Talk:Midwestern United States

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States regions

"Great Plains" states

Amid all the arguing about what states are in the Midwest (frankly, I think the poll numbers quoted somewhere above should be considered dispositive: OH is, KY isn't...), I think you've all missed the far more debatable designation of states as "Great Plains". The table in "Definition" lists Iowa, Indiana, Illinois (and others, but that's a nice start) as being Great Plains states, while the Wikipedia article on the Great Plains shows the region not touching any of those states. Now, I know it's not quite that simple, and as with the Midwest designation there are probably many reasonable points of view (and some unreasonable ones) represented hereon, so I suggest... let's just delete the designations entirely.

I'll let it sit for a while, but if no one makes an argument for keeping the extraneous references in the "Definition" section, I'm removing them. atakdoug (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The table does not look useful. If you want to know what the referenced regions are, it is more effective to just follow their links. --JWB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Raised and now back living in Indiana - I can assure you that Indiana is not a "Great Plains" state nor does anyone here think it is. Similarly, irrespective of what the Census Bureau says, no one around here would consider the Dakotas, Nebraska, or Kansas as being part of the Midwest - they are Plains states.Jmdeur (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas are listed as part of the Midwest, but not generally. It's easy to get a reference where they aren't. In the textbooks I remember, they aren't. The thing is that, in the Dakotas anyway, the economics split the states in two, eastern third is agriculture and western 2/3 is range, grasslands, or small grains. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Grain Belt argument

I know it's been a while since I've argued/discussed on here, but maybe we can consider the Grain and Corn belts as a good way to describe Midwestern states in terms of similar cultures and related regions? Frank12 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

States officially in Midwest

Illinois,indiana, I know this has been a point of debate, but an unknown ISP has twice removed several states officially (according to the Census Bureau's geographic regions) considered part of the Midwest from the introduction of the article. Not only is the ISP wrong to unilaterally remove them (because, regardless of differing definitions, all states listed ARE officially in the Midwest), but by removing them he or she creates a contradiction between the intro and the rest of the article, which refers to all of those states as being in the Midwest. I've undone the revisions both times, but I wanted to discuss them to avoid an edit war, particularly with an unregistered user. Pmr2011 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit "CERTAINLY NOT" by ISP 71.235.96.162, from 16:18 13 July, appears quite clearly to be an instance of vandalism as understood by this community. That these states are often referred to as, or understood to be, Midwestern states is fully supported by the reference, which is from a US Gov Census Dept map. I am reverting the edit and noting this observation. Brrryan (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You should not be taking the definition from one particular government organization. If the Census Bureau had decided to split up the states into five groups instead of four, the grouping would be different. Most other sources (online encyclopedias, dictionaries) that I've looked at, and the grade school geography texts I remember, do not include the Dakotas, Nebraska, or Kansas as Midwestern states. The article should follow what is common usage, and common usage does not appear to include those states.

--71.214.221.153 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent article on midwest governors getting together to discuss highspeed rail: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/26/governors-holding-midwest_n_245060.html The states represented included: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. These are traditionally what most people in the region consider to be midwestern states - the Census Bureau can create whatever reporting regions they want, but to say that this is the "official" definition of the midwest is silly. 192.158.61.172 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

When I search for definitions of the Midwest most of the results include Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. A couple basic dictionary definitions: Midwestern, Merriam-Webster: "region N central United States including area around Great Lakes & in upper Mississippi River valley from Ohio —sometimes considered to include Kentucky on the E to North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, & Kansas on the W." the Midwest, Cambridge Dictionary Online: "an area in the US which includes Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas." A couple of books are mentioned in many search results, The American Midwest: an interpretive encyclopedia and The American Midwest: essays on regional history. The first one presents the Midwest as a twelve state region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. See The American Midwest: an interpretive encyclopedia, page 4 and page 58. The other as a 13 state region: The American Midwest: essays on regional history (map on page 16) defines the Midwest as 13 states--the 12 above plus Kentucky. But definitions are not nearly as widely agreed upon as for, say, New England, as the first book points out: The American Midwest: an interpretive encyclopedia, p. 5: "Even the peoples of the Midwest cannot always agree on where the region begins and ends. Citizens of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois sometimes claim to be the original Midwesterners because their states were the first to emerge from the Northwest Territory in the early 1800s. Residents of the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas, states created in the second half of the nineteenth century, are not sure that Ohio and Indiana are even part of the Midwest." And from page 60: "midway across Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, midwestern imagery gives way to that of the West. Most residents of the High Plains still regard themselves as Midwestners, and both the rural way of life there and the vast expanse of the land certainly conform to core symbols. A Corn Belt economy of 160-acre farms and a dense rural population was not sustainable on the true plains, however. ..Many of the farmers transformed themselves into ranchers and learned to live confortably in this "big sky" country. The cowboy image dominates west of the hundredth meridian." The second book also points out the "mushiness" of the region; quoted in this book review: Book review of The American Midwest: Essays on Regional History, "The Midwest...suffers from the lack of geographically defined borders and specific stereotypes. When it comes to definition, the Midwest is a mushy place; experts cannot even agree on where it begins and ends." In any case, both of these books contain in-depth essays on the origin and changing meaning of the term "Midwest". All this said, I agree at least that the word "official" is out of place. The map may show the Census Bureau's "official" definition, but this definition is official only within the Census Bureau and has no official power beyond that. The word "official" only occurs once in this article--the caption for the Census map. I'll edit it from "Midwest as shown by U.S. Census Bureau official map" to "Midwest as defined by U.S. Census Bureau". Pfly (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Map

