Talk:Sun Belt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Metropolitan area is confused with combined statistical area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.17.20 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan was from Illinois not California.

Holden 27

Originally, yes, but California became his adopted home, and he was elected governor there twice.

Likewise the Bushes aren't from Texas, but it is their adopted home. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W Bush is from Texas. H.W. Bush is definitely a New Englander. He represented Connecticut and has strong ties to Maine.

W Bush isn't from Texas. He was born in Conn. Likewise, H. W. Bush is a New Englander from Mass.

Arkansas is not mentioned as being in the Sun Belt, yet Bill Clinton is included as having come from a Sun Belt state. (Arkansas probably has an arguable case for being in the Sun Belt, but it is neither mentioned in the article nor included on the map.))

Wilson wasn't the only president raised in a Sun Belt who held office prior to 1964 as Andrew Jackson was born and raised in South Carolina.

The Bush family moved to Texas when George W. was three years old. That qualifies him as being from Texas.

Environment[edit]

The environment is important to Sun Belt states? Many have amongst the weakest environmental regulations in the country.

Growing economic opportunities[edit]

Two references to growing economic opportunities - but GDP rates do not show that Sun Belt states generally perform better than non-Sun Belt states, with States like Washington, North Dakota, etc., ranking as high or better. Did the Sun Belt Marketing board add this line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.252.254.202 (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

How come Louisville, Kentucky be included in the sun belt while Nashville, Tennessee or Denver, Colorado get excluded? If any no one can explain this, I'll delete the Louisville link.

I removed it. If nothing else, it is very far from the zone shown on the map. Pfly 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Southern virginia?[edit]

what bout southern virginia?

Carson City?[edit]

How does Carson City fit into the Sun Belt? Corvus cornixtalk 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressive heat?[edit]

>> ... air conditioning has made it easier for people to deal with the oppressive heat that grips the region during the summertime

Give me a break! Some of us enjoy the heat. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, over the past several decades, air conditioning has made it easier for people to deal with the heat in portions of the region during the summertime.
I fully understand and agree with your point, and I'm happy to see that the POV "oppressive" has apparently been removed. But the current wording, with its "portions of the region," seems misleading to me. Is there any part of the Sun Belt where there isn't any hot weather in the summer, or where air conditioning hasn't been adopted (by many people, though not all) to help deal with it? Even in the cooler high-elevation Sun Belt cities like Flagstaff, the temperature often gets into the '90s in the hottest part of the summer. It apparently hit 103F there last week, if the chart on Weather Underground is to be believed. I'd propose a wording like "...to deal with the heat in the region's typically hot summers." 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address the question, although most areas of the Belt are very warm in the summer, the SF Bay Area is pretty cool in the summertime (often darn cold) and air conditioning is far from universal in that area. Even down toward LA air conditioning is not considered an absolute necessity. Obviously this is unique to the Pacific coast but still it is the Sun Belt (and though geographically small that region represents a huge portion of the Sun Belt population).
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European sunbelt[edit]

http://www.solarthermalworld.org/node/757 Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Cyprus. -Pedro (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List: Major cities within the Sun Belt[edit]

User 208.81.184.4 recently reverted the list of cities from a compact table back to a list. Not that it matters a whole lot but I think the table is better simply because the list is long with lots of white space and scrolling down is a nuissance. It is frankly debatable whether listing out so many cities has real value but if this is going to be kept I think making it more compact is worthwhile.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into an edit war over it but if somebody else agrees with me feel free to put the table back in the way I had it. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transient[edit]

Why doesn't the article mention that the sunbelt is transient..South Bay (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents 'from' the sunbelt[edit]

"Since Lyndon B. Johnson's election in 1964, every elected United States President, with the exception of Barack Obama from Illinois, has been from the Sun Belt. (Gerald Ford, who was from Michigan, served as President following Richard Nixon's resignation but was not elected as President, and lost to Georgia's Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.)"

This seems to infer that the presidents were born in the sunbelt. But Ronald Reagan (Illinois), George H W Bush (Massachusetts), and George W Bush (Connecticut) were all born outside. I know thet Reagan and George W Bush were governers of sun belts states but I think this passage is still a bit missleading. 81.97.41.36 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Metropolitan Areas Statistics[edit]

The 'Major Cities in the Sunbelt' section of this article speaks of the largest metropolitan areas, then uses CSA (combined statistical area) rather than MSA (metropolitan statistical area) numbers, leading to inaccurate numbers and skewed data. The table should be changed to represent MSA's as seen in the 2010 census: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/10smadb/2010smadb.pdf

