Jump to content

Talk:Rust Belt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(111 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Geography}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}}
{{TOCright}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
}}


== Lead sentence ==
No, {{u|Cinagroni}}, the "Rust Belt" is not a well-established geographical region such as [[Appalachia]] or [[New England]]. The current lead sentence is about useless: {{tq|The Rust Belt is a region of the United States that has been experiencing industrial decline starting around 1980}} as it even fails to define the subject - which region, where? There are certainly many more regions experiencing industrial decline across the US, but they aren't part of the "Rust Belt". This article could as well be called [[Economic decline in the northeastern United States]] – it's mostly about deindustrialization and depopulation of that area, not about physical geography. The #Geography section sums it well: {{tq|Since the term "Rust Belt" is used to refer to a set of economic and social conditions rather than to an overall geographical region of the United States, the Rust Belt has no precise boundaries. The extent to which a community may have been described as a "Rust Belt city" depends on how great a role industrial manufacturing played in its local economy}}.<br>
I strongly feel that this article falls more under the [[WP:WORDISSUBJECT]] category than under the common format of geographic articles. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 09:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


:No, {{u|No such user}}, I did not say that the Rust Belt is a well-established geographical region. The current lead sentence is about useless: "informal term"? Formality has absolutely no relation to anything here. "''the'' region"? Using the definite article presumes familiarity with the concept.
==Messages from the old Talk:Rust Belt==
:You want the first sentence to more precisely say where this region is? That is reasonable. So add it. For example: The Rust Belt is a region of the northeastern United States that has been experiencing industrial decline starting around 1980. But writing "X is a term for Y" is just poor. If X is a term for Y, then X is Y. The only reason to write "X is a term for Y" is if you are discussing ''the term itself'', and not the concept Y. This might apply, for example, to the "[[Stroke Belt]]", which is a term you certainly wouldn't be able to use without clarifying that this is a term used in public health to refer to a southern region of the US. Rust Belt is widely used and widely understood, and the article is not about the term "Rust Belt" but the region known as the Rust Belt. [[User:Cinagroni|Cinagroni]] ([[User talk:Cinagroni|talk]]) 08:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
These messages are from the old [[Talk:Rust Belt]] file before [[Talk:Manufacturing Belt]] was moved over it when [[Manufacturing Belt]] was histmerged with [[Rust Belt]]. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


::{{u|Cinagroni}} Fair enough, but I do not see a substantial difference between [[Rust Belt]] and [[Bible Belt]] (or [[Stroke Belt]] for that matter, or [[Tornado Alley]], all of those using variations of [[WP:REFERS]], rightly or wrongly). Yes, "Rust Belt" is somewhat more established and better-known term than those, but just how much is open to debate. {{tq|Rust Belt is widely used and widely understood}} – in the US perhaps, but worldwide I'm not so sure. I'm currently browsing through British and Irish news sites, and the belt is frequently written about in the election context, and many of them do introduce the term in a single sentence (but continue to use it throughout) ([https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-rust-belt-trump-steel-manufacturing-pennsylvania-ohio-michigan-b1372995.html Independent]); yet others use it from the outset assuming readers' familiarity (BBC). I'm willing to concede this one, I suppose. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 14:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
=== Illinois ===
Not sure what the academic definition of Rust Belt is, but speaking from personal experience, northern Illinois (Peoria/Quad Cities/Rockford) certainly is considered Rust Belt. [[User:PeteJayhawk|PeteJayhawk]] 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


:::From a British perspective I can tell you that the Rust Belt is a term that would be reasonably familiar here. As you rightly say, the BBC uses it without considering that it needs explaining. For comparison between those terms, ngrams are useful and show that Rust Belt and Bible Belt occur with similar frequency (though Bible Belt is the older term), Tornado Alley occurs about a quarter as often, and Stroke Alley a large factor less often.[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rust+Belt%2CBible+Belt%2CStroke+Belt%2CTornado+Alley&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3]
=== yes... ===
:::Meanwhile, I do not think [[Bible Belt]] or [[Tornado Alley]] should start the way they do either. I edited Tornado Alley. One suspects that a single editor might have been at work in several of these articles and this was their favoured formulation but I think that unless the article is about the words themselves, it's not correct to use the "is a term that refers to" type of formulation, and none of these articles are about the words themselves. [[User:Cinagroni|Cinagroni]] ([[User talk:Cinagroni|talk]]) 19:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
and what about St. Louis? The east side of the metro region definitely shares characteristics of the rust belt. There are numerous factories and abandonded rail yards that are literally RUSTING. [[User:Jcrocker|J. Crocker]]


