Talk:Southern United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pennsylvania

Just wanna get this out there. Even though Pennsylvania is not geographically considered to be part of the South, I would have to say that southern Pa in towns like Chambersburg, Pa and Fayetteville, Pa are largely influenced by the Southern culture; for example the Confederate Flag is often flown outside of some houses and at some sporting events. I know that it is north of the traditional south, but in culture I would say that it could be influenced to some degree by the south. You could possibly stripe it on the map of modern definition. --Wikihermit 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's stretching it, for a couple of reasons. First, you may have noticed a certain amount of discord around here concerning the status of "border states." Pennsylvania, on the other hand, borders a border state. The other issue is just practical: If you think about it, just about anywhere you go you're going to find elements of what you're calling "Southern culture," but I'm not sure that's even the right word for it. Most folks I know would just say what you're seeing is a good ol' boy thing, which you'll find everywhere. A few years back, I was at a wedding in Little Falls, a little town in upstate NY, and let me tell you, that bunch was about as "good ol' boy" as anything I've seen back in Virginia (apart from that odd Rachel Ray accent that everyone has). But nobody's going to be adding New York to our list anytime soon, I'm pretty sure.

As far as southern influence goes, you're probably right that the south influences the way people in the rest of the country behave, but then again, this page isn't called "Places Influenced by the Southern United States." I'll admit I'm a bit mystified when I see the confederate flag being flown in places like Pennsylvania (and yeah, I've seen it too), but I've seen stranger things—that very flag being worn on t-shirts and jacket way up in Montreal, where I now live, for instance (!!!). When I'm in a good mood I kind of just raise an eyebrow at that sort of thing; when I'm not, I just want to shake some sense into these people. I mean, really... But flying (or wearing) a flag doesn't make you southern, any more than wearing pants fifteen sizes too big and saying things like "yo" and "nigga" makes you ghetto.

My feeling—and, as always, I hope anyone who feels differently will chime in—is that, if anything, the Pennsylvania page might benefit some from this insight into the Pennsylvanian character, but the Southern U.S. page is pretty well complete. Buck Mulligan 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling PA "Southern" would be a big stretch. Alot of the cultural traits you talk about fall more under the label of "Appalachian," of which a huge chuck of PA is part. Interestingly enough, the great migration of people to the Southern Highlands came through PA so there is great continuity between rural PA and the rural mountain south. The line between Southern culture and Appalachian culture is hard to determine. In the opinions of many, they are one in the same. Some say to be part of Appalachia, you have to part of the South. I personally, think this opinion is too narrow. There are alot of similarities between the various Appalachian portions of the Eastern States, whether Northern, Southern, or border that justify a common grouping.
Lasersnake 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

>>I agree 100% here. Intending no disrespect toward the original poster, the fact there may be some Confederate Flags displayed in southern parts of Pennsylvania is hardly indicitive of the area being influenced by Southern culture. As Buck noted, Battle Flags can be found in some form or fashion in most parts of the country (and apparently in Canada! LOL). In my own travels out of the South, I have run across the same thing and in 99% of the cases when I inquired about it, it was indeed more of a good ol' boy type thing, or "Dukes of Hazzard", or just because they thought it looked cool! LOL In almost none of them was there anything mentioned about an historical context or true emotional attachment to Southern culture, the exceptions expectedly being a handful who were displaced Southerners!

>>Anyway, again as mentioned, there are probably few places that don't contain some elements of Southern culture. The extreme southern parts of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio particularly come to mind...as does (mentioned in the article, in fact)the area around Bakersfield, California which was settled by a lot of depression era Texans, Okies and Arkies. If we were to start stiping every place so impacted, then we would have half the country looking like a candy cane!

>>We've pretty well defined the South and border South, and I personally can't see anything we could, should, or need to add to it. TexasReb 12:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think would need to be adding states like Ohio, Pennslvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois on the map.

Confused

hi i think you made a mistake b/c i see on the page that you have maryland + pennsylvania + delaware as southern states. i guess no one noticed it. just wanted to tell you, well okay thanks i'll fix it for you haha wrong states —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.73.90 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

>>LOL I am a little confused myself on what is being said. Far as I know, Pennsylvania was never striped. Now, Delaware and Maryland are, largely because the U.S. Census Bureau includes them in their definition of "The South" so therefore they fit the criteria for the defintion of those states so "colored"...which is being "sometimes/occasionally considered Southern", whether or not most in the other Southern states agree or not. TexasReb 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Maryland's not part of the South...

>>Personally, I agree with you on a gut level. BUT, as has been pointed out many times and in many places in the present discussion thread and in the one archived, a FEW sources (notably the U.S. Census Bureau) counts them as part of the South. Therefore, Maryland (along with Delaware) fits the criteria for being stripped on the map as "Sometimes/Occasionally" considered Southern. TexasReb 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dixie

>>There is something I have been thinking about lately and want to run it past my fellow editors. It concerns the Wikipedia article on "Dixie." There is a textual reference and connecting link to it in the Southern United States piece, but the former really contains very little beyond a bit of history on the song by the same name. This seems a bit out of joint, since while the article here refers to Dixie often being a synonym for the traditional South, nothing is said there which clarifies or expounds on that truism. Do y'all think that maybe we might begin to "flesh out" the other to reflect such?

>>First of all, of course, we would have to mostly agree (just as we finally did on the maps here! LOL) on just exactly "Where is Dixie?" Historically, traditionally, and properly speaking -- and any dictionary backs it up -- it is the 11 states of the Old Confederacy. YET...over the years the term has evolved somewhat in popular mindset into something a bit more defined by perceptions of where the image of "moonlight and magnolias" are very rooted in reality, and where Old South and Confederate traditions live most strongly and are most widely celebrated. In other words, more limited than the South itself and with more mecurical boundaries. The easy deliniations are places like west Texas, northern Virginia and a good part of Florida. Strictly speaking, they are all a part of Dixie, but could they really be included anymore?

>>Let me emphasize the above point by referring to the one of the above I know most about: West Texas. In doing research and going thru old newspapers and such, it was not uncommon at all, up until the mid-1900's at least, for the term "Dixie" to be used quite frequently in business listings or attached to sporting events in that area. The reason being, quite simply, the settlers to the area came from East Texas and other parts of the South, and they (many being Confederate soldiers) and their descendants brought with them that mindset that they were as much Dixie as anybody. Over the years, for one reason or another, that faded, so that now, as John Shelton Reed once put it, somewhat sadly, that the term "Dixie" in far western parts of the South has no more currency than it does in Iowa (that of course, is a bit of exaggeration...but the main point is valid).

>>Anyway, what do you all think about maybe bringing the Dixie article up to snuff, starting with a little sharing and opinions on defining it (that is, in a modern day context...we know what it is historically).

>>By the way, when I mentioned the only thing contained in the article now is song-related, I didnt mean to imply there was anything wrong with that, as I plan on doing a little expanding on that particular facet of Dixie myself. In fact, I once wrote a three-part article on the history of the song from its origins to its modern day useage. If any of you are interested in reading it, here is the URL: http://usads.ms11.net/dixie.html (this goes to Part I. The links to the next segments are contained at the end of the piece itself). TexasReb 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Map in the Politics Section

What the hell, that thing looks ridiculous. Look, we can include Maryland and Delaware as being "part of the South" to humor those not living in reality, but only on a token basis. We're not actually supposed to try and integrate the two states into Southern society when they really don't belong!

That being said, the map of Southern electoral votes is completely absurd. You've got this big red mass with a tiny little speck of blue at the top that obviously doesn't belong, but we're just going to pretend like Maryland and Delaware aren't two of the most heavily Democratic states in the whole damn country.

Now, let's see, politically, who would be a closer match to Maryland and Delaware? Why, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island...

Oh, all Northern states.

Like I said, I'll pretend, for the sake of mollifying the hard-liners, that Maryland and Delaware are "border states." Everyone knows, though, that they're actually not, and including them in an article about Southern politics, when their own political sentiments are so flagrantly Northern, is silly. Somebody please fix or remove this map, as it's misleading.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn

Whoahhhhh there, buddy--take a deep breath and relax. If you've looked at the rest of this talk page then you already know that major changes to the article, especially when they have to do with what is and isn't going to be included in the South, tend to require a heck of a lot of talking-through. Now, let's have a look at what you're saying...

