Talk:Deep South

message: Previously I had posted a lengthy explanation of why I thought the article was misleading. However, after further reflection, I was able to make some small changes that addressed most of my concerns. There does seem to have been a problem with an earlier editor drawing on a source to define "Deep South" that used the "Deep South" label as a sort of arbitrary category, so that states were included or excluded for reasons that have little to do with the original meaning of the term. I suspect there are remnants of that in the article, but I've doctored it enough that I believe it is essentially accurate now. Ftjrwrites (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous format misleading

message: nothing about the reputation (whether fair or not) the deep south has? Saccerzd 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: view?

message: Is Texas part of the Deep South? In eastern Texas and the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the southern heritage is clearly visible. I'm not sure if it is included in this region, though.--unsigned comment by User:Stallions2010
* Did you try reading the article? The answer is no. At least not usually. There's not a "Certification Board for Deep South Statehood" or anything.  --Dystopos 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas? 

message: In the intro paragraph is the phrase "post colonial expansion". perhaps this can be edited (at least, the word 'post' ought to be changed), as the actual term post-colonialism is completely unrelated to the usage of "post colonial" in this article. 71.198.153.155 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post colonial? 

message: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Gobbletyghook. Doesn't add up...
:It has been fixed for you.  Don't everyone thank me at once...  IP Address 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the deal with the last part

message: I take exception with this:
Although Florida is geographically the southernmost state, it is sometimes excluded from the Deep South due to the large amount of Northern migration to the state that has occurred since World War II. However, parts of the state, especially the Panhandle and the northern regions can be included in the characterization, with an unofficial "Southern" line possibly "drawn" around the area near extreme northern Hillsborough County, Florida, jutting northeast to above Orlando and surrounding counties; below this line, the culture tends to be more "Northern" due to said migration...
There are plenty of Southerners and natives (I am 5th generation Manatee County native) South of Hillsborough County. Yes, we have our share of snowbirds, but so does the entire state including North Florida. (Lived there too, thank you).
Florida excluded from being called Deep South? Our boys died in the Civil War too. I don't know what transplant gave you this info on the unofficial "Southern line",  but its bogus.
00:17, 23 July 2006 --magialuna 66.82.9.61 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me? 

message: >>Regarding the following definition on the "article" page: 
***South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana (Seven of the founding members of the Confederate States of America)
>>It appears that someone has added North Carolina to this list.  I have no quarrel with this if those from the above states want to keep it.  However, if that be the case, then the parenthetical phrase concerning the founding of the Confederacy needs to either be eliminated or the wording changed. 
>>In fact, TEXAS was the seventh state to secede from the Union, and complete the list of those which had a hand in the initial formation of the Confederate States of America in Montomgery, Alabama.  Like the rest of the "Upper South" (Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee), North Carolina initially rejected secession and did not join up until after the incident at Ft. Sumter made the situation either/or.  This is NOT intended to disparage the Tar Heel State's commitment to the Confederate cause as, on the contrary, it fought bravely and nobly.  Rather, it is just to point out a factual error contained within the said definition. 
>>On a related tangent, I might suggest that another criteria of Deep South be added. The new one to be made of the seven original Confederate States (South Carolina thru Texas).  Although the actual term "Deep South" did not come into being until well into the 20th Century, many history books use it to refer to the above states (in that era, the designation "Lower South" was used). 
>>I of course realize that few consider Texas -- as a whole -- a Deep South state today, nonetheless history books include it in their definition (albeit non-existent in the day)when referring to secession and the War.  TexasReb 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding members of the Confederacy as "Deep South" 

message: When I was stationed in Memphis in the early 1970s, I heard the term 'Mid South' used rather often, but it was used interchangeably with 'South' to refer to the region. Is this term still in use today?LorenzoB 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid South 

