Jump to content

Talk:Virginia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Spoken Language Percentages

These percentages don't add up right. 94.6 + 5.9 = 100.5% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.220.110 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This was previously asked and answered in 2008. It just a coincidence that those almost add up to 100%. Many Virginians speak multiple languages, and those are just the two with the highest percentages.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Common geographic name

Is required using of legal name under constitution, the name Virginia is a common name in geography and history, Not exclusivo for the State Commonwealth of Virginia, and in the Virginia Constitution and Laws is writed Commonwealth of Virginia. KSEltar (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. Wikipedia is not subject to Virginia's constitution. See WP:COMMONNAME. SilverCity 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unclear climate chart

In the Climate section of this article, there's a climate chart giving temperature max and min and precipitation by month, but it doesn't say what city it's for. Is it supposed to be an average over the whole state? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the source at http://climate.virginia.edu/description.htm, and yes, I'm pretty sure it's an average over the whole state --Zzyxzaa26 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"commonwealth of Virginia" (sic)

That's a Wikipedia invention, which neither matches common usage nor the official usage. Claiming that it's WP:MOS requires something more specific than the change comment which was provided. TEDickey (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the "commonwealth" vs. "Commonwealth" thing has come up before. Because its part of the official name of the state, its a proper noun, and should be capitalized. I'm unaware of where in the WP:MOS it would say otherwise.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Independent Cities

Should Clifton Forge be included in the number of independent cities? walle1357, a nice wikipedian :) (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Clifton Forge was once an independent city, but changed in 2001. So the count should be 95 counties, 39 independent cities, right?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Medical Marijuana in Virginia

Virginia has a provision for medical marijuana usage (MMU), according to the Wiki article on Medical Marijuana. Details are sketchy and it would be appropiate to see some discussion of Virginia's MMU policy and law in this Virginia article, perhaps under Culture. 99.2.69.235 (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mid Atlantic states

Many federal agencies include Virginia in the mid atlantic one of which is the EPA. A large portion of Virginia population (Northern VA) lives in the heart of the mid Atlantic which includes NOVA,DC,MD,and Southern parts of PA and NJ. Yes Virginia is a southern state because of history but that history did not end in the 19th century. Cultures have changed and new regional designations have emerged and should not be ignored on Wikipedia. 98.163.101.94 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "Mid-Atlantic" or "South", and definitely see the argument based on the census designation. However, in dealing with the first sentence of the article, and changing the opening definition of the article's subject, I just feel that a consensus should be sought here on the talk page before the sentence is changed. If its the right move, then certainly we should be able to get other editors to agree with it. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I still think of Virginia as a southern state, but admittedly I'm from southern Virginia. But the United States Census Bureau also still considers Virginia a southern state. I understand that northern Virginia around D.C. is probably more like a mid-atlantic state, but the rest of the state is culturally more like a southern state. It's a close call, but I think it should remain designated as a southern state. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see User:SouthernEli reworked this first sentence again today, and again I wish it was discussed first, but no harm done. I've been thinking we should flesh this petty controversy out at the start of the Geography section. How do folks feel about this: Virginia is currently defined by the [[U.S. Census Bureau]] as part of the [[South Atlantic States]] in the [[Southern United States|South]],'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' though other government agencies include it among the [[Mid-Atlantic States]].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000003-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000004-QINU`"' Would that be an acceptable solution?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Coincidentally, on (April 17), Robert E. Lee was asked to lead the Federal Army"

I added the following sentence to the article... Coincidentally, on that same day, Robert E. Lee was asked to lead the Federal Army - he declined - two days later, he would resign his commission. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Update needed

This listing indicates that there is some text in this article that needs attention (search for every "as of" date in the article and update the data where possible). Is someone watching this article who can take on this task, so this FA won't appear on this list as needing attention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I worry that your toolserver might be misrepresenting the data here. In my own editing, I do make extensive use of the Template:As of, which seems to be what this list is really showing. Data for a previous year is often not published until midway through the following one, particularly when we're dealing with population numbers, and some of the older data is only published once a decade, mainly because of the expense in collecting it. The religion survey is what comes up at 2001 data, and while there is newer data, it costs money to access it. Thanks for checking in.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 03:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Image size

There is a common misconception that all images should be a default size, 220 pixels wide, which often times is way too small. Many of the images in this article were way too small, forcing the readers to break away from the text just to view an image adequately. Adjusting image size is allowed by WP:MOS policy if there is a "good reason to do so". If possible readers should be able to comfortably view images as they read along, just as they would if they were reading a book.