It seems that most modern sources rely on MSA information rather than CSA. If the CSA info must remain, then the entirety of the Major Cities section needs to be rewritten for accuracy. Thoughts?24.242.196.176 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no statistician, but I have a couple of thoughts based on my own experience. I live in the SF Bay Area. It appears that SF and San Jose are in different MSAs but the same CSA. I feel like most people that talk about the Bay Area would include San Jose within their conception of the whole urban area. I think there must be similar examples from other urban areas, but I don't really know. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm unsure limiting the data to MSAs would fairly reflect the actual size of these different urban areas.
Also, the pdf you linked is from 2010, it doesn't have the 2010 census data. But (hopefully!) that problem can be fixed. AgnosticAphid talk 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely use MSA as consistent with wikipedia. The US Government always uses MSAs as opposed to CSAs. House1090 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It doesn't matter which we use (MSA or CSA), just so long as we're consistent. I think the fact that SF and SJ are separate areas is ridiculous, but that's how the govt does its stats, and mixing CSAs with MSAs is bad form. Having CSA populations in there means that the SF population, for example, does not correspond with the GMP figures, which are measured by MSA. Brycehughes (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the text to indicate the discussion is the 10 largest MSAs rather than the 10 largest metro areas. I still am super skeptical that it is appropriate to use MSAs rather than metro areas just because "those are the government statistics" when we are apparently in agreement that the SF metro area includes SJ even though it's not in the MSA. If we want a meaningful discussion of the largest metro areas in the Sun Belt it seems pretty clear to me that a discussion of the largest MSAs in the Sun Belt doesn't fulfill that role. But I will defer to others' thoughts as I'm no statistician like I said. AgnosticAphid talk 19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree it is a mess of definitions, none of which are ideal. "Metro area" is typically synonymous with MSA in the United States. For example, if you look at this list, the source for the U.S. metro area data is the Census MSA data. CSA isn't a very good substitute measure in my opinion – for example, they lump Baltimore in with Washington, DC. And Los angeles ends up getting almost everything in Southern California save for San Diego County. My preferred measure of city masses is this one, although most of the data are from non-government sources.
One thing we could do is sum the SF and SJ metro areas figures for both population and GMP, and then make a note of it below. But it seems a little contrived and I don't see any reason why readers couldn't just do this themselves if they happened to want to know the number of people living beside the SF Bay while reading this article. Brycehughes (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friends. Not to rehash this mostly inconsequential dispute, but I did notice that the List of Metropolitan Areas of the United States uses CSAs and not MSAs. I'm not positive why that decision was made. Thoughts? Should we follow along? AgnosticAphid talk 02:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly could, so long as it's consistent across areas. MSAs are more widely used, so it is a bit unusual that the article uses CSAs, particularly given the "metropolitan areas" title. You just don't see that very often. Doesn't mean it's wrong. It's all pretty subjective (SF + san jose = SF? then, washington + baltimore = washington? etc.). Brycehughes (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a request for insight at the list and I'll report back if I come up with anything insightful. AgnosticAphid talk 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

slight change to copy edit of lede[edit]

I slightly changed the wording of the sentence about people moving to the sun belt in the lede.

I thought that the copy edit was great, but it changed the sentence to say that retiring baby boomers move because of the milder climate, whereas before it said that population had increased because of moving baby boomers and the milder climate.

I don't really know which is more accurate, I was just trying to restore the previous meaning. The result is admittedly a bit awkward. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration[edit]

There is a reference to "immigrants, both documented and undocumented". That is a euphemism. Shouldn't it properly ready "both legal and illegal"?203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my perhaps incorrect understanding is that overstaying your visa is not a crime in and of itself. So, although I'm inclined to agree that "documented and undocumented" is a euphemism (certainly these immigrants have some kind of documents), "legal and illegal" is not much of an accurate substitute. AgnosticAphid talk 00:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Belt. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

The infobox provides an exact population figure, supported by this citation. However, that link is just a collection of state populations and the figure in our article is therefore original research. My searches for a replacement ref are not going well. There's lots of stuff about population growth and stuff about individual city or state populations (example), but nothing to support the 144,460,016 figure. Matt Deres (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sun Belt. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Added (September 2020)[edit]

