Talk:Rust Belt/Archive 1

Messages from the old Talk:Rust Belt
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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (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. PeteJayhawk 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

yes...
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. J. Crocker — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati
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. 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.-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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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?)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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.105.44 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. 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! 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.189.66.194 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{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. --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.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.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. :) --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. 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. 12.110.179.187 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Sub-par exchange rates? NPOV 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. 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. Captain Vimes (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wealth producing/consuming
The references for the terms "wealth producing" and "wealth-consuming" are both to conservative sources. These do not seem to be neutral terms, defining "wealth" to apply only to physical goods, and they apply a negative stigma to public-sector economic activity. Wikipedia needs to use neutral terms when speaking in its own voice, so I've re-phrased these parts of the article to simply refer to whether or not manufacturing is taking place. -- Beland 08:29, 6 July 2007 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim.mason (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.82 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, switzerland has a large high-technology manufacturing base. Indeed, Switzerland makes around as much money in production of machine tools as the entirety of the US. 129.132.115.72 (talk) Nik — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Switzerland is wealthy with money PRODUCED by manufacturing in OTHER countries. Manufacturing CREATES the products by which wealth is created. The wealth spent in the service economy areas comes originally from things that were actually made and created. If no one anywhere was manufacturing things and selling them, and people weren't employed in doing so, no one is going to have much need for gas station attendants and bankers, not even Swiss bankers. Switzerland would be bankrupt if a lot of OTHER nations weren't producing a lot of wealth. Thus, manufacturing creates wealth, while the service sector exists as a byproduct of that wealth...people have money to pay for services..45Colt 17:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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.(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?   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.  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 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.  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. 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.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be this assumption that "Rust Belt" and "Manufacturing Belt" refer to the same thing. They do not. "Rust Belt" is a descriptive term connoting the urban decay that has set in in places that have adapted poorly to the decline of manufacturing in the economy. "Manufacturing Belt" refers more broadly to that area of eastern North America where manufacturing has played a central role in development and the accumulation of capital, whether or not it is locally in decay.68.82.39.167 (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2011 (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."

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacanal (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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. __meco (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Map
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. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AGREED! The map shows a far too small area.  Minneapolis is considered Rust Belt; so is St Louis.  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.--71.214.221.153 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Minneapolis, no. The range, yes. I don't know what the academics say, but St. Paul could pretty easily be considered part of the rust belt. American Hoist & Derrick, Whirlpool, Ford, etc. 24.118.1.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Shoudn't Chicago be labled under "recovered rust belt"? 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.176.63 (talk)

The map is annoyingly unfriendly to the color blind. Wish I knew how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.46.165 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no legend for the map that's color coded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.99.200 (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move back to Rust Belt