Several of the images, including two maps, have therefore been slightly increased in size, none of which exceed the 500 x 400 pixel limit set by MOS. None of the text has been crowded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That is true, maps are an example of images that can have set sizes. The ancestries map under Ethnicity does have a set pixel size. But images using the "thumb" attribute need a really good reason, even if its a map, and "because it looks small to me" is not a good reason. Yes, exceptions are allowed for charts and maps, but why do these specific images, like of the Civil War or Pentagon, need to be at these specific resolutions. Readers can have very different display resolutions, so what you may view as small may be the perfect size for another. Specifying a size also denies those users that have a preferred size set in their preferences from using that. I also don't understand why remove the "upright" field from an upright image, and the use of Template:Clear to drop the ethnicity table below the populations table. Template:Clear should only be used in extreme cases of image stack-ups or with the final sections, such as before the References section, so I'm reacting here to a user that looks like they're forcing the page's appearance based on one particular machine, rather than aiming for a wider approach.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
My apprroach was wider, thank you. Yes "readers can have very different display resolutions" but you have shown nothing that says keeping all the images small is better for anyone. Most readers who come in to Wikipedia from a web search don't have accounts, let alone know about setting preferences for image size. Most registered users don't bother with it either. Do you? Also, all the images are small on almost any machine, esp on public library machines of which I frequently use when I'm away from the house. Los Angeles county has dozens of public libraries and 100s of public computers -- all the same. The images here are also tiny on my lap top and on my desk top machines which have average sized monitors and settings. Maps aside, which I see you have also reverted to tiny size, MOS allows image size adjusting if there are good reasons to do so, as I have already pointed out. The small increase in size has not caused any text crowding or other issues and allows readers to view the images adequately without having to break away from reading just to view an image, so I don't quite understand your insistanece here. Unless you can cite actual MOS or other policy violations or show how an enlarged image is causing specific problems I will be (re)enlarging several of the images whose details are otherwise obscure. Frankly, I have seen larger images in a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't be treated as such. I will give you a chance to explain your insistence on keeping all the images small, including the maps. Again, unless you can cite specific MOS violations or point out specific problems with enlarging some images so they can be recoginzed while reading along we need to increase their sizes, especially the maps, which are commonly enlarged throughout Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The issues you raise here are about the default size, which you refer to as "small." Again, I suspect that is because you're using screens with larger resolutions. If you wish to challenge the default size of images, you could possibly raise the topic at Image use policy, but calling the default "small" or "tiny" is simply incorrect. If the standard size across Wikipedia is unsatisfactory to you or any user, I do recommend changing the setting in preferences. In 2009 this size was actually brought up to 220px from 180px. As for specific instructions from the manual of style, I'm not sure how you missed "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default", or "a fixed size can be specified... although this should be avoided where possible, since it overrides the user's default" and "in general, do not define the size of an image" in the guidelines you linked above. The same is also said at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, and there's more about the purpose of keeping the default size at Wikipedia:Autosizing images. If a subject isn't adequately displayed in a thumbnail, Wikipedia's guidelines recommend cropping that file, rather than setting a larger pixel size. The problem here isn't with crowding (which, again, is based on local display resolution) but with taking user's preference away from them in favor of what looks good to you. If you still feel strongly about it, we can ask for a third option at WP:3O or even WP:DRN if you prefer.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As was explained to you already, I was and am referring to average screen sizes with average settings, typically used on lap tops, desk tops and library computers. Most folks use them. Few use iphones or large screen tv's to view wikipedia. Relatively few readers who come to Wikipedia for information have user accounts and/or know about preferences, let alone use them. And I have't overlooked anything in terms of policy. What you however continue to ignore is the idea that images can be adjusted if there are "good reasons to do so". I have increased the size of the other map, and I suppose we can live with the maps only being enlarged. No, I don't "feel strongly" about images sizes, and didn't realize I would encounter such rigid and lengthy opposition just to get a few images slightly enlarged. I usualy spend this much time and effort on issues that really matter and try not to engage and antagonize other editors over trivial and opinionated matters like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, its easy to blow disagreements about images out of proportion on Wikipedia, and I hope I'm not guilty of that here. But I hope you get that, even if its a small problem compared to others, Wikipedia has these defaults because of careful consideration of its userbase. I can tell you from the last Wikimania conference, we discussed how the iPhone had the fastest growing share of visitors. The site as a whole has around 400 million visitors daily; this page alone had 4,237 just yesterday, and 27,318 over the last week. I for one can't presume to know what an "average screen size with average settings" is, which is why the default setting is important. I hope that makes sense!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it makes sense. Thanks for seeing your way clear of a compromise with the image sizes. Not to many people can do that, unfortunately. See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Virginia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==Untitled==
  • The lead is ever in need of cleanup, and could be a better summary of the article. Editors should be wary of changing the first sentence: is Virginia "southern", "eastern", "southeastern", "mid-Atlantic", or "Atlantic coast"?
  • There is also the inclination to explain Virginian peculiarities many times in the article, like the status of cities vs. counties, the existence of unincorporated towns, the location of Colonial Williamsburg, the size of the Pentagon, and the rule against governors succeeding themselves.
  • The culture section tends to just list things that are in Virginia, not much that is cultural.
  • Transportation can show some peacock's feathers about this bridge or that tunnel, when its not all that notable.
  • Images and tables tend to bump each other in the Demographics section, and it never looks right.
  • Education is just examples of highly ranked schools, not an overview of the systems.
  • Government tells the reader little about the law in the state
  • The list of 8 presidents floats around the article without a good place to go.
  • Sports section can be hard to reference, and may border on OR.
  • Some users like many paragraphs, based on the location (like one about bridges in Richmond, one about Norfolk), others like larger topical paragraphs (about bridges). The article need only to be consistent.

Last edited at 04:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New Ancestries Map

Because the 2010 Census dropped the Ancestries question, I used data from the 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, which was released in March, to create a new Ancestries Map, File:Virginia Ancestries by County 2010.svg. The first issue is that this is an estimate, unlike the 2000 Census, which, though completely out of date, was more accurate for its time.

Comparing it with the old 2000 map, it does look very different. Mainly that's because "African American" isn't an option on the Community Survey. African Americans seem to respond with either "American" or "Other groups", though in two counties and one city the plurality there did respond with "Subsaharan African". The first issue I saw in making this map was that if we include "Other groups", that would be the plurality in over half of the counties, with 33.2% of Virginians. I didn't feel that demonstrated much, so I ignored it. But would we rather have more than half of the counties be gray?

One other problem however is the chart/legend next to it. While the five responses that had pluralities in any county didn't change, they're not the top five total, as several responses had higher totals than "Subsaharan African": Italian, with 3.7%, Scots-Irish 2.3%, Scottish 2.2%, and French 1.9%. Subsaharan African only had 1.8%. Do folks find this to be a problem or possibly misleading? I'm okay with it, since it serves as the legend for the map, but wanted to check with other editors here. I know ethnicity is always delicate topic.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Five Year ACS has only a slightly smaller sample size than the long form 2000 census had so the data should be fine. The methodology for the 2000 map is a little complicated since it involves merging non-white races with the white ancestries, that is why the number of counties with African American ancestry declined. Hamiltonl (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

http://rt.com/usa/virginia-votes-electric-chair-681/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia

176.249.246.255 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In The World

I am at a loss. How do I succinctly state the important fact that Virginia is the first colony, in the entire world of England and what will become the British Empire? I was astounded to read, on the Slate website that Jamestown was the first colony of the British Empire. The author of the Slate article quotes William Kelso, directly, as telling, Queen Elizabeth, "Your majesty, this is where the British Empire began, this was not just the first American colony, this was the first colony in the British Empire." To me this is an astonishingly important fact, that as an American I was never taught. Everything that Americans write, read as did this article, emphasizing the importance to the United States, while ignoring the importance to the development of the British Empire.

