Talk:Midwestern United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Another comment on linguistic influence

Setting aside the the discussion on southern vs. northern accents and the "northern cities shift," I think the section still is misleading in what it states. There is and always has been a profound difference in the rural accents of, say, Iowa/Nebraska vs., say, Minnesota/Wisconsin. This is not a recent shift. The so-called "Midwestern accent" has always been a misnomer in that it always refered to a small portion of this region (i.e. the Iowa/Nebraska part). Although many people in Minneapolis and Milwaukee today have "Midwestern accents," so do people in Dallas, San Francisco, and New York (thanks to television). --Mcorazao 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture (Politics)

I have a problem with the fourth paragraph under the Culture heading. This paragraph seems to be attempted to both establish a political geography of the Midwest, and counteract the stereotype of the conservative Midwest. All well and good, but there are no citations in the paragraph, and several statements are demonstrably false. For example, refering to Missouri as one of the "usually red states" is odd since Missouri has voted for the Democratic party candidate of President in 14 of 27 elections since 1900. The Midwest, as a region, has no historical predominance of one party, which is a more important and honest point than a flawed idea of an "east-west conservative-liberal political geography" with Iowa as the center. —The preceding lamemonument comment was added by Lamemonument (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Calling the Midwest isolationist is naive and ignores the region's traditional bias for free trade. Grain farmers, farm equipment manufacturers, Detroit auto makers, St. Louis aircraft manufacturers all prefer a free market world where they can sell their goods on the open market. Chicago is a special case, housing the commodities exchanges and other financial markets, but all the Great Lakes states and most of the rest of the region is engaged in internaitonalist trade.

Misconceptions in Cultural Article

As concerns some linkage about parts of Texas to the Midwest, let me start by addressing the point brought up about Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls (I am a native of that north Texas city and graduated from MSU). In fact, the moniker "Midwestern" as the college name has always been a source of wonderment around these parts, as no one from around here even REMOTELY thinks of the area as part of the midwestern United States. Specifically, back when I worked for the college newspaper, I interviewed a professor who was writing a book on the history of the institution and asked about the origin of the name. He said it had NOTHING to do with any perceptual identification with the Midwest, but rather because it was "midway" in what was at that time perceived as the "Southwest". To wit: Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas...which was itself considered a sub-region of the Greater South.

>>Now, the part about the Amarillo area being more culturally midwestern than Southern or southwestern is very true...but this is confined to the very UPPER parts of the panhandle. The REST of west Texas, (Lubbock, Abilene, Midland, Odessa, etc) was settled overwhelmingly by Southerners -- not Midwesterners. And even though the topography is -- depending on the exact location in west Texas -- more midwestern or southwestern in look and feel, the Anglo culture remains primarily Southern in most important ways (fundamentalist religion, speech, voting patterns, etc). This in itself is a very important -- perhaps the most important -- reason why west Texas anywhere below Amarillo cannot be classified as Midwestern, but rather some blend of the South and Southwest (the latter due to the large hispanic population).

>>I might mention too, on a light note, that cotton is DEFINITELY king in the Lubbock area! LOL In any event, I hope this misconception as concerns Texas will be corrected. I may even do it myself after thinking on exact wording, and etc. TexasReb 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can make that section less ambiguous, please do, and add references if you can find any. This article, unfortunately, is rather light on them... -Confiteordeo 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! And thanks for the vote of confidence. I confess though, that I was, after many tries, unable to insert the word "Texas" before "panhandle" in a way that it would read Upper Texas Panhandle...and have a link to "panhandle". It kept coming out screwy. Can you give an assist/guidance on this? TexasReb 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you type [[Texas Panhandle|upper Texas Panhandle]], you will get a link that appears as upper Texas Panhandle, and links to Texas Panhandle. Does that answer your question? -Confiteordeo 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

>>It did! Thanks! TexasReb 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohio doesn't belong here

It is in the Northeast United States! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.141.157 (talk) 05:43, February 24 (UTC)

Rubbish. Ohio is quintessential Midwest and is not part of any common definition of the Northeast U.S. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh Ohio in the northeast is a bunch of bull. Ohio is clearly in the midwest!

No its not.

