Talk:Western United States/Archive 2

Section - Population Centers

The population centers are all major cities of the Western United States, who of themselves happen to be anchors of large metropolitan areas. The list is currently in order of largest to smallest, population by city. San Bernardino is neither a population center nor a major city of the west coast. It just happens to be a city that anchors a metropolitan area and of itself has a very small population. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Its population exceeds that of Salt Lake City. And it is a population center, it anchors the 24 largest metropolitan area of the United States. House1090 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Salt Lake is the "Center" of i believe the largest metropolitan area of Utah. It is also better known, for instance, it hosted the 2002 Winter Olypmics. It is also arguably better known. So what if it anchors the 24th largest? There are 23 that are larger then it and on a further note Los Angeles takes San Bernardinos place, since SB is indeed a satellite city of the larger, global, Los Angeles. Perhaps we should also remove Long Beach, Anaheim and Santa Ana from the list since they same applies to them. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to argue much about this, but just take note that Long Beach, Anaheim and Santa Ana are all within the LA metro, while San Bernardino s not. House1090 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken note of that so perhaps it would be best to remove them and add Riverside instead, since it is the largest city in the I.E., in fact i will do that just now. It would also be hypocritical of me to not remove them because of what i have said about San Bernardino. Hopefully it leaves you satisfied. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very poor map

I think we really need to have another chat about the map used on this article. It includes several states that absolutely no one considers to be part of the West, under any definition. There was a discussion earlier on this page, in 2007, but it never went anywhere. Louisiana? Seriously? Is this 1810? Can we get a real source on Louisiana as part of the West?

I would like to discuss this issue before removing the map, which is severely flawed. If no one has responded within a week, I will assume that there is no objection to removing this dangerously-misleading image from our encyclopedia. 174.111.116.162 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama from Hawaii

Really? I know he lived there, but he's a politician from Chicago through and through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Major Metropolitan Areas

There's no such thing as the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA. The Bay Area is a CSA but this is a list of MSAs. For consistency the list should either be redone in all CSAs or split up SF-Oakland from San Jose. I know all the arguments about the arbitrary boundaries and the Census bureau being wrong but if that's the way the Census defines it for now, that's the way it should be written here.Red Hair Bow (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a year and I found my way back here. It wasn't fixed so I fixed it myself while I was off my account. I took San Jose off San Francisco and Oakland and added it as its own MSA. I used the table of MSAs on this site as a source.Red Hair Bow (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Western Map Editing

This is particularly directed to Hoppalong, although the intent of starting this talk topic is to get other editors to give input and to keep in the rules of that edits (when they become constant on a particular point), need to be discussed on the talk page. That is what I am doing here, and I promise to go along with the consensus of others. But to present my side...?

It is my opinion, that most of the admonishing citations by the above editor are extremely superficial(This is nothing personal at all, I hasten to add!). That is, most of us who know anything at all about history also know that certain things are just plain common sense... and backed up by so many sources they would be impossible to list. In addition, sources are provided by much of the detail in the actual article itself, and do not need to be repeated in the tagline itself.

In fact, if one wanted apply the same -- seemingly -- citation rules that this editor applies to the map? Then almost every sentence in the full article would be "tagged." LOL C'mon -- again -- how many do not take it as a given that the definition of the "west" has evolved as the nation's settlement moved west, and that there is not much today controversial about that the Mississippi River is generally acknowledged to be the furthest "dividing boundary" between the eastern and western United States? (although I didn't add that particular part).

But anyway, my purpose here is to open up a discussion in accordance with Wiki rules before making another reverting edit. So let's talk, Hopalong, ok? Let's get this one settled and gain input from others as well. TexasReb (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Others have noted above (Talk:Western_United_States#Very_poor_map & Talk:Western_United_States#Strange_map) that the map, and presumably its caption, need work (or more). And you are right, much of the article lacks Reliable Sources. The article has had a banner noting this since May 2007 (more than six years!) and obviously still deserves it. In fact, the most relevant section in the article to the map, the map's caption, and this discussion is Western_United_States#Region_and_concept, which has zero references and is marked as lacking any Reliable Sources.

Regardless, my only concern worth discussion related to the map and the caption is with the following phrase and the corresponding shading it describes: "The states in light red, particularly the Plains States, are sometimes considered "western" as they are mostly west of the Mississippi River". On the one hand, the language is so weak it must be true: some yahoo somewhere must consider each of those states as part of the "Western United States". On the other hand, if we mean more by that phrase -- implying that anybody or any notable or widely-used definition considers the shaded states as part of the Western United States, I doubt that is true. AR, LA, MN, IA? Either way, there is no Reliable Source cited that supports any of the several "facts" packed into this phrase. I have not even removed the text or the map, just noted it. Oddly, you have removed a valid and self-explanatory note template multiple times. However you think this issue should be resolved, without the caption being a summary of the relevant section of the article (with Reliable Sources!) or directly footnoted to Reliable Sources itself, the note is proper. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. But, I think you are missing an important point. But...ok, to backtrack, I didn't put in the "because they are west of the Mississippi" notation. However, I do believe it is simply common knowledge and sense that the Mississippi River has long been considered one of the major dividing points between the eastern and western United States. Hell, a national landmark is the "Gate Way to the West" arch in St. Louis, just over the Mississippi, which brought in Arkansas and Louisiana.