Please I am not being nasty to the authors. I would have written that first sentence that way, which is exactly my point here. That, that sentence as originally written misses entirely the world-wide historical importance of the founding of Jamestown. This colony was a success, which prompted others in England to want to get in on the profits. There quickly followed other successful colonies, and, though no one at the time knew it, the British Empire began to grow.

It just seems to me to be essential to mention here, that Virginia is the start of not just the United States, but of the British Empire. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. and I also noted the similarity of British colonies in America to those of the Greek city states, as opposed to the British colony in India which was more akin to the imperial system of the Roman Empire. We need a good scholarly source... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolute claims of "first" are always a tricky concept. I would note that many consider Ireland to be the first British colony, particularly the area known as The Pale around Dublin, which is where the article on the British Empire begins its "Origins" section. Further, the idea of Empire is also a broad one, and I could even see someone claiming Cyprus, which Richard I took in the middle ages, as an earlier colony. If we were limiting the definition to those founded during the Age of Exploration, the first colony might also be the failed Roanoke Colony. Anyway, the claim of being the "first colony" would make more sense on either the article about Jamestown, Virginia or the Colony of Virginia rather than this article, which is mainly about the state.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so bothered by absolute claims as long they can be directly attributed to a reliable source. This article from Slate magazine does not appear to be a reliable source because it appears to supply no references for the material it presents. The most reliable sources are secondary scholarly sources and this hasn't undergone an accredited peer review process nor does it even provide sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, the source is a bit bizarre for this assertion, in a story about a modern reenactment of Pocahontas. It might actually work as a source for the Pocahontas image caption, or the sentence about myths at the beginning of the History section. But I guess I'm also confused at what Nick Beeson was asking for here, since we do introduce the Colony of Virginia "as the first permanent English colony in the world" right in the introduction.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the part your referring to was added by Nick at the same time he made this talk page discussion.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, as opposed to New World. Not sure how I missed that, but per the discussion here, was going to revert the edits. I'm sure the Queen was impressed by the fact, but I'm also sure that a historian like Kelso himself would rather have the fact qualified in a way similar to the way we had it, as the first "New World" colony.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

State nicknames

I added a section on State nicknames, written as two paragraphs rather than bullets to follow a more encyclopedic style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant paragraph on nicknames found in State symbols, as the State nickname section more adequately discusses them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the two major nicknames, "Old Dominion" and "Mother of Presidents," are covered in the Infobox, the Introduction, and the State symbols section, with "Mother of Presidents" also being covered in the History section together with "Mother of States." The nicknames are fundamentally a trivial topic and don't require their own section in this article that duplicates the efforts above it. Additionally, much of this text would be copyright violations from the website "Netstate." Even as a source Netstate is not reliable, and specifically came up during the featured article process, which is also where a number of editors objected to the listing of all eight Virginian presidents. Instead, we link to Virginia dynasty and List of Presidents of the United States by home state#Places of birth. Let's discuss this, but I would suggest that the "The Cavalier State" is useful, provided it has better sourcing, and could be included in the state symbols section next to the Old Dominion sentence.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy of a response. Of course, reference to a List of Presidents of the United States will omit two other Virginia-born presidents, Sam Houston of the Republic of Texas and Joseph Jenkins Roberts of the Republic of Liberia. I suppose there may have been objection to their listing in the past, to one for taking a Native-American wife, and the other for being African-American. I would hope any explicit reasoning was only npov copyedit objection to the clutter. The list sort of illustrates the decline of Virginia after the first half of the 19th century due to mistaken priorities, but I digress.
Your points all make sense except the copyright violation comment. But rather than debate that, perhaps we can use Salmon, Emily J. and Edward D.C. Campbell, Jr., eds., The hornbook of Virginia history, 4th ed., 1994, ISBN 978-0-884-90177-8, p. 88 in the chapter, "Emblems of the Commonwealth", under the section titled, "Nicknames". It includes "the Old Dominion" along with references from John Smith, Charles I, Charles II, and Virginia's 1663 new seal bearing the motto in Latin, "Behold, Virginia gives the 5th [Dominion]".
And from the Interregnum, Virginia was called the "Commonwealth of Virginia", which lapsed at Restoration of the monarchy, readopted in 1776, referring to a state in which "the supreme power is vested in the people."
"Among the many other nicknames that have been applied to Virginia are Mother of Presidents, Mother of Statesmen, and Mother of States. Virginia is also known as the Cavalier State: the Cavaliers were those who supported the monarch against Parliament and Cromwell during the English Civil Wars." Salmon, Emily J. and Edward D.C. Campbell, Jr., eds., The hornbook of Virginia history: a ready-reference guide to the Old Dominion's people, places, and past, 4th ed., 1994, ISBN 978-0-884-90177-8, p. 88.
Thanks for your consideration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say something about netstate.com not being a reliable source but decided to wait and see if there was any dispute with Patrick's reversion. They don't properly cite their information and I agree with Patrick on this.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That leaves us with six from “The hornbook of Virginia history”: the Old Dominion, Commonwealth of Virginia, Mother of Presidents, Mother of Statesmen, Mother of States and Cavalier State. Even though in some ways, "Commonwealth" and "Cavalier" are contradictory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Like I said before, my impulse is not to repeat information from the History section in the State symbols section. "Mother of States" is not a nickname commonly used outside of references to the pioneer period of American history, so I rather think its enough to explain it under History and list it in the Infobox. The same is only more true about the archaic "Mother of Statesmen", which, for what its worth, is also claimed by Ohio. The issue I have is that Wikipedia articles must be about their subject today, and "statesmen" was never in wide use outside of these Virginia factoid lists, and certainly isn't today. Lastly, Sam Houston and Joseph Jenkins Roberts aren't, as I understand it, the basis of the Presidents nickname as we source it, so it may be an anachronism to mention them here. What I will say Historian, is that earlier this year I created the article Nicknames of New York City, and know that several cities have whole articles on their nicknames that aren't as notable or numerous as Virginia's, so if you feel I'm leaving information out here, maybe you'd want to head up an article called Nicknames of Virginia or similar? There's also List of U.S. state nicknames where more might be listed.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 20:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This argument is as specious as earlier fright about copyright infringement and the straw man denial of the sourcing. In a section which includes the state beverage, it can hardly be claimed that nicknames "Mother of States" and "Mother of Statesmen" are trivial factoids. The same rationale which struck a separate section on "nicknames" applies to the section "state symbols", all significant elements are listed in the info box, including the most popular nicknames. Nickname articles per se will of course be deleted in due time as lacking WP:SIGNIFICANCE and NOTABILITY. But as a marvelous trivial pursuit source, I could not object to the charming aside represented by the "State symbols" section. I truly admire its breadth and breathtaking scope, I mean no offense by trying to join in the fun.
Yes, Ohio as a Virginia county was once represented in the House of Burgesses, Revolutionary veterans received Virginia state land grants there, and the Ohio state bird is the cardinal as is Virginia's, so Ohio may also choose to nickname itself "Mother of Statesmen" as a nod to its Virginia roots. Fun facts about Ohio do not bear on the question of including two referenced nicknames that you arbitrarily choose not to acknowledge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Why no "real map" of Virginia?