=== Cincinnati ===
== Population update ==
Could anyone please replace the 2018 estimates with fresh 2020 census numbers? They often tend to be higher than estimates. Thanks in advance! [[User:Ain92|Ain92]] ([[User talk:Ain92|talk]]) 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Cincinnati likely also part of the rust belt, as the city proper has suffered through job losses, white flight, and constant population declines for the last few decades. There have been efforts made to revive the downtown, and indeed that area is nice. However, the rest of the city is stricken with poverty and crime. [[User:Bcirker|Bcirker]] 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

==="[[Detroit]] has suffered the most."===
I removed this line from the introductory paragraph as it does not indicate by what criteria and compared to what peers Detroit has "suffered the most." If any editor wishes to add the cities or metropolitan areas that have endured the largest population decline, contraction in economic output, fall in property values, reduction in employment base, etc. please feel free to do so, with suitable citation.-[[User:Choster|choster]] 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Flint, Michigan has actually suffered the most. It was once the richest city in America, and Flint is not like Detroit, which is a huge city and is still going to have industries drawn to it. But also, in addition to really not being part of the Rust Belt, the Twin Cities are not economically depressed at all, they are actually much better off economically than most big American cities in any region. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gtbob12|Gtbob12]] ([[User talk:Gtbob12|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gtbob12|contribs]]) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

=== When did the name change from Manufacturing Belt to Rust Belt? ===

Wasn't this geographic area was once considered to be and/or named the Manufacturing Belt? So when did the term Rust Belt enter the lexicon?

Circa 1975 when the USA started to feel the early effects of various free trade agreements on many industries within the Manufacturing Belt (mass layoffs, plant closures, corporate restructuring/bankruptcy, offshoring) the term was commonly used by journalists to negatively describe the decline of the area. Their term fit well, as any economist will state that the USA is finished in the realm of manufacturing.

Since the term 'Rust Belt' has negative connotations--in the same way 'black attack' negatively describes [[white flight]]--does anyone know of a different term for this geographic area? Linguists discovered the [[Northern cities vowel shift]] trend that closely matches the geographic area of the Rust Belt. But this is not really a name, just a trend.

Perhaps rust is leaching into groundwater, causing the population to (yet again) butcher American English. Any thoughts? Anybody? Anyone? V-O-O, Voodoo Economics. (Bueller? Bueller?)[[User:216.170.144.5|216.170.144.5]] 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

=== free trade bias ===
I feel the history section of this article is written with a bias against NAFTA and other free trade agreements, as it seems to give the view that these agreements killed the middle class and the manufacturing centers of america. Should probably be looked at.

: I agree with you. I added "citation needed" to those claims that free trade was a problem. Then I added three sources explaining that free trade is not a problem, and that the real problem is the high taxes and closed shop policies of the rust belt states. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

=== New York City ===
I can understand the labeling of NYC as a Rust Belt city based on the loss of its garment industry, and I know there was population loss between 1970 and 1980, but I can't seem to find a reference that specifically places NYC in the Rust Belt. If anyone can find anything, please include it in the article! [[User:Confiteordeo|Confiteordeo]] 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Which name?==
"Rust Belt" redirects here? This article sugar coats the social upheaval of factory closures in places like Flint, MI and Pittsburgh, PA while "wealth producing" and high tech solutions are mentioned several times each. NPOV is definitely in doubt; Rust Belt should probably have it's own article.

{Filippo Argenti's post begins:} Rust Belt should have its own article, or ''at least'' its own ''section'' of the article, rather than just a sentence, for heaven's sake. I mean, "Rust Belt" means that there are no more factories, its 'post-industrial' if you will. Which means that area is the 'Manufacturing Belt' no longer, since there's no more manufacturing going on there any more. Just rusting. --[[User:Filippo Argenti|Filippo Argenti]] 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The area experiences new manufacturing, high tech, and so on, its a vibrant region of the US. The US is one of the worlds pre-eminent manufacturing powers. Words like 'post industrial' are perjorative and highly inaccurate.[[User:12.110.179.187|12.110.179.187]] 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in the Rust Belt and have NEVER heard nor seen it called the "Manufacturing Belt". (I don't hear it called "Rust Belt" every day or anything, but it's at least a known term.) It is most certainly not a "vibrant" region, with the possible exception of Chicago, by any stretch. "Post Industrial" is not pejorative, it's accurate. The U.S. as a manufacturing power? When was the last time you purchased a consumer good made in the U.S.? I can't even tell if you're joking or if you're seriously THAT biased. Rust Belt is a commonly used term that should not redirect to a rarely used term.[[Special:Contributions/71.114.211.31|71.114.211.31]] ([[User talk:71.114.211.31|talk]])

