest). Plus, they share not a single ounce of the culture or history that defines the region. Those states are the Midwest, pure and simple.

Ohio and Michigan ARE in the Northeast geographically. Detroit is closer to New York City than it is to St. Louis, also, Pennslvania and New Jersey have the same horrid economy as Ohio and Michigan. Yes there are people in NEW ENGLAND that call Pennslvania the Midwest. I put the key words in bold. NEW FREAKING ENGLAND! These are the same people that think New Jersey is in the South, which probably nobody else thinks that. If your going to go historical, then Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, DC, and Virginia all should be removed from the map. They were historically Southern states, and both geographicaly and culturally Virginia is entirley Southern, and West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware are Southern with only slight connections with PA. So I conclude, if Ohio and Michigan aren't going to be on here, neither should DE, MD, DC, WV, or VA because those states are Southern. 70.106.134.104 05:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I live in Michigan, and I have no idea what some of you are talking about. In no way, shape or form do we consider ourselves a "Northeastern" state. Funnyhat 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

...

New Jersey has the same horrid economy as Ohio? What? New Jersey is home to the North American headquarters of a ridiculous number of international corporations (Panasonic, Samsung, etc.), as well as being the nation's "heartland" for engineering, biochemical engineering, and pharmaceuticals. New Jersey has a scientific, engineering, corporate, and media/communications-based economy, in addition to being a bedroom community to New York City and its financial economy. New Jersey in no way resembles the economies of Ohio, Michigan, etc.... it has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the nation, and it's also the second wealthiest state in the nation.

Let's just use the census maps and not have everyone trying to vote on what is where. I totally disagree with having West VA and VA striped on this map; it's not accurate related to settlement and culture, and they are both included in Southern United States. Those early Presidents did not come from the Northeast. -- Parkwells ( talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to change the colour of the map box, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions -- Qirex 05:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The following is taken from is in the Culture section:

"Most of the Black population resides in New York, which has more Blacks than any other state, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey."

Does anyone know what was supposed to be here? My assumption is that it should say "followed by Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey," but I hesitate fixing it based on speculation. Any ideas? Sixtus LXVI 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

MY Opinion:

    I clearly belive that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!

Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being northern. Im from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutly HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconciterate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.

Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.

    If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????

It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty usefull to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORSED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are natrually South.

Subject 3: MD.

    Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.

I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!

Final Subject: Overall.

    Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!

They have many southern charms too. Infact, we have great hospitaliy too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that maryland and virginia are atleast a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if youve been too maryland and virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!

ps. dont post nasty negitive comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz

- Footballchik

I agree that Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, and even South Jersey are Southern. 70.105.118.229 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Did you simply go to every single article regarding Maryland and post this? Sure it's Southern in some areas, but face it, the MDL is two hundred years out of date now, if Maryland's in the South then it's probably going to be the most un-Southern state. I'll leave your comments over Virginia alone however, Virginia is pretty much the heart of the South as Massachusetts is the heart of the Northeast. And to the second person, you might as well throw in Southern Illinois and Central Pennsylvania in as well.

Both of you - sign your post with four tildes ~~~~. First guy: just because you'd like them to be southern doesn't mean they are. People keep saying "I consider ... southern" - good for you, but we're going by the sources here - or at least per discussion below we're trying to. And do you have any reference to back up that Maryland wanted to be a confederate state? Just wondering.-- daniel folsom 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mason-Dixon Line was used to show the division between slave and non-slave states prior to the Civil War, but during and after the war rapidly lost credidibility as a cultural demarcation. For one thing, Maryland and Delaware both fought willingly for the Union. Whatever you can say about Maryland being "forced" to remain in the UNited States, the fact remains that only 20,000 Marylanders fought for the South, while 70,000 fought for the North. Similarly, Robert E. Lee's invasions of Maryland were met with fierce native resistance. Public opinion in both Maryland and Delaware was largely on the side of the North (particularly in Delaware).

The Civil War aside, other factors place both states (for me at least) firmly in the Northern category. Maryland's wealth and industry are certainly very important points; at the time of the Civil War, Baltimore was the third largest city in the country, and about 80% of Maryland's population today lives within the vicinity of two major urban areas, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

The political leanings in both states (strongly Democratic) are further evidence of Northern tendencies. Other miscellaneous cultural items can be brought up: most Marylanders would die before they ate grits (half of them don't even know what it is), hominy is virtually nonexistent, and scrapple is preferred to sausage any day of the week.

To put Maryland and Delaware in the Southern category simply ignores reality, and I could not in good faith contribute to that misconception.