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. 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. 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. 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. 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  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nom. Shawisland (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support move back to Rust Belt. See official names which is just a proposal at this stage but which I think summarises existing policy and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support since I have already proposed this. __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? 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. 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. 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? JPG-GR (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (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. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Baltimore
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.4.3 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New York City and New Jersey?
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. --JHP (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why no picture?
Why no pictures of anything left to rust? Would like to see some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.90.30.142 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Like, a rusted steel belt? or belt buckle? or a rust-colored belt? the possibilities for ridiculous literalization are nearly endless.72.205.238.27 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe examples of long-shuttered factories would enhance the overall point of the article. However, the dominance of graphs and maps don't leave much room for other decoration.
 * This example would be a good start:Crowell-Collier-Springfield-OH.jpg--Chimino (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wisegeek Source
3 people make comments, one says its unreliable, another not for controversial or entire article support. One person says it would be ok to fill in the blanks. I consider this statement controversial. Without a proper source, I'm removing that line on where the "rust belt" moniker comes from. 124.78.48.95 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have opened a new RSN discussion about this particular case at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Wizard191 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I noted at the RSN discussion, I do think that the Wisegeeks article is, within the limits described in the prior RSN discussion, is reliable. However, it seems to me that taking the reference in that article to "the abundance of shuttered buildings guarded by rusting gates gave the region a new name, the Rust Belt" to be a comment upon the origin of the term Rust Belt is giving it more reliance than it deserves. Let me point out that the Dictionary of American History, available here (and more reliably through the Gale Virtual Reference Library online academic research database available through many public libraries) says,"The 1984 Democratic presidential candidate, Walter Mondale, is generally credited with coining the term. During the campaign, Mondale, the former vice president from Minnesota, attacked the economic policies of incumbent Republican president, Ronald Regan, stating that the president was 'turning our great industrial Midwest and the industrial base of this country into a rust bowl.' The media, however, repeated and reported the notion as 'Rust Belt,' and the phrase stuck as a good description of the declining industrial heartland..."Schondelmeyer, Brent. "Rust Belt." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 7. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 215-216, retrieved 21 January 2011. It seems to me that the Wisegeeks article is just engaging in a bit of editorial expansion on the concept of the term, and to use it in this article to specifically refer to shuttered buildings and rusting gates is too specific (and is also probably prohibited plagiarism when stated without in-text attribution and quotation marks, see the third red X and following text at WP:PLAGIARISM). It seems to me that the purpose of the paragraph is to say what "rust belt" means, more than to describe the term's history, and it could be rewritten so that either the Wisegeeks article or the Schondelmeyer article, or both, could support it without getting hung up on the rusty gates issue. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In any event, "...the abundance of shuttered buildings guarded by rusting gates..." seems overly flowery for an encyclopedia, hopefully it can be toned down in the rewrite. --CliffC (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent deletions
Recently, User:67.231.49.182 deleted three sections of the article, with feeble explanations: I undid these deletions and invited discussion here with edit summary "undo, such extensive changes require talk page discussion;changes (1) removed the definition of 'rust belt' (2) removed material cited to an 'expired' WSJ article - that's what the tag is for (3) deleted entire see-also section". User:Thomas Paine1776 reverted, with edit summary "defn outdated, article needs update". 67.231.49.182 reverted next, with "source material is 16 to 30 years old cannot be a current definition. other stuff is just repeating itself. ok to delete".
 * Removed cited definition of the article's subject and material cited to a WSJ article from the lead, with edit summary "consolidate".
 * Removed more material cited to the WSJ article, with edit summary "expired". (The WSJ citation link had indeed gone dead, if that's what "expired" is supposed to mean, but the correct approach is to mark the citation with a dead link tag so it can be repaired.  The link has been repaired, so this should be a non-issue for the deleter.)
 * Removed the entire See-also section, with edit summary "not needed".

None of these deletions improved the article. Let's have that discussion. --CliffC (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy (awful map)
I put a disputed-accuracy warning at the head of the article mainly with regard to the map, but the problems with it have bearing on the article's text as well.

While Ruhe1986 ought to be commended for his efforts toward a visual representation of this area, the outcome of those efforts is rife with dubious claims or outright error. (It also says "Lake Eerie" and "Eerie Canal," but we'll let that go for now.) First among these is the special placement of Pittsburgh and Baltimore within what he calls the "Recovered Rust Belt." There is not much basis for this claim, other than the somewhat successful PR campaigns that each of these cities has staged in the past couple of decades. Much of the economic diversification that has taken place in Pittsburgh and Baltimore affects a tiny area of each city, and a commensurately small sector of the population; to place all of metropolitan Pittsburgh and Baltimore thereby in a special "Recovered" region, with its own hopeful green color, is specious. The article itself even rightly acknowledges "revitalized downtown areas" in Binghamton and Toledo as well, but no one, Ruhe1986 included, would ever place those cities in a "Recovered Rust Belt."

Worse, Ruhe1986 places those two cities in the special "Recovered" region but, inexplicably, not Chicago? Ruhe1986 has also painted whole regions with too broad a brush: Boston is thought to be "Recovered Rust Belt" as well, but whether the city itself ever was in the Rust Belt depends on a definition at variance with the one in the article. Meanwhile, New Bedford is also in the New England green area, when there is no basis for assuming that it has slown its decline. Hartford, Providence, and Newark, meanwhile, are left out of the Rust Belt entirely, which is extremely odd.

The map reflects and reinforces received ideas about what the "Rust Belt" is much more than verifiable data—but, as has been noted, so does the article as a whole. Both ought to reflect the complications and nuances of this issue instead of running a Zamboni over them.

To that end, we absolutely must come up with a better visual representation of the subject at hand. One possibility (I'm throwing it out there) is a map showing manufacturing jobs lost since 1950 or 1960 by county, with gradual shades of one color, and jobs in other sectors gained in the same period (with gradual shades of another color). This would demonstrate that what we usually consider to be the Rust Belt is, in fact, a nation-wide trend that has certainly evinced itself more clearly in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but can be found in pockets everywhere (and is on the rise).68.82.39.167 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: I just found the apparent source of this map: a message thread post on city-data.com. The purported author stated his methodology and it is shockingly bad. As I suspected, he based the map on anecdotal experiences of what towns have lots of "bad parts" (his words) and what towns are nicer. We must get rid of this ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.39.167 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Revised Intro
In consideration of the above concerns (in my comments and others'), I have rewritten the introductory paragraphs. The intro is much longer than it should be, but it's to be hoped that some of its content can be moved down to another section of the article; the length of the article in general could certainly use economizing. 68.82.39.167 (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Revised history section
I have substantially revised the first two paragraphs of the history section to eliminate several redundancies and solecisms. It is a work in progress, however.68.82.39.167 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of info sidebar
The sidebar at the top of the article is about as worthless as an info sidebar can be. Not only does it contain that map (see above), but the need for its very existence is far from clear. The article, even before my revisions, stresses more than once that the "Rust Belt" is a nebulous area characterized only by local economies, and only secondarily by culture or even geography. Yet this sidebar presents the illusion that the Rust Belt is as coherent a region as, say, New England or the Pacific Northwest; it is not really a "region" at all.

I will set about compiling information and visual aids for a sidebar that is actually helpful; I would appreciate some input toward this end.68.82.39.167 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New maps
We needed a new visual aid, and we needed new methodology besides "I went to Fort Wayne in 1996 and it looked nasty from the highway, so I'm including it in my map of the Rust Belt." I have tried to rectify this by creating two new maps, one showing the loss of manufacturing jobs from the peak of American manufacturing (mid-1950's) to 2002, the first Economic Census of the 21st century; the other shows change in income from 1980 until the same year. See each map's wikimedia commons page for an explanation and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Australia?
Australia has cities that make up what is dubbed 'The Australian Rustbelt'. These should be included. --124.185.163.246 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they should be in a separate article. It can be linked to from here. 24.239.177.111 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohio WSJ quotation
The WSJ quotation about Ohio claims that the state has "closed shops", which is clearly erroneous (closed shops were outlawed in 1947 by the Taft-Hartley Act). This makes me doubt the veracity of the entire quotation. Is it from the news section or the editorial page? (The latter is well known for its bias and should not be considered a reliable source.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed editorial content from this article. When people finally realize that the move from the rust belt to the sun belt was largely driven by the invention of inexpensive air conditioning, maybe all this political nonsense will stop. Speciate (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Usage of biased "sources"
The usa of politcal opinion material from blogs, op-eds, and think tanks funded by billionaires and/or unions is inappropriate. Do not include such material. Mainstream economists are underrepresented in this article. Speciate (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, given proper attribution as per WP:RSOPINION it is an appropriate way of meeting NPOV standards.174.28.219.208 (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you feel mainstream economists are not given due weight please add to the article, or further substantiate your case for summarily removing content.174.28.219.208 (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed is, as befits a hack partisan warrior, garbage. It makes claims that are not true, as so is not RELIABLE. It cannot be in the article, especially not a lengthy quote. Speciate (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are confused. Editorials and opinions may be used in certain contexts at wikipedia. Please refer to the relevant section of the reliable source policy: WP:RSOPINION. Yes there are editorials in the material you removed, however, none of the content you removed ever repeated an opinion as a fact, but rather simply quoted a major media outlet's words and attributed them properly to there source. The merit and factuality of an editorial is up to whoever reads it, and you apparently have a strong opinion about some of these. That's fine, but not a valid reason to censor others' opinions. Please consider adding to the article to improve it, rather than taking away.174.28.219.208 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Third paragraph of "Transformation" section
The third paragraph of the "Transformation" section, starting with "New types of R&D-intensive...", contains very un-encyclopedic language (bordering on advertising) and includes no decent sources; they are all primary. Unless someone wants to re-word this and get better references, and/or talk about it here, I'll delete that paragraph soon. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Rust belt" meaning.
I've lived in New England all my life, and I've never had any notion that "Rust Belt" referred to some degrading of the economy of cities...I'd always taken it to mean the North, where it gets cold in the winter and we have to worry about our cars rusting away from the salt on the roads every winter. The Rust belt is northern states that use salt on the roads in the winter. Like the alternate to the "Corn Belt" or "Bible Belt". Thus I was surprised at the claim that it "has no specific geographical boundaries" and that it refers specifically to economical conditions. Maybe it refers to machines and tooling "rusting away" from disuse, but that's news to me. Road salt and a geographical area seems more logical to me..45Colt 17:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Informal term
The adjective informal signifies that the term is in colloquial, non-formal, even mildly disparaging use; not something that one would expect in formal contexts such as textbooks, scientific papers or governmental use. Also, "Rust Belt" does not have a strict definition, and refers to a broad area without formal definition. I feel that it needs to be made explicit in an encyclopedic article. Not sure about other Belt articles, but such a definition is widespread across our articles: search for exact phrase 'informal term' yields 311 results, mostly in the first sentences of the lead. No such user (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Accepting for the moment that "textbooks, scientific papers or governmental use" are by definition "formal", Google Scholar returns 11,500 uses of the term "Rust Belt". Also, you previously argued that "informal ... does not stand in contrast with 'formal' ", so I'm a little confused by the contradiction. Woodshed (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Very strange percent ranges
On loss of manufacturing jobs map: there are usually gaps between the numbers. E.g., the second best category has gains up to 54%, while the highest is for gains > 62%! Where would a county with 60% gains go?

It doesn't matter if there is no such county: color key should use continuous ranges. 24.239.177.111 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016
The United States presidential election, 2016 article mentions the Rust Belt as being very significant to the election result - should that be mentioned here as well? This article currently says "Since the 1980s, presidential candidates have devoted much of their time to the economic concerns of the Rust Belt region" - it sounds like this needs to be updated. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Rust Belt" not a universal pejorative
The lead should not declare flatly that this name is pejorative. It clearly is taken that way by some, but others use it without any apparent animus or sense of superiority, and important dictionaries like the Merriam-Webster, which usually note when an expression is considered pejorative, make no mention of that. For what it's worth – I can see there are strong opinions in conflict here already – I would suggest sentences more like the following at the very beginning:


 * Rust Belt (or uncapitalized: rust belt) is a term, sometimes considered pejorative, for a region traditionally known for its industrial economy, where a perceived decline of heavy industry has called this notion at least somewhat into question. The term first appeared in 1982 in reference to parts of the Midwest and Northeast regions of the United States (including, in the former, areas around the Great Lakes)...

The definitions used in the foregoing (in particular, "Rust Belt" as a U.S. geographic term, including its first known appearance; also: "Midwest", "Northeast") can be found, for example, in the above-mentioned Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Submitted for your consideration... --IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've never thought of the term "Rust Belt" as derogatory. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 23:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Since it's been a year+ and most people are saying, as I've known it to be living in it, that it is NOT a universal pejorative, I'm removing it. Anything said with a malicious tone can be taken as insulting, but "Rust Belt" is as insulting as "Bible Belt". Some people use it positively, some use it negatively. Whatever. Sailokyn (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)