==History Section==
This section seems to be written with a bit of a critical tone rather than just discussing the facts of the history of the manufacturing belt. Lets work together and get this polished. :) --[[User:Wootonius|Wootonius]] 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to link this page with other articles suggesting remedies to Rust Belt blight. i.e. PA's Growing Greener, tax incentives, brownfield remediation, industrial remediation, urban planning in Cleveland... Not just the cause, but some effects would be nice. [[User:Iamthetrigger|Iamthetrigger]] 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Ia Trigger

The history accurately reflects effects of trade. Tax incentives and other developmental issues are constantly changing and ongoing. New plants are opening in the region. The tired old hammer and sickle view of the world died with the end of the cold war. Terms which deride manufacturing are no longer in vogue. [[User:12.110.179.187|12.110.179.187]] 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Sub-par exchange rates? NPOV [[User:24.206.120.242|24.206.120.242]] 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

China's labor cost is is pegged at 4 percent of the USA, that is an ''extremely'' sub-par exchange rate. The statement is more than accurate. [[User:12.110.179.187|12.110.179.187]] 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is deemed that the article should discuss the disadvantages of free trade with China for the 'Rust Belt', perhaps in order to keep NPOV, a section discussing the advantages to the Rust Belt of free trade should be added. (such as lower costs of living and lower costs of most goods) The article, as it stands, is not NPOV. Look at the word 'culprit' - second sentence, second paragraph of the 'History' section. That shows the author's true motivation in writing in this article. [[User:Captain Vimes|Captain Vimes]] ([[User talk:Captain Vimes|talk]]) 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

== Manufacturing vs Services ==
"Economists generally regard manufacturing as a wealth producing sector of an economy, whereas a service sector tends to be wealth consuming."

Utter rubbish. Ask Switzerland how their filthy-rich service based economy is performing. Furthermore, both references sited aren't from respected economists; they're both references from the the same biased think-tank.

Wikipedia is replete with this type of agenda-based rubbish. Can someone delete it; I can't be bothered, as I view Wikipedia as a failed experiment.

:Hows the view from up there on your high-horse? You complain about it in the discussion page but you are too smart and important to edit the article. I agree with what you are saying, however I do not like your tone. And anyway both sides of the story should be told. Fair and balanced. Even the side that to you and I is the "wrong side". --Jon in California 14 September 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.127.73.82|208.127.73.82]] ([[User talk:208.127.73.82|talk]]) 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==NPOV Article==
This article needs some serious adjustments.
The fact that the article for the term Rust belt has been removed and redirects here is evidence of this. This region is no longer the economic juggernaut that it was 40 years ago, and it has not regained its former prosperity. This article needs a major reevaluation in order to be credible.([[User:Lucas(CA)|Lucas(CA)]] 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

That "rust belt" redirects here represents weasel-wording of the highest order. Who uses the word "manufacturing belt" in conversation? [[User:71.185.88.200|71.185.88.200]] 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:Some contributors enjoy replacing commoner terms with remote ones. I created [[Theodore Gaillard Thomas]] and found that the nineteenth-century word [[vagiotomy]] has been redirected to [[oophorectomy]], a practically unknown word. [[User:Superslum|Superslum]] ([[User talk:Superslum|talk]]) 05:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::In my confusion and in haste, too, I mistakenly cited an improper word. [[Ovariectomy]] is the word that has been redirected to [[oophorectomy]]. Wikipedia has attracted an excessive number of contributors; many of whom place unusual redirects in their efforts to contribute. During the [[Dwight D. Eisenhower|Eisenhower]] administration, newsmen called the area '''"the industrial heartland of America."''' It was generated by determined workers who toiled from roughly 1850 to 1960 before it deteriorated into "the rust belt" of 2008. There is no reason to call the area a "manufacturing belt." Too many important irreversible changes have taken place. Wikipedia has developed a disease called "redirect mania" (by me). If your child became ill with measles, you would not abandon him. Please don't abandon Wikipedia because of its disease. I had left for awhile, but I decided to accept Wikipedia and its many diseases. I have found a new life here in Wikipedia. [[User:Superslum|Superslum]] ([[User talk:Superslum|talk]]) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::My understanding, though I do not have the citations to back it up, is that the region is now called the "Rust Belt" because it was originally known as the "Steel Belt" and, as we all know, steel turns to rust when it deteriorates. Although I have heard the term "Steel Belt" in conversation, I have never heard the term "Manufacturing Belt." I think that it would make more sense to change the name to "Steel Belt" and keep "Rust Belt" redirected to this page. [[User:Mike3550|Mike3550]] ([[User talk:Mike3550|talk]]) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