Virginia is a more difficult case. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of Virginia is as Southern now as it was on the day in 1861 when the Richmond legislature voted for secession from the United States. We reach a problem, however, when we arrive at Northern Virginia. Loudoun, Fairfax, and Arlington Counties are heavily industrialized, almost to the point of equalling Maryland in lifestyle, and a surge of capital has flooded the region from its neighbor above the Potomac. The region is increasingly Blue, and recently threw two major elections (the 2005 gubernatorial race and the 2006 Senatorial race) to the Democrats. While the telltale signs of Southern culture do remain (Confederate flags, "Heritage, Not Hate," Southern food (unlike in Maryland, most Virginians find scrapple detestable), and other such things), there is increasingly alienation from the southern part of the state.

I would still classify Virginia as a Southern state (overall), but I feel that a note about Northern Virginia is appropriate. That area discounted, the Potomac River remains the very convenient dividing point it has been for decades, and that is what I will operate with. I hope that this was helpful.

Sunlight07 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Sunlight07

I am a Marylander. The only two points I will bring up about the Civil War is that the first bloodshed of the war took place in Baltimore as a mob of citizens attacked Union troops changing trains in the city and that, atleast according to the statistics I have seen, the majority of Marylanders in the Union army carried out "Home Guard" duties, and did not actually fight against the Confederates. That aside, I don't even know what scrapple is, but I do know what grits are. But, either way, it does not matter what region Wikipedia places Maryland in to me... Just wanted to point out that you may be a bit off base with the food :)

How you gone say that we don't know what grits are??? Everyone, North or South, east or west, knows what grits are. Oh please. They didnt fight against the fed's. There wasn't know 9,000 marylanders back then. Plz. The only reason why people don't classify us in the south is because now-a-day, we have been slighty moved up the map. MD is not that darn close to New Jersey. The new maps make it look like we are apart of Canada.

I removed the sentence The Potomac River marks the southern boundary of the Northeast. because it does not conform to what is shown on the map. Then again, the article, especially its introduction, seems to make it clear that it is about the Northeast as defined by the Census Bureau. If this is true, then there should be no problem with the map, and no striped states. If the article is not based on the Census Bureau, then the introduction ought to be written, no? Pfly 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, ..nevermind, the article is ok. It could be better, but so could all wikipedia articles. I got stuck on the sentence about the Northwest being the smallest region of the US, which I changed to "census bureau defined", since New England is obviously smaller. So nevermind my map comment, we don't need yet another region page's map being debated! Pfly 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the states below the Mason Dixon line are *not* part of the northeast according to the census bureau...

It would be far easier, particularly for this region, if you would just use the Census Bureau definition. There is nothing in the lede or geography section that even explains why West Virginia and Virginia are striped on the map. Just because Virginia has good jobs in the northern area does not mean it has become part of the Northeast. Atlanta was not reclassified as part of the North just because many people migrated there for work. WVA and VA are definitely in the Southern United States; please just leave them there. Write about cultural and job changes, but don't mess with geography, please. -- Parkwells ( talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also true that the BosWash megalopolis or Northeast megapolitan area extend into Virginia, as well as the Northeast Corridor. -- JWB ( talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohio should be at least striped on this map. Not everyone would consider it part of the Midwest, and why is Virginia even striped? That state is pure southern.

I concur, Ohio should be listed. Many sources consider it part of the Northeast. WacoJacko 07:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Ohio should be striped, but Western Ohio is more Midwestern than it is Northeastern, so we should leave that area be.

washington d.c. is entirely northeastern, and much of northern virginia comprises it's metro area. 24.23.97.35 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Washington DC is a Southern city.

Ohio as part of the Northeast? Yeah right.

Better than calling it the Midwest.

^^^This could turn out to be an intelligent argument :). I'd vote for striping the eastern part of Ohio because it is somewhat similar to the Northeast, but the western half is certainly Midwestern or whatever you want to call the similarities they share with Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, etc. States don't have to solely belong to one region, take Montana for example: western half is Rocky Mountains and the eastern half is Great Plains/Midwestern/insert description. Frank12 05:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, how about these maps, Eastern Ohio is striped on both maps. http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3979/usmapnortheastql3.png http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4213/usmapmidwestqt5.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.115.156 ( talk) 00:12, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence defines the region very precisely: "The Northeastern United States is a region of the United States defined by the U.S. Census Bureau." There was already a link to the Census Bureau's definition, but I added two more, one in plain text and one in PDF format. Comments about which states should or should not be included, like Ohio, are easily answered. The Census Bureau's definition of the Northeast is: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

If this page is really what its first sentence says it is about, then a large portion of its content should be removed as irrelevant and the map should be changed to match the definition. If this page is not about the Census Bureau's region, then the opening should be changed significantly and some other source or sources that define the region should be mentioned and properly referenced.

