Talk:Southeastern United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of a WikiProject.
For optional guidelines on contributing see WikiProject U.S. regions

I would suggest changing the '10 largest metropolitan areas' to perhaps a list of 'important cities/places' because the inclusion of states such as Texas or other 'maybe southeastern' states skews the list and shifts focus from where it needs to be.--70.174.11.120 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never ever heard anyone describe the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas as being Southeast. (OK, the U of Arkansas has joined the SEC, but athletic conferences have much less regional integrity than they did. Can anyone point to ANY reference that describes the southeast as these states? older≠wiser 00:26, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Arkansas and Texas were part of the Confederate States of America, which is a likely reason for their inclusion. I'd like to inquire as to why Virginia is not considered a Southeastern state. Ezratrumpet 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The CSA corresponds to Southern United States, while Southeast is a recent coinage with different meaning.

I have never heard of Texas as Southeast either, and the whole reason for referring separately to Southeast and Southwest (or South Central) is to distinguish between Texas and the Atlanta-dominated region. Therefore I'm going to fact tag this statement. --JWB 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture shows Arkansas as 'arguably' South Eastern, while the text says it's unambiguously South Eastern. --80.177.14.123 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of Arkansas most commonly desribed as a Southeastern state. In fact, it is completely within the Southeastern portion of the U.S. {it is quite a bit east of the 98th meridian. Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia are also often known as Southeastern States as well as border states. Dinobrya November 28 2006.

Contents

[edit] Page Move

According to new policy approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions this page should be moved to Southeastern United States, and likewise its related sub-articles as well. Thanks. -JCarriker 10:20, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections. I'm going through with the move. -JCarriker 08:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colours and appearance

I have made a proposal to change the colour of the map box, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions --Qirex 05:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections and Additions

I am currently making an attempt to correct information and add-to this article. Assistance is welcome as long as it is NPOV. POV of certain issues concerning this geographical region is not a part of what this article should be. Remember people from around the globe read this and should leave this article with pleasant thoughts. --Bookofsecrets 04:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Arkansas striped but Louisiana is not? Arkansas is as far east as Louisiana, and arguably more Southern in culture.ArkSoutherner 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia and the map

The article lists Virginia, but it is blank on the map as well as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland. Virginia should be on the map solid dark red. Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland should be on the map striped.

Please if Virginia should go on there then so should Kentucky, excluding the other "border states" Louisvillian 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... How does the inclusion of VA mean KY must be included as well, and not Maryland??? Kentucky is in the center of the nation, not the east coast. MD and VA are southeast by census definitions.

No acutally the Census Bureau considered Kentucky Southern. LOL I don't think anyone from maryland should try to get over on a Kentuckians in this category, and let's just leave it that. 74.128.200.135 01:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the Census Bureau does not define a "Southeast" region, just a more general "South" that is broken down into 4 sub-regions. All of the border states, with the exception of Missouri, are in this Census definition, but that's another story. Is anybody aware of what definition people are basing this page off of? The list of states on the page is not only the entire list of "Southern" states as defined by the Census Bureau, it also directly contradicts the page's map. I, for one, have rarely heard the term "Southeastern" used to describe Texas and have a study to back that up; I think most people in the state would prefer the term "Southern" or "Southwestern", with a minority opting for the term "Western." Oklahoma is also not what many people would consider to be "Southeastern." FL, AL, GA, MS, SC, TN, and NC would definitely fit the mold; beyond that, we need some kind of outside citation. I would definitely not include any states north of the 36-30/Missouri Compromise Line in a defintion of the "Southeast", even if they may be considered "Southern" in some definitions.