::The formal name is Manufacturing Belt. That's what other encyclopedias like Britanica call it. Manufacting output rises in the U.S.[[User:Thomas Paine1776|Thomas Paine1776]] ([[User talk:Thomas Paine1776|talk]]) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

== Sugar coating of the rust belt economy? ==

"Contraction of manufacturing jobs has left many cities in this region in bad shape, forcing the area—the focal point on the continent for a recovering [[automobile industry]]—to diversify. [[Emerging technologies]] in this region (including [[hydrogen fuel cell]] development, [[nanotechnology]], [[biotechnology]], and [[information technology]]) have helped revitalize its economy{{Fact|date=March 2008}}."

Recovering automobile industry? Revitalized economy? What kind of lunatic wrote this part? There is a reason why this area is called RUST belt, don't you think. Automobile industry is still in decline, with jobs and factories disappearing in Midwest only to migrate to the southern United States. Places like Michigan and upstate New York are some of the most economically depressed areas in the US with no clear solutions to their economic issues in sight.

== Move back to "Rust belt" ==

The naming conventions are that the most common name is to be the name of the article. On account of the Google ratio between "Rust Belt" and "Manufacturing Belt" is a staggering 20:1, I propose that the article be renamed Rust Belt. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias like Britannica call it the Manufacturing Belt. That is the formal name. [[User:Thomas Paine1776|Thomas Paine1776]] ([[User talk:Thomas Paine1776|talk]]) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


== Map ==
== Map ==
I would like to raise two issues about the map at the beginning of the article:


1) The source for the 1954 data is simply not specified<br>
It says in the opening paragraph that the rust belt extends to Duluth, however the map shows that it barely extends to Chicago. I think the map should be fixed to reflect this if the content is correct. --[[User:Wizard191|Wizard191]] ([[User talk:Wizard191|talk]]) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
2) As [https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/forty-years-of-falling-manufacturing-employment.htm this page] makes clear, manufacturing decline went into a freefall in the 2000s, and the map stops at 2002

:AGREED! The map shows a far too small area. Minneapolis is considered Rust Belt; so is St Louis. [[User:MakeBelieveMonster|MakeBelieveMonster]] ([[User talk:MakeBelieveMonster|talk]]) 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

:: No, Minneapolis is not considered rust belt. Duluth & the Iron range, is, however. Minneapolis never was much dependant on heavy manufacturing and did not experience much of an economic downturn. Minneapolis has been more dependant on grain trade, and computer industry. The map should be updated, however to reflect some additional areas of coverate. I never considered St. Louis as part of the Rust Belt, but maybe it was. Manufacturing in outstate Illinois, I know was affected.--[[Special:Contributions/71.214.221.153|71.214.221.153]] ([[User talk:71.214.221.153|talk]]) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

==Proposed move back to ''Rust Belt''==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the proposal was '''move'''. [[User:JPG-GR|JPG-GR]] ([[User talk:JPG-GR|talk]]) 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor keeps moving this article from [[Rust Belt]] to variations of ''Manufacturing Belt'', on the stated basis of it being it's "formal name". Rather than engage in a move war, I bring it to the community to establish consensus. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] seems to me to clearly and explicitly say that the ''most common'' name in use should be used as the article's title, ''regardless'' of what may be the "official" or "formal" name. Several editors have pointed out that "Rust Belt" is FAR more commonly used, and in fact is what the majority of the references cited in the article call it. [[User:Shawisland|Shawisland]] ([[User talk:Shawisland|talk]]) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

:[[Manufacturing Belt (U.S. region)]] → [[Rust Belt]]

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''