As it stands, this page contradicts itself in the very first paragraph, then reaffirms the first definition in the second paragraph, only to contradict it in the third and fourth. So I ask, what is this article about? If not the Census defined region, then whose definition? Thanks. Pfly 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pfly. This article should stick to the census bureau's definition: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Endless speculation over whether other states should be considered part of this reason are useless and, in my opinion, original research. "Country" Bushrod Washington 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, but the Census Bureau's definitions of things aren't always right. I don't think we should speculate per se about whether, for example, Delaware is part of the Northeast; rather, we should endeavor to find numerous reasonable sources comparable to the Census Bureau and consider all their definitions of the region. AJD 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"the Census Bureau's definitions of things aren't always right." - that's not really a valid argument. All we have to do is say, "The Census Bureaus lists ... as northern states." Right now we have really no source for which are northern - which is original research, and I'll take the Census over OR any day. -- daniel folsom 10:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But saying "the Census Bureau lists... as northeastern states" isn't satisfactory because then we don't have an article about the Northeastern United States, we have an article about the Northeast (U.S. Census region). That is, this article should strive to present numerous perspectives on what states are in the Northeast, rather than merely the Census Bureau's definition, which could be construed as POV. AJD 13:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, the article now says "The Northeastern United States is a region of the United States defined by the U.S. Census Bureau." But that's not true at all! The Northeastern United States would exist as an identifiable region even if the Census Bureau had never existed; the Census Bureau's definitions are incidental to that and unknown to most people. AJD 13:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a flawed argument - it'd be like writing an article on a state and being like, "according to the us government - this area of land is called texas, but we have to have another name for it because if we don't it's POV". daniel folsom 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Texas is well-defined; it's a state of the US, which is to say it is a governmental and structural entity of a particular type; it has firm borders, and everyone agrees on what is and is not Texas. The Northeast is an entity more like Bethesda, Maryland: the article on Bethesda describes it as having "no official boundaries", and states that the Census Bureau, the United States Geological Survey, the United States Postal Service, and the Bethesda Urban Planning District all have slightly different definitions of what the boundaries of Bethesda are. The Northeast is like Bethesda in being a region that people can generally identify, and which makes a convenient designation, but not a governmental identity with firm borders; and people and organizations can disagree on what the boundaries are. AJD 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The government decides how to split things up - if the census says the northeast is here, then people that disagree are just misinformed, just like if I got alaska and texas mixed up. And you have yet to provide any reliable sources ...-- daniel folsom 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This insistence on trying to redefine areas runs into problems with sources. For instance, many academic studies are based on the Census region, because they use extensive census data. So, the Brookings Institution published a study about the New Great Migration, the reverse migration of African Americans back to the South. One of the southern states gaining in population in this movement, the study notes, is Maryland. Another reason to take it out of here. Also, it was part of the Chesapeake Bay Colony, so had quite different culture than the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic. And, MD and VA are both included in the Southern United States article.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm from New Jersey - what the holy fuck is "scrapple"? I've never heard of that in my life.

See scrapple. It's a Pennsylvania German thing. "Country" Bushrod Washington 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this part of the article:

"The Northeast has from colonial times relied on fishing and seafare as a major source of its economic strength, namely because the extreme winter conditions preclude farming as a practical occupation in much of the region." I've always read and heard that the Northeast's mostly poor soil (in comparison to Midwestern soil, at least) is the main reason that large scale farming is rarely practiced in much of the region. Does anyone else think its valid to change the article so that soil quality is mentioned as the main factor in the region's marginal farming?