Basically, you seem to think that, because most of the South leans rightward, politically, while Maryland and Delaware are more left-leaning in their voting records, therefore they're not southern. That's a pretty narrow definition of what southern and what's not, my friend. Suppose Louisiana started voting blue--what then? They're not southern anymore? There's a lot more to being a southerner than voting for the Grand Ol' Party, and showing that the south is a varied and multifaceted place is the whole point of this page. If you want sterotypes, you can check out any number of other websites. Besides which, there are more black people in the south then anyplace else, and they tend to vote blue. So are they not supposed to be southerners anymore, either? If we took what you're saying to it's logical conclusion, then we could put up a map of the "south" that excluded all the counties that vote Democratic... but then we'd have a map that looked like a slice of Swiss cheese.

Finally, there's nothing "flagrantly northern" about voting blue. People vote Republican up north all the time, and for all kinds of reasons, and people everywhere have a tendency to vote differently depending on whether they're electing somebody at the municipal, state, or federal levels, because different issues come into play. For that matter, southern Democrats and Republicans tend to be quite different from their northern, western, and midwestern counterparts, because--again--they're concerned about different issues. It's a huge country, after all.

If I'm not speaking for everybody on this issue, I expect we'll hear plenty more about it, but in the meantime I'd ask you to leave the map up there as it is. Buck Mulligan 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Southerness" of Maryland and Delaware have been discussed ad naseum. Please look at the archived discussion pages. There have been multiple peer reviewed studies presented and debated that indicate that Maryland and Delaware "Sometimes/Occassionaly" can be considered Southern. If you have any new data you would like to present for discussion, feel free.
Lasersnake 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "red vs. blue state" voting pattern should actually be "urban vs. rural areas." If you examine the voting patterns in all states, north, south, midwest, and west, they all exhibt the same pattern; urban areas tend to vote democrat and rural areas tend to vote republican. Maryland is dominated by the population in its central I-95 region for national level politics, and many of the people living in that area are economically tied to the federal government for jobs. Remember, before the expansion of the federal government in the 50's, most of Maryland was rural. It is in their best interest to vote for the party traditionally associated with government spending. Also, unlike most other southern states (with the exception of Georgia through Atlanta), Maryland has a large *middle class* black population. I stress middle class because voting rates tend to increase with income. However, remember it is a winner take all system, where 49% could vote one way and 51% vote another way, and the 51% carries the state. In Maryland's case, a small number of counties tend to vote democrat, but because of their large population (and the county wide winner take all system), democrats win the state (except in local elections). But anyway, check out this map which is a good reflection of the popular vote throughout the country:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png

As far as the map in the politics section goes, in my opinion it is somewhat redundant to show a sea of red, but oh well...

>>So far as the "Modern Definition" map goes, which in turn relates to the "voting patterns map" about the only thing I can add to this particular thread is that I was one of those who, initially, was decidedly against including Delaware at all. And barely accepted Maryland.

>>However, after -- operative term here -- QUITE A BIT of discussion, spanning a goodly length of time, I came to agree with the majority of fellow editors -- all educated and objective when it comes to Southern culture -- in that the fact the U.S. Census Bureau includes them, warranted, as Laser put it, being striped as "Sometimes/Occasionally.

>>I am not going to go over that one again...the issue is settled. MY point here is, I get a little irritated when people come in and start critisizing when it is obvious they haven't read a damn thing previous by way of either the entirety of the present thread, nor that "Archived" I think that is the underlying point both Laser and Buck were making and I back it up 100%

>>Ok..that is my rant for the evening! LOL TexasReb 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hate to say it, but I think the original poster has in fact read the archive. If you look at the article history, the political map was added by Sunlight07, someone who has been arguing against including Maryland in the article for several months. Is it coincidence that as soon as a person opposed to the inclusion of Maryland posts a map that points out some of its differences from other southern states, another poster from "*Asstree*, AL," who goes to school in D.C. and has been in trouble from Wikipedia before according to his profile, steps in to argue against Maryland's inclusion because of that map? Further, following the IP addresses of the most recent people who have most called for Maryland's removal all point to a single college in the D.C. area, the city where Sunlight07 has stated he goes to school. I may be way off, and if so, I apologize, but it can all be verified in the Archive and using DNSStuff.com. Basically, I believe we have one person who is attempting to assert his will by pretending to be multiple posters.

Yeah, I looked at his user page and saw that "Asstree, AL" thing, too, so I followed the Google links, and I came up with nothing but blatantly farcical pages. But then again, I (like him) also used to go to a college in the D.C. area, and I knew plenty of folks who'd have been proud of websites like those, if websites as we know them existed back then (gosh... 13 years seems like such a long time, when you look at it that way). So who knows--I'd say a bit of self-parody in one context isn't beyond the pale for somebody who otherwise has strong feelings about what it is to be southern. Hell, I joke about southern, northern, and everything else all the time, but I also take it seriously when it seems like it really matters. But maybe that's giving this guy too much credit. Actually, I'm starting to wonder if he's the same guy whose edit I reverted about three weeks ago after he removed the southern states map (Bierstube Katzen Keller--it's under the talk section about the historic map).

Anyway, as for him "asserting his will": on this page at least, nobody seems to be able to assert his will unless he can convince other people that what he's talking about makes some kind of sense--which pretty much means he can't just assert his will. And damn, guys, it makes me kind of proud. Civilization in action, you might say. Buck Mulligan 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now hold on. That would be like saying that Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House and a Baltimore native who lived in Maryland until she was a grown woman, is a Southerner. Come on. How many people would actually say that?

For that matter, how many people would describe House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senator Barbara Mikulski, or Senator Benjamin Cardin as Southerners? That being said, I'm surprised at the level to which Maryland politicians have suddenly become front-and-center; two Senators, the House Majority Whip, and the Speaker, are all Marylanders by birth. It's pretty cool stuff.

Nanaszczebrzeszyn 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Nanaszczebrzeszyn

Oh, and P.S., I am not some other user. Because of course, there's only one college in the D.C. area. And it's very small.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, since you said you aren't the other poster, you *must* not be :) But, more to your point, so Jesse Jackson is not southern (born in Greenville, SC), but George W. Bush (born in New Haven, CT) is because of their political views? I'm from Charleston, SC, and, while not politically affiliated, certainly agree with the Dem. party on many issues. Guess I can't be southern either.

This discussion is getting us nowhere. I really don't care whether you're one person or many people, Nanaszczebrzeszyn. The point is that you can give us examples of southerners you don't think most people would think of as southern until the cows come home, and you're still not contributing any relevant new information to the discussion.

And anyway, as Texasreb pointed out: The real political division in the U.S. takes place along urban/rural lines, not state lines. If you think Red = South and Blue = North, then your south includes most of the midwest and west, and your north includes Illinios, Michigan, Minnesotta, and the entire west coast. Pretty nonsensical.

P.S., Good luck with your "Asstree, Alabama" hoax. Buck Mulligan 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Looks like it was actually an anonymous user, not Texasreb, who posted a link above to the voting patterns map. My bad.)Buck Mulligan 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a place is Republican or Democratic doesn't decide if it is in the North or South. New Hampshire and Ohio are both normally Red States, and they are both Northeastern states as well. Although New Hampshire voted Democrat in the 04 election, they probably just didn't like Bush.

++++++++++ One last point; look at the 1996 presedential election: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1996

You'll note that Maryland wasn't the only southern state to vote democrat. What about 1992? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992

How about 1988? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1988

Note, Maryland voted Republican. 1984? Same (as did everywhere else): http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1984

My point is that the whole media "Red vs. Blue" hype is just that, hype. The so called "division is recent, just the last two elections. States can, and often do, vote for opposite parties each election. Trying to base what is and isn't southern off of two elections doesn't seem to be the best method to me.