*'''Support''' as nom. [[User:Shawisland|Shawisland]] ([[User talk:Shawisland|talk]]) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' move back to ''Rust Belt''. See [[Wikipedia:official names]] which is just a proposal at this stage but which I think summarises existing policy and guidelines. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' since I have already proposed this. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I learned this in school as the "Rust Belt". Making reference to th region using either terms is infomal anyway. What is the point of using a formal term for an infomal context, especially when that "formal" term is barely used? [[Special:Contributions/66.121.215.213|66.121.215.213]] ([[User talk:66.121.215.213|talk]]) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The formal name is Manufacturing Belt. Other encyclopedias such as Britannica call it Manufacturing Belt. Scholarly Jourals likewise refer to it as the Manufacturing Belt. The factual activity that takes place in the region is called "manufacturing" therefore the name of the region is the manufacturing belt. The National Association of Manufacturers refers to it as the Manufacturing Belt. Trade publications commonly use the name manufacturing belt, as do scholarly journals, and government publications. Manufacturing Belt maintains a neutral point of view. [[User:Thomas Paine1776|Thomas Paine1776]] ([[User talk:Thomas Paine1776|talk]]) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. I've never even heard the term "Manufacturing belt", I thought someone deleted the Rust belt article momentarily. [[User:JohnM|JohnM]] [[User talk:JohnM|(talk)]] 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''


*Does either side care to provide any evidence to support the fact that either choice is more commonly used? [[User:JPG-GR|JPG-GR]] ([[User talk:JPG-GR|talk]]) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix that? [[User:Esszet|Esszet]] ([[User talk:Esszet|talk]]) 15:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There are 473,000 Google hits for rust belt and 24,600 for manufacturing belt, half of which appear to refer to conveyor belts used in manufacturing assembly lines. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.57|199.125.109.57]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.57|talk]]) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->


==Baltimore==
== new jersey? ==


shouldn't new jersey be considered rust belt the article has trenton listed there and then there's newark and jersey city which were also major factory cities so I'm confused? [[Special:Contributions/142.122.125.164|142.122.125.164]] ([[User talk:142.122.125.164|talk]]) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Why is it included? When I think Rust Belt, I think the Great Lakes, not the Chesapeake. Now yes, it did share some similarities in terms of heavy industry and manufacturing, but so does other coastal cities from around the country. Besides, the climate, the history from every aspect, it's all different from what's considered the Rust Belt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.244.4.3|96.244.4.3]] ([[User talk:96.244.4.3|talk]]) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== New York City and New Jersey? ==
== Undue weight issues ==


An IP editor reverted my changes here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rust_Belt&action=history]. I made several changes, but the main justification was [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. Having several paragraphs of information from one opinion writer in an article gives undue influence to their perspective. Some of this information is also literally duplicative and repeating the author's views. I removed some outdated predictions as well, that's what I meant by "time marches on". I think my edit was an improvement. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 23:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
How are New York City and New Jersey considered part of the rust belt? The rust belt doesn't refer simply to declining manufacturing, but to long-time stagnant local economies as well. I'd say the rust belt begins in western Pennsylvania and western New York State, and moves westward along the Great Lakes. --[[User:JHP|JHP]] ([[User talk:JHP|talk]]) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


:I put the text on Krugman again for several reasons:
== Why no picture? ==
:* Krugman is the leading expert on modern trade and received his Nobel Prize for his work on globalization.
:* In a deleted paragraph, Krugman explains the process of currency manipulation, which gives certain countries a competitive advantage. I felt this was important for the reader's understanding.
:* But as for the last paragraph, I understand your point of view.
[[Special:Contributions/2A02:8440:3440:BB4E:216:3EFF:FE73:DFA7|2A02:8440:3440:BB4E:216:3EFF:FE73:DFA7]] ([[User talk:2A02:8440:3440:BB4E:216:3EFF:FE73:DFA7|talk]]) 00:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:Isn't currency manipulation already explained even with the text I deleted? The way the article stands now, it mentions the 25% figure twice, for example. I didn't think anything valuable was lost when I trimmed this content. I was under the impression that I simply made it more concise. Is there any chance you could be more specific about how this content is substantially different and important for a reader's understanding? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 00:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Why no pictures of anything left to rust? Would like to see some. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.90.30.142|178.90.30.142]] ([[User talk:178.90.30.142|talk]]) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 00:26, 24 November 2024

Lead sentence

[edit]