If this page is attempting to differentiate "Southeast USA" from "Southern USA", it is not doing a good job of doing so; either the states listed, the map, or both need to be changed for some consistency. If it is simply equating the "Southeast USA" to the "Southern USA" (something I'd personally find a bit dubious), I can't really see what purpose it serves, as there is already a perfectly good Southern page. --Gator87 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments on this page and to be consistent with other sources (as well as to remove redundancy with the Southern United States page), I went ahead and changed the page. I removed TX, OK, AR, LA, KY, VA, WV, MD, DE, and MO from the definition and updated the largest metro areas for consistency. If we're going to include all of those states in this definition, what we've done is re-create, in smaller scale, the Southern United States page, which makes absolutely no sense. --Gator87 05:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is trying to be different from the South, I made a new map you can use. Now, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas are wiped off, because these are west of the Mississippi River, and these are just South, not Southeast. Louisiana is striped, since parts of the state go west of the Mississippi River.


I would suggest getting rid of the current map entirely. There is such a wide variety of definitions that picking one for a map is misleading. If there has to be a map, it would be better to have one without shading.

If we retain the map with shading, I would suggest replacing the shading of "states that may be considered Southeast" with shading of the entire Southern States. This will avoid further conflict about which states can be considered Southeast. --JWB 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Southeast?

The Southeast to me was just an alternative name to the term "The South". With the suffix "east" being tagged along it seems that it is moreso limiting the extension west than North which is what this map is indicating. "I've" noticed that alot of buisness's use the term "Southeast" rather then the "the South". And in those definitions it always includes Va, Ky, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, LA, & AR. Tx and Ok being so west are probably 8/10 the states that are dropped from the label. Kentucky and Virginia for some strange reason are absent from the map. While not absent from the Bell South Definition [1] and the World Book definition, and countless cultural references to the region. 74.128.200.135 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted the exact same thing before. This is trying to differnate from the South article. Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland are just South, not the geographic Southeast.

I don't under how the suffix east limits the extend of the Southern boundary when concerning the North and South. this article to me honestly makes no since as far as the map definition goes. The U.S. census bureau does not designate a SouthEASTERN region, so their is no official source for standard purposes. The closest reliable source I can think of is an encylopedia. WorldBook for example goes by unofficial regions which include the Southeast. The Southeast by that source includes Ky, Va, Tn, Nc, Sc, Fl, Ga, Al, La, & Ar the Texas and Oklahoma are not included in this definition. 74.128.200.135 18:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the recent edits to an earlier version as they were not cited and undid a consensus definition. This issue had been discussed in detail on this page, and the agreement was that "South" and "Southeast" are not the same thing in this context. That is the entire purpose of this page, based on these and other earlier comments by editors:

1. ...'ve never ever heard anyone describe the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas as being Southeast...

2. The CSA corresponds to Southern United States, while Southeast is a recent coinage with different meaning.

I have never heard of Texas as Southeast either, and the whole reason for referring separately to Southeast and Southwest (or South Central) is to distinguish between Texas and the Atlanta-dominated region....

The Census Bureau does not define a "Southeast" region - they define a South region, which includes states such as Texas and Oklahoma that are unquestionably not Southeastern. Neither are Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, or Delaware. We had decided long ago that this page needs to either reflect a subset of the larger South - otherwise, it is just a dummied-down replica of the Southern United States page and would serve no purpose.

There is going to be a problem with sources here, because different encyclopedias and references are going to have different definitions. For that purpose, it's probably best to stick with the states that are unquestionably at the core of the region. --Gator87 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


While I agree with the fact that this shouldn't just be a dumbed down version of the Southern Article by including every state that is considered Southern in the general sense. I disagree with the overall definition and how that defintion came to be. I have yet to see a source for this definition of the Southeast. Again the fact that the Census Bureau does not recognize this as an Official region and there is no source backing this articles definition then how did this come to be? The only enclopedia (and the most purchased) that recognizes the Southeast as a region is world book and Kentucky and Virginia are definantly included in there. The main states I've noticed that this definition limits are the states on the Western fringe (hint the SouthEAST). Just from personal experience 8/10 Kentucky and Virginia are included in this region. 74.128.200.135 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For various organizations' definitions, take a look at Google Image Search for southeast region map --JWB 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My conclusions are:

