Talk:Virginia/Archive 6

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

Please correct the date of Walter Raleigh's expedition - it should be 1584, not 1684. I don't think a new citation is needed as the sources already cited surely include the correct date (as does the cross-referenced article on Raleigh).

• Got it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has held up quite well since its promotion in 2009 in some respects, but it has not managed so well with one other: length. The article has almost doubled in prose size since it was promoted. (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a hard comparison to make. Twelve years is a long time, and our understanding of what a complete article entails is entitled to change with time. I see a lot of subtle peacocking in that 2009 article. Its Education section boasts of its quality schools, but makes no mention of current segregation issues, its Health section mentions low infant mortality, but nothing on the state's woeful mental heath services, and its Law and government section highlights its Pew Center ranking but no information on the biannual budgeting process, so I feel much of the added length has been about giving readers a more rounded understanding of the article's topic. I'm in danger of being hypocritical here, defending length, because if you go through the talk archives, it should be clear that it's been twelve years of me telling other well meaning editors "no, that's too much detail about X, Y, and Z for this summary article." The sections themselves are all at a summary length, typically three paragraphs, and I'm happy for any help in making sure the article stays in summary style.

It's now the only U.S. state FA, and I do think it sets the standard for what a U.S. state article should look like, but I'd be fine if we want to bring the article to FAR at some point to see what outside voices think. If there's no rush, maybe that process could wait till after more 2020 Census numbers are released (should be in December), as there's still a handful of facts that are stuck using the 2010 numbers (like the Languages section), and I assume 11 year old facts could come up as an issue in a FA review.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

With as many sub-articles as there are, affording the opportunity for summary style, and looking at the amount of detail in each section, it appears that the current 14,000 words could easily be reduced to under 10,000 by applying summary style.

While I'm here, on MOS issues, there are MOS:CURRENT adjustments needed, and MOS:SANDWICHing in Religion and Demographics.

On keeping the article updated, kudos! I only did a quick scan of the sections that are typically not kept up to date on geography and places articles, and this looks good.

On comprehensiveness, considering the national news that Virginia made and continues to make, this topic could benefit from one more sentence, explaining the whys and the significance nationally: In 2021, Glenn Youngkin became the first Republican to win the governor's race since 2009.[432] Republicans also won the lieutenant governor's race[433] and the race for attorney general.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this except the last point, giving more space to one particular election is probably undue weight and recentism. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been resisting this change for years, but I want to open a discussion on whether the article needs to switch the position of the Geography and History sections. I myself think of Geography as being the more fundamental topic to start with, but realize that it puts this article at odds with much of Wikipedia. I made a survey of the other U.S. state/territory articles today, 11 (CT, HI, MD, MS, NH, NM, OH, SD, WA, WY, plus VA) have Geography above History, but the other 39 states and 4 territories all have History before Geography. Many actually have an Etymology section first, but we've worked that information into the Colony subsection which I think works fine. While WP:USA doesn't have a standard, WP:CITIES does suggest History go first. Do other users see this as necessary or unnecessary? Since Virginia is currently the only FA among the states, it does kind of get to set a standard for others if we want to keep it as it's been.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