What information does Image:US map-Midwest.PNG rely on? At least coming from Omaha, listing Nebraska a questionable is an bit of an insult. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism??

A large share of the Political Trends section of this article corresponds almost exactly to an entry in the After Fighting for Hours" blog. Can someone else look at it besides me? Aside from the possible plagiarism, the entire Culture section sounds more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.152.210 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cities

There's a long list of major cities mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. Everyone seems to be adding a favorite city, making the list excessive. To establish criteria for which cities to include in this list, I limited it to any city over 200,000 in population per the latest U.S. Census Bureau data or a city that is the largest in its state, if the state doesn't have a city > 200,000 (e.g., Wichita, Kansas). That seems pretty objective. Please adhere to the criteria so we don't have "list creep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.24.161 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Limiting to any city over 200,000 is pretty arbitrary. Looking at the population of the city proper isn't the correct thing to do, as places like Grand Rapids have a relatively small population (197,800) as they cover a small area (45.3 square miles). Madison, for example, just barely tops 200,000 (208,054) but it also covers a much larger area (84.7 square miles). If you compare their Metropolitan Statistical Area populations, it tells a different story:

• Grand Rapids - ~777,000 (2007)
• Madison - ~556,000 (2007)

Even more pronounced is the difference in their Combined Statistical Area populations:

• Grand Rapids - ~1,323,000 (2007)
• Madison - ~614,000 (2007)

The Grand Rapids area population is more than twice as large as Madison's. It is also larger (and in some cases much larger) than Akron, Des Moines, Fargo, Lincoln, Madison, Sioux Falls, Toledo, and Wichita, cities currently mentioned in the article. In short, Grand Rapids is more of a major city than others mentioned.

Another example of why you can't base it on the population of the city proper:

• Providence - population 173,618 (2000), covering just 20.5 square miles
• Anchorage - population 260,283 (2000), covering a whopping 1961.1 square miles

Is Anchorage more major than Providence? Examine their MSA populations:

• Providence - population 1,600,856 (2007)
• Anchorage - population 362,340 (2007)

Providence dwarfs Anchorage in area population. Phizzy (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Without a set of objective criteria that delineate which cities* should be included in the list, the paragraph will simply be subject to the whim of every editor coming down the pike who wants to list his/her own city there, resulting in inevitable list bloat. If you'd like to come up with a set of criteria that others can agree upon, you're welcome to do that. After you've defined the criteria, then you can also do the research that determines which cities in the 12-state area fit the criteria, and edit the paragraph accordingly. *(Note that the paragraph refers to cities, not metropolitan areas.)

Note that the paragraph refers to major cities. Are Fargo and Sioux Falls more major than Grand Rapids (or even Flint or Lansing, for that matter)? Most would say no. Perhaps we should use the Ranally city rating system as a guide:

Ranally city rating	Description	Cities (bold indicates currently included in article)
1-AAAA	Unique rating for New York	none
1-AAA	Unique rating for Chicago and Los Angeles	Chicago
1-AA	Major national business centers	Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis
1-A	Other national business centers	Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee
2-AA	Major regional business centers	Dayton, Des Moines, Grand Rapids (removed from list and then re-added by me), Madison, Omaha, Peoria, Toledo, Wichita, Youngstown
2-BB	Secondary major regional business centers	Akron (added to list), St. Paul
2-CC	Same as 2-BB, but not constituting a basic trading center	none
2-A	Other regional business centers	Canton, Davenport, Flint (removed from list), Fort Wayne, Green Bay, Kalamazoo, Lansing (removed from list), Rockford, Saginaw, South Bend, Springfield, IL, Springfield, MO
2-B	Secondary regional business centers	none
2-C	Same as 2-B, but not constituting a basic trading center	Ann Arbor
3-AA	Major significant local business centers	Appleton, WI, Bloomington, IL, Cedar Rapids, IA, Champaign, IL, Decatur, IL, Duluth, MN, Eau Claire, WI, Fargo, ND, Jackson, MI, La Crosse, WI, Lafayette, IN, Lima, OH, Lincoln, NE, Mansfield, OH, Muncie, IN, Muskegon, MI, Rochester, MN, St. Joseph, MO, Sioux City, IA, Sioux Falls, SD, Terre Haute, IN, Topeka, KS, Waterloo, IA
3-BB	Secondary major significant local business centers	Springfield, OH
3-CC	Same as 3-BB, but not constituting a basic trading center	Racine, WI

Phizzy (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ranally city rating system seems a bit odd; it considers St. Paul as separate from Minneapolis, when they clearly function together as a metropolitan area. But I think the real question here is: What's the purpose of listing cities in the lede? After all, the largest cities in the Midwest, largest urban areas, and largest metro areas are listed very clearly in a section below. Is the lede paragraph supposed to be about the cities that have the biggest impact on the country as a whole, on the region, in their own area? (Some cities were included in the paragraph because they were the largest cities in their state.) Or are they supposed to be just cities of great size? (The opening sentence of the paragraph does imply that size is the criterion.) Personally, I think the list is excessive for a lede, which is why I was trying to shorten it, as well as establish criteria for those who wanted to make additions in the future. I'd be satisfied with:

Chicago is the largest city in the region, followed by Detroit and Indianapolis. Sault Ste. Marie is the oldest city in the region, having been founded in 1668. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.136.53 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding St. Paul, it is a "B" city, a "secondary major regional business center" - secondary to Minneapolis. Regarding your suggestion for rewriting the opening sentence, I would be satisfied with your suggestion above as well. Phizzy (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Although this discussion is probably dead, as a person who grew up in St. Paul, the prominence of Minneapolis in tables like this befuddles me. They share a metro area, and the population isn't all that different - 380,000 for Minneapolis and 280,000 for St. Paul. Individually, they wouldn't count as huge cities - it seems like that only happens together. So counting them separately, I'd expect them both to be lower, and counting them together, I'd expect Minneapolis-St. Paul to be where Minneapolis is in the chart. Awickert (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We really don't need a long list of cities because that's covered by List of Midwestern cities by size and List of Midwestern urban areas in the cross-references. The lists of major cities (List of Midwestern cities by size, List of Midwestern urban areas, and Ranally have considerable overlap:

Ranally I-A and above	Cities > 350,000	Urban areas > 1,000,000
Chicago	Chicago	Chicago
Cincinnati		Cincinnati
Cleveland	Cleveland	Cleveland
Detroit	Detroit	Detroit
Indianapolis	Indianapolis	Indianapolis
Kansas City	Kansas City	Kansas City
Milwaukee	Milwaukee	Milwaukee
Minneapolis	Minneapolis	Minneapolis-St. Paul
St. Louis		St. Louis
	Omaha
	Wichita

Cities appearing in every list = 8
Cities appearing in 2/3 lists = 10
Cities appearing in 1/3 lists = 12
Only one of the above 12 cities (Wichita) is not included in the "Ten largest Midwestern U.S. cities" section. So it seems that we've got the major cities covered either through the tables already in the article or through the cross-references. Grand Rapids and Flint would be left out of the article, but so would a lot of other cities. (Unless someone wanted to expand the "cities" section to describe (not list) urban areas in the Midwest.) So I think I'll change the lede paragraph to the really short version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.135.67 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what about Flint, MI? That is a major automotive center, and when considering the urban area, the population is about 365,096, and the metro is 443,883. That is way more major than Sioux Falls, Fargo, and a few other cities on that list. Plus, it is a major automotive center, one might say it is the second most important automotive center in the United States. That city needs to be included on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ds1776 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget Flint... what about Columbus?? -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Term "Middle West"

I removed the term "Middle West" as a way to refer to the area. In American English, that term is never used, at least no to refer to this area. Before it is re-added, I would request a source to be added with this term. If the usage is archaic or used by other countries, it should not be included in the lede sentence. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Dakotas, Nebraska, and Missouri are NOT Midwestern states.