If you can find a citation to back up your memory, then go for it. "Country" Bushrod Washington 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Anyway, the weather argument doesn't make much sense when you consider that the Plains states have even colder winters, yet have economies dependent on agriculture. Funnyhat 02:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, NY and NJ had a lot of farming, maybe not on the scale of the Midwest, but that was a later manifestation. It was New England that could not sustain as much farming. Central NY had the cheese and dairy capital of the country in the early 19th c.-- Parkwells ( talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

According to D. W. Meinig, in the book The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 1: Atlantic America, 1492-1800, farming was a "practical occupation" in colonial times. He writes that in New England in 1750 "agriculture was the main basis of livelihood", and describes the Hudson Valley as a region of thriving farms. Southeast Pennsylvania was of course a major farming center, and still is. Of colonial New Jersey he writes "It was largely an agricultural colony", and goes on to describe the various crops that thrives and drew increasing numbers of farmer colonists. In short, I don't think the claim about farming not being a "practical occupation" is at all accurate. Certainly the Northeast has a strong history of fishing and seafaring mercantilism, and industry -- not because farming was impractical but for other reasons -- the nearby Great Fishery / Grand Banks, the large number of merchant and artisan colonists (running back to Puritan times -- Puritans in England were largely "middle class" merchant-types). Industry developed not because farming didn't, but rather out of the seafaring merchant trading that brought raw materials to the region (West Indies molasses for distillation into rum, for example), as well as the many small waterfalls ideal for mills driven by waterpower. So, having posted this on the talk page here, I'll remove that claim about farming being impractical. I would cite Meinig as a source, but how do you footnote the removal of text? I've cited it here at least. Pfly ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It must be added that part of the reason that per capita incomes are high in the Northeast is that the cost of living is also elevated. I vaguely recall reading a study that found that when cost of living was taken into account, the region was actually below-average in terms of wealth. Funnyhat 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Though it generally is seen as having a very urban character, at least in its most populated areas, the Northeast was one of the first regions to undergo heavy post-World War II suburbanization."

This line seems to place suburbs in opposition to "urban character," but the reverse is true. Heavy suburbanization occurs around urban centers practically everywhere--it's part and parcel of urban development, hence the term "urban sprawl." Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.133.98 ( talk) 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the suburbs have been directly related to the city they surround. They are trying to show that suburbs were later development than the original city, I think.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on geography - doesn't this begin in Pittsburgh where the Allegheny and Monongahela join together to form the Ohio?-- Parkwells ( talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

i am changin it to what the us cencus bureau says not what yahoo says http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 ( talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone edit this page? It seems to have been vandalised..."hello sexy" is throughout the page.

Virginia and Maryland are DEFINITELY NOT part of the Northeast. Virginia is part of the Southeast, and Maryland is a Mid-Atlantic state, or border state between North and South. I wouldnt consider D.C. part of the northeast either.

• I disagree, at least with regard to Washington, DC. Though its culture certainly has roots in the South, it is the southern boundary of the BosWash ubermetropolitan area and thus also has a strong connexion with the Northeast.

This page is incredibly poorly written. It needs a lot of help. 69.142.76.165 ( talk) 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) JRes

I fully realize that this is about the official US designation of "New England." But that there is no reference to the Native Americans is quite appalling, not even to mention that many of the names of our states and towns are Indian names. History here begins with the colonials as if everything was tabla rasa. Brosi ( talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The tone/quality of this section is pretty good. The problem is that there have been a lot of contributions with slightly different slants, some geographic, others, origin. It really needs to be reorganized somehow. The problem (as you might guess) is there are a heck of a lot of ethnicities to deal with! A bit of a mess right now IMO. Maybe even repetitive or slightly contradictory. There's always "whoops. Forgot these six people from Tibet and eight Aleuts." Don't want to omit anybody. I think conciseness is important here. Accounting for every group in the world is just not possible nor desirable. Student7 ( talk) 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a statement that Catholics are a "plurality" in the Northeast. This used to be true. In Vermont in 2007, "no religion" came in first ahead of any other religion, including Catholicism. So the general statement is not quite on the money anymore. Student7 ( talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long while since any president got more than 50% of the vote of registered voters. I don't think it happened nationwide in 2008, though selected areas and municipalities may have achieved this. Most regions of the country cannot claim to have captured the "hearts and minds" of the majority of registered voters in it, except maybe Washington DC. So extravagant comments should be avoided IMO.

The main thing the vote shows is the demise of the party system. Student7 ( talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article, out of many, wins the award, for overuse of the vague "many" used many times without many footnotes. Usually without any footnotes. As an attention grabber it fails from overuse. Many editors should not be trying to "grab" attention IMO. Many footnotes should be used so many readers can draw many conclusions on their own!  :) Student7 ( talk) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? The Census has never included VA in the northeast, the EPA never has, AAA never has. Why is Virginia shaded?-- Htgrgwwew ( talk) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question myself. Not even the article claims Virginia is part of the Northeast. It seems that whoever made the map took liberties in applying his own idiosyncratic views. 69.228.104.168 ( talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Zebra Mussels are invading the northeast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.251.250 ( talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)