This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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, 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 editing this article, 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)

Apology accepted. I am ok with just about anything that can meet WP:RS, WP:V, and doesn't fail WP:UNDUE / WP:NPOV (and the others). I am ok with more sections that pass these. The Western United States article is not a good example of much of anything, though. It has been tagged more than 5 years and is full of OR, etc, as if WP:V doesn't exist. And as for this article, the other states don't belong; several editors have suggested them (and others) without even attempting to not violate WP:OR. Others have just as forcefully argued they should not be included. Hoppingalong ( talk) 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked this article in awhile but remember it being much more expansive back in the day, and was shocked to see how little information currently exists on it. In looking over this talk page, it appears that I'm not alone and the consensus is to expand it, or revert it back to its previous form. I only see one editor who disagrees. No offense Hoppingalong as I'll assume you're editing in good faith but you seem to be the only voice in opposition, whereas on the other end of this talk page I count G. Capo, 007bond, 69.250.224.16, Apollo1758, and Red Hair Bow. So it seems to me like the consensus is actually against you. TempDog123 ( talk) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the very late response, but I've been pretty busy lately. Based on our dialogue on this issue up to this point, it looks like we're not going to reach consensus on the inclusion of Maryland, Delaware and DC. What I've done is to put in a request for mediation on this topic. I've listed myself, Hoppingalong and Apollo1758 as well as a couple of other users who participated in tihis discussion. G. Capo ( talk) 03:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we will not reach consensus for this proposal. It is based on nothing more than your opinion failing WP:V, etc. Failure to reach consensus, though, is not a reason to go to formal mediation. You don't go to mediation just becasue you don't get your way. Hoppingalong ( talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother Capo. Hoppingalong has made it clear that his own definition of the Northeast is the only definition that will be included in the article despite most contributors disagreeing with it. The Census definition is very outdated, especially as it concerns the Mid-Atlantic, since in common usage by businesses and media, the DC, MD, and DE are almost 'always' included in the region. Not to mention that the vast majority of residents of Baltimore or Wilmington will tell you that they live in the Northeast, but if you so much as mention a non-Census region state your edit will always be reverted.

It's really sad and pathetic that such an important article on a website based on collaboration and sharing knowledge has basically been hijacked by an editor who has nothing better to do than stuff his own agenda down everyone's throat. Instead of the informative article built on consensus that existed for quite a while before Hoppingalong came along, we have this ridiculous, very poor quality "article" that's an embarrassment. At the very least when definitions differ, alternative definitions should be mentioned but the only ones allowed are the ones that conform with the status quo. Even the existing 'sources' are dubious and misleading. For instance the "Northeast" region that the entire FBI uses includes DC, MD, and DE (See: [3]). So, as long as the article is being policed by a single editor it will remain in its current sorry state. 007bond ( talk) 04:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are being melodramatic? I do not have a definition of Northeastern United States or an agenda to shove down anyone's throat. This is only Wikipedia for goodness sake. Anyways, Wikipedia is/should be based on what the Reliable Sources say, not what an editor thinks he knows. We need Reliable Sources noting the importance of a particular definition. As it is, this article is about the Census Bureau defined location, the only definition that Reliable Sources referenced in the article say has significant importance. Without Reliable Sources telling us, we would have no way of establishing which definitions should be included. In March 2010, this article noted that the " International Nuclear Safety Center included on a map of nuclear reactors in the Northeastern United States those reactors that are located in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, Michigan, and Ontario, Canada" with a reference to [4]. If we include every somewhat random definition various groups have created for their own purposes, there would be no way to talk about the actual facts, like population, etc., because there would be so many different things (each version of the NE U.S.) covered. And I guess we would have to include part of Canada. And the FBI thing you linked to includes Illinois and Wisconsin and Indiana.

What you are talking about as "common usage by business and media" is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS, unless you have a Reliable Source that says this. And as for what people would tell you, that is textbook WP:OR. Although, I am very suportive of expanding this article within Wikipedia policy. Maybe you prefer making attacks on me. You might also want to read the talk page archives to determine what "most editors" think. This has been debated for a long time.

Hoppingalong ( talk) 03:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming up with a "common" definition of the Northeast is not WP:SYNTHESIS. If it is, that means nearly every article on WP with multiple sources lose their credibility. The Census Bureau regional definitions are not the most accurate or most cited, which is why many federal agencies ignore them and use their own. For instance, I'm sure nearly everyone would agree that DC, Maryland, and Delaware are part of the Mid-Atlantic (you even hear the term far used more here than you do in NY), but according to the CB they aren't.