A quick note: This discussion, apart from being futile, is getting very difficult to read. Guys, please sign your posts. You folks who can't, for whatever reason, sign in under a user name, at least come up with some name for yourself and write it at the end of your messages. And please offset your comments from the last comment before yours by using colons. If you don't know what I mean, just hit the "edit" button and look at this comment of mine--it's indented one space, so you know it's me and not a continuation of the last person's thought. This all probably seems very anal-retentive, but it's very annoying to try to figure out who's saying what, otherwise. Thanks.

That aside, I think we're all in agreement about the larger issue of the political map. Unless our friend from "Asstree" can come up with something relevant to say, it looks like we can put this one to bed. Buck Mulligan 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion about defining the South on a blue state versus red state basis is COMPLETELY absurd. Just because a state votes Democratic does not mean it is not Southern by any means. Arkansas Democrats virtually swept every state office this year--by landslides, too. I guess this means by some of you peoples' definitions Arkansas is not a Southern state anymore?ArkSoutherner 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not personally regard either Maryland or Delaware as Southern states. I don't really know how to explain that; they're just not. The Red State/Blue State thing kind of applies, I guess (because none of the Southern states actually vote Blue in presidential elections), but it's more of a cultural thing. Let me put it to you this way: among most of the people I know, the debate is not whether Maryland is a Southern state, but whether Virginia is. Now, I believe that Virginia is part of the South, but many disagree with me. Maryland, on the other hand, is pretty well Northern.

Southern states never vote Democratically is Presidential elections? Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, West Virginia, and Missouri (If you count Missouri as a Southern state.)ArkSoutherner 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

Any chance the state names could be added to the map? I'm from the UK, my knowledge of US geography isn't that good, and I had to go to another article to find out which states were which. 86.136.199.169 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 63.101.179.35 06:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

>>Hmmmm...not a bad idea! What do y'all think? I never really considered that there are those not from the United States who want to read about our Southland, and do NOT know which states are which....

>>PROBLEM is, as I see it, is how it could be done in a way that could be easily read on the map itself?? It might not be too much a chore to ABBREVIATE within the boundaries of the individual states such something as "TX, MS, TN, NC," etc. BUT...it goes back to square one in that someone might not know what the abbreviations mean! LOL The other possibility is to add them to the captions of the maps theselves...but the hang up there is that the taglines are fairly lengthy anyway and, even if we did, it comes down to that the full state names would be "disassociated" from the map itself!

>>Anyway, I think our English friend has a good idea...I just dont know, right off the bat, how to implement it! I will be thinking on it though...and meanwhile ask the rest of you all to do the same.... TexasReb 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea and yet a difficult one to implement. If you look at [this section] of the United States article, you'll find that it contains a map of the country with all states labeled, but it's also about three times the size of our current maps. Is there some way to shrink down the image as it's displayed on the page, while allowing for it to spring up full-sized when clicked-on? I suppose there must be some way to do this, but I'm a bit computer illiterate, so if other people like the idea, then somebody else will have to put it up there.

Basically I think that, whatever we decide, we should definitely try to put something fully labeled into the article. It's nice to know that people from other countries are interested in learning something about the South, especially with world political opinion what it is, these days. Buck Mulligan 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Basketball College

I understand rivaly but if you are going to include Ky and NC as Basketball states it only makes since to inclue the University of Louisville, they are in the top 20 all time winning, top 5 most NCAA appearances, and Top 10 Most championships. They are a part of Ky's basketball culture (like it or not) and should be included in this context. I readded them and added a reference. 63.101.179.35 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Never really thought about Kentucky's best Team 74.128.200.135

• I'm not sure what you meant there but I readded the information about the Louisville Cardinals. In the context of the paragraph it makes perfect sense to included them number 4 in over all ppearances in NCAA (more than Duke) and 2 Championships as Many as Duke and UNC. Leave sports bias at the door.M-BMor 10:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia?

Sorry, but can Virginia really be considered a Southern state? I mean, with Northern Virginia and everything, it doesn't really seem like it makes much sense. I would call Virginia a border state, with the Northern quarter or so being Northern and the southern three quarters or so being Southern. But you can't really say that Loudoun, Fairfax, or Arlington counties are Southern. What does everyone here think?

We've been through this already, and the answer is yes: Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky are all southern states on this page (forgive me, folks, if I'm leaving out a state or two). Please have a look at the archived talk page. Buck Mulligan 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Loundon, Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William do not a northern state make. Most of the state south of Interstate 66 speaks with a southern accent (and even some people north of that line do) and consider themselves southerners. Southern three-quarters of the state = more than enough to make a Southern state. Do transplants to Raleigh, Cary, and Charlotte make North Carolina northern too? 71.48.140.3 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Kentucky yes, Virginia maybe, Maryland definitely not. Anyone else have thoughts on Virginia? I'm really kind of on the fence. What if we called it a Border State, since it's split the way it is? That would seem to make more sense than labeling the whole state as part of the South.

If we mark Virginia a "border state" then Florida should be de-colored entirely. Southern culture and dialect is far more present in Virginia than in Florida. The fact that Florida is located in the South doesn't make it southern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.48.140.3 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Um, no Virginia actually borders a Northern state, whereas Florida doesn't. Florida has Georgia and Alabama to its north and the Gulf of Mexico to its south, whereas Virginia shares a Potomac boundary with Maryland.

Which means absolutely nothing. The South has to end somewhere. Virginia is the South (culturally, linguistically), Maryland is not. Just because a minority of Virginia's population in NoVa doesn't speak with a Southern accent or consider themselves Southern doesn't make Virginia a border state. 71.48.140.3 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • This article is about a geographic sub section of the US. Although there is more to the article than that, unless you can point to reliable sources that state that Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and whatever other state you wish to exclude from the article are never considered part of that geographical area, my question is, what is the basis of your argument?

Agreed with the previous poster...This is a fascinating debate, one that we have had countless times already. I encourage everyone to look in the archived discussion to see all of the data that has already been presented and discussed about what states can be considered "Southern." If anyone wants to present any new data or articles to add to the discussion, feel free. I think at this point anecdontal observations and opinions will not add much to the debate.Lasersnake 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

>> Ditto on the comments by Laser and the other poster above. TexasReb 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One more vote for Southern state. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Virginia is plain not a Southern state. It's partly southern, but the northern half or so is so influenced by Maryland that there is almost no Southern culture left at all. The Southern accent does not pervade there, nor does traditional Southern food. Confederate flags in the area are taboo. It's also worth noting that Northern Virginia gave the Democrats the Governor's Mansion in 2005 and a Senatorial seat in 2006.

Northern Virginia's Democratic tendencies are meaningless to this discussion. Arkansas is much more so a Democratic-leaning state than Virginia, yet few would argue that it's a border state.71.48.140.3 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Apart from agreeing with everybody except the previous poster, I want to emphasize my agreement with the point Lasersnake raises regarding the substance of the objection we're seeing. Discussion and dissent are always healthy and welcome, but if somebody's objection amounts to little more than a variation on "awww--c'mon guys, you all know what I mean" then that's not very helpful to anybody. Neither is "I'm sorry, but...this is really the way things are."

And to whoever just posted the remark about elections: READ THE DISCUSSION THREAD! We've been through all this before, and you don't even have to look in the damn archive! ...Sorry about the tone, guys, but it's hard to keep civil when people just hop into the middle of a discussion when they obviously haven't bothered to read what's been discussed before. Buck Mulligan 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, but you can't seriously call Northern Virginia part of the South. I mean, hell, there's actually a group of people in the legislature who want NoVa to secede and then be annexed as part of Maryland. This should be a sign to you.

• • Maryland and Northern Virginia are part of the South, geographically. You may not consider them to be Southern culturally (but, blanket statements about an entire state are generally fairly ignorant), but that does not change the geography, which is the entire point of this article. As has been pointed out before, North Carolina's major cities are seeing a heavy influx of northerners. Does that make the Triangle no longer part of the South? Maybe culturally, but certainly not geographically. But, so far you have not even given the first bit of evidence to back up the removal of Maryland and Virginia. Again, what is the basis of your argument, other than "I don't like it?"