History first personally makes more sense to me, but I don't think there is a wrong answer. You did the heavy lifting on getting this article to where it is, so I think you should get to make the call (absent a clear consensus to the contrary).--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Virginia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the governor Ralph Northam to Glenn Youngkin 47.186.67.121 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Needs to be sworn in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Virginia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ralph Northam isn't the governor anymore and Justin Fairfax isn't the lieutenant governor anymore but it says that they're still in office and I want to change that. 87.210.229.242 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 09:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I saw some back and forth editing regarding the bite about the Virginia General Assembly being the "oldest legislature", and feel like I need to point out that the claim really has a bunch of issues and should be handled carefully in the text. Usually you'll see it written as the "oldest in the Western Hemisphere", but if by Western Hemisphere, they mean west of Greenwich, England, then there's the Althingi in Iceland or the Tynwald on the Isle of Man, both from before 1000. Even if they really mean "Western Hemisphere" as in North and South America, then it's being very colonialist and ignoring things like the Council of Three Fires, which date to before the year 800, or the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace and their councils that Kondiaronk described as going back centuries and both sure look to have involved representative assemblies. Even the term "oldest continuous" is problematic, because how do you count the discontinuity caused by the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? The General Assembly itself counts its sessions from 1776. So I've added "oldest of its kind" today to help, but it's really a claim that requires a bunch of qualifications to be used in the text, and I'm not sure we can just start a section "The Virginia General Assembly is the oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere" full stop.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone put in the non-rhotic pronunciation. I added the rhotic one. Both are used in the state (and elsewhere). Kostaki mou (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The table "Ethnicity (2020)" in Virginia#Ethnicity is labeled incorrectly. The first row is labeled "Non-Hispanic white," but the percentages given do not match the census data for Non-Hispanic Whites, which is reported in Census Table P2 (White alone: 5,058,363/8,631,393 = 58.6%). Instead, the percentages in the article match the census data for race inclusive of Hispanics, as given in Census Table P1 (White alone: 5,208,856/8,631,393 = 60.3%). The other figures given in the article are also inclusive of Hispanic and Latinos. I'm not sure what the original intent was, but the table should most likely be relabeled to remove the "Non-Hispanic" qualifier, or else the percentages should all be recalculated with the correct data for Non-Hispanics, and all the rows labeled accordingly. Jua Cha (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sure, I suppose we remove "Non-Hispanic" from that first row then. It was actually leftover from the older table, which would have used the 2010 Census and ACS categories. These numbers would have come from this visualization map, which just happened to be the first place I recall the 2020 numbers being made public. Thanks for pointing this out.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 19:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This might be obvious, but this discussion is tied up with a much larger discussion both within the Census Bureau and American society at large about how to categorize Americans who identify as Hispanic or Latino. Trump very much complicated the 2020 Census, and it's comparisons to censuses since 1980, by ordering that Hispanic not be an option for race, and instead be counted separately. It certainly politicized the debate in a way it didn't need to be, but these Census-defined categories only date to 1977, and both "Hispanic" and "Latino" as terms are problematic for various reasons. In theory they refer to the larger language family that an individual's native tongue is part of, but is Brazilian Portuguese speaker "Hispanic" or is a Mexican Nahuatl speaker "Latino"?

Right now "Hispanic or Latino (of any race)" is the third row in the table on this article under the heading "Ethnicity", and though I think the table looks incomplete without noting this group that is 10% of Virginians, I fully recognize there is this argument to be made that Hispanic doesn't fit in this table anymore. At the moment, it does have to be listed at least somewhat differently, since it doesn't have the "alone" and "in combination" percents that others have. Now this is probably not the place for that argument, and I think we just try to match what's done at United States#Demographics, since this is in some ways a sub-article of that, but since this is the only Featured Article on a U.S. state these days it does serve as a bit of a template for the others. Race and ethnicity in the United States#Racial categories solves this with two tables, one with Hispanics, and one without, which I guess I'd prefer to avoid. Happy for any thoughts!-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a complex issue. Displaying the data in two tables like at at Race and ethnicity in the United States#Racial categories is the most faithful to the source, given that the Census questionnaire uses two questions and reports the results in two tables. However, multiple tables can appear convoluted and confusing to readers, because the census format itself is confusing for many people. The census question about Hispanic or Latino origins has been separate from the question about race since it was introduced in 1980.^[1] The Census Bureau proposed consolidating them into a single question in 2020 based on years of research showing flaws with the two question design, but the Trump administration kept the two question format in place.^[2] After reading about this, I gather that the scholarly consensus is that the Census distinction between race and ethnicity is outmoded and fails to reflect real world usage. Both categories function in practice as socially constructed group identities and a very large number of people who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino on the ethnicity question choose "other" on the race question because none of the given categories reflect their social experience.^[3][4][5][6]