I've been researching sunbelt states and their population's propensity to avoid high per capita COVID-19 deaths relative to their COVID-19 case numbers. It seems this is due to the abundancy of sunshine, i.e. the high elevation of the sun and the ability of the population to naturally produce Vitamin D which is known to help the human body defend against respiratory disease. Interestingly, the majority of the sunbelt states are currently clumped together in the national per capita ranks of both total cases and total deaths. This clump of states between the ranks of 15th and 24th in total cases includes South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Nevada (partial sunbelt), Alabama, New Mexico, and Arkansas. However, I've noticed Arkansas is not mentioned in the Definition paragraph at all - not as a sunbelt state or even a partial sunbelt state. This omission is mentioned at the top of this talk page as well. Since one method of defining the north / south sunbelt boundary is using the 36th parallel, one can see the vast majority of Arkansas is below this line. In fact, it can be argued that it is better positioned than some of the other sunbelt states and it appears that about 90% of the state is below the 36th parallel - for example Arkansas's northern border is further south than the northern borders of both Arizona and New Mexico. When one considers the elevation of the sun, it doesn't make sense to exclude Arkansas while including New Mexico and Arizona. And is it not odd that Arkansas State is included in the college sports Sunbelt Conference? Therefore, I am adding Arkansas to the list. Oklahoma may be another candidate for entry as a possible sunbelt state or at least a partial sunbelt state, but that's another discussion. ~~Mark The Droner~~

Lubbock and Amarillo are not in the sun belt[edit]

It regularly gets below freezing. It is too cold for them to be counted as sun belt.

Major cities in not always included the Sun Belt[edit]

I have removed the section "Major cities in not always included the Sun Belt" twice because it is unsourced and frankly makes no sense to me. It keeps being restored, so I thought maybe editors can discuss here why this section should be in the article and a citation for the content which appears to be original research. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False claim in caption? "American crocodile, a vulnerable species found only in Florida"[edit]

The article linked to American crocodile states "The American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) is a species of crocodilian found in the Neotropics. It is the most widespread of the four extant species of crocodiles from the Americas, with populations present from South Florida and the coasts of Mexico to as far south as Peru and Venezuela." Both claims can't be true. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major cities[edit]

I removed the Major cities section per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an unsourced and unhelpful list of random cities that sometimes fall within the Sun Belt. Editors are constantly changing the cities, but the list does nothing to help readers understand the article topic. My removal was reverted by a now-blocked user. Recommend leaving it off. Bahooka (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of perspective, perhaps. I recommend leaving it. It doesn't violate the no-directory restrictions; with states listed in the article there's no need for redundant sourcing; it's not random, but arranged by size; and it gives a good first-step, click-and-explore intro to the geographic, climatic and cultural variety of the major urban components of the Sun Belt. It's relevant and informative, a helpful piece of the article, just like similar lists in Midwestern United States, Southern United States, etc. . -- On the other hand, there are some odd statements: the cross-border metropolitan areas of San Diego-Tijuana and El Paso–Juárez lie partially within the Sun Belt; Partially? And this, while of interest in itself, doesn't seem to relate to Sun Belt specifically, nor is there any notion of why only one county is mentioned: Los Angeles County has a veteran population of 270 462. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also in favor of keeping a list of major cities, along with the other commenter. I’m not sure that it is correct to say that it is "unsourced," at least for most of the cities here. If we have a source telling us that the state of Arizona is in the Sun Belt, it necessarily follows that the city of Phoenix is in the Sun Belt—there is no need for an extra source affirming the latter when the former is already evident.
However, I do think the list could use some paring down. For instance, the current version includes several places that really are not "major cities" but just suburbs with large populations—Gilbert, AZ, even though it is home to half a million people, is effectively inseperable from Phoenix; Rio Rancho, even though it is a separate municipality, is a suburb whose economy is dependent upon Albuquerque; North Las Vegas is, as the name implies, a suburb of Las Vegas. Kenner, Louisiana only has a population of 60,000—not "major" by any stretch. Including these kinds of dependent municipalities as "major cities" seems silly to me. The inclusion of the metropolis that they are effectively a part of is sufficient. No need to introduce bloat by listing in detail every suburb.
Furthermore, a couple of states that are partly but not entirely in the Sun Belt need to be pared down on the cities list. As is, it lists San Francisco as a major Sun Belt city. San Francisco is, of course, not part of the Sun Belt—it is in Northern California. Knoxville lies in a damp and dreary part of Tennessee (I know as I’m from there), and according to the map on the page is not part of the Sun Belt. Same goes for parts of North Carolina which are listed in the cities here but excluded from the actual map. GreenLoeb (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. In fact it seems that there are two issues here, in the form of two lists: Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Major cities usually included in the Sun Belt, both in the section entitled Major cities. The first is coherent, arranged by size. The second is to some extent cherry-picked, with strange lacunae (e.g. Pasadena, Santa Barbara), and definitely needs at least re-thinking. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sun_Belt&oldid=1214161343"