No, Cinagroni, the "Rust Belt" is not a well-established geographical region such as Appalachia or New England. The current lead sentence is about useless: The Rust Belt is a region of the United States that has been experiencing industrial decline starting around 1980 as it even fails to define the subject - which region, where? There are certainly many more regions experiencing industrial decline across the US, but they aren't part of the "Rust Belt". This article could as well be called Economic decline in the northeastern United States – it's mostly about deindustrialization and depopulation of that area, not about physical geography. The #Geography section sums it well: Since the term "Rust Belt" is used to refer to a set of economic and social conditions rather than to an overall geographical region of the United States, the Rust Belt has no precise boundaries. The extent to which a community may have been described as a "Rust Belt city" depends on how great a role industrial manufacturing played in its local economy.
I strongly feel that this article falls more under the WP:WORDISSUBJECT category than under the common format of geographic articles. No such user (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, No such user, I did not say that the Rust Belt is a well-established geographical region. The current lead sentence is about useless: "informal term"? Formality has absolutely no relation to anything here. "the region"? Using the definite article presumes familiarity with the concept.
You want the first sentence to more precisely say where this region is? That is reasonable. So add it. For example: The Rust Belt is a region of the northeastern United States that has been experiencing industrial decline starting around 1980. But writing "X is a term for Y" is just poor. If X is a term for Y, then X is Y. The only reason to write "X is a term for Y" is if you are discussing the term itself, and not the concept Y. This might apply, for example, to the "Stroke Belt", which is a term you certainly wouldn't be able to use without clarifying that this is a term used in public health to refer to a southern region of the US. Rust Belt is widely used and widely understood, and the article is not about the term "Rust Belt" but the region known as the Rust Belt. Cinagroni (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cinagroni Fair enough, but I do not see a substantial difference between Rust Belt and Bible Belt (or Stroke Belt for that matter, or Tornado Alley, all of those using variations of WP:REFERS, rightly or wrongly). Yes, "Rust Belt" is somewhat more established and better-known term than those, but just how much is open to debate. Rust Belt is widely used and widely understood – in the US perhaps, but worldwide I'm not so sure. I'm currently browsing through British and Irish news sites, and the belt is frequently written about in the election context, and many of them do introduce the term in a single sentence (but continue to use it throughout) (Independent); yet others use it from the outset assuming readers' familiarity (BBC). I'm willing to concede this one, I suppose. No such user (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a British perspective I can tell you that the Rust Belt is a term that would be reasonably familiar here. As you rightly say, the BBC uses it without considering that it needs explaining. For comparison between those terms, ngrams are useful and show that Rust Belt and Bible Belt occur with similar frequency (though Bible Belt is the older term), Tornado Alley occurs about a quarter as often, and Stroke Alley a large factor less often.[1]
Meanwhile, I do not think Bible Belt or Tornado Alley should start the way they do either. I edited Tornado Alley. One suspects that a single editor might have been at work in several of these articles and this was their favoured formulation but I think that unless the article is about the words themselves, it's not correct to use the "is a term that refers to" type of formulation, and none of these articles are about the words themselves. Cinagroni (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population update

[edit]

Could anyone please replace the 2018 estimates with fresh 2020 census numbers? They often tend to be higher than estimates. Thanks in advance! Ain92 (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I would like to raise two issues about the map at the beginning of the article:

1) The source for the 1954 data is simply not specified
2) As this page makes clear, manufacturing decline went into a freefall in the 2000s, and the map stops at 2002

Could somebody please fix that? Esszet (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new jersey?

[edit]

shouldn't new jersey be considered rust belt the article has trenton listed there and then there's newark and jersey city which were also major factory cities so I'm confused? 142.122.125.164 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight issues

[edit]

An IP editor reverted my changes here [2]. I made several changes, but the main justification was WP:UNDUE weight. Having several paragraphs of information from one opinion writer in an article gives undue influence to their perspective. Some of this information is also literally duplicative and repeating the author's views. I removed some outdated predictions as well, that's what I meant by "time marches on". I think my edit was an improvement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put the text on Krugman again for several reasons:
  • Krugman is the leading expert on modern trade and received his Nobel Prize for his work on globalization.
  • In a deleted paragraph, Krugman explains the process of currency manipulation, which gives certain countries a competitive advantage. I felt this was important for the reader's understanding.
  • But as for the last paragraph, I understand your point of view.

2A02:8440:3440:BB4E:216:3EFF:FE73:DFA7 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't currency manipulation already explained even with the text I deleted? The way the article stands now, it mentions the 25% figure twice, for example. I didn't think anything valuable was lost when I trimmed this content. I was under the impression that I simply made it more concise. Is there any chance you could be more specific about how this content is substantially different and important for a reader's understanding? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rust_Belt&oldid=1259216893"