  • Businesses and other organizations often divide the US into regions for their operations. When there is a "Southeast Region", the definition can vary widely, sometimes omitting states west of Georgia, sometimes omitting states north of Georgia. Georgia and Florida are almost always included.
  • Definitions of "Southeast Region" are generally for operational convenience. Cultural and emotional attachments are to the Southern States as a whole or to an individual state or topographic region.
  • "Southeast" often refers to the region where Atlanta serves as the metropolis, but usually rounded to state boundaries to avoid the effort of splitting states. This excludes Texas with its own huge urban areas, usually Louisiana and Arkansas, most of which are more likely to look to Texas cities (or of course New Orleans) than to Atlanta, and Virginia, most of which is served by the Washington DC area more than Atlanta. However, even though much of Florida is less dependent on Atlanta and less culturally Southern, all of Florida tends to be grouped with the Southeast to avoid splitting Florida, and because the only region it is adjacent to is the Southeast. --JWB 00:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also found another encyclopedic reference to Region Britannica. [2]. Upload the video and it shows a political map that refers to the state's that make up the region. This definition includes, KY, Va, Tn, Nc, Sc, Ga, Al, Ms, La, Ar, Wv, and Fl. 74.128.200.135 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the Atlanta concept, I believe that had been mentioned earlier. The Google link just shows the variety of definitions here. Even the Encarta link that I have on the page currently includes Arkansas, which it was generally agreed, being west of the Mississippi, is not really SE. The American Heritage Dictionary, definition at [[3]], defines the region as "generally including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida." Those are definitely the core states. In my experience, lots of companies use a definition like this one - [[4]] Personally, I would not include states west of the Mississippi (part of Louisiana, all of Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma) nor states north of the Missouri Compromise Line (Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland.) That's just stretching it a bit too much, and risking simply duplicating the South page.

--Gator87 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a new map this article should switch to. Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas are blank because those states are just South. Not Southeast. Louisiana is striped. http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/444/usmapsoutheastkm0.png

I like that map personally and I think that definition is the best one, but I'll wait to see what others say. If there aren't any objections in a week or so, I'll upload it and switch the map on the page to it.

--Gator87 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think LA should not be included, but otherwise I think that map is the best, if we have to have a map that marks states as unconditionally included or excluded. There is probably a reason why the Encarta map does not do this. --JWB 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

At the same time however it seems as though it's totally disregaurding the encyclopedic reference that clearly includes states north of the TN/NC border. If it's your personal opinion that those states are what comprise the region then that's fine, But to disreguard two enclopedic references seems to be a bit silly don't you think?

It's quite simple really, the general exclusion of extreme western states (from a regional perspective) such as Oklahoma and Texas clearly show a difference between the two regional terms. Hence SouthEAST, nor DEEP Southeast.74.128.200.135 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of those states north of the NC/TN line is not short of sources (obviously since Worldbook and Britannica include them)

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 74.128.200.135 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that some definitions, and some businesses, do include states on the periphery of the Upper South in a "Southeast" definition, but the point here was to generate a consistent approach that includes the most frequently included states. There is no controversy in the current list - nor do I (or others, apparently) believe the current list to be inadequate - because nobody could ever argue that the states listed aren't Southeastern. For example, I'm certain that some mercurial definitions of "Southeast" even would include Texas and Oklahoma, but that isn't the point. Because there is such a proliferation of definitions of the region, I would support going with the current list, because otherwise, in the name of inclusion, we would have to add caveats for every state in the broader South, and then we arrive exactly back at where we were - a dumbed down version of the Southern United States page.

--Gator87 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the clear majority seems in favor of the new definition, I uploaded the map created by anon. user 70.106.129.196 and changed this page to it. This map does not include TX, OK, or AR at all, and only includes LA as marginal/periphery "Southeast", as most of the state is west of the Mississippi. No states north of the Missouri Compromise Line are included, as was the case in the old map.

--Gator87 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Who in the Hell is the majority, this article's talk is relatively dead! Before you made your little edits to the page no one else had any complainys about the definition that included states above the Missouri Compromise. Then someone just commented a few days ago stating that this definition needs a change! Why in the Hell are you so determined to undermine these encyclopedic references? The exclusion of states to West will show the difference between this article and the Southern Article, HENCE southEAST.

Where are you sourcing this information from???? Face it you're providing your own original research to make a dead point. Louisvillian 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The article is sourced via Encarta in the very first paragraph, and the old map did not include states north of the Missouri Compromise Line. Another editor (an anon IP) suggested the new map twice, and I and another editor (JWB) supported it as the best map to reflect the discussion. As far as I can see, you're the only person intent on including states north of the 36'30 line in the map, other than one user who stated earlier that Virginia might be included.

--Gator87 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an unshaded/unboundaried map (like the topo map in Encarta) (or no map at all) would be even better, to keep this from coming up repeatedly. Focusing on states as being definitely in or out is going to continue to be a source of conflict. Another alternative, if we had enough data, and if it was not considered "original research", would be a map showing roughly how often particular states or cities are included; for example, of the 6 articles currently in the Examples section, 2 include Kentucky. --JWB 04:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared to two other sources encyclopedic sources (worldbook& Britannica) that include the states north of the Missouri Compromise. The fact that another user had a problem with states north of the compromise no being included is an indicator that this map is a source of conflict. As far as the regions according the sporting disticts Kentucky is included in two while Louisiana is included in one, Arkansas is included in one, Tennesseee is included in one, Alabama is only included in three, Va is included in 3, and NC are included in three. FACE IT your system is biased as towards your own opinion, and the article is full of contradictaries (the maping system compared to the chart that shows the inclusion of each state in sporting divisions). If maryland and Delaware can be striped on the Southern articles map (occasionally considered Southern) because they are included in the census bureau def., than please explain to me why Kentucky and Virginia cannot be considered Southeastern OCCASSIONALLY. Louisvillian 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This crap being pulled is ridiculous too many sources prove that Kentucky and Virginia are generally included in the region, whereas the only state's that are almost exclusively excluded are the MOST WESTERN OF THE SOUTHERN STATES (oklahoma and Texas), Hence the SouthEAST!. The fact they are even mentioned on the chart prove it, it just makes no sense. 74.128.200.135 05:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta Chamber of Commerce source

The source I'm mentioning is available here - http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/macoc/business/img/alookatatlanta.pdf .

I have removed the source for the moment because an editor had inaccurately quoted it (likely because he disagreed with its views, in which case I'm not sure why he posted it.) I have no problem in using this source on the page, because it DOES include a good definition of the Southeast on page 6, which includes the states of FL, GA, AL, MS, NC, SC, and TN. It makes no mention of Kentucky, Virginia, or other states on the periphery of the Upper South. User Louisvillian referred to a map on page 7 as including Kentucky in Atlanta's "primary impact zone", whatever that is. This map is nothing more than a flight distance map and makes no claim of represting the Southeast - again, the Southeast is defined in this document on page 6, not via the map on page 7. If were are going to include this source, we should reference the clearly laid out definition on page 6. I see that another editor has been making the same point, but I'd like more than a 2-1 consensus on that in order to avoid another edit war.