Virginia Counties and Cities at Wikimedia Commons

It sure would be nice if the article somehow included a political map that details the location of the various towns & cities within Virginia. This article is woefully incomplete without that.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest or upload a free map to use or help create one. Scarlettail (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you go to Google Maps if you need a map of cities and towns, but feel free to pursue the options on the commons for maps of Virginia!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The existing map at the subsection Cities and Towns shows the outlines on a relief map. I like the existing map better than the political map only, which is found at Wikimedia Commons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

from British Overseas Territories

Did you know Virginia is a British Colony? Respect is earned. Tiyang (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you know Virginia ceased to be a British colony in 1783? Or arguably 1776? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what this conversation is trying to accomplish. Virginia is currently a state, but the article links to the Colony of Virginia article. So, is this talk topic resolved? RVA all day (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Highest GDP per capita adjusted for COL

Is it worth mentioning that Virginia has the highest GDP per capita when adjusted for cost of living? Maybe in the economy of virginia page? I don't know. Jakebarrington (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, is there a good source for that? I'd put it at the end of the sentence about the GDP in the first paragraph under Economy.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Hampton University to list

I restored the edit adding Hampton University to the list of prominent private institutions of higher learning in Virginia. Discussion is welcome over including the most prominent majority black private college in Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Virginia is a southern state, not mid-atlantic

There are some aspects of your reasoning with which I disagree. One is relying on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is primarily focused on addressing environmental issues and has geographic features defined without attention to culture, rather than the Association of American Geographers -- an organization dedicated and focused on defining geography with culture and history taken into account. While Virginia's physical location could aptly be described as Mid-Atlantic, south of Fredericksburg still has retained cultural capital as a Southern state. Perhaps this is difficult to understand because it is more of a state of mind than a place on a map. It also depends on how historically concious one is, your personal experiences, and is admittedly subjective. Here is an interesting essay related to the topic by John Shelton Reed: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/REED/tears.html. HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:337B:B5F4:B123:7DAE:B2E8 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I Agree with the definition provided by the Environmental Protection Agency as well. Historically, Virginia was a Southern colony and a state in the C.S.A., however Virginia differed from other Southern States in many ways (More Industry, Prestige, Stronger ties to Britain, and Proximity to the Capital). Also, I do not think that the way that they defined Virginia and Maryland back then was not completely based on the states location compared to other states than it was for the purpose of colonizing that state. It is also likely that since states like Florida, or many states in the modern Midwest that were not apart of the territory then. Going from Central Georgia to Maine, Virginia may have been farther South than it was North. Virginia today is closer to the Northern Coast of Maine than it is to the Southern Atlantic Coast of Florida (around Miami). I think that most areas in Virginia today have a distinct Southern history, but show more resemblance to areas of the Mid-Atlantic (Including Richmond and Hampton Roads). Traditional Southern Culture can still be found in most rural areas. I was born and raised in suburb of Richmond, Virginia (Tuckahoe). Most people that I know think that Virginia is Mid-Atlantic. I have not heard one person define Virginia as a modern Southern State (Only as a historically Southern State). In Conclusion, I believe that Virginia does have a distinct southern History but shows more resemblance to many areas of the Mid-Atlantic States today and is located farther to the North (or in the Middle) than it is to the South.

^^I also grew up in a suburb of Richmond (Mechanicsville). Most folks I know would never consider Virginia culturally part of the Mid-Atlantic. In some places along the 95 corridor you are correct, however that is the case for the entire south Atlantic. The vast majority of the state is still more culturally in line with the other southern states as opposed to the mid Atlantic. 90 percent of the state even around Richmond and points north are still southern in their culture.