The Plains states (Texas up to North Dakota)have a strong history in the imagery of the "West." Even though they are not really "Western States" in the cultural sense, and are not classified that way. They simply had a post-bellum history, lots of which was the basis of the mythic West of Hollywood...even though the reality was that Texas -- and to a lesser extent, Oklahoma -- were and are essentially Southern in origin and history and culture (and I am proud of that). Point being, there is a Census Bureau West and a "west" consisting the frontier movement after the War Between the States, perhaps even starting with the Louisiana Purchase. They are different in history and culture, but the latter still has claims to being "western" in the sense of massive movement from the eastern U.S., from the aspect of frontier history.

BTW -- just so you know, the removal of several edits of my own volition that you bring up, are because I was having difficulty with the map itself NOT coming up when reviewing them...not because I did not stand by the removal of the citation itself. In other words, I wasn't going to submit an edit in which the map didn't appear...and in some previews, it didn't. Make sense?

But ok, in the spirit of the Christmas season, even though I didn't write most of the tagline, would it be agreeable to work together on coming up with a compromise on the point of contention? Let me know and we can start from there. It really won't be all that big a task, I don't think, as I don't see a truly major issue here

TexasReb (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No matter how we reword the notation, it needs to be based on cited Reliable Sources. Fixing the lack of Reliable Sources will allow us to fix the notation--if the map feature it describes or anything like it can be found in Reliable Sources (a point of which I am unsure and think might not be supportable in Reliable Sources). Otherwise, it should be changed to follow the Reliable Sources. At some point, without citations to support it, I think we should remove the shading from the map (non-Census Bureau definition) and its notation in the caption. Also, the historical idea you seem to want to include might fit best at Old West anyway (as noted in The West disambiguation page). Hoppingalong (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Matter of fact, I was going to write a suggestion similar before you beat me to it! LOL That is, I wasn't even the one who created the original map. I simply made a qualification -- after the fact -- that the shaded area was grouped with other regions to the east. Anyway, as it is, I totally agree with you that perhaps the whole map should be changed to reflect only the Census Bureau West. After all, that is the way it is on the Midwestern and Southern United States articles. Then, as you say, a similar map reflecting the "evolution" of the "West", could be moved to Old West. Great idea and I definitely will support it! TexasReb (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how to rewrite this, or even whether it should contain these alternate definitions. It does seem that we agree the map should be based on the Census Bureau, so I'll change that and reword that aspect. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I took care of it by eliminating the references to those states not classified as "West" by the Census Bureau. As mentioned earlier, another map showing the evolution of "the West" on a "time line" animated map basis would be good, but personally, I am not sure how to create one. Also, the "years" would have to reflect some kind of "reliable source". And that might be hard to do as well. Any thoughts and/or suggestions on that one...? TexasReb (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Politics/same sex marriage

This Username Is Taken Now (talk · contribs) recently added the tidbit below in italics which I reverted because it probably needs discussion and some work:

single western state recognizes them. However, this does not necessarily represent the ideals of the citizens of these states, since all legalizations of same-sex marriage have been due to court decisions rather than popular vote, excepting Washington.

I am especially intrigued by that it may all be court decisions. —EncMstr (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Improving "Culture" and "Demographic" sections

It seems to me that much of the info in the "Culture" section really belongs in the "Demographic" section. The "Culture" section should be about art, architecture, music, film, literature, religion, etc. See the Category:Culture of the Western United States for inspiration. I propose to start moving any valid and appropriate info from the "Culture" section to "Demographic," or any others in which they fit. As the content is moved I'll do my best to source it since there are hardly any sources. I welcome anyone else to join in or try to beat me to the punch.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please make the map more flexible...

...by using an appropriate color for North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, to indicate that whether they're part of the region varies from standard to standard. Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that the Census Bureau defines Alaska and Hawaii as "West", but...