I'm not an expert in this area and don't have a strong opinion, but if the article uses a single table, it might be best to continue reporting the Hispanic or Latino numbers on a separate row and switch to using the Not Hispanic or Latino numbers for all the other rows (which is what United States#Demographics does, albeit without saying so anywhere). At least I think that would be preferable to removing the Hispanic or Latino numbers from the table entirely. The raw source for this data is Table P2, but you would have to manually add up all the different combinations to get the final "in combination" numbers. Alternatively, you can get those numbers from the visualization map you linked by changing the "Total Population" dropdown menu to "Not Hispanic or Latino." — but in that case it displays the percentages for each group as a part of that subset, so you would have to recalculate the percentages of the total population manually. Jua Cha (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Got it. My misunderstanding about Hispanic being separate since 1980, and Trump's changes. Looks like we agree that, for now, we keep one table of non-Hispanic numbers with a row for Hispanics, i.e. the table as we have it currently, but the numbers need to be changed to all be non-Hispanic. Looking at the Census's site, I definitely see how "Other" does seem to overlap with Hispanic for many respondents, and so including 9.1% as "Other" here in addition to 10.5% as Hispanic is maybe misleading. I guess I don't mind calculating the numbers manually (I have to do that already to make the ancestry map). "Routine calculations" are specifically listed as OK on Wikipedia (provided there is consensus they are correct). So for non-Hispanic or Latino groups "alone" I see 5,058,363 whites, 1,578,090 Blacks, 610,612 Asians, 19,080 American Indians, and 45,394 others, while "in some combination," I see 5,422,891 whites, 1,736,715 Blacks, 739,859 Asians, 131,316 American Indians, and 108,852 others. Out of a total population of 8,631,393, rounding to one decimal point, that gives me the respective alone/combo percents as 58.6%/62.8%, 18.3%/20.1%, 7.1%/8.6%, 0.2%/1.5%, and 0.5%/1.2%. Do I have consensus to update the table with those numbers? Again, it's mainly the "Other" category that suffers.

Can I ask a related question of editors about the maps? What map (or maps) makes the most sense to include in the (recently renamed) Race and ethnicity subsection? Thesadcactus (talk · contribs) added a map of the state with counties colored by race this week. It's floating somewhat disconnectedly to the right of the existing ethnicity/ancestry table/map combo. Option A might be to try to fit this racial map into the box, to the left of the Ethnicity table, and maybe somehow get the legend color boxes into the table like we do with ancestry. Not sure how that works with the different shades though. It's worth mentioning that this wide box is very much not mobile friendly, and another map would make it even less so, so maybe ancestry would need to be below race or vice-versa. Option B maybe is to move one of the maps to Demographics of Virginia. Of the two, I guess I don't find the racial map to be that informative. Like, if you can spot the two independent cities in light blue with plurality Hispanic populations in that thumbnail image in less than 10 seconds, I'd be impressed (Manassas and Manassas Park). New numbers for the ancestry map are actually being released next week, and it takes me a good several hours to sort them and find changes to the map, so there is reason to ask whether we should keep it up to date. I should also ask whether anyone has an issue with the map/table bridging the Sheuch by combining "Irish" and "Scotch-Irish" ancestry, which the Census Bureau see as separate groups. Even though "Irish" is the second largest single ancestry that Virginians list, it only has a plurality in one spot (Manassas Park, similar to Hispanics). Combining the two groups with Irish in the name however turns 18 jurisdictions green. Thoughts?-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Patrickneil for mentioning concerns with the map I recently uploaded. Your concerns regarding exact placement within the article and mobile-friendliness are entirely reasonable; formatting is not my strong suit and I'd support any revisions on this front, especially to the key. Your concerns with the efficacy of the data-visualization, specifically regarding independent cities, also makes sense, though I will say that I use the same svg template that is used for visualizing almost every Virginia statewide election. Having one map for plurality of ancestry and a second for racial plurality does crowd the section a bit, unfortunately; I'd argue that race is a more basic and therefore more fundamental demographic concept to represent visually, and also that a map representing data bins in addition to simple pluralities contains more information. I do also recognize that the page for Virginia has long been unique for its ancestry map, so if it's decided that the racial plurality map ought to be moved to Demographics of Virginia, I could understand why that would be; I think that it would make sense to first attempt to straighten out the formatting, however. Thesadcactus (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, so here is my first run at a table with both maps:

Largest race by county or city Ethnicity (2020) Alone Total Non-Hispanic White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino   30–40%   40–50%   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   80–90%   90%+   40–50%   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   40–50% White 58.6% 62.8% Black or African American 18.3% 20.1% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 10.5% Asian 7.1% 8.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2% 1.5% Other 0.5% 1.2% Largest ancestry by county or city Ancestry (2019 est.) Total American Community Survey five-year estimate German 10.6% Irish or Scotch-Irish 10.5% American 9.7% English 9.2% Subsaharan African 2.3%