message: The section on the Urban Deep South was a mess and I've tried to fix it a bit. I took out references to cities in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. These aren't in the Deep South. In the section on communities enriched by newcomers, I replaced Jacksonville with Tampa, as more representative of this trend. Jacksonville's large military population generates some diversity but it is more representative of the Deep South's more entrenched cities which did not receive discussion in this section (though they probably should have been addressed.) Jacksonville ought to be grouped with Savannah, Charleston, Pensacola and Mobile as cities that have seen modernization and prosperity in recent years, but have more held more stubbornly to their Deep South cultural legacy than the other areas. 
I got the impression that this section was originally lifted from something discussing the New South in general and not focusing on the distinctiveness of the Deep South.Ftjrwrites 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban section a mess 

message: Recent edits have greatly increased the amount of original research, unverifiable conclusions, uncited claims and POV.  This article really needs to be overhauled with reference to published sources rather than our own understandings of this shifty term. --Dystopos 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Urban areas in Southern states such as Atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, Florida, in the post-war era have also absorbed waves of migrants seeking economic opportunities and warmer climates. This migration, according to some, has diluted some distinct cultural traits of the region. Thus, they are not considered a part of the Deep South. On the other hand, the blending of diverse cultural traditions is integral to the South's distinct urban cultures, such as in New Orleans, Louisiana, Birmingham, Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi What is wrong with this article? Just because people move to Urban areas they are no longer Southern? Who wrote this?  --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: An article of this length and on this subject should include multiple sources, preferably inline citations, especially for some of the characterizations and blanket statements: 
*In recent years, the term has been used loosely and often perjoratively to refer to states in this general cultural region without regard to the term's historically defined limits.  
*Because the culture of large areas of Florida and Texas have been changed by migration patterns of the last half-century, these states are often no longer included under the term. However there are certain parts of these states, such as East Texas and the Florida Panhandle. that retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South.
*Any vaguely defined area within the South that is characterized negatively by anti-intellectualism, romanticizing the antebellum era, sustained racism, entrenched political corruption, ardent Protestant fundamentalism, lack of modern amenities, rejection of modern ways of life, poverty and a general lack of upward mobility; while characterized positively as patriotic, pious, persevering, honest, appreciating simple comforts, respecting the common man, hospitable and cultivating folk wisdom. When used this way, the term becomes a stereotype with heavy cultural baggage.
While some of it is definitely true, going through the trouble of finding sources will weed out the inaccuracies, original research, and problems with POV.  Altairisfartalk 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. A proper citation concerning East Texas and the Florida panhandle was added. TexasReb (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article is much improved, no huge OR or POV problems now.  Altairisfartalk 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Did some cleanup to source what I could, removed some of what I couldn't.  Altairisfartalk 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: RE: The following "definition" in the Usage of the Term section:  
While the northern part of Florida is sometimes referred to as part of the "Deep South," Florida as a whole is not usually considered "Southern" by many residents of Deep South states due to the fact that 15% of Florida's population are retired people from all over the country. This is also especially apparent in coastal South Florida. Many families (especially from the Northeast) move down to Florida, and have become well-cemented into the area. This creates a cultural atmosphere very distinct from the rest of the Deep South. The culture is even further influenced by the huge Hispanic presence (20.1% of the population is Hispanic with 15.94% as White Hispanic). While Deep South states have some semblence of a Hispanic population, they are nowhere near Texas' or Florida's in size.[citation needed] This diversity occurs mainly in South Florida and Central Florida. However those native to Florida (sometimes referred to as a Florida Cracker), in many parts of the state, such as the Florida Panhandle, North Central Florida, the Florida Heartland, and parts of rural Florida, do maintain the Deep South culture. 
I didn't want to remove it without consulting others.  IMHO, however, while the points are well taken, it doesn't really belong under "Usage".  Instead, perhaps, it could be made part of a totally seperate section concerning cultural variations within the Deep South (such as is done on the Southern United States page).  That is, featuring Texas and Florida and why, today, neither are (with the exception of certain areas) really considered "Deep South"...even though they have the historical credentials.  Thoughts? TexasReb (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida and Texas

message: I would argue that FL is not part of the deep south by any means, unless you count north west Florida as being representative of the state as a whole.  A mere visit to South Florida, the Tampa Bay area, Orlando, Jacksonville, dispels any false notion of Florida as the deep south.  Culturally, linguistically, and ethnically, Floridians are NOT southern by any standard and far out number those who consider themselves to be in the deep south.  Of course, there are rural portions of rural central and south west FL where some populations may retain cultural and linguistic aspects usually associated with the deep south but certainly, FL is no deep south state...  In fact, I would argue that FL is one of the most diverse states in the union.  From its inception, FL has been a melting pot of cultures, its largest city in the 1820s when FL was sold to the United States, St. Augustine, was a melting pot...
Tampa at the turn of the century was a safe harbor for immigrants from Italy, Spain, Germany, and Cuba and this is reflected in its culture. 
Congressional representation and FL's battleground status in presidential elections clearly reinforces the fact that FL is not a deep south state.  
BTW, if you need proof... just spend a few days in South Beach and then try to argue that FL is a deep south state.  I'm tired of people constructing this notion that FL because of its geographic location in the American south is a culturally southern state and if you need proof, go read the other articles on FL...
I propose that this article and definition be limited to north west FL and the pan handle, NOT the whole of the state of FL.--Jutland86 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this already basically what the article says? Pfly (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida and Proposal that Deep South definition be reserved only for North West Florida

message: Maybe I've missed it, but I've never heard people who live in these areas use the term "Deep South". It seems to be a term used solely by outsiders, to convey a sense of separation and "otherness". It is reminiscent of the way some used to refer to "deepest, darkest Africa". The area in question also happens to have the largest concentration of black residents of any part of the country. I'm not sure how all of this fits together, but I think this term, beloved by the media and elites on the coasts, is the product of a noxious stew of condescension, bigotry, and perhaps even veiled racism. The "Deep South" sounds like some kind of dark, mysterious jungle you're afraid to venture into, where the inhabitants are probably primitive and dangerous. I cannot help but think that the intent of those who use this term is (consciously or unconsciously) pejorative and derogatory.
::Reading between the lines, it appears Anon is providing a bit of evidence for the Deep South being a nasty place that dislikes outsiders. in any case that's not how it was used in Mississippi-- The state Archives said in 1940: "Dr. Rowland was the author of many invaluable historical works on Mississippi, and was a leader in interpreting the materials of history of the Deep South, the Confederacy, and Mississippi..." The Saturday Evening Post commented in 1928, "The deep South, compared with New England, is no longer backward". Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Deep South" = Derogatory?

message: The US  Supreme Court used the term in 1888 ["They developed primarily in the Deep South to..."} see link Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Early usage

message: I thought that Virginia and West Virginia were in the Deep South  - the article does not seem to mention these states. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are classified as being in the Upper South.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia and West Virginia

message: Not sure where to add this, but it seems as if this map <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg&page=1 suggests that the claim that "People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana.[3]" might need some nuancing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.202.147 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - added context within the article to the list of '%of "English" ancestry by state in the Deep South in 1980' (much new immigration and migration has taken place since then) by saying that "European Americans" who identified single ancestry showed .... Otherwise the contention makes no sense because it disregards the numerous African-American majority areas (some of their ancestry was English or British Isles, too, but many do not identify that way.) Based on the above map, it appears that by 2000, many European Americans in the South simply identified as "American" if choosing only one ancestry, rather than differentiating among Northern European countries. By that time, their lines likely included numerous national ancestries, anyway.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But a second issue is that the 1980 percentages were based on statewide totals and only on those who identified only one ancestry. Among whites, more identified as "English" only than any other ancestry except in LA, where those who identified as "French" only in ancestry were the largest European-American group. By 2000, after years of identity politics, as the above map of predominant ancestry by county shows, more people were identifying only as Americans, rather than naming one British Isles or Northern European group. But in many counties, residents who identified as African American outnumbered those who identified as American or any northern European ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Better explanation of ancestry identification in 1980

message: "People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana" my eye. Unless Africa was somehow part of England during the colonial period. the  Black Belt runs right through the deep south, and as anyone who has every actually been there knows much of it is > 50% african american.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.160.189 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics 

message: Based on something that Rjensen mentioned -- and a more careful reading on my part -- as to the topic in the source cited, I am going to make a slight revision in that section.  I apologize for my original mis-interpretation, and hope to correct it.  TexasReb (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ok go ahead. Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins Section

message: As a non-US reader, the lead image is confusing.  This is for two reasons.  The difference between the red colours is not sufficiently great enouch.  One of them could be changed to greeen, blue, yellow, whatever.  The second confusion is the states that are indicated.  I have never thought of Florida as being Deep South.  Perhaps I am incorrect, but if the modern perception is that it is not, Florida (and other states} should not be highlighted.  If they are involved in the article in some other way (e.g. confederate states), then a further image in the relevant place could show this.  This lead image must be clearer because some readers might look at the image only and not want to delve into the text for further details to explain it.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you have a problem when the image caption explains that part of the area shown does not meet the definition of "Deep South"... I say nuke the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image is misleading 

message: The article does not have much to say on the economic history or the current state of economy of the region.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy or Economic history 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The dirty dirty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The dirty dirty" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Should the further reading section contain references about the Black Belt?
Background:
At
Talk:Black Belt (geological formation)#Content Seems to Conflict with Sources
and
Talk:Black Belt (geological formation)#Obsolete term?
there was a consensus that the term "black belt" is not in common usage the way phrases like "sun belt" and "rust belt" are used and is not a commonly-used phase today outside of physical geography.
The page was renamed from Black Belt (U.S. region) to Black Belt (geological formation) without objection.
 then created Black Belt in the American South which, while not a phrase that is in common use the way "bible belt" is, is clearly used by enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article. 
Rjensen then inserted content into Deep South referring to the page he created and inserted multiple references to the black belt into the further reading section of Deep South article. 
The question before us is whether material about the black belt but not about the deep south should be retained to the further reading section of the deep south article. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While not relevant to this article, the relationship between the geographical term "black belt" and the sociological term "black belt" is more complex. The black soil led to cotton plantations, which led to large numbers of slaves, which led to a majority black population long after the end of slavery. The problem is that by only counting those blacks who are in the area with the soil, anyone using black belt" as a shorthand for "majority black population" ends up missing places like Detroit, which is 82% black. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? The Bible Belt also largely overlaps but is not the same as the deep south. Would you be so kind as to explain why you did not add multiple references to the bible belt to the further reading section of this article? Would you care to explain why you did not add multiple references to the Old South? I can think of half a dozen more things that are contained in or overlap with the deep south, but you only added further reading entries related to the page that you created. That seems a bit promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Black Belt is a major part of the Deep South and has a sophisticated literature that readers interested in the Deep South may find of value, especially is they are interested in blacks/slavery/race relations. As for the Bible Belt--I am the #1 contributor of text to that article, among  the 1000 editors who have worked on it-- see statistics here on Bibl Belt  As for the Old South article I am by far the #1 editor there--see statistics here. I note that Guy Macon has have jumped in to the Old South by ERASING the useful link to the Black Belt. So I have been adding info while some folks are subtracting info. Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Evasion noted. Again I ask, is it your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? Repeating the fact that the black belt partially overlaps the deep south again and again as if someone disputed it does not answer the question asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: when I find what I consider a useful reference that deals with the Deep South I will add it to the reading list. That's what happened here. When preparing the new article Black Belt in the American South a week ago I looked at about several dozen possible scholarly articles and books (most of which I had read over the years). Six that seemed to be highly relevant to Deep South so I added them here on Feb 15--within hours Guy Macon erased all of them without reading any of them --which I think was a bad mistake. Erasing out of ignorance or edit warring is bad editing in my opinion.  Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the references actually mention some sort of connection to the deep south by name (not just a passing mention noting the partial geographical overlap) or do they just "seem (to Rjensen) to be highly relevant to Deep South"? Of your most recent additions, three are available online.  Two make no mention of the deep south at all and the third only mentions it in passing. You need to provide a reliable source that specifically discusses the deep south and the black belt and establishes that the two are related. So far all I am seeing is you repeating again and again that in your personal opinion the deep south and the black belt are related and that in your personal opinion the deep south and the bible belt are not related ("related" in the sense "we need to stuff a bunch of references about one into the other"). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  above I've demonstrated through quotes from multiple reliable sources that there is a significant overlap --The black belt is a major part of the Deep South, although it also extends a little into the border-South in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 21  February 2020 (UTC)
* Remove - not enough overlap to make it further reading.  The article is geographic and cultural, a geologic bit seems just OFFTOPIC for inclusion and not appropriate for Further per MOS:FURTHER  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the further reading section contain references about the Black Belt? 

message: * Remove. it has not been shown that the two concepts "deep south" and "black belt" are synonymous. The borders shown in the Deep South article are quite different from the borders shown in the Black Belt in the American South article. The black belt extends into North Carolina and Virginia. The deep south does not. The deep south extends to Louisiana and part of Texas. The black belt doesn't go much past the Mississippi river. But more importantly, pretty much nobody says "Town X is in the black belt" while all sorts of people say "town Y is in the bible belt" which, BTW raises the question of why we don't have a bunch of further reading citations talking about the bible belt. I say that we should limit the further reading section to citation that are specifically about the deep south, not some related area such as the bible belt or black belt.
:While not relevant to this article, the relationship between the geographical term "black belt" and the sociological term "black belt" is more complex. The black soil led to cotton plantations, which led to large numbers of slaves, which led to a majority black population long after the end of slavery. The problem is that by only counting those blacks who are in the area with the soil, anyone using black belt" as a shorthand for "majority black population" ends up missing places like Detroit, which is 82% black. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? The Bible Belt also largely overlaps but is not the same as the deep south. Would you be so kind as to explain why you did not add multiple references to the bible belt to the further reading section of this article? Would you care to explain why you did not add multiple references to the Old South? I can think of half a dozen more things that are contained in or overlap with the deep south, but you only added further reading entries related to the page that you created. That seems a bit promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Black Belt is a major part of the Deep South and has a sophisticated literature that readers interested in the Deep South may find of value, especially is they are interested in blacks/slavery/race relations. As for the Bible Belt--I am the #1 contributor of text to that article, among  the 1000 editors who have worked on it-- see statistics here on Bibl Belt  As for the Old South article I am by far the #1 editor there--see statistics here. I note that Guy Macon has have jumped in to the Old South by ERASING the useful link to the Black Belt. So I have been adding info while some folks are subtracting info. Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Evasion noted. Again I ask, is it your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? Repeating the fact that the black belt partially overlaps the deep south again and again as if someone disputed it does not answer the question asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: when I find what I consider a useful reference that deals with the Deep South I will add it to the reading list. That's what happened here. When preparing the new article Black Belt in the American South a week ago I looked at about several dozen possible scholarly articles and books (most of which I had read over the years). Six that seemed to be highly relevant to Deep South so I added them here on Feb 15--within hours Guy Macon erased all of them without reading any of them --which I think was a bad mistake. Erasing out of ignorance or edit warring is bad editing in my opinion.  Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the references actually mention some sort of connection to the deep south by name (not just a passing mention noting the partial geographical overlap) or do they just "seem (to Rjensen) to be highly relevant to Deep South"? Of your most recent additions, three are available online.  Two make no mention of the deep south at all and the third only mentions it in passing. You need to provide a reliable source that specifically discusses the deep south and the black belt and establishes that the two are related. So far all I am seeing is you repeating again and again that in your personal opinion the deep south and the black belt are related and that in your personal opinion the deep south and the bible belt are not related ("related" in the sense "we need to stuff a bunch of references about one into the other"). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  above I've demonstrated through quotes from multiple reliable sources that there is a significant overlap --The black belt is a major part of the Deep South, although it also extends a little into the border-South in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 21  February 2020 (UTC)
* Remove - not enough overlap to make it further reading.  The article is geographic and cultural, a geologic bit seems just OFFTOPIC for inclusion and not appropriate for Further per MOS:FURTHER  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There's a discrepancy for the second graphic.  The subtext ("Southern Black Belt counties with an African-American population of 30% or higher in 2000.") versus the details of the graphic ("Southern US counties that were at least 40% Black or African American in the 2000 Census.") versus the CC license ("File:Southern counties with a majority African-American population in 2000.png").   -- Which is it, and what best matches the article text?
Also, is there more current data?  Gprobins (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data discrepancy.