...who one Earth is really going to be including Alaska and Hawaii when he/she refers to the Western United States? There are often times when it may just be better to go with something other than what the Census says. I am fairly sure the Census just threw in those two for simple convenience, anyway. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Historians include them in books and courses on the west, eg Earl Pomeroy, American Far West in the Twentieth Century (2008); Walter Nugent, Into the West: The Story of Its People (2007). Likewise political scientists such as Sharp, American Legislative Leaders in the West, 1911-1994 (1997); and lawyers: Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States (2013). also guide books: Lonely Planet Western USA (2013). Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen that plenty of scholars or professionals have included Hawaii and Alaska as a part of a Western US region. One might even be able to show a consensus developing over the past 20 or 30 years among western regional historians to include the two wayward states. There will always be those who disagree with this; I myself have some issues with including them. It's a complicated issue, regionalism. But we should not and cannot easily dismiss the Census Bureau's designation which has been a fact for over one hundred years, and does set the standard for comparing population and demographic data. It appears to me as well that WP's regional US articles have followed the Census designation. So, I think we just accept the Census region and take it for what it is and try to develop a good article along those lines.--KingJeff1970 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this Census-ism followed by Wikipedia should be decreased. The Census has plenty of not-so-great, non-geographic designations already. Wikipedia is not a product of the United States government and should express viewpoints independent from the Census. Culturally, what does a place like Hawaii have to do with a state like New Mexico or Utah? Geographically, it the two states differ even more; they would have to be classified as very, very far West. The Census wouldn't have any reason in creating a small population region for those two states, so it lumped them in with the Western Contiguous United States. What common person would think "Hawaii" when someone says "Western United States"? These regional classifications are only reasonably applied to the lower 48 (in most situations) in my truthful opinion, and the other two states are far enough separated that they may be considered independently. Please reconsider. Dustin (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are looking at two small population states that were territories for many years like most of the Western states. Historically they were acquired by the United States after first being developed by other rulers, Russia, and the Kings of Hawaii. They became states following Arizona and New Mexico. Alaska is basically a mining state, much like Montana Idaho Colorado, Wyoming etc.... Hawaii is basically a tourism state, just like Nevada. In both, the military has been a major presence throughout its history. Acquisition by the United States was part of the same manifest destiny that led to acquisition of Texas, Utah, California and Oregon. In both, the native population has always been of great importance socially, economically, and politically. The Alaska economy is headquartered in Seattle, while Hawaii's economy has always been headquartered in San Francisco. So the political, historical, social, economic, and cultural factors are much more similar to the Western states, then they are to Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, Ohio or Minnesota. Rjensen (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, I appreciate you bringing this issue up, but if you indeed want to propose the exclusion of Alaska and Hawaii from this article you should find some reliable sources to back you up and make your best case. Our own opinions, including my own, shouldn't carry much weight. I suggest you take a look at Chap. 16 in 'The Oxford History of the American West' (not available online I'm afraid), since it directly addresses the two far-off, non-contiguous states and how their histories fit within the story of the U.S. West. Nugent's "Where is the American West?" article is good too (reference #2 in this article), and specifically addresses AK and HI. The sources Rjensen named earlier would be good to investigate as well, among others. Thanks!--KingJeff1970 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Far West

Is there a corresponding "Near West"?? I would guess that that region most likely includes the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Midwestern United States? It seems to include the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas within it. An organization recently created by historians seeks to promote the history of this region; it's called the Midwestern History Association. --KingJeff1970 (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Edit summaries should be accurate, wouldn't you agree? I had to revert an editor's change just now because he or she did not accurately sum up the reason for his/her edit. Very complicated, but if you check the history I think you will agree with me. If not, thanks for your time anyway. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, I don't exactly understand what is wrong with you. Whether or not you consider an edit summary accurate or not is an outrageous reason to revert an edit. If you want to discuss the edit summary that is fine. But WP is not the place for your petty tantrums.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. It seems I did not fully explain my reversion. You wrote in the Edit summary: "Undid unexplained deletion" when actually I had said my change was "Reverting. No source and no Edit Summary." I assumed that this would be sufficient to summarize the reason for the reversion. Anyway, I know we are both trying to improve WP. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

[Not usually helpful words: "what is wrong with you"; "outrageous"; "petty"; "tantrums". Just sayin'. KDS4444 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Pacific islands: not

The Pacific island possessions are not included as "western U.S." in any reliable secondary source I have seen. Government agencies like the federal courts have to include them somewhere for convenience (You can't attach Samoa to Chicago). Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are at least four sources that include American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands as part of the western U.S.: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals website [1], U.S. National Park Service [2], Federal Reserve Bank system [3], and FEMA [4]. There is also a USGS geological paper grouping Guam with the western U.S. [5], and another paper lists "Pacific Islands" as part of the western U.S. [6]. Also, Doug Mack's book The Not-Quite States of America mentions these territories as being part of the western U.S.

The argument has been raised that these are primary sources; but consider the fact that the U.S. Census Bureau is a primary source. So if these sources listed can't be used, then the U.S. Census Bureau source can't be used either, which makes no sense. Also, if "Pacific Islands" are not included in the western U.S., then it follows that Hawaii wouldn't be included either.

Also, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are attached to the western U.S. court system not due to convenience -- they are part of the western court system (i.e. the 9th Circuit) because they are physically and geographically in the western part of the U.S. (similar to Hawaii). As for American Samoa, its federal court issues are heard in Hawaii.

According to these sources, the three Pacific U.S. territories are part of the western U.S. LumaP15 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

White American and Black American

If there is not a "Non Hispanic Black" and "Non Hispanic Asian" and "Non Hispanic Native American" categories, there should NOT be one about "Non Hispanic Whites". Just WHITE without that racist segregation against Whites of Hispanic ancestry. That Racism cannot be tolerated. --213.60.225.183 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Demographic information in Wikipedia articles reflect information from sources, typically from the government. If you would like your point of view reflected in their presentation, I suggest contacting your congressmen or senators to direct your concern. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)