Too big? Is the collapsible map key okay?-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 23:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead in implemented both this change and the revised numbers on the article, still curious about opinions though, and is someone if able to double check my math!-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving this reply so late. I can confirm that your math matches with mine. You might now wish to go back to the original label "Non-Hispanic White" for the first row, since that would no longer be mislabeling after the other changes. The only other thing I noticed is that the table seems not to include the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population, either as a separate row or as part of the "Other" row. The Census reports Virginia's Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population at 6,195 (0.1%) alone, 18,808 (0.2%) in combination. Adding these numbers into the row marked "Other" would change that row's totals to 51,589 (0.6%) alone, 127,660 (1.5%) in total. Jua Cha (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No rush, thanks for helping get this right! #WP:NODEADLINE. I've updated the table with those suggestions. And you are right, I didn't include Native Hawaiians, the percent was so small I didn't think it needed its own row here (they have one at Demographics of Virginia, where it is appropriate), but adding their number to the "Other" row is a fine answer.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 12:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "Health" section, there is a typo describing Virginia as the "16st" state in health outcomes:

Virginia has a mixed health record, and was ranked as the 16st for overall health outcomes and 18th healthy behaviors in the state according to the 2021 United Health Foundation's Health Rankings.

In addition, the wording seems a bit odd to me. I'm thinking something like this may be a bit better:

Virginia has a mixed health record. The state was ranked 16th in overall health outcomes and 18th for healthy behaviors by the 2021 United Health Foundation's Health Rankings. Mkjohnson097 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Indeed, thanks!-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 00:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roanoke Skyline.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't infobox template be U.S. state? Because....Virginia is a U.S. state and every other article on U.S. states uses the same template? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Though both infoboxes are ultimately based off of Template:Infobox settlement, yes, it should, however I'd argue that, at the moment, Template:Infobox political division has a better and cleaner layout. The extra lines for "Rank" are unnecessary and don't match other the geographic infoboxes on Wikipedia. And I was won over by its ability to integrate Template:Infobox region symbols, so that at least there is one infobox, not two, which I think is a bigger issue for the page layout with the switch to Vector 2022 as the default on desktops. The fields lost in the switch are largest metro area and Median household income, but gained are GDP, HDI, and Gini. There is a current request to add these fields to the U.S. state infobox, and hopefully that is implemented soon.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to have help with this draft on Confederate agent and author from Virginia. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

to be with help for a draft of such wouldn't be a big help but It may help a bit. 2600:6C4A:57F:EED2:F844:48A8:AC33:8993 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Just wanted to open a quick chat about the youth soccer sentences. I'll say my argument for including a mention is twofold. One, that the highest level of soccer among participants under 18, unlike say football or track, isn't the state high school system, but instead these outside leagues. Second, is that Virginia overall punches above its weight on a national scale, competing with much more populous states like Texas and California in terms of success, i.e. teams winning their age-group's national championships. And whenever Virginia punches above its weight, whether its seafood produced or local roads owned, we kind of like to highlight the atypical aspects of the article's topic that differentiate it from its fellow category members.

Lastly, the disparity in access is something that I find worth bringing up. It's a drumbeat throughout the article, but dividing on race is the constant background of Virginia's story. And the GMU study on the topic is a hard look at how it affects yet another part of life in Virginia. Happy for your thoughts though, and much respect to your years of work here on Wikipedia! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If the youth soccer mention is kept, I'd agree with keeping the disparity in access piece. But I'm not convinced the youth soccer piece belongs at all. Your first argument, while interesting, doesn't contribute to it being significant to the subject of this particular article. The second is slightly more promising, but (a) we're looking at an eighth-place ranking rather than a first-place, and (b) not everything that is atypical rises to inclusion in a high-level article like this one - particularly in a case like this one where the fellow category members, on a quick look, don't cover this, meaning the opportunity for comparison isn't really there. That comparison though would be worth adding to Soccer_in_the_United_States#Youth_soccer or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we can remove the national championships info. Look good? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to compromise, but that edit takes away your second argument entirely. Youth soccer leagues are popular in many places. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Virginia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The top countries of origin for Virginia’s immigrants were El Salvador (10.6 percent of immigrants), India (8.1 percent), Korea (5.4 percent), Vietnam (5.2 percent), and Mexico (5.2 percent) in 2015. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/immigrants_in_virginia.pdf 2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:80B:7909:7A64:73F7 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We do already have that information, it's the last sentence of the second paragraph in Demographics. "El Salvador is the most common foreign country of birth, with India, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam as other common birthplaces." We cite data from 2014 through 2018 for that order. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Under "Economy" the "right to work" hyperlink navigates to the international law concept of Right to work. In the context of the passage, it should navigate to the "Right-to-work law" article as it is referring to the United States labor law concept.

Source: https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/ https://www.findlaw.com/state/virginia-law/virginia-right-to-work-laws.html https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title40.1/chapter4/section40.1-58/ Gorborian (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Linguistical (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)