Furthermore, user Louisvillian had stated in his edits that "Kentucky is in the primary impact zone of Atlanta." Not true. People in the state's population centers are definitely closer geographically to Chicago than Atlanta for the most part, and from personal experiences I know that they will tend to travel to the cultural/shopping facilities in one of these cities over Atlanta's, just as people in Virginia will prefer Washington DC's amenities over Atlanta's. --Gator87 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree (full disclosure, I'm the other editor making the same point that Gator87 refers to). The map on page 7 makes no claims about defining the Southeastern U.S. -- it is nothing more than an illustration of distances to Atlanta. However, page 6 does make an explicit claim about the Southeast. older ≠ wiser 12:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way the source is gone. From my own personal experience Louisville's black population is more served by Atlanta than any other metropolis, (chicago included). Either way there is no way to actually prove which one Kentucky is more attached to. Louisvillian 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2nd Paragraph

"Atlanta is the central metropolis of the Southeast [2] [3] , and the Southeast roughly corresponds to an area with Atlanta centrally located, with Hartsfield as the airline hub, and UNC Chapel Hill draws many students, plus Florida. However, most of Virginia is served by the Washington Metropolitan Area."

This doesn't make a lot of sense: I'd like to try to clarify this paragraph, and make it more regionally approriate.

  • Changed Atlanta is the metropolis of the Southeast by adding the word "central." Statistically, the word metropolis is neutral in its' implications, and there are several large metropolises in the SE. If Atlanta is the most culturally significant (Miami would be the other contender), some additional sourced detail should be added to beef up the observation.
  • Hartsfield I've left alone; it's regional, national and international significance is indisputable.
  • Don't know where the UNC bit came from; I'll think of something to do with that.

Some brief blurbs for each of the 1,000,000+ metros might generally be more approriate as each have distinct 'importances' or attributes - i.e. the general international status of Atlanta and Miami, the military presence in Tidewater VA, the financial sector in Charlotte, the tech-and-academics sector in the Triangle, the music/culture orientations in Nashville Atlanta Memphis and Miami... Davidals 07:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've done some minor fleshing out of things already in the article.

Do we want to get into regional demographics and culture?

    • Given growth in some regions, the traditional demographics have expanded and diversified considerably - influxes from Latin America across the region, from Cuba and Puerto Rico in Florida, and from Asia in (probably most swiftly) the RTP area.
    • Music: country (Nashville especially), bluegrass (Southern Appalachia), jazz (NoLa and Memphis, with smaller scenes elsewhere), blues (many variations regionally - from the Delta to the Piedmont carolinas), funk (Atlanta and Miami especially, also NoLa), hip-hop (ditto), soul (Memphis/Muscle Shoals, Atlanta, Miami and several other spots), punk/post-punk (Athens and Chapel Hill especially), and 'Southern rock' (region-wide, with Macon, Memphis and Muscle Shoals as some focus areas) all have specifc presences and centers in the region; in all cases with local or regional qualities not seen in similar styles originating out of the region. This may be deserving of a seperate article, rather than coverage here.

Thought I'd see if anyone else had some thoughts on this before throwing it all into the article.Davidals 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis was meant in the original sense of "the major city of an area", not just "a fairly big city". Miami is of similar size, but is never identified as the leader or center of the Southeastern US; it is a truism that South Florida is quite different, and that if Miami dominates a large region, it's one that stretches over the Caribbean and much of Latin America.
Chapel Hill's traditional role as an institution whose alumni form an elite spanning the Southeast (and not Texas) is well known.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has long been a center for the study and nurture of Southern culture. It has also helped to educate a regional elite. An appreciable percentage of all college graduates are Chapel Hill alumni. Tar Heels are thick on the ground throughout the southeastern states, but (aside from some brain drain to the New York City suburbs) that's the only place they're so numerous. In particular, Chapel Hill graduates have little market penetration west of the Mississippi. (Texas has its own universities.) [14] or [15]

That reference also documents several other measures of how the Southeast forms a coherent region excluding Texas, which I think should be a major focus for this article, although ironically the article makes little use of the word "Southeast".
Yes, a lot of material could be added about the specific attractions at various places, and I think at least a summary should be present, but that material is not specific to this article and some of it would fit even better in the articles about the South as a whole, or individual states, or natural regions, as well as nongeographical articles. The "Southeast" is a relatively modern and businesslike concept, as opposed to the cultural connotations of the South. --JWB 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)