• Northern Virginia is NOT part of the South; it's nothing but a bunch of Yankees now. It's just not part of the South anymore. And the whole North Carolina argument doesn't work; North Carolina is surrounded by Southern states, while Virginia borders Maryland. This is why West Virginia is also thought of as a border state: it touches Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

• • But, by your own argument, Virginia is not Southern. Thus, North Carolina is *not* bordered by Southern states on all sides. Thus, North Carolina is a border state. Thus, North Carolina is not part of the South. Thus, South Carolina borders a Northern state, thus it is a border state, thus it is not part of the South. Thus Georgia... Hmmm, where are we going with this? Oh yeah, do some research. I know, it is easier just to give an opinion. Guess that is the burden of the dissenter.

• • No, tard, no. Virginia borders a Northern state, hence it is a border state. North Carolina borders a border state, hence it is...North Carolina, a Southern state. Your argument doesn't work. I don't think anyone would try to say that Arkansas is a Northern state simply because it borders Missouri (a border state).

If a state bounds a Northern neighbor (like Virginia) and then sees a sudden influx of population from that Northern neighbor (like Virginia), then it is reasonable to argue that the state in question is a border state (like Virginia).

"It's nothing but a bunch of yankees now" is not an argument. Neither is "It's just not part of the south anymore." Furthermore, one reason W. Virginia is considered a border state is that it borders the northern states and the midwest, sure. But another reason, one more relevant to the issues covered on this page (and again: READ THE DAMN TALK PAGE, people), is that it split during the civil war and joined the Union.

Hmmm... now, let's see... where was the capital of the Confederacy located for nearly the entire period of time that there was a Confederacy? Oh yeah: In Richmond, Virginia! How silly of me to forget! So we've got history (CSA), geography (Mason-Dixon line), and culture (no matter what might be happening in NOVA, the entire state--NOVA included--generally has more in common with southern attitudes and culture than it does with New England, The midwest, etc.).

So once again: Come here with a real argument, and read the talk thread (including the archive). Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time. Buck Mulligan 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Let me help guide the original poster. Since the main thesis seems to be "Virginia borders Maryland, thus it is not Southern, because Maryland is not Southern," your first burden of proof seems to be proving that Maryland is always considered a Northern state. From there, you can work on Virginia. Until then, you are just giving opinion, and I, and hopefully everyone else, will be silent until you start to *prove* your opinion is true.

• Northern Virginia is full of Marylanders and other transplanted Northerners--I should know, 'cause I'm one of them! I think of Virginia in general as Southern, but most of my Virginia friends don't agree with me...:(. That being said, Northern Virginia is definitely different than the rest of the state. It's not completely Southern like most of VA, but it's not identical to MD either. It really is like a border state--right in between!

Now, speaking of different cultures...I've spend the last few weeks introducing our neighbors to steamed crabs, crab chips, raw oysters, and, of course, scrapple!!! (which they actually liked!) I haven't been to a Waffle House since coming here, but I'm itching to go!

I tried grits (which I'd thought was a type of meat up until last week) and did not like them very much, but I'm told they taste better if you add butter and sugar and things like that. So, I really like VA, especially NOVA, and would definitely agree that it is a border state. It's got just the right mix of North and South to be right for everyone!

Oh, and P.S.: If there's a list of Southern foods or Southern recipes on here, I'd be very grateful to have someone point it out to me. I'd like to try my hand at some true Dixie dishes

• I'm a bit confused... Are you suggesting that Virginians aren't familiar with crabs and raw oysters? I think you may have run into some very unusual Virginians... Why didn't you visit one of the Waffle House locations in Maryland?

• I don't think we have those. I actually had never heard of Waffle House until I came here! (here being NOVA). So embarrassing!

• Sweetie, NOVA is not Tidewater. And while my friends are fantastic, they are seafood-impaired. I mean, I actually had to teach them not to eat the devil. Now, come on, that's pretty bad. And the reaction to oysters was not very positive...<:O, but they liked the crabs a lot!

• • Just curious, are you from Tidewater Maryland (Anne Arundel and south, Eastern Shore), Virginia (Hampton Roads, Eastern Shore), or elsewhere? Where were your friends in NOVA born? When I lived in Maryland (Annapolis) and Virginia (Fredericksburg) you could commonly get anything from crabs to frog legs, turtle soup, and gator tail in many seafood joints. BTW, shrimp and grits with corn bread is where its at :)

• Oh, great!!! Well, I'm from Anne Arundel County, and I absolutely love it there! Turtle soup I've heard of (though never had), but frog legs? Gator tail? You must have been eating in some pretty wild places! I didn't know they made that! Did you think that Anne Arundel was the best or what?

Now, most of my NOVA friends are actually from NOVA, which is so weird because it doesn't seem like the place you would actually grow up. Maybe I'm just prejudiced for my state, though :)

I really am going to try grits again. You see, the first time I ate it, no one told me that you're supposed to put things on it, so I ate it plain and thought it was terrible. I really don't see what all the fuss is! But I'm open-minded and really want to experience Southern foods, so please let me know what some are!!! It's soooooo different down here, but I really like it! Plus, people don't notice my accent here as much as they do in the rest of Virginia, so I don't stand out so much. It's really nice to be able to blend in a little!

So, let me know about those Southern foods!!

• • To be quite honest, I am surprised you are from Anne Arundel county and that you consider NOVA more "Southern" than home. Edgewater? Mayo? Deale? Shady Side? Heck, Janet Owens, your previous county executive, is the descendant of Benjamin Welch Owens, winner of the Confederate Medal of Honor. There is a statue of him in Shady Side. Taney was from Anne Arundel County... There is a statue in downtown Annapolis recognizing the city's role as a slave port. Things must have changed since I was there last. But, yes, there are Waffle Houses in Maryland. Check out their website. Southern food? Check Wikipedia :)

No, I'm really from there. I grew up in Pasadena and everything. And I knew about the Taney guy, but you're talking about stuff that happened so long ago. I mean, I knew Maryland had slaves and everything, but...eew, that's a weird idea! That's so weird that some people in Maryland supported the South! Now there's kind of a rivalry between North and South, so I don't think Marylanders would support the South today. Not that I don't like it, though :) Oh, and did you know that they don't call dip eggs dip eggs? How odd is that? I was talking with some friends of mine and got so confused!!!

Are you sure about the Waffle House thing, though? Cause I lived in Maryland my whole life and never even knew about them. It was so funny, the first time I saw one I didn't realize they were part of a chain, and I thought it was just this quaint diner or something! I really want to go to one!

• Waffle House update:

Yeah, I just entered in my old zipcode (21122) into the Wafflehouse location-finder, and it said No Results Found!!! Maybe you were wrong about them being in Maryland. But it said on the site that they have some locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, so maybe it's possible.

• Okay...well, glad to see you're enjoying yourself. And by the way, no, NoVa is not the South.

Well, I mean Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the two icons of the South were both from Virginia, and Virginia solidly supported the Confederacy. Virginia deverses to be called a Southern state, and has much stronger Southern ties than Kentucky. (which did not join the Confederacy.)ArkSoutherner 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the Wafflehouse thing: both Pennsylvania and Ohio have more Wafflehouse restaurants than Maryland (according to the official Wafflehouse site). It's interesting to note that Southern influence really is more prevalent in central Pennsylvania than in any part of Maryland.