Virginia's cultural geography and history align it more with the southeast. It is classified as southeastern by the US Census and the Association of American Geographers. I grew up in Richmond, and live in Alexandria now, and my experience is that most Virginians consider Virginia to be Southern rather than mid-Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Dabney 2601:140:8000:337B:FC22:39DF:5357:D29B (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what's found in reliable sources, and many reliable sources classify Virginia among the Middle Atlantic (or mid-Atlantic) states. Largoplazo (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, but should the "reliable" source on geography be the EPA, or the Association of American Geographers (the article has the EPA cited twice for Virginia's geography)? I listed three sources above, which are all reliable. 2601:140:8000:337B:ADC5:ED2D:6819:9167 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Andrew Dabney

Fair enough. Then it varies by the source, and the article can reasonably indicate that its classification as one or the other varies depending on the source. Largoplazo (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is appropriate. 2601:140:8000:337B:7837:8ED1:B84D:ABAF (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Andrew Dabney

So, what are the sources we'll use for Virginia as Mid-Atlantic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Is something wrong with the three that are already in the article? Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Virginia objectively is Southern, not Mid-Atlantic. You all are in denial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.171.0.218 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Objective fact is that different sources classify Virginia as Southern or as Mid-Atlantic for whatever reasons are appropriate in the context (and the article should properly reflect that diversity of classification). If you don't recognize that, you are in denial. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a few sentences explaining the evolution of Virginia's regional classification as mid-Atlantic and/or Southeastern/Southern would ehance the article. For instance, the Encylopedia Britannica describes it as thus:

"Although during the American Civil War (1861–65) Richmond served as the capital of the Confederacy and Virginian Robert E. Lee and other generals led Confederate forces, the state developed in the 20th century into a bridge state between the North and the South. By the early 21st century Virginia was among the most prosperous states in the South and in the country as a whole. Its northern counties reflect the cosmopolitan character of the country’s capital, Washington, D.C., which lies across the Potomac River to the north. Other areas of the state retain the tinge of conservatism developed over centuries of agricultural life and through aristocratic traditions that made the term a Virginia gentleman synonymous with gentility and refinement." See: https://www.britannica.com/place/Virginia-state

This nuance is not evident in the short description that states that Virginia is in the mid-Atlantic and the historic Southeast.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, what exactly would you like to add and where would you like to add it? Your suggestion is welcome but doesn't need to be a formal edit request unless you're making a specific proposal. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to roll back the additions of HistoryTeacherVA (talk · contribs). Its not appropriate to quote another Encyclopedia, and the amount used could be viewed as a copyright violation. I try not to wade into these debates too much, between "Mid-Atlantic" and "South" because I think its plays into a larger political divide. But some of the sources that have been added recently don't really seem appropriate for how they're being used; there was a 1986 report about wetlands, a 2014 report about climate change, and the homepage of the SouthEastern Division of the Association of American Geographers. While these sites may have maps, what we need for reliable sourcing are good, neutral bodies that define in published articles that "Virginia is in [this region]." The Association of Geographers is close, but understand that whether they organize their association with Virginia in a certain way may have to do with say, the number of their members they have in the area. The National Geographic source is better, though again its just a map. For now, I fixed the broken link in the Census Bureau source and set it back to the term they use, "South Atlantic" in the intro and I've added a new sentence, right at the top of the Geography section, the first section in the article, that lists the larger regions Virginia is a part of. I feel strongly we need to keep it very simple in the lead, so that's my solution.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
We are reflecting usage, which varies. If you're going to discard some sources, it should be by consensus, and I disagree with your rationales. I've restored the wording, even though I realize that at the same time I restored other problems that you had dealt with. I'm going to see whether I can sort it out. Largoplazo (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I just discovered how far things had gone in the last few days. I don't actually know at this point which changes to attribute to which person, since I'm not going to analyze each edit, but I've restored the article to an earlier state. Largoplazo (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't even understand why it rankles so much that many sources, all of which have reasons for conceptually breaking down the country into regions, don't happen all to have broken it down exactly the same way. There is no principle that says there must be only one way, or only one official way, or only one way that Wikipedia acknowledges when it mentions, at a high level, what section of the country a given state is considered part of. I do agree that any discussion of the multiplicity of classifications shouldn't be in the lead. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, I absolutely do want good discussion. My rationale is only about sources and the lead. Again, I'll note that your restoration brought back bad sources that I don't think are good for how they're being used. The 1986 report about wetlands would be good for an article about wetland preservation in the mid-80s, but its not a report about Virginia's regional designations. The Census Bureau is good because they're official and impartial. National Geographic, similar too, but right now the Census Bureau is being used to cite "Mid-Atlantic", which is not a term found in the source. The first sentence just isn't the place to put everyone's opinion about where Virginia is. For the sake of the article's readers, i.e. elementary students across America, Google users across the globe, it really needs to be kept as a very basic statement of fact.
One quick point, the revert rolled back the sentence I'd added to the Geography section, where I think a wider discussion (1-2 sentences) of Virginia's regional definitions, would not be inappropriate. Was there an issue with that?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Currently there is one source used in the article to support Virginia as being in the Southeastern region of the US -- the National Geographic -- which is footnoted. The Mid-Atlantic has no sources and yet is mentioned first in the article. We should either add a credible source to it for Mid-Atlantic or delete that classification. HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