Ohio is a Midwestern state, it always has been. Every book I've ever read says it is and every red-blooded Ohioan I know (including myself) will tell you it is and that they are Midwesterners. I could understand the argument for the northeast and southeastern parts of the state, but from Columbus-west is CERTAINLY Midwest. Frank12 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol Belt

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/ethanol.jpg

Here's an interesting map of the U.S. that details the concentration of where Ethanol production takes place. It's quite interesting to see how less prominant it becomes when you cross the Ohio River/Mason Dixon Line. Louisvillian 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New map

I made a new map you could use with Oklahoma striped because many Oklahomans call themselves Midwesterners, West Virginia is blank because there is absolutley NO way at all West Virginia is even near the middle, and a few other changes as well.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1216/usmapmidwestnu1.png

>>I live right near the Red River border with Oklahoma, in North Texas, and often get through the state. Seems like that folks in southern and eastern Oklahoma (generally south of Oklahoma City and east of Tulsa) tend to think of themselves as Southerners and being in the South, while those the other way around consider it Midwestern. I've noticed this distinction myself. A "Southern drawl or twang" is rare north of OKC. Oklahomans in that area sound more like Kansans. Anyway, just a note in the for what its worth department.

>>Seperate question though, regarding the map, how is that done? Is it generated by a computer program or software or something? Please reply here or on my talk page! Thanks in advance! TexasReb 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just MS Painted map, and Oklahoma could be considered 3 different reigons. It could be Midwest, South and Southwest.

Of interesting note is the fact that there has been at least one study conducted that might have some utility; I've already mentioned it in a similar discussion on the Southern USA page. In Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels (Professor of Geography, James Shortridge, University of Kansas) data was compiled based on information submitted on product registration cards. A portion of the card asked users to choose between four regions - East, South, Midwest, and West. Here are all of the states that have been mentioned on this page as being Midwestern or having some Midwestern influence, ranked by the percentage of people who chose "Midwest" as the region for their state/city on this card:

South Dakota	97.56%
Iowa	        96.31%
Nebraska	96.27%
Kansas	        96.24%
Minnesota	95.42%
North Dakota	95.00%
Wisconsin	93.10%
Illinois	92.55%
Missouri	91.81%
Indiana	        89.86%
Oklahoma	74.40%
Michigan	70.48%
Ohio	        65.26%
Kentucky	32.48%
Colorado	23.56%
Montana	        16.67%
Texas	        12.58%
West Virginia	2.30%
Pennsylvania	0.20%
New York	0.20%

Of course, that's just one study, and one way of looking at things. But I thought it was kind of interesting. Based on that at least, it definitely does seem as if there is a substantial Midwestern element present in Oklahoma. --Gator87 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have this particular study by Shortridge, but had not looked at it in quite some time. However, after reading the interesting percentage figures for my native state of Texas (12.58%), went and dug it out and re-read in detail. The thing worth mentioning was that, while (as stated in the Wikipedia article) many residents of the upper Texas Panhandle truly identify with the American Midwest, a more detailed study in other parts of west Texas indicated the answer of "Midwest" (when asked regional affiliation) was related more to the perception of being in "mid" zone between the American South and the American West, rather than in the genuine Midwest. Just a note in passing. TexasReb 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This map could use some changing. Kansas is defently Midwestern no matter what, and Oklahoma is argueable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk)

Very interesting. There is a significant grouping: "core" Midwest (SD, IA, NE, KS, MN, ND, WI, IL, MO, IN), "peripheral" Midwest (OK, MI, OH), and non-Midwest (including KY and WV). I think this self-identification test is very telling. With the exception of Indiana, it matches my own definition of Midwest. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Kansas

Why is this state striped? Kansas is probably the most Midwestern it gets, becasue it has Lebanon,Kansas, which is the geographic center of the United States. The state is defently not West because it is nowhere near the Pacific Ocean!

Missouri

It was considered a Southern State during the Civil War, thats why people say its argueable, but that was a while ago. Its 2007 now and Missouri isn't so Southern. Although the extreme southern bootheel acts extremley Southern which we should just give to Arkansas, and the state goes further south than Virginia and Kentucky. But the most Northern part of the state is parraell to Northern NJ, and the both major cities and the capital is Midwestern. I would overall have to make Missouri a Midwestern state.

Actually, No, Missouri was in the Union during the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.71.123 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma

This state could be considered different reigons, it could be Southern with connections from Arkansas and Texas, Midwestern from Kansas and Missouri, and the western counties of the state could even be West from New Mexico and Colorado. Oklahoma should at least be striped on the map.

When I lived in Oklahoma, many people there would describe it as being part of the Midwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.98.186 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohio

Ohio was part of the Northwest Ordiance with some Midwestern States and was the center during the Civil War when the Western States were non-existant. Well, the Civil War is the past, its 2007 now, the Western States are here, and Ohio is not near the center in any shape, way, or form. If I hear anymore of that "Old Northwest" crap, I am going going to rip my hair right out of my head! FORGET THE OLD NORTHWEST! Its dead! Flush it down the toilet!

Ohio is EXTREMELY NORTHEASTERN! It is only 500 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, while the whole country is 2500 miles from coast to coast. Ohioans talk exactly the same as Pennslvania and New York, not even the folks in Indiana talk the same as Ohioans. Everything about Ohio is Northeastern including but not limited to the accent, the religion, the food, the landscape, and the geography. The heart of it all slogan is entirley false. Ohio should not be solid on the map!

Its 2007 man, not the 1800s.

Like I said above, Western Ohio is certainly Midwestern in terms of culture and topographical land use. I'm from Toledo, Ohio and we sound exactly the same as our neighbors in SE Michigan and NE Indiana, and certainly as other parts of the region. It's possible that the Appalachian area and northeastern part of the state (Cleveland-on-east) could be considered Northeast or Southern, but Western Ohio most certainly is very similar to Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and all the others. Why don't we just make the map with the eastern half of Ohio striped, along with the other states that are partially part of a region? State lines don't define regional lines! Frank12 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New book on the Midwest

There's a new book out on the Midwest -- a hefty encyclopedia -- called "The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia", by (editors) Richard Sisson, Christian Zacher, Andrew R. L. Cayton. It looks pricey, and is something like 2,000 pages long. But maybe libraries will get a copy eventually. Could be a useful reference, looks, well, encyclopedic! Pfly 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohio better not be in that book.

It is, because no matter how much you complain about it, Ohio is part of the Midwest. Pfly 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that, and I'm starting to get offended that people are telling me who I am! ;). Frank12 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

what about chicago???

Isn't chicago the biggest city in the midwest? That is what I always heard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.56.96.220 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is. You'll notice that the article states this fact in at least two places. Confiteordeo 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting!

God damn it! Why are Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennslvania in the article? None of these states have anything in common with the Midwest in any shape, way, or form! Ohio and Pennslvania are Northeast and have alot in common with with New York and New England, and are closer to the Atlantic Ocean than they are to the Mississippi River by far! Kentucky and West Virginia are in the South and have more in common with Southern states like Maryland, Virginia, Tennesse, and the Carolinas, than they do with Illinois or Wisconsin. I'm skeptical about Indiana and Michigan being called Midwestern and you're whoring the article with Northeastern states like Ohio! This is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.123.34 (talk • contribs)

You couldn't possibly be more uninformed about Ohio or Michigan, Indiana, and the Midwest. Take a drive from Columbus, Ohio west towards Nebraska and notice if the scenery changes much. I can personally tell you that it doesn't hardly at all. I'm from Toledo, Ohio and folks from our part of the state identify with Chicago more than NYC, and with Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa better than we would someone in New England or the Atlantic Coast. I've been all over the Midwest and the Northeast, and Western Ohio is culturally and geographically more similar to the Midwest than the Northeast. Frank12 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe culturally, but not geographically —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.89.162 (talk • contribs)

I'll give you that argument, but I still don't agree with you. The Great Lakes region certainly contrasts with the Great Plains area topographically, as the Black Hills and the dry ranchlands are incredibly different from the richly soiled lands towards the east, but every one of the 12 states share similarities in soil types and land uses. I know that MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, IN, MI, and OH have much in common geographically, as do ND, SD, NE, and KS, but all 12 are not too far off in appearance. Regardless, Ohio is very similar to other Midwestern states in its geographical features.

There's no doubt they share some similarities with the Northeast, but I guess culture and dialect would lead me to believe that places like Western Ohio, Southern Michigan, and Northern Indiana are at least part of the Midwest that would include bits of the other 12 states. I honestly think a map should be drawn to include only parts of states in a region (see "State Lines Don't Define Regional Lines!" below) Frank12 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with trying to map such fuzzy-defined regioned as the Midwest is the lack of definitive, authoritative sources on which to base such a map. While there are countless maps of the Midwest out there, most use state-lines. Some don't, but even among state-defined maps there is no generally held agreement. With non-state-based maps you'd be lucky to find any two that agree on boundaries. We can debate at length here about how we personally feel (and we sure do debate at length), but such things are at best "original research". Not to be too blunt, but one's personal feelings don't make any difference here. So we fall back on reliable sources. Most of the US region maps are heavily based on census regions, since the Census Bureau is a good source. But census regions are not without faults and shortcomings, to say the least, so other common, generally accepeted, reliable sources are taken into account -- most of which are state-based -- resulting in the solid and striped maps we've got here today. It is far from perfect, but for presenting a single map it seems the "least worst" options. Map captions say (or should say) "definitions vary" to point out the non-authoritativeness of the maps. Perhaps more disclaimers would help, but I'm skeptical -- people see maps in a glance, how often do they carefully read the text? A possibility for a broader map could be, if someone wanted to take this up, a compilation of all of the major reliable sources defining the boundaries of the Midwest, superimposed on one another (and somehow avoiding visual chaos). But again, I doubt this could be done in a way that was particularly useful as a general "location-setting" map like the ones we already have. Which brings me to my final point -- these region maps are not meant to present a rigid statement (like "all of Ohio is totally Midwestern"). Rather they are meant as a highly simplified overview map to provide readers with the general sense of where on Earth the Midwest is. That some parts of some states may or may not exactly fit the definition is beside the point. I just wish it were easier to convey this in the maps or captions, so as to possibly avoid the endless bickering over regional boundaries. Pfly 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ripped out content

The following content keeps being ripped out by User:Louisvillian:

Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania are also Midwestern-oriented in certain parts and can often be considered border states; however, these three states are usually considered Southern or Mid-Atlantic.

I just wanted to document this just in case somebody wants to re-integrate it back in somehow. I figured this was the responsible thing to do. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first the sources use to validate this statement should be fixed, or placed in more context, to give the statement more creditability.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if the exact same thing wasn't said in the caption below the map it wouldn't be as redundant!! In any means I don't think that it belongs in the definition section since it obviously doesn't fit the official defintion. Maybe it should be mentioned in the same section that talks about the Texas Pan handle and Oklahoma. Louisvillian 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You had talked about the need to move it, but instead just outright deleted it. For future reference, in cases like this, you might want to do what I did. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No I actually stated it was redundant prior to my previous sugguestion. After all the exact same thing is written in the map caption. Louisvillian 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky is in the SOUTH!

State Lines Don't Define Regional Lines!

A state line defines a state's territory, and a group of states don't necessarily define a geographical or topographical region. To do that on the map is just wrong. Places like eastern Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado should be included as striped areas, along with northern Oklahoma and bits of Kentucky or West Virginia (provided good academic sources are made). It's foolish to not include a state when it's evident that part of it has Midwestern roots. I'd be willing to state that Eastern Ohio (including Cleveland and the Appalachian area) is sometimes considered Northeastern, but as a resident of Western Ohio (including Columbus), we are most certainly Midwestern in terms of culture and topography. We're the part of the state that's the most agricultural, and we identify with the area west of us, not to the east. Granted, the entire state may not be as agricultural as it used to be, but Western Ohio most certainly would be part of the Midwest. Frank12 05:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats something you should tell to the talk page of the Southern United States.

Thank you the dose of sanity and plain common sense there, Frank12. I've only been trying to make that exact same point for more than half a year. It seems as if many of the regional pages on Wikipedia now reflect that common-sense truth - that one state can indeed be part of multiple cultural regions - but the statement of that truth was only made over the angry objections of people who honestly do believe that crossing over a river, or an arbitrary geopolitical line-in-the-sand, produces some kind of quantum cultural shift. Silly, ridiculous, and not substantiated by any type of research - just by classifications produced by some government Census bureaucrat. --Gator87 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gator87, I just think we just need do some research and make a map that covers any areas that can be considered Midwestern, whether or not fractions of some states are included. It would be a fuzzy line that determined its "boundaries," but it would be more respectable than cutting its lines at state lines. There would have to be a "definitely Midwestern" core (red area) and then a surrounding hinterland of "arguably Midwestern" (striped area) similar to above, but it would be more accurate. I don't doubt for a second that all 12 of the above states have Midwestern roots, but other states do too, even if they aren't definite, and all of these things should be considered. This would actually be good work for me, as I'm a recent college graduate (Geography Degree) and I'm still applying to places looking for a job, so maybe research like this would impress people. I'm glad you see eye-to-eye with me though! Frank12 06:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a great idea. I definitely agree with your viewpoint about state lines not having anything to do with cultural regions, and with a background in Geography you could get quite a bit out of such a project; just leave a message on my talk page. I have reviewed some studies in JSTOR that have been done like this, but most of them are from the 1980's or before and not very comprehensive in terms of the dimensions that they consider. At the very least, Oklahoma should be added to the map, but with a thorough analysis, I'm sure that there are even other areas that one could consider "marginally Midwestern."

--Gator87 21:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider an article on the cultural Midwest were many of your claims have merit, seeing as the geographic Midwest is defined by the census bureau, not wikipedia, or arbitrary anecdotes of editors. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to be argumentative here - and I'm sure that Frank12 isn't either - but the title of this article is "Midwestern United States", not "Geographic Midwestern United States as defined by the US Census Bureau." The Census Bureau is already explicitly cited in several locations in this article, including a map of their East North Central + West North Central definition. It is hardly inappropriate to include, with appropriate language, citations, and framework, a discussion of areas in the country that are culturally Midwestern within this article, as the Census Bureau has not claimed a monopoly on regional cultural study.

I suppose I don't understand your reasoning. I do not see how verifiable, cited cultural analysis has no place in an article about a region, nor do I see why such research and analysis should be ignored simply because it is not in perfect accordance with the definition laid out by one gov't agency. Please explain.

--Gator87 09:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Census Regions and Divisions of United States

I'm all for including cultural data, but the article currently contains a long and poorly cited discussion of which places might be culturally Midwestern. I think it should be tightened up.

On the other hand, the Midwest as one part of a division of the US into four roughly equally sized regions has a long and stable history. It definitely includes the Plains states and does not include Rocky Mountain or Southern states. By definition each state is in just one of the four regions. The article currently underemphasizes this. It should state the definition more firmly, and the Plains states should not be striped on the map.

Actually, what would be good to illustrate this would be a map of the US colored with 4 colors. Image:Census Regions and Divisions.PNG does show the 4-region partition, but I would also say that most Americans are much more familiar with the 4-region system than the 9-division system also shown there, which is more of an arbitrary creation of the Census Bureau.

The 4-region partition never varies the boundaries between the West, Midwest, and South. The Census Bureau division shown in the map actually differs from the most customary one by including Maryland and Delaware in the South instead of the Northeast. WV is the only state where I have seen much variation; sometimes it is put with the Northeast instead of the South. I have never seen it with the Midwest. --JWB 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma is not in the Midwest

See "The Culture of Oklahoma" by Howard F. Stein and Robert F. Hill, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. There are some cultural elements in the north-central region of the state due to a diverse population including Midwesterners entering during the Land Rush. However, there were also 'Turks' (Lebanese), Chinese, Japanese, British, French, Germans, Czechs, Poles, and large numbers of Southerners in the Oklahoma Land Rush. That doesn't make Oklahoma Turkish, Oriental, or Eastern European - no more than it makes it 'Midwestern'. Kansas and Missouri are border states (Kansas also has Southern influence, a history which goes back to its time as 'Bleeding Kansas'.) Oklahoma is a border state - but not with the Midwest - but with the South (upland and lowland South) and the West (Southwest and Mountain). The government, encyclopedias - all have either placed Oklahoma as Southern or Southwestern. - Orthodox Okie.

see Midwestern culture. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohio cities

I removed Cleveland and Columbus from this article. I don't know how these cities are culturally or geographicly part of this "Midwest" reigon, plus you didn't include any of the cities from Oklahoma which actually are central! I kept the Western Ohio cities because they tie in with Detroit and Indianopolis.70.105.118.229 02:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Columbus has some Midwestern in it, especially considering its relationship with the areas due west of it. Frank12 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I just got home from the Columbus Zoo and it did feel more Nidwest so I put it back in.

I see someone put back in Cleveland as well. If we are going to keep the Eastern Ohio cities, then we should put in the Oklahoma cities in as well, because they actually are central, and have more amount of people calling themselves "Midwest". 70.105.118.229 02:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see removing Cleveland from the page, but what's the argument against Columbus? Frank12 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Major Cities

I don't really think that Indianapolis should be proclaimed as the third biggest city in the midwest. It is strictly by population within city limits, but in terms of the area it's barely in the top 10 (same with economic factors). By that metric, San Antonio is one of the 10 largest cities in the United States, but it has virtually no metropolitan region (huge city limits) so it's barely top 30. The inclusion of the picture/list for Indy gives the false impression that it is one of the largest/most important cities in the midwest. Not to slight Indianapolis, but it is significantly smaller than Minneapolis or St. Louis or other cities on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsilly (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point, since most of the world defines a city as the entirety of its metropolitan area. However, the American definition of "city" only includes the incorporated area. Both definitions are represented in the tables, and you'll see that Indianapolis is indeed listed as having the ninth largest metropolitan area, behind Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc. --Confiteordeo (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)