I live in Allegany County, Maryland and don't find it odd that we support the South. I feel that Maryland, in most places, is very southern. I've seen countless Confederate Battle Flags and Stars & Bars flags in my area and it definitly doesn't feel much different than places I've traveled to in northern Georgia and southern Alabama. I'm not sure where the fella that said we don't call them dip eggs was at. All I've ever known is either scrambled or dip eggs. Also, with the Waffle House deal....I just passed one a few days ago on my way out to Hagerstown.--USMarineCorps1989 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Old South; New Definition

The definition of the "Old South" on the main page has been changed. The old definition included the original slave states among the first 13 (except Delaware). The new definition takes out Maryland and West Virginia (part of VA back in the days of the "Old South") and adds KY, TN, AL, MS, and FL. The new definition does include a reference, some article from 1936 about the emergence of Metro Communities in the South. The old defintion did not a have a citation. The big problem with this revision is the new defintion does the match the wikipage devoted to the "Old South." Unfortunately the "Old South" page lacks references as well. My understanding of the "Old South" was that it refered to the original slave states that were the "seed stock" for the Southern culture that spread to the Gulf and Inland Southern regions. I am going to try to find some good references to back this up. What does everyone else think?Lasersnake 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool with me.Louisvillian 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went to dictionary.com clicked on "encyclopedia" and typed in "Old South." I found a wonderful article describing the Old South in detail. I was about to copy the URL and post it here when I noticed the source of the infomration..............Wikipedia! Dictionary.com uses wikipedia as its reference source. I found nearly every other reference search result for "old south" went to wikipedia too. We have to be careful folks, apparently we are the standard for information on this topic :) Anyway, I wasn't able to find any good source defining the "Old South" online or in print. I will try to spend some more time next week on this. Hope everyone has better luck than I did.Lasersnake 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

>>The ONLY problem -- and it is a minor one -- I have with the new definition of "Old South" is that the original source backing it up stems from a school of thought that, later, became a bit discredited. The original thesis was by a man named Howard Odom, and he was the author of "Southern Regions of the United States"...in which he divided "The South" into a "Southeast...Old South" and "Southwest" (The actual state divisions were pretty much covered by the one to which Lazer provided the link).

>>BUT...this was an era when the idea of a "New South" was also taking hold...one defined by economic possibilities, and not culture and history. What it DIDN'T take into account was just how strong the latter two criteia figured in to defining the South.

>>Another way to put it is that it made a PROJECTION that never came to fruition. That is, that the idea of "The South" was mecurical and unimportant and that New Mexico and Arizona would become a part of something unemotionally called the "Southern Region". A modern day analogy, I think, is to try and make the "Sunbelt" a coherent region..."

>>OK..enough of my ramblings. The only thing I would say is that adding East Texas to the definition of Old South only makes sense. The rest of Texas? No. But eastern Texas, in the day, was pure cotton plantation county and pure Lower South. TexasReb 01:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the new definition. The "Old South" should refer to the south as recognized in the 13 colonies. Futher, here is a speech by D.H. Hill of the Army of Northern Virginia delivered in Baltimore that, as far as I know, coined the term "Old South" that contradicts the new definition:

• http://www.civilwarhome.com/oldsouth.htm

• Further, if you follow one of the links currently on the page (sorry, don't remember which one, but will locate it if need be), you will read the author's opinion that Southern culture was birthed in the Chesapeake, which makes sense, since that is where the first settlements were in the South (i.e. Virginia, which included land south till Florida in the early colonial days, and Maryland, which was also settled mainly by Viginians). Heck, look up the origins of "cracker" and you will see Virginia and Maryland as sources of the word :)

>>The above is a good point, so let me run something past my fellow editors. What if -- again, just a thought -- if another "definition" on the "Other Definintions" in the opening article section were added? That is, something like "Colonial South"...or whatever? Yeah, yeah, I know that this thing has the potential to get totally unwieldy and "other definitions" stretch for miles, BUT I DO think there is something to be said for it. For example, many today think of the Old South being the part of the region at least reasonably settled prior to the WBTS, and where some form of plantation and/or agrarian existence was the norm. On the other hand, sure, there is much to be said about the Old South being what are known in the history books as the "Southern Colonies." (Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia).

>>Thoughts, y'all...? TexasReb 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A Colonial South or Southern Colonies would be a good definition to have. My biggest issue now is that the definition of "Old South" on this page does not match the defintion of "Old South" on the Old South wikipage. If we can't find any sources for the definition on the Old South wikipage, we may want to consider changing or deleting it. I am not really thrilled about the new "Old South" definition on the this page. I don't really see the functionality of it. But without being able to find a better source to change it, I am kind of left without a leg to stand on.Lasersnake 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the current definition. I'm in the process of looking for a source with a better definition of the Old South region. Not only does the current source use an odd definition of "South" that includes desert Southwestern states in the region, it also straight-out contradicts the Wikipedia page on the Old South, which states that the "Old South" is basically the South as represented in the 13 Colonies. I believe I have a section in a geography textbook to back this fact up. --Gator87 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was think maybe it might be better to change the same of this region and the "Old South" article to the Colonial South, since this is the time period alot of you are meaning to refer to. 74.128.200.135 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• My point from the link above was that from a speech in 1887, the first usage of "The Old South" that I know of (please correct me if there is an earlier), Delaware and Maryland were included. For example, "...defeat of Tarleton at Cowpens [South Carolina], all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil. In the last fight the victory was won when almost lost by the cavalry charge of William Washington, and the free use of the bayonet by that peerless soldier, your [Maryland's] own John Eager Howard." Cowpens was fought by troops from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. And, from the War of 1812, "All, too, readily concede that the brilliant land-fights of that war were in defence of New Orleans, Mobile, Craney Island and Baltimore, all fought by Southern troops on Southern soil." He goes on to state "But the unmaritime South claims, among the naval heroes of that period, Decatur, of Maryland; MacDonough, of Delaware... A very large proportion of the naval heroes of the war of 1812 came from Maryland. [The war of 1812 was what set Maryland as the United State's principle naval state]"

• Ok, done beating a dead horse. So, even though this is not a scholarly paper, but rather a speech from a former commander in the Army of Northern Virginia, it is clear that he includes all of those states, and others, in "The Old South." I guess it comes down to, do you want a modern, i.e. "what everyone thinks they know," or historical definition of "The Old South." I think the current article opts more for the latter.

• Oh, and while I am at it, ignore the trolls. They seem to go away faster that way :)

Thanks anon#70. You succeded where I failed. Good work finding the sourceLasersnake 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia

Just wanted to add my two cents to this debate. Historically, there is no question that Virginia was a Southern state. During the Civil War, it was probably the most important state of the Confederacy. Now, as many people have pointed out, things have changed quite drastically since 1865. However, to state that Virginia is "plain not a Southern state" is inaccurate.

The truth of the matter is, Virginia is neither fully Northern nor fully Southern. In the northern part of the state, the considerable influence of Maryland is significant enough to create a very Northern atmosphere. In the southern part of Virginia, the solid Dixie states of Tennessee and North Carolina help to perpetuate the Old Dominion's status as a bastion of conservatism and a full-fledged member of the South.

In other words, Northern Virginia, only a river away from Maryland, has found its traditional culture almost entirely replaced; while Southern Virginia remains much the same as it has been for decades. Virginia is a border state in the truest sense of the phrase: half North, half South, and wedged directly between the two regions. In my mind, that is how it should be treated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.50.176 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Except that Northern Virginia is a minority of the area and population of Virginia. It's not a border state, it's Southern. 71.48.140.3 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, no, you Northern Virginia is not Southern.

YES IT IS!

You can say it as much as you want, it doesn't make it true! Having been through the REAL South, I know what it looks like, and NOVA doesn't even come close. A town like Pulaski, Virginia is in the South, but Fairfax or Leesburg are not. There is simply no cultural connection as of the 21st Century (by which I mean to hint that stupidly retorting with a smug grin, "Well, Virginia fought for the Confederacy" is not adequate proof that it belongs in the South).

NOVA really is a mix between North and South, but it's coming to resemble Maryland much more closely than the southern part of its own state. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

And, to be quite truthful, Wikipedia has really lost a lot of credibility with me on the regional issue; the same website that stalwartly maintains Northern Virginia, an area not even remotely Southern, as part of the South, has the gall to somehow argue that Kentucky, one of the most Southern states in the Union, is part of the Midwest!

It makes me want to bang my head against the computer screen! I mean, the Encyclopedia's definition of the South is almost comically incorrect!

So, for the record, Northern Virginia is Southern, but Kentucky isn't. Okay.

I thought that we were supposed to define things based on relevant facts, not on bureaucratic ideology (or whatever the hell it is that has led to these bizarre classifications). Ah! I'm like half laughing, half tearing my hair out.

It's almost like someone just sat around one day and was like, "We're gonna throw some random states in as part of the South and we're gonna take a few out."

So, I officially decree that from now on:

• Ohio, Louisiana and Arkansas are part of the Midwest
• Maryland and New York are part of the Upper South
• Texas is actually in the region known as "Upper Mexico," since, after all, it once belonged to that country (this is why arguments such as "Virginia fought for the Confederacy!" sound so retarded in 2007).