HistoryTeacher VA: There were sources there, and the fact that Patrickneil removed them doesn't mean there are suddenly no reliable sources in the universe to support the characterization of Virginia as Middle Atlantic. And, Patricknell, you don't get to remove sources just because you don't like them or the designation that they support. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE apply, even in the lead. I am restoring both designations with the sources. If you still feel that blanking existing, sourced material is justified then, because by default it isn't, I invite you to visit WP:Dispute resolution. Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence is just too clunky, and has been for a while. I propose to make the lead sentence simpler, and then address the regionalism fine points in the second sentence. For example, "Virginia is a state located on the east coast of the United States. The state is considered part of both the South or Southeast region of the country as well as the Mid-Atlantic.". I'm not married to the precise wording of the second sentence so much as I am advocating for a simpler first sentence.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Though I'd maintain the footnotes, as I added them in the first place to counter claims that there no reliable sources to establish the dual assignment. Let's avoid more cycles of that. Largoplazo (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That phrasing is perfectly fine, and like how simple it keeps the first sentence. I'd rather the second sentence be in the Geography section, but its good in that it connects them with "and" rather than "or". The current phrasing with "alternatively" is bad because its not one or the other, both designations can be true simultaneously. Largoplazo, I want to stress that there is no dispute, it's not a matter of liking a source or not, its that it doesn't source what the sentence is saying. Can I turn this around, and ask why a 1986 report on wetlands is a good source, or why the homepages of private organizations are good sources? Can we agree these need improvement?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
How are sources using one or another of the designations for the part of the country in which Virginia is located not sources for assertions that those designations are applied to them? It isn't as though any of these is someone's blog post or a comment in an anonymous forum. These various sources each, with serious purpose, are breaking down the country into regions in their own way. What do you think would make a source better for this? Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The best sources tend to be published news articles or books. I said this above, but what we need is the source to say "Virginia is located geographically in [this region]." Using these off-topic sources, the sentence would need to read as this: "Virginia was included in a 1986 report by the National Wetlands Authority about Mid-Atlantic states." Or we could say "The Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean was established in 2009 by several state governors, including Virginia's." Because that's what your source is about. How an organization breaks up the country may have to do with their allocation of resources, for example the wetlands report includes Virginia because those are the five states in EPA Region 3. Like the way U.S. District Courts are broken up (Virginia is in District 4) has to do with balancing the number of appeals they see. Does that make sense? There's a jump you're taking with those sources to get to "Virginia is in [this region]" that I understand may well be true, but isn't what the source is doing.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Patrick: Here is a reference from Mr. Jefferson's University by Virginius Dabney (a book about the University of Virginia from a former editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch), "The University quickly became one of the most admired institutions of higher learning in the southern states..." p. 1 University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA. 1981.

Another book reference from The Encyclopedia of Virginia 4th edition, "But a different South, a different Virginia, lay about them." P. 82 Somerset Publishers St. Clairs Shore, MI 1999.HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)@HistoryTeacherVA

The South according to the Encylopedia Britannica includes Virginia: https://www.britannica.com/place/the-South-region accessed April 27, 2017.

A New York Times article from Feb. 26, 2017 mentions Virginia in the South https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/virginia-governor-trump-northam-perriello.html

I would challenge Largoplazo to find as reputable sources that classify Virginia as mid-Atlantic. HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

Since I have already done so, I conclude that you consider sources disreputable if they disagree with you and classify Virginia as mid-Atlantic. This is circular reasoning, so we can't go by it. There is nothing wrong with the sources I provided. What, pray tell, makes the U.S. Census Bureau more reliable than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Or than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control? Here's another. And another, a joint publication of both the EPA and the U.S. National Fish and Wildlife Service.
By the way, bombarding us with yet more and more sources that say it's Southeastern doesn't negate the existence of the sources that classify it as Middle Atlantic. Sure, it demonstrates that there are sources that classify us that it's Southeastern, but no one's taking issue with that. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Earlier examples: Manual of Modern Geography, 1871, Leading Facts of Geography, 1910. Largoplazo (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Largoplazo: I was responding to Patrick's comment that the best sources tend to be published books or news articles by providing some (there were none previously cited). So far I haven't seen any from you. Do you read? P.S. You still haven't responded to Patrick's comments about your sources. Oh, I apologize, I see that you google searched a book with geography facts. Good for you! HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

So I don't have personal side here. I understand Virginia is a state in the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Southeast, East Coast, Appalachia, and further I don't even think any of those are controversial statements, and, like saying the sky is blue shouldn't need sources, but I've worked on this article for enough years now, and see that this statement does fall into something that is likely to be challenged. I just want an article that is clear, concise, and well written. I feel like the sources that are being added are going about it backwards, they come from Googling "Virginia Mid-Atlantic" or "Virginia South state" rather than going to a quality source first, and citing what that says. We really shouldn't have to reach for obscure, out of date, and off topic websites to say something as basic as the definition of the article in its very first sentence, so I want to go through the sources that have been suggested or added in the way they do at WP:FAC, because I think that will help explain some of their issues.
  • Census Bureau via Archive.org: I fixed this to an active link on the site before my fixes were reverted, so I'm not sure why we're using a dead link here. The main issue is that this is used to cite the term "Southeast" when the Census Bureau clearly uses the term "South Atlantic."
  • Mr. Jefferson’s University: This probably should cite a specific page, but from what is available on Google Books, I don't see any mention of Virginia in the South or Southeast, and even saying that UVA is "in the South" isn't the same as saying the state of Virginia as a whole is.
  • sedaag.org: This is a homepage, self-published by the organization, which places geographers from Virginia in the SouthEastern Division of the Association of American Geographers. Again, not the same thing as saying the state of Virginia is in the southeast.
  • 2014 globalchange.gov report: This website is actually about the "Southeast and Caribbean region", which would be an odd way to describe Virginia, and is a report about climate change, so again its off topic for something that should have on-topic sources.
  • 1986 Wetlands Report: 30 years old, off topic, and the big issue being that how an organization like the EPA categorizes its regional offices is an imperfect equivalent to Virginia's geography, which is also an issue with using this website. Again, you could use that to say "Virginia is in the EPA's Region III-Mid Atlantic", but not much else.
  • Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Council: Another the self-published homepage, albeit an NGO supported by elected officials, but some of what its doing using the term "Mid-Atlantic" is marketing to partners.
  • Encyclopedia Britannica: Wikipedia advises against primary sources, secondary/tertiary sources are better, and there's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources, the issue being that you can't go to Britannica and say "okay, what are your sources?" Same would be true if we did just use the Dictionary.com entry. We did used to cite the s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, but there was an effort made to remove that text.
  • 1982 CDC Article on Rabies: Highly off topic, 35 year old article. Like the 1910 or 1871 books, I have ask, if we're saying this is a fact, why isn't there one that's been published more recently?
I understand that this is hard! I'm not trying to be a bad guy here, but I do want to keep this article featured, and that means some policing of lousy sources. Please understand that when I have to remove citation its not an indictment of the idea. There were good ones suggested too, National Geographic and the New York Times are fine, I point to where the NYT says "Virginia, the only Southern state...", that's the sort of phrase we're looking for. If you really want a similar one for Mid-Atlantic, here's a similar Post article that cites the Times in saying "Mid-Atlantic States like North Carolina and Virginia", though I'll note the actual NYT article seems to have removed the term in question. We also cite Frommer's in the Bibliography, they're a topical, secondary source, and on their site they have this. Do other editors see the difference I'm trying to highlight?
Returning to the point, I'd endorse User:Mojo Hand's suggestion. Does someone want to make that edits to the intro?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@HistoryTeacherVA: The sarcasm is unhelpful; please give it a rest. Also, you've been asked (on your talk page) to sign your talk-page posts. Please begin doing that. Regarding the substance of this thread, any number of reliable sources exist that place Virginia in the South, the Southeast, and the Mid-Atlantic, and anyone who is at all familiar with Virginia is well aware that all of those regions have a claim on the state. The article should reflect that, and it should do so in simple, neutral terms. There's nothing esoteric or unique about this. See Nevada and Minnesota, for instance. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Patrick: Here is a digital copy of Mr. Jefferson's University with a link to the page that I was referring (pg. 1) http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=2006_01/uvaBook/tei/b000325415.xml&chunk.id=d12&toc.id=d12&brand=default;query=virginius%20dabney A quick look at the bibliography of the author and you will see he was an authority on Virginia. I used this particular book because I own a copy, however, you could find numerous references to Virginia and the South in his works, or the writings of Douglas Freeman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginius_Dabney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Southall_Freeman

Dabney was obviously more interested in Virginia in the 20th Century, while Freeman was an historian of the Civil War and earlier. I do not know of any authors who have written extensively about the state of Virginia since Dabney. HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

Good, I see User:Mojo Hand's two-sentence suggestion was carried out over the weekend, am I okay now to remove some of the excess citations on that second sentence without a revert? Right now there are seven citations, and it looks like an WP:OVERCITE#In-article conflict that we need to avoid, agreed? The Richmond Times-Dispatch article is great find, I think its right on topic and works well for citing both "South" and "Mid-Atlantic". If we want "Southeast" as well, then maybe we can keep the National Geographic map. Again, the Census Bureau is only if we want to include "South Atlantic region". I'd also prefer to nix the passive voice "is considered", I think it suggests a vagueness that isn't needed. Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the number of citations. However, maybe this one is more on topic for the South reference than the NYT article?: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/virginia-civil-war-monuments-new-south-214248. We can just pick two or three of the current ones and to simplify why not just refer to it as the South? Technically the Census Bureau's South Atlantic designation is a part of the larger region of the South, which is also a term it uses.HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)HistoryTeacherVA

I took out all of the citations I had put in for the South and added just two, a chapter from a book, retrieved from this site: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/REED/tears.html and a WP article, found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/we-need-a-better-way-to-talk-about-the-south-case-in-point-delaware/ I think they add a depth, similar to the RTD editorial (which I also added for Mid-Atlantic). However, if you don't like them you have the freedom to change it again.HistoryTeacherVA (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)@HistoryTeacherVA

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

Add in details 65.96.90.22 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You have to be specific - see the instructions.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 25 May 2018

The lede says "...Virginia's northwestern counties seceded to form the state of West Virginia." Unfortunately, neither of the linked articles uses this terminology, which would seem absurd: "seceding from the secessors"? I suggest replacing "seceded" with "rejected the secessionists, forming a new Unionist state". 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I amended the lede to read in part,
"In 1792 it ceded Kentucky to become another state. In the American Civil War, Virginia’s Secession Convention resolved to join the Confederacy with a Rebel Congressional delegation, Virginia’s First Wheeling Convention resolved to remain in the Union as Virginia with a Unionist Congressional delegation, then the Second Wheeling Convention resolved to create the additional state of West Virginia in the Union."
The rationale is (a) to mention the both states created out of the State Commonwealth of Virginia, not just one; (b) to impartially and objectively account for all three of the divisions among Virginia Conventions and their respective Congressional delegations in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to mention Kentucky in the lead, it feels a bit like saying Michigan was part of Connecticut. I just feel like these details can be in the History subsection and just summarized in the lead. Are you sure we don't want to mention Richmond when mentioning secession?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
No need to mention Michigan in the lede for Virginia, though Michigan was also part of Virginia during the Continental Congress, part of the western territory cession Thomas Jefferson negotiated while in Congress. Virginia had prior claim to the territory, and it was secured from the British by General George Rogers Clark with Virginia militia during the Revolution. Jefferson's "giveaway" was in part to make the conflicting Connecticut claim and others moot among the states. -- here for the article lede, we need just mention the two states made from the state, Commonwealth of Virginia after the adoption of the Constitution: Kentucky and West Virginia.
The choice of the rebel capital by the Confederate Provisional Congress is not particularly germane to an overall introduction to the state Virginia, though it is worth mentioning further down in the article. It made Virginia a battleground before Virginia's plebiscite ratifying secession, thwarting the proposal in the Virginia Secessionist Convention by then Unionist Delegate Jubal Early (later General, CSA) to make Virginia neutral, with Virginia forces militarily blocking either a Northern army striking south, or a Southern army striking north. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I really don't think we need to mention Kentucky, the secessionist convention, the 37th congress, the First Wheeling Convention nor the Second Wheeling Convention by name in the summary. This all information we can have in the History section, but its too detailed for the lead. I suggest one sentence that mentions Virginia joined the Confederacy, Richmond was its capital, and West Virginia separated. Maybe say several battles occurred. We can pipe wikilinks to those specific articles for what that's worth. I also don't understand how these edits are a response to the protected edit request above. All that the user was suggesting was changing the verb "seceded" in reference to West Virginia. I suggest "split-off" as an option there.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The Virginia Secession convention resolved to join the Confederacy, that is a fact, but Virginia could not join the Confederacy without a Federal Constitutional Amendment, and a resolution to that effect failed in the U.S. Congress at the time.
How about dropping Kentucky, the 37th Congress, the Second Wheeling Convention and West Virginia in the introduction thus: "In the American Civil War, Virginia’s Secession Convention resolved to join the Confederacy, and Virginia’s First Wheeling Convention resolved to remain in the Union." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps finish that sentence with "resolved to remain in the Union, creating the state of West Virginia."-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, to get to West Virginia, we must move past the First Wheeling Convention. It is the Second Wheeling Convention that resolves to create West Virginia, if Congress would allow it. Perhaps we could make the passage, "In the American Civil War, Virginia’s Secession Convention resolved to join the Confederacy, and Virginia’s First Wheeling Convention resolved to remain in the Union. The Second Wheeling Convention successfully moved to create West Virginia." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine and factual, I'm just trying to keep it short and to the point in our summary. How about "...leading to the separate state of West Virginia." -- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's better. Agreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why isn’t there any mention of White (European) Slavery, which occurred within the Virginia Colony before 1619 AD, yet there is mention of African Slavery?

Why isn’t there any mention of White (European) Slavery, which occurred within the Virginia Colony before 1619 AD, yet there is mention of African Slavery—perhaps because this fact is not well known? I can vouch for that notion, because I didn’t know this fact due to the fact that it is not taught in our school systems in the U.S. However, I would be happy to contribute towards Wikipedia’s effort to promoting such facts/truth; therefore, I’ve provided, for your convenience, my proposed contributions towards this hidden fact along with its respective cited sources.


As historians, we like nothing more than to understand documentary sources via the Cause and its eventual Effects … well, here, this order prevails as you will witness by actual events that occurred between 1607 to 1624 AD.


Let’s start off with the following for substance:


THE CAUSE WITH DATES - (the 400 Survivors’/Ancient Farmers’ Testimonial Document)[4]


1. This document (13 pages), with a 1624 AD date, influenced by acts taken below by King James and public officials, is truly the smoking gun because it overwhelmingly describes in detail:

A. How and to what extent the Virginia Colony’s Settlers, during its 1st 12-year period (1607 to 1619 AD), were TREATED -- atrocities described by those who survived their conditions of enslavement -- by several of its elected governors sent by the Virginia Company of London (VCL) from London (several governors were military men who implemented Martial Law to discipline the colony);
B. How badly the 1st Nations were treated; and
C. That there were 400 Survivors out of a total of less than 2,000 Settlers.

PLEASE NOTE: This 13-page document and its entire contents warrant its own Wikipedia article, regardless.



ITS EFFECTS WITH DATES


1. Perhaps you are familiar with “The Great Charter” of 1619 AD (aka “Instructions to George Yeardley”)[5] that is associated with the Virginia Colony, which influenced the start of the Virginia House of Burgesses[6] from its General Assembly during the same year. This 10-page document noted as “Instructions to George Yeardley” (who was the newly elected governor for the Virginia Colony at the time) also contained:

A. Instructions to convey to the survivors that the atrocities (such as oppression, corruption, former difficulties and dangers) that occurred during the 1st 12-year period, 1607 to 1619 AD, were overcome, viz., by granting absolute freedom from enslavement conditions throughout the colony;
B. Instructions to issue each Ancient Farmer (survivor) a certain amount of acreage depending upon the conditions of: 1) whether he paid his transportation or paid by the VCL to the colony, 2) and whether he arrived before or after Governor Dale’s departure, which was April 1616 AD; and
C. Instructions to set up local government agencies to govern the colony.


2. What steps King James and public officials took to document such atrocities:

A. Alderman Robert Johnson, former Deputy Treasurer of VCL for the Virginia Colony, who lived in the colony, came forward submitting a humble request, in 1623 AD, to King James to have an investigation performed; [7]
B. In 1623 King James’s Privy Council created a Royal Commission to investigate the VCL and to assess those who survived said atrocities before King James put in motion steps to revoke the VCL’s Charter to further govern the Virginia Colony;[8] and
C. Another document with the names of 30 designated individuals, [9] written in 1624 AD, gave their unanimous declaration/testament, from their perspective, about the conditions the said survivors endured because of what they witnessed while living in the Colony during this 12-year period, 1607 to 1619 AD.


3. A professional critical analysis rendered by a parapsychologist (Dr. Walter Prince) about the exclusive control exercised by Governor Dale over the Virginia colony for “the political order, moral and religious discipline and laws designed for the military discipline of the soldiery” [10]


Looking forward to contributing and all the best to you all…

Nubianpageants (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A few minutes later, I attempted to test the links but they didn't work--not understanding why, but will pursue.

Nubianpageants (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Census Regions and Divisions of the United States" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. September 7, 2000. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  2. ^ "Mid-Atlantic Information Office". Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  3. ^ "Mid-Atlantic Cleanup". United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 27, 2012. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  4. ^ The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Records of Virginia, September 13, 2007, “A BREIFE DECLARATION of the Plantation of Virginia duringe the first Twelve Yeares, when Sir Thomas Smith was Governor of the Companie, & downe to this present tyme. By the Ancient Planters nowe remaining alive in Virginia,” pp. 69-81
  5. ^ Encyclopedia Virginia - “Instructions to George Yeardley”
  6. ^ Wikipedia - House of Burgesses
  7. ^ The Records of The Virginia Company of London, “THE COURT BOOK, FROM THE MANUSCRIPT IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,” Kingsbury, Dr. Susan, Washington Government Printing Office, 1906, Vol. II pp. 373-374
  8. ^ Encyclopedia Virginia – Virginia Company of London
  9. ^ American Journeys Collection The Tragical Relation of Virginia Assembly, 1624 AD
  10. ^ Scarboro, Dewey, “The Establisher: The Story of Sir Thomas Dale,” Old Mountain Press, 2014, Kindle Edition, location 139, or Dr. Prince, Walter “The First Criminal Code of Virginia”, American Historical Association Annual Report, 1899, Vol I, Article IX, pp. 309-363.

Energy grid

I would like to propose creating a new subsection called "Energy grid." I think it should include how Virginia produces its electricity, major producers and distributors, energy costs compared to the rest of the country, and renewable energy efforts. I look forward to hearing your feedback on this before getting started.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia/Archive_4&oldid=1142782350"