The Dakotas, Nebraska, and Missouri are GREAT PLAINS and CENTRAL states. The original Midwest lies entirely in the North, and borders the Great Lakes reaching up in the Northeast. The fact that Wikipedia users have chosen to have ND, SD, NE, and MO as part of the North is embarrassing and angering. While we're at it why don't we say Maryland is now part of New England, or Montana is the Pacific Northwest? This is ridiculous. Also, someone has altered the Northern US article to meet his or her agenda. Photos showing northern states in red were also removed. Nikki88 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you getting Midwest confused with the old "northwest territory" definition used in the early 1800's? Anyway the Midwest Region is defined by the US Census B. There are a total of four regions and Central is not one of them. They are Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. I've lived in Ohio, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska and they all label themselves midwestern. (Currently live in CA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.230.35 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nikki88 is definitely the first person I've ever heard claim that the Dakotas and Nebraska aren't northern states. I realize "North" really isn't much of an American region, and I'm glad we don't use it, but I would certainly call them "Northern" if I had to classify states as such (with the exception of southern MO's culture). I'm sorry you were embarrassed to be considered similar to us Great Lakes States :). I think from reading these debates, the only states to not have their Midwestern-ness questioned are IL, IA, MN, and WI. There's a reason all 12 states are lumped together as the Midwest/North Central (more like North AND Central) and then split between Great Lakes and Great Plains states: they're all similar with varying differences. Kinda like looking for differences between Cheerios, they're there, but they're still Cheerios. And please take no offense to that, I know all states are unique in their makeup, but regionally-speaking, every one relates to a few others.207.40.118.194 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

the 4 states in question do have a different culture then the states east of the Mississippi. they just don't seam to fit in with the great lake states very well, especially Kansas.

Population table

The population table is embarrassing. St. Louis is clearly a Midwestern city and would properly be listed as the fourth largest in the urban area and metro area categories. To confuse matters even more, the population table claims to represent the entire Midwest, and was displayed right next to a map titled "Midwest" which showed Missouri as a Midwestern state. A decision one way or the other needs to be made to make this article consistent and encyclopedic.

J. Crocker (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

80% lies in the Eastern portion?

I've added a citation needed tag to "The term "Midwest" is a misnomer, as approximately 80% of this region lies in the eastern half of the United States." because it doesn't give any source for this claim. DHN (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this really need a citation? If you look at the map on the right side of the article, it seems rather obvious that approximatley 80% of the midwest lies in the eastern half of the U.S. I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'd genuinely like to know if a citation is necessary for a statement that appears to be self-evident. How about this? As an alternative to finding a citation, might we just say that "a good deal of" the midwest lies in the eastern half of the U.S., as opposed to saying 80%? 68.39.178.188 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The section titled "History of the term Midwest" seems to address all this. Why not let the issue be described there? Commenting on it in article's second sentence seems a bit much. Pfly (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rail

Why isn't their any metion of rail in this article???? Since most of the communities in the Midwest were founded because of rail development. --Atilla5 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias concern

The article needs to be careful about giving too much weight to any particular entity in saying what the right definition of the term Midwest is. Certainly it is entirely reasonable to limit the scope of the article to the definition used by the U.S. Census Bureau but the article should make more effort up front (preferably in the lead) to mention other states that are sometimes called Midwestern:

• Kentucky ([1], [2])
  • First one looks legit as far as book overview, however with no search in book or word cloud it's hard to say more. JWB
    • Why didn't you just look at the book? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Tennesee ([3])
  • This appears to be based on what can be fit into a rectangular map page. JWB
    • ? So they drew the map so that it extended well below Tennessee just by accident? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oklahoma ([4], [5])
  • The book overview of the first does not mention OK as being in the Midwest. OK does not even appear in the word cloud for the second book. JWB
• Arkansas ([6])
  • This refers to "Southern Development Bank", not Midwest. --JWB (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The entire book is about the Midwest? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly some of the states in the census definition are considered by some sources Western rather than Midwestern.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) There is a long discussion of overlapping cultural areas in the Culture section.

There could be material on which areas are economically integrated with each other. KY seems to be well connected to the Midwest in this sense.

But most fundamentally, the major usage is for the exclusive four-regional division, including the boundary between North and South, which is traditionally a distinct one. --JWB (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument is WP:OR. Whether or not any particular definition makes WP look nice or makes the articles more symmetric is beside the point. And even the boundary between North and South has always been pretty fuzzy albeit clearer than most other divisions.