Or (and I love this one), "Virginia's below the Mason-Dixon Line!"

Yeah. And so are Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Now, unless we're going to say that these states are somehow part of the South (which I honestly wouldn't put past some of the people on this Encyclopedia), we need to think of better reasoning here.

• I completely and totally agree. The reasons given to explain why Virginia is not a border state have been inadequate to say the least. I'm reminded of when I was a child and my father would respond to a question concerning why I had to do something with, "Because I said so."

It's just a complete denial of logic, the ignoring of hard facts and cultural realities in favor of tired platitudes and ridiculous statements about the Mason-Dixon Line. To say that Northern Virginia is still Southern defies the sanity.

Contrary to what you think, there has been a great deal of discussion about what states to include in the Southern region and how to deal with parts of those states that have experienced significant in-migration from other areas of the US. Please follow the link at the top of the page to the archive to review this information. The article as it stands now mentions very clearly all of the issues you bring up about NOVA. If you feel you have anything new information or comments that would benefit the discription of VA on the main page, feel free to add it.Lasersnake 12:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very pragmatic person, and believe in calling things as they are, without indulging in silly technicality debates.

Northern Virginia is clearly not Southern, and an article about the South should reflect that. However, I am seeing on this page a tendency to lump Northern Virginia in with Maryland, something that I would strongly caution against; while Maryland had undoubtedly played the most important role in bringing Northern customs into NOVA, the two areas still have significant cultural differences.

You wouldn't say that Georgia and Texas are the same, just because the two are Southern. Similarly, there are different kinds of North, and Maryland and Northern Virginia both have very distinct identities (as do Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, etc).

Metros

If the San Antonio metro is going to be removed then the Baltimore metro needs to be removed also because Maryland is hardly ever considered a southern state. I guarantee you that more people will think of San Antonio being more southern than Baltimore.--Mphifer254 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then again, it can't be done this way. You cannot make an article using opinions based on an unofficial definition of the south. If the state is highlighted in red or deep red, ever metro in the state needs to be included. If one day it becomes a universally understood fact that San Antonio, El Paso, and Miami are no longer in the south then they can be disincluded. Until then, for the sake of fact, they need to remain.--Mphifer254 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, Texas is probably the iconic definition of the South. Then again, these are the same people who insist that Virginia couldn't possibly be a border state...

WOW

This article is perfect! But the talk page is nothing but flames, flame wars, and shit like that!

>> Point is acknowledged, BUT, as Paul Harvey might say there IS a "rest of the story." LOL If one reads the Archives and the present thread, it is easily discernible that that there are long-time contributing editors who, even in disagreement, keep it on a civil level. It is THAT fact which, over time, made the article, as you put it (and THANK you!) "perfect". It took a while to do so, and we are still trying to find ways to improve it and all...

>>To the point though, MOST of the "flames" you mention are ignited by people who really haven't contributed much, article wise, but can find continual fault with that contained within. TexasReb 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

NorVA

I think it should be mentioned that NorVA is increasingly Democratic, and recently threw two major statewide elections to Democrats. NC can also be seen as trending Democratic, although that can be disputed. But if Dole loses her seat, IMO that just proves NC is going in the same direction as Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 (talk • contribs) May 17, 2007.

Polotics don't matter whenever a state is Northern or Southern. Virginia and North Carolina will always be Southern no matter who they vote for in the 08 election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.5.249 (talk • contribs) May 18, 2007.

North Carolina is a Southern state, just a Southern state that might be more liberal than normal. Virginia, on the other hand, is ripe for transformation into a Northern region due to its proximity to Maryland. Politics alone can't change a state's region, but politics as a part of culture, combined with culture's other aspects, can do that. As Virginia continues to fall under the influence of Maryland, as more and more Marylanders migrate across the Potomac, Virginia will become more Northern.

Virginia being called Northern is a bunch of bullshit. Virginia is ultra Southern.

Major Metropolitan Areas

I removed Baltimore from the list because it is not even remotely southern in geographic or culture terms. Plus cities such as St. Louis or Kansas City were not included despite the fact that on the map Missouri was stripped. I kept Washington D.C on the list because of it's ties with Virginia.

I also added Birmingham, and Tampa to the list.

• • I reverted your changes. Besides, D.C. is wholly on land donated to the federal government by Maryland. I suppose I should also ask, what are your sources to back up your claims? If none, do not make major revisions to the article.

Well when I am talking about D.C I mean the metropolitan area which includes Northern Virginia and West Virginia. Maryland along with Washington D.C even though they allowed slaves, were officially in the Union during the civil war and don't have much if any influence of southern culture, aside from maybe the eastern shore. Plus these cities are tied to the BosWah metro so they have little in common with the south.

If we are still to include Baltimore on the list then you should also add St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri to the list since southern culture also influences those cities. If this is the case maybe we should include all metro areas in these border states. Kcar 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I saw Baltimore back added to the list, I added St. Louis and Kansas City to the list since I think the general consensus here is to add all major cities that are in shaded or stripped states. Plus these cities have the same southern cultural influence as Baltimore, which is very little. Kcar 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Request

>>I have a request for all my colleagues/fellow editors. To wit, I just added a new section to the "Dixie" article, as relates to a "geographic" location. It is raw and new, but I would sure appreciate opinions on it. And if they are critical? Well, I don't take that personal, rather, welcome!

>>AND contributions, etc, to "flesh it out." After all, "Dixie" is mentioned in the opening reading on the Southern United States page, and there needs to be, I think, a real connection between the two.

>>Anyway, please check it out and thanks in advance, y'all! TexasReb 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Geographical south

Is everyone here totally oblivious to what the geographical (factual) south is? It stretches roughly all the way from central california to north carolina...the "south". The only "south" that is ever mentioned is the old south defined by political boundaries which stretches from southern Arizona and New Mexico to Oklahoma and Misouri to Delaware...I think this should be added with an image.

Can you produce references for it? --JWB 06:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)'

Take a map of the US, and divide it into quarters, and you'll see. You're STILL thinking of the "cultural" south, not the geographic south. -x

He is right, look at this: http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9144/geonorthsouthwf0.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The South does not include the Southwest, the Midwest is not in the West, the North does not specifically exclude the West but is never used when talking about the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast does not include the Midwest which is also in the northeast quadrant of the contiguous US. They are all historically, traditionally, and officially defined regions.

Googling "geographic southern us" gets exactly one hit and other variants get zero hits. This is not a term that is actually in use, which is the criterion for Wikipedia.

Googling "geographic southern" us gets a number of hits, most of which have nothing to do with subdivision of the US, and others like [1] which refer to the traditional South, not including the Southwest.

Sure, you can cut a map of the 48 states into four roughly equal quadrants or two roughly equal halves, but doing this yourself does not count for Wikipedia; notable sources do. --JWB 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see by cutting the US into halves that the ENTIRE geographic southern US goes from mid-California to north Carolina/virignia, you must be a complete moron. I just asked 3 of my coworkers if California is in the geographic south if I drew it out, and they said "I never thought about it that way, yeah, it is". How much more does he have to spell it out for you? GEOGRAPHIC US, not CULTURAL. I'm guessing it's simply because californians don't want to be lumped into the same group as southeasterners (CULTURAL southerners) because of their politics, in which case it becomes about prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.162.45 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You've said it yourself now: people have never thought about it that way. Wikipedia documents existing thought from published sources, not your original thought. WP:OR --JWB 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About time to Archive?

What do y'all say we "archive" this discussion here and start anew. It is getting verrrrry long! LOL TexasReb 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the MD threads to the archive since there seems to be a consensus for now. Let's see how long it takes before someone begins the debate anew. I don't want to touch any of the Kentucky threads, lets let Louisville or Gator tackle those :)
Lasersnake 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lasersnake. I found out why those areas are grey. Those areas are sparsly populated or have no distinct regional dialect. There are regions in the west that are still developing an identity. The PA regions have several dialects and a majority cannot be established.