At the very least, if you (since you're clearly in control of this article) insist that the CB def. be the penultimate one, some mention should be made about DC, MD, and DE being commonly included with appropriate "Reliable Sources" (and there are very many besides the CB). An obscure international agency is not the type of source I had in mind. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a federal agency with a 50-state jurisdiction, is an appropriate source and just so happens to include every state from DC to Maine in their Northeast Region (Region I). Wikipedia is not about one single definition from one single POV with all dissenting opinions being omitted. The map that included the CB def in solid red and the "sometimes" states in striped red was a excellent compromise that worked. It informed viewers of the so-called "official" definition and included states that are commonly included (based on numerous reliable sources) in other definitions. 007bond ( talk) 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you or me "coming up with" a common definition is a perfect example of WP:OR, most likely WP:SYNTH. Either of us summarizing a Reliable Source that tells us what the common definition is would be fine, just as several Reliable Sources note the importance of the CB definition. But using two, three, or ten separate sources that define the NE for their own purposes--none even claiming their definition is the "common" definition--to prove a particular definition is "common" would be "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and would not pass WP:SYNTH. Hoppingalong ( talk) 01:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss this region in terms other than those defined by the Census Bureau. I agree that the article should aim to focus on those 9 states for the sake of consistency, but it seems completely disingenuous to ignore the other definitions, particularly when so many extend the region to Delaware, Maryland, and D.C. See, for instance, the following:

• Joseph Joe Hobbs, Andrew Dolan (2008). World Regional Geography. p. 647. ISBN  0495389501.
• John C. Hudson (2002). Across This Land: A Regional Geography of the United States and Canada. p. 81 ff. ISBN  0801865670.
• Thomas F. McIlwraith, Edward K. Muller (2001). North America: The Historical Geography of a Changing Continent. p. 190. ISBN  0742500195.

Hokie RNB 22:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I might agree. But how is what you added anything other that Synthesis or Original Research? What context do the sources discuss the "Region"? If they are not widely recognized like CB (or recognized at all externally), why would we include their definitions? Wouldn't we need a source that says the definition is important? As noted in talk archive, some government definitions include Ohio and Michigan (and parts of Canada). Hoppingalong ( talk) 02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Hokie is right. To ignore the often-included states of Delaware and Maryland doesn't do this article any favors. References to other government agencies (Parks, Labor, Wildlife) are helpful to balance out references to FBI, NEMS, and Gale's. They are simply representative of how the federal government is not unanimous in its definition. There needn't be a huge discussion over which definition is the most recognized, the article already assumes the definition under consideration is primarily the Census Bureau's. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with inluding other defintions. But unless we refer to definitions that have received some coverage in Reliable Sources by somebody/something other than the entity that just made the definition (third-party), we are engaging in Origfinal Research or Synthesis. We need to find a way to discuss other definitions generally or in particular without reverting to Origfinal Research or Synthesis. Maher-shalal-hashbaz's edit is a good effort, but still does not address that problem, so I have reverted. Hoppingalong ( talk) 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Per your point here, I have removed the other references to this definition, as they are not third-party. Please note, I still strongly disagree, both with the point you are making, as well as with what appears to be an WP:OWNership issue on this page. You seem to be holding the definition hostage, and I would like to call for additional comment. Will be opening an RFC shortly. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have attempted over a period of time to include reference to the fact that not all reliable sources agree on a single definition of the region as being the nine states identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. While the article does indeed focus on that particular set of states, some feel it is important to at least mention Delaware, Maryland, and District of Columbia. One editor disagrees, and has reverted all edits related to this. This RfC is attempting to establish a broader consensus on the suitability of including a mention of alternate definitions that appear in reliable sources, such as geography books or other federal agencies. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• SUPPORT, as the initiator of this request for comment. Several different types of reliable sources have been added in the past, but summarily rejected by Hoppingalong. Perhaps the difficulty and inconsistency in precisely defining this region could be summarized with this article as a source: Zelinsky, Wilbur (1980). "North America's Vernacular Regions". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 70 (1): 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01293.x. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help) Alternatively, a more recent book-length discussion can be found in Zelinsky, Wilbur (2011). Not Yet a Placeless Land: Tracking an Evolving American Geography. ISBN  1558498710. Either way, it must be noted that the U.S. Census Bureau has not cornered the market on defining U.S. regions. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Hoppingalong is either misunderstanding or misapplying the concept of " no original research". In this case, "original research" would amount to editors deciding for themselves which states should comprise the Northeastern Region. In reality, the article should simply report on which states are identified by reliable sources, the U.S. Department of the Interior being one. I have re-inserted a statement to that effect. Hokie RNB 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with a clarification/caveat - I agree that any alternative definition that has obtained any significant (but can be less less than Wp:N) degree of coverage in third-party Reliable Sources should be included. The only definition I have be able to find that has received such coverage is the Census version, though. If a well-regarded geographer came up with a different definition intended to define a region, and it received any coverage, that would be something to include, too. I would also include the Gale's definition for this reason. Same with a federal agency or any other entity. But including various federal agencies "definitions", which may have been created for some reason other than as a cohesive geographic unit, with no intent to represent a geographic region as such, seems to be Original Research. There are literally "definitions" that include Michigan. Grouping states for adminitrative purposes is not the same as deifning a region for geographic purposes. Unless/until there are some better sources offered, I would only mention Gale's and the CB. Otherwise, almost any agency definition should be included. Hoppingalong ( talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree/Oppose - The United States Census Bureau (which seems to be the most official) does not include Maryland, Delaware, and D.C., but instead lists them in the south. The Mason-Dixon Line (the first boundary between the North and South) establishes the line on the border of PA and MD, then down the border of MD and DE. So it seems that Delaware is the only state really in dispute. And it should remain in the south per the census bureau. United States Man ( talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. The benefit of Wikipedia is that its articles are able to provide information - for the public, by the public - based in unbiased, multi-sourced research. This article's lack of inclusion of Maryland, Delaware, and DC does not reflect this ideal and is ignorant. In addition, please use more caution referencing the Mason-Dixon Line. It was not the "first boundary between the North and the South" nor was it ever intended to be. It was surveyed by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon to settle a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania and its completion (1767) predates the United States itself. Only as a "rule-of-thumb" type colloquialism was it ever mentioned as a "north-south" dividing line and even this notion nowadays is considered by many to be outdated. --oldlinestate 04:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. The Northeast megalopolis includes Baltimore and DC, providing a clear indication of what is common usage. 173.16.194.59 ( talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Agree. I fully agree. Years ago there was definitely a solid consensus which entailed acknowledging the Census definition while recognizing that DE, DC, and MD and included in many others (federal and otherwise). The Census Bureau's regional definition are not without flaws. For instance, the Census Bureau doesn't recognize DC, MD or DE as 'Mid-Atlantic' while the vast majority of media, federal, and commercial sources consider them to be part of the region. Even those who classify Maryland/DC as Southern consider it to be part of the Mid-Atlantic. Anyway, despite the obvious support for inclusion of other, more modern/realistic definitions Hoppingalong, who has hijacked the page, will continue to prevent any edits that he doesn't agree with and I don't think it is worth getting into a edit war over.

There is a clear consensus here that the majority of people, who contribute to this page, believe Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia should be included. Not only do they believe this, but have also provided factual evidence and linked sources to the discussions here. Those opposed, particularly Hoppingalong, should learn to practice a little sportsmanship here and rid themselves of personal agendas. --oldlinestate 22:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We need discussion on whether the HTML comment at the top of the article is appropriate. Western United States has a flexibly-colored map, so why doesn't this article have one?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding an HTML comment to the article is not the way to bring things up for discussion. Your post here is the way to do it. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about it, I will leave it. As to your point, a "flexibly-colored map" would need to be sourced to a Reliable Source and not give undue weight to any random definition, just like any facts stated in the prose. I don't think it appropriate at Western United States, especially if intended to reflect the entirely unreferenced section, Western_United_States#Region_and_concept. That case is somewhat different, though, because third party sources can be found that deal with "the West" as a concept that is not entirely the same as the Census Region. There are none that I have found that handle the Northeast the same way. To sum up, it is not appropriate there, but even more inappropriate here, I think. Hoppingalong ( talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It should, and the vast majority of editors agree as well as common sense, but Hoppingalong continues to ignore consensus and reverts everything that doesn't fit with the outdated Census definition. 173.16.194.59 ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What third party source s say it is outdated? If that is the case, by all means add that material and sources, but not from your personal knowledge. Then write another article about the new Northeast. Hoppingalong ( talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've included the alternate definitions from the U.S. Department of the Interior, per the consensus in the discussion that has now been archived. Hokie RNB 11:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think there was consensus to include any definition that did not itself (the definition, that is) receive coverage in third-party sources (as the CB definition has received extensively) or that was at least used by a third party (as the CB definition is extensively). To reiterate my position, I would very much like to include alternate definitions--if an argument can be made that there is at least some degree of importance attached to the definition by somebody in addition to the entity that created the definition. Regardless, if there was consensus for including definitions that nobody but the creating entity believes has any significance to the world, then all of the government definitions should be in the text. I suggest those were better in notes if they must be included, as they had been for months. HokieRNB partially moved that material into the body. I completed the task since, absent third-party coverage, we have no way of knowing which definitions satisfy due weight. I also removed a sentence that was synthesis. Hoppingalong ( talk) 13:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And if we are going to bring into the body text that would lead one to believe the CB definition is not as significant as it is, or that other definitions are more than as significant as they are, we should bring out the full discussion of the definitions. I did so with this edit. I remain convinced, however, that including ALL of this material, especially the insignificant definitions, in notes was the better approach. I would go back to this version and to it re-make the wording changes - but not the major moves - that HokieRNB made. Hoppingalong ( talk) 13:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted only one part of the changes by User:Hoppingalong. That is, to include a statement that says "Many textbooks include at least Delaware and Maryland". Here is the definition: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." What we have in this article is instead one source says A, several other sources say that the first source is reliable, and many other sources say B. To say "many other sources say B" is perfectly acceptable in this article. No one is trying to assert that this article should exclude or even minimize A, but the consensus of the editors is that it is unacceptable to exclude or completely marginalize B. Hokie RNB 12:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody can settle on a consensus (based on anything other than their own opinion) on what "B" is; look back through the talk archives. For those following at home, this was HokieRNB's edit. He stated a proposition ("Many textbooks...") and then supported that proposition with the proof of it (three citations to textbooks). He did not cite to a source or two that actually makes this assertion. Call it synthesis or what you will, but that is not allowed according to various parts of WP:OR ("(OR) includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources... Best practice is ... each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly... Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources..."). Rather than argue this point, I have added better context to the statement (among other things) through this edit. As noted in the section above and not addressed by HokieRNB, I still believe much of this material, formerly in the notes, should not be in the article at all until sources actually support it; and if it must be, should be in notes so as to give it the appropriate weight. Hoppingalong ( talk) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You are still wrong. Here is the proposition: Delaware is a Northeastern state. It's as plain as that. There is plenty of evidence to support that proposition, however, because you have locked down this page and crowned yourself chief of the editorial board (thereby effectively eliminating editing by consensus), no one is allowed to add this as a fact. We can put in all the sources in the world, but in all likelihood, you will revert any such changes, so people have either given up, or tried to work around your silliness. Here is why Delaware is a Northeastern state: (1) New Castle County is included in the Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is in the Northeastern United States. (2) Historically, colonial Delaware was once part of Pennsylvania, which is in the Northeastern United States. (3) During the Civil War, not only did Delaware never secede, they also remained very much Union supporters, with the majority of Delaware soldiers serving in Union regiments. (4) The United States Department of the Interior, which is the branch of government responsible for land and natural resource management, wildlife conservation, and other such stuff, considers Delaware to be part of the Northeastern United States. (5) Official government publications from Delaware refer to Delaware as being one of the Northeastern United States. (6) Wilmington, Delaware is served by the Northeast Corridor railway line. (7) According to French geographer Jean Gottmann, Delaware is included in then urbanized Northeastern seaboard of the United States. These are seven statements of pure fact that can be easily corroborated by any number of sources. Then there are other statements which are not as easy to find sources for, despite the fact that they probably exist. Statements such as: "Delaware culture shares much more in common with the cultures of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York than those of Virginia and the Carolinas." or "Delaware weather and climate are more similar to those of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York than those of Virginia and the Carolinas." or "Delaware economy is much more closely tied to the economies of PA, NJ, and NY than those of VA, NC, and SC." Etc, etc. I couldn't say the same thing about geology, since I'm not as familiar with soil types, rock formations, and such. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaware wasn't also similar geologically speaking to the Northeastern states. But none of these facts will probably make it into the article, because of your strong belief that the Census Bureau's definition of Northeastern States is the only one that matters. Hokie RNB 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, and attempting to not devolve into personal attacks, I believe you are still wrong. Your proposition, that Delaware is a "Northeastern state" misses the point. (What is a "Northeastern state"?) This article is not about a collection of states that share certain qualities, or that are even located in the same intercardinal direction. To meet WP:N, which of course it does, and not run afoul of WP:OR, this article must be about a particular, discrete subject. That subject is the Census Bureau region. It is not clear that "Northeastern U.S." has any significance apart from the CB definition or other particular definitions used for particular purposes. Unlike, for example, New England which is a geographic and political region independent of the Census Bureau declaring it one, the Reliable Sources do not seem to support the Northeastern U.S. as a geographical, biogeographical, geopolitical, or linguistic or any other type of region. In fact, the article itself notes how different the history of New England is from the Mid-Atlantic states in this Census Region. Most of the facts your assert above would be fine additions to the Delaware article, but stringing them together to make the case that Delaware should be included together with Pennsylvania and NJ or some other subset of other states in the CB region is not ok here. (And even if Delaware should be grouped with Pennsylvania and NJ and NY does not mean it is part of a cohesive region that includes rural Maine; which further undercuts the idea that the Northeastern U.S. is actually a meaningful term other than as a directional) Further, your discussion of Delaware does not address other states that others would include, and yet still others would just as forcefully exclude, as discussed in archived discussions. All this aside, why shouldn't the text previously in notes be returned to notes? I think keeping it in the body raises WP:UNDUE issues. Hoppingalong ( talk) 03:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Who ever decided that this article "must" be solely about the Census Bureau region? It is a source, but certainly not the only one. The "Northeast" is not a term used solely by the Census Bureau, as you seem to believe. And just because New England and the Mid Atlantic are different regions within the Northeast doesn't in any way change the fact that the Northeast is a distinct region, in the same way that the Pacific States and the Mountain States are both part of the Western United States. The Northeast, including Maryland, Delaware, and DC, is clearly tied culturally and economically, you just need to take a look at Northeast megalopolis to see how obvious it is. It's titled that for a reason, rather than " Northeast and South Atlantic megalopolis." 173.16.194.59 ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The CB region is the subject of this article. 173 provides no support (other than that for the Northeast megalopolis), and no Reliable Source support at all, for "the fact that the Northeast is a distinct region" (presumably other than because of the CB declared it so). That Northeast megalopolis is a distinct subject (defined to include much area not included in the CB NE Region and not including much of the CB Region) with its own article supports my position, rather than undercuts it. The more you want to conflate the two, the less reason for two articles. If you agree they should be two articles, don't conflate them. Hoppingalong ( talk) 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The CB region wasn't the subject of this article until you decided that it was. The Northeast megalopolis is an interconnected region of urban and suburban areas, which is called "Northeastern" because it is situated inside the Northeastern United States. This does not mean that the megalopolis includes other metropolitan areas and rural areas in the states it is situated in, but that it is clearly situated in the Northeastern States. The sources on that article are sufficient to demonstrate that the term "Northeast" refers to a region including Maryland, Delaware, and DC. It would not be called the "Northeast" megalopolis if two of its five main metropolitan areas were situated in the Southern United States. That's not original research, that's common sense. A single government agency's definition which was decided many decades ago does not have a monopoly on the term "Northeastern United States." You have not given any source other than the CB itself that demonstrates that this is the common definition of the term "Northeastern United States" or any reason as to why the CB definition has more significance than any other definition. 173.16.194.59 ( talk) 05:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I followed the links to these sources: Appendix A. Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts and 3. Population by sex, annual rate of population increase, surface area and density. I assumed (wrongly) that one of these sources would provide the reference for the total area of the region. Neither does. In the second one, there is no mention of the Northeastern United States. Is there any reason to keep these citations in the article? What purpose do they serve? Should we eliminate the sentence from the lead, or find another source for the figure? Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 15:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I see no purpose for them since they do not support the fact they are apparently there to support. A statistic like that also needs a Reliable Source. I will remove the sentence and sources and look for a better one to establish the area and add it back in if I can find one. Hoppingalong ( talk) 22:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First step done. Now I will look for a source and the number. Hoppingalong ( talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what you did was revert my edits. Not cool. Here is the rationale for my edits: You moved the page to a location which suited your particular preferred definition. Then you proceeded to change the lead sentence to match that. Both of those changes were without discussion, and against consensus. The consensus is to include all definitions for which a reliable source is provided. Clearly the CB definition should be the first one mentioned in the section on "composition", but for the lead paragraph, it should be a definition which is suitable for the article as a whole - which is not an article about a census bureau region, but about a geographic region. The census bureau might be a very helpful source for issues of population, but there are plenty of other factors that should be considered, such as political, environmental, cultural, etc. These will not be addressed by census bureau sources alone. Please stop edit warring. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing on this section of talk or the edit I linked to. You now think the area should be in without a Reliable Source? Hoppingalong ( talk) 22:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It likely had a reliable source at one point, it doesn't seem that someone would have arbitrarily made up that number. My guess is that it's not that hard to find, so I'm just leaving the fact in and asking for a source. Standard practice. Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 22:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)