It is entirely reasonable to limit the focus of an article, provided the focus is notable and reasonably consistent with some widespread view on the topic (which is the case in this article). However implying directly or indirectly that this focus is predominantly considered the only valid definition by experts on the subject is another matter. Certainly implying that in this article is fallacious. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A good guideline that I follow in discussing geographical topics is to avoid being too definite in any statements or implications. It is easy to assign too much meaning to a definition provided by some particular entity (e.g. a government) and fall into the trap of WP:OR. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohio's swing state stsus not mentioned

Ohio has proven to be one of major targets of presidential candidates. Especially in the last four elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.253.214 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Political Trends - Iowa reliably democratic?

The political trends section lists Iowa as being one of the states that is 'reliably democratic'. The state's two senators are split one democrat, one republican. The congressmen, as of late, have tended to be more democratic than republican, but not by much. The two most recent governors have been democrats, but for any particular election, the race is always close. The current governor is not a shoe-in for reelection. It supported George Bush (at least once) for election. But also supported Obama. THe state is definitely NOT 'reliably' Democratic. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia's rule has always been not to say something unless its a fact. Iowa being RELIABLY democratic is not a fact and most likely POV. -Chris141496 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Great Plains" states, continued...

So why does this article use some US Census Bureau definition, whereas other articles such as Southwestern United States use a more "varied" approach? I ask this because I, like others who have posted above, generally don't consider the Dakotas and Nebraska to be the Midwest, and I also would be hesistant with Missouri and Kansas. I like how the southwest article uses a map that shows states that are always considered and ones that are partially (i.e., only a geographic portion of the state) or sometimes considered part of the region. My definition would generally include MN, WI, IA, IL, MI, and OH. In other words the same states that were in the Big Ten Conference until 1990 when Penn State was invited to join. Anyway, just throwing it out there. I also see someone above suggesting southern states sometimes being considered. That seems more far fetched but in any case wondering whether a map that shows more viewpoints and not just the US Census Bureau regions which is a pretty arbitrary definition it seems to me (and which as far as I know does not necessarily coincide with anything other than their own policy). MDuchek (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Way up on this talk page, under "States officially in Midwest", I said how most sources I have found that define the Midwest include Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, and linked to a number of strong sources--dictionary definitions and in-depth studies of the Midwest. I'd argue that the map shows the Midwest as defined not just by the Census, but by a great many other strong sources. That said, the lead text does focus fairly strongly on the Census. I think it would be fine to revise the text to not be so strongly Census-based in the lead. Pfly (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I know this is all original reasearch but pretty much everyone I know in eastern South Dakota thinks of it as the Midwest. However, as you go west over the Missouri that changes and you get mixed responses with some saying Midwest, some Western, and some Mountain. While I would object to removing the Dakotas entirely from the definition of Midwest I have no problem with stating the ambiguity of the situation. A fitting anecdote to this, I once was talking to a man from Ohio. He asked the group I was in if anybody was from the Midwest like he was. I said that I was from South Dakota. He replied that South Dakota wasn't in the Midwest. I replied to him that it was in fact in the Midwest but that Ohio wasn't. So yes the term Midwest is very nebulous and the article should reflect this. sdgjake (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Like I said, the SW article uses a map showing states that are always included (AZ and NM) and showing states that are only sometimes or only partially included. And even that is controversial. What to include for this one is much harder it seems to me, but maybe something akin to that could be used, or maybe no map at all. And/or note that states included in the midwest may also be included in other so-called regions. In any case I agree with the above suggesion on at least expanding the sourcing of the definition beyond the US Census Bureau.

But as to you considering South Dakota midwest, I'd suggest you take a look at the map in Great Plains (i.e., I consider SD Great Plains, though I remember last year driving west through North Dakota the landscape changing after a certain point, so I can understand why you might call part of both states Midwestern).MDuchek (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Midwestern Governor's Association includes South Dakota, as does the federal government. --and it goes back some 130 years, as [www.firstmidwestbank.com/ First Midwest Bank has served Eastern South Dakota since 1883]. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As for how to map this "mushy" Midwest region, I'm not sure the usual approach on Wikipedia will work (showing "states usually considered part of the region" one color and those "sometimes considered" another color). I might argue that there is no single group of states "usually considered" Midwest in the first place! Something that might work though is a map showing how the concept of "Midwest" changed over time. The article gets into this topic a bit in a few places, like the subsection "History of the term Midwest". A map like this might also be able to illustrate the changes in terminology, from the early "West" or "Northwest" to "Middle West" to, most recently, "Midwest". Something to think about anyway. Pfly (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Any Nicknames for MidWest

I have heard Midwest, Middlewest, North Central, and Mid-Motherfucking-West.

Removed foul and irrelevant text.

I removed foul and irrelevant text. Mickman1234 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

midwest

mmidwest is fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.193.181 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)