That's probably a good idea, since it seems as if the debate has died down and the trolls have moved on. It is getting a tad cluttered. --Gator87 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah now that those trolls are gone (LOL) maybr we can work on soem more things. 74.128.200.135 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved most of the threads to the archive since they have been inactive for a while.
Lasersnake 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the old Kentucky discussion threads to the archive.
Lasersnake 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cultural variations

The "Cultural variations" section needs some major work. I removed the most egregious examples of unsourced, stereotypical racial observations, such as the claim that Puerto Ricans have moved from New York and "diluted" the southern culture of Orlando, Florida. However many other claims remain. All statements in Wikipedia articles must be backed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This requirement is doubly important when making bold claims about the cultural influences of immigration. Rhobite 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

>>I have some mixed feelings about this one, although I very much acknowledge the points made about stereotyping and the "reliable sources" aspect. With that said, however, to SOME extent, a section -- concerning culture, especially -- is going to be, by definition, influenced to some degree by POV. That is, the cold, objective, validity cannot be verified by studies or cited sources.

>>I don't know about Florida, but being a fourth generation native Texan, I can say that the mostly recent (and a goodly part of it illegal) hispanic migration into the state has had the effect of "diluting" the Southern culture in some of its regions (mostly West and South Texas).

>>One of the most "given" Southern characteristics of the South has always been the traditionally and historical existence of a sort of black/white duality in terms of demographics, law, culture and tradition. Often they have been very much at odds with each other (ala' Jim Crow laws) but in other ways, there has been the "blend" of the two that has played a large role in shaping the American South. And a certain something that bonds black and white Southerners in terms of THINKING of themselves collectively as Southern, that is not easily articulated to those outside the region. Nor can be truly understood by the latter.

>>On the other hand, hispanics have never really shared in all that, nor think of themselves as one with it. I don't know that any actual studies have been done to verify it, which is the main point. Sure, perhaps some more detailed surveys, oriented toward the ethnic SHOULD be done. But at the same time, some weight to those POV observations verifying changes within the South, cannot be totally dismissed... TexasReb 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

>>I modified the West Virginia part of this section. Most people are not very familiar with the history of WV and are using 100 year old sources for history, even James McPherson is guilty of this. I really don't know why, most of the information has been out there for at least 80 years. Anyway, I wanted to provide a map so that people can see what I am talking about. WV was cobbled together at gunpoint and was not a cohesive entity despite what you might read in general histories. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubyavee (talk • contribs) 02:21:30, August 18, 2007 (UTC). >>I forgot to sign my post above about WV, sorry.Dubyavee 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "secessionist county" mean in this context? That their representatives voted for secession when it came before the Virginia legislature? --JWB 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JWB. It means that the citizens of those counties voted to secede along with the rest of VA when the vote was taken on May 23, 1861. If you click on the link I provided above you will see in green those counties that voted for secession. I would heartily recommend Mr. Curry's book for anyone interested in WV statehood. Mr. Curry's findings on the county vote are actually verified by the Constitutional Convention records of 1861-63. In James C. McGregor's "Disruption of Virginia" he quotes from those records-

From the Constitutional Covention in Wheeling: "January 13th Mr. Sinsel made some extremely illuminating admissions...He referred to the border counties as 'deadly Secessionist in sentiment and feeling', and predicted that after rebellion only Secessionists would be elected to public office. 'Who denies that McDowell, Wyoming, Raleigh, Calhoun, Gilmer, Braxton, Clay, Tucker, Randolph, Webster, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Pocahontas, Roane, Wirt, Monroe, and Greenbrier-add to that Barbour and many others-are all dominated by the spirit of rebellion?'" I hope this helps. If you want any other information let me know.Dubyavee 06:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some perspective should be kept on the relatively short history of Texas' "Southern" past. It was a booming frontier for just a couple of decades before the Civil War, not some long-established region of Southerners. People went there from IN and MI and all over the Midwest, not just the South. Give other people a chance to make it their own, too, including later immigrants.--Parkwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While certainly there were settlers from other regions (as there were, to one degree or another, in all other states of the South in their early days), the *vast* majority of those who settled Texas from the time it was open to colonization by Mexico were from the older states of the southeast. And it is that culture which in fact did establish it as a Southern state from the very beginning of statehood. Following that, the history of "Southerness" was not something that was relatively short in Texas, but exists to this day. It was one of the original charter members of the Confederacy and the second-to-last to be readmitted to the Union (and, following reconstruction, became a strong "Jim Crow" state). Today, it is that essentially Southern history and culture which still dominates Texas in -- just to name a few -- things like religious demographics (Southern Baptist church is the largest protestant denomination), speech (one of many sub-varities of what is broadly known as "Southern American English"), politics (part of the original Solid South originally democratic and now republican) customs and traditions (Confederate holidays, foodstuffs, black-eyed peas on New Years Day, etc). Of course to be sure given some other aspects of its history and large size (such as more recent migration), Texas taken as a whole is not a *typical* Southern state, but Southern in origination and in most of the important ways. Which is why it is, correctly, indicated on the map as "usually" included in the South, as opposed to "almost always". TexasReb (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Southerners defined the state, especially in the eastern part. In doing research I was amazed at how many other peoples migrated there, too. The pace of population changes was what struck me, but as you note, there were many aspects of political and social culture that were overriding.--Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Parkwells? Here is a excerpt from an article on "Texas speech" which appeared a couple of years ago in Texas Monthly magazine, which I always thought was a very good analogy (or metaphor) for the state is terms of its Southern identification. That is to say, essentially a Southern state, but not a typical Southern state. As a little background, the article itself concerned the most extensive study of "Texas talk" done to date. Here it is, and perhaps you might agree:

“The most basic explanation of aTexas accent is that it’s a Southern accent with a twist,” said Professor Bailey, who has determined that the twang is not only spreading but also changing. “It’s the twist that we’re interested in.” The preeminent scholar on Texas pronunciation, Bailey hails from southern Alabama; he has a soft lilting drawl that, for the sake of economy, will not be phonetically reproduced here but is substantially more genteel and less nasal than Bob Hinkle’s twang. The broadly defined “Texas accent” began to form, Bailey explained, when two populations merged here in the mid-nineteenth century. Settlers who migrated from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi brought with them what would later become the Lower South Dialect (its drawl left an imprint on East Texas), while settlers from Tennessee and Kentucky brought with them the South Midland Dialect (its twang had a greater influence in West Texas). Added to the mix of Anglo settlers from the Deep South and Appalachia who began talking to each other was an established Spanish-speaking population and an influx of Mexican, German, and Czech immigrants. “What distinguishes a Texas accent the most is the confluence of its influences,” said Bailey.

Anyway, I believe that sorta cooresponds in microcosm to the larger issue that while the Southern influence on Texas was/is unquestionably the dominant one, there were/are other cultural impacts that gave the state a bit of an atypical cast. TexasReb (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious many editors love the South, but this is still supposed to be an encyclopedia article. For more impressionistic writing, perhaps editors should seek other venues, like a Southern Living magazine. This is supposed to be factual and sourced.--Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This section roams in time, and it's difficult to know when editors think Southern culture was established. The 19th c. was a time of great migration, even after the Civil War, and the 20th c. accelerated the pace in some areas. Nothing was as static as suggested here. Stability was usually of only a few decades, at most.--Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm creating state headers to make this section easier to navigate, will aphabetize, and also group first those states classified by the Census Bureau as the South.--Parkwells (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive time?

I am wondering if it might not be time to archive this page (or at least goodly parts of it)...? It it getting very lengthy and not much has been contributed in a while. On the "hot topics" we can always revise them. Opinions? TexasReb 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's time to archive the whole thing. --Stallions2010 01:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Lasersnake 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Laser. Looks great! TexasReb 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky dispute in cultural variations

Gator here we have two different studies from two different decades, both studies differed in their findings. It only makes sense to mention the dates of both studies! There was a similar incident in this Wiki article[3] (look at the cranial section). There you have two studies that found made two different findings, only one study was conducted in 93 the other 2006, anyone with common sense would tell you that the dates should be mentioned, and just to note no such argument took place over those mentionings, because they are relevant. LOL it's like some sneaky sellsman crap being pulled here. Crap like this "Well two studies conducted on regional identity contrasted in their findings, but let's just not mention that one study is a decade older than the other" it's just crap! How in the Hell can you get upset if the mentioning of the studies's dates somehow diminish the merrit on one of the two, It's just fact! 74.128.200.135 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

1. It should be evident to anybody who's followed your edits that your only concern here is either removing or invalidating any studies that disagree with your opinions. I do not grant good faith because it's fairly evident that this is the only person of this edit - you have not contributed any material to this section, but you have steadily challenged it line-by-line from the very day that I wrote it. Another editor has left a similar comment on your talk page. This has been going on for months now, and it's getting old and pointless.

2. Date has nothing to do with the relevance of these studies - what you have failed to acknowledge is that the two studies posed their questions very differently. While the Southern Focus Study presented no choices to participants(as another editor has acknowledged), the Changing Usage study gave participants a full range of choices. What you (seem to) wish to imply is that because the S. Focus study is more recent, it is automatically more accurate and more meritorious. This is not so. I hardly believe that Kentucky has "radically shifted" its regional allegiances since 1987, which is common sense given the state's flat population growth. In any event, the dates of the studies are quite evident, in the citation, for anybody interested. The only reason you are so adamant in pulling them into the article is to introduce the (false) idea that the study that matches your strong bias is the only one that should matter.

3. In any event, mentioning the exact numbers is sure to stir up controvery anyhow, which is why I removed them. This is an extraordinarily complex dynamic, and no one study can possibly claim to have exact answers. For accuracy it is necessary to mention all points, and a fair compromise, which I had accomplished, simply acknowledges that some sources have shown majority Southern preference, while others have not. I'm not sure why this bothers you and nobody else.

--Gator87 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You know LOL to be quite honest at this point I could really give a damn about you and Steve's little collaboration to demean any and every edit I make to this subject. Last time I checked Gator I was one of the driving forces behind the second map on this page and also the creator (or resurrector) of Kentucky's little section in the cultural Variations sub section. If those don't count as contributions then please explain why not. Now on the other hand if I see an unsourced claim such as the map you created on the Southeastern Article then I will bring attention to it, as Wikipedia rules clearly states. In any means I'm not to sure how pointing out that a claim is not sourced is damaging or taking away from the article!

LOl Okay Gator you are really making this more complicated then it really is! So I'm going to show you the article that I reference to you earlier note how it is broken down by the dates of the studies.

"A 1993 study by C. Loring Brace et. al. of cranio-facial structures concluded that "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World."[31]

A 2005 study of Predynastic Upper Egyptian crania in comparison to various European and tropical African crania found that the predynastic Badarian series clusters much closer with the Tropical African series.

Another study in 2006[34] of ancient Egyptian craniofacial characteristics published by anthropologist C. Loring Brace found that samples from Naqada II Bronze age Egypt clustered primarily with modern Somalis, Nubians, Arabic-speaking Fellaheen farmers of Israel, and more remotely with various Niger-Congo speakers. This is another Wikipedia article [4]

Now please tell me how in this article the reader can identify which study is relevant if the dates aren't even mentioned? It can't be done!!! This is just an example from another Wiki article of how the dates are relevant as to which study holds more merrit. Yes Gator Merrit will come into play with inclusion of the dates, and your censoring of the dates is just another attempt on your part to present Kentucky as a no man's land, in which it has no more extensive ties to either region.

74.128.200.135 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're going to continue to ignore the differences in the way that the studies were conducted, but I'm not. These are not two identical surveys, conducted with the same question, with one merely being a more recent version of the other. And again, date has nothing to do with the relevance here - the reason that there is a difference in the studies' findings is because a wide array of choices for regional identification were presented in one, and not in the other, and not because of a minor time difference. Studies are routinely cited on these pages that are 50, 60 years old, so a 20 year old study is hardly "dated" - especially when speaking of low-growth state like Kentucky that is not changing in the same manner demographicaly as states like North Carolina and Virginia. Date does not make one of those studies "superior" to the other, which is what your biased edit was attempting to portray. That's a lie, and a highly biased one. The difference in these two credible sources merely shows that the exact percentages for regional affinities in Kentucky are difficult to establish, which is, really, the entire point of the section in Cultural Variations.

And no, you sure as hell haven't written a damn thing original in the Cultural Variations section, and the Edit History proves that - I wrote the entire portion on Kentucky, provided the citations, and you have been constantly attacking it, line-by-line, since day one because you don't want it on this page at all. Steve and I have brought attention to this becacuse you have done it on about half-a-dozen other pages - the Southeastern United States, Kentucky, Midwestern United States, Black Belt, just to name a few - as well, and it is getting very old. You do not contribute, but you do take the time to attack any and every source that disagrees with your viewpoint.

Granted, I have no problem keeping both of the studies out of the section. It is still portraying the correct message fine without them. If they are to be included, it is imperative that they are included without a purposeless bias.

--Gator87 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying at all that they were identical studies , LOL even though you attempted to argue something similar to that in our earlier debates. But the goal of both studies are the same, regional Identity...Is it not? While the Changing Usage study conducted published in 1986 has found less than half of the state's population to identify with the South, the more recent and persistant Southern Focus Study has found that over 3/4's of the population idnetifies with the South. Unless somehow you find a reason why these studies aren't related, and with such a starx difference in the findings of two "similar" studies it's only logical for the date to be mentioned.

Well while you've so relentlessly tracked my every edit, you seemed to skip over the last few edits I've made which are not related to the subject at hand, so that little bit you just said was false! Even before those edits I've done nothing to damage to Wikipedia in any way shape or form, and if so Steve would have hopped on the chance to ban me. On Midwest Article, other than deleting redundant crap that Steve simply copied and pasted from the map's caption, I've stayed relatively quite there. In the Black Belt article I "added" a side explanation for Kentucky, you then add a little more to my explanation in which I commended you on (but ultimately ended up deleted in the final edit). The SouthEastern page, if anything you were the one who has reduced that article to about half of it's size, and that is apparent in the Edit. I find it funny how you attempt to take credit for this section when it was my damn idea to revive the long dead sub section in the first place.

The anonymity you use while referencing the studies (I.E. not mentioning the name, date, conductors) shows your true motive and to some extent your own insecurity that merrit will be shown. Rather than state it is the Southern Focus Study or the Changing Usage study you insist on keeping them unamed and as unspecific as possible, and reason, other than then this Bias that you're insisting will damage the Article?? The only thing this damages is your goal of making Kentucky out to be "the" Modern day border state, with no stronger bond to one region than the other. In any means I'm not trying to start back up the debate, But I think the dates of the studies should be mentioned, and I think the best way to do this is concensus.

Louisvillian 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

>>Of course, this is a dispute I hope the Kentuckians can work out between themselves. But personally, I can't see what it would hurt to include the dates of the studies especially if the differentiating criteria between the two are made. TexasReb 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Gator knows it would damage his plans of labeling Kentucky an essential border state rather than a Southern one. Louisvillian 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't seek credit for edits here, but it was my idea to create the Kentucky paragragh in this area - I researched, wrote, and cited it from scratch. You have not contributed a damn thing in this section (other than trying to reduce it to nothing, because you don't want anything that challenges Kentucky's "Southern-ness" on this encyclopedia) or on any other page for that matter. You can continue to falsely say otherwise as you wish, but the page history and your personal edit history prove otherwise.

Regarding your invented "conflict", the authors, dates, and affiliated institutions of the studies have always been available through the citation...so this is really a non-issue. Again, the difference in date has nothing to do with the different findings of the studies (though "Louisvillian" would very much wish it so, as to enforce his iron-clad, narrow-minded perception of things, through bias, into this article); the studies were conducted very differently and came to very different results. This shows that an "exact" number regional affinity in Kentucky will be difficult to establish; I insisted on keeping the section vague including removing exact percentages - something I've insisted on since day one, but Louisvillian relentlessly attempted to insert. I only inserted the 47.86% number as a counterbalance because Louisvillian insisted on inserting the exact number for his Southern Focus source, and then, of course, to remove any credibility to the lower Southern percentage by labeling the Changing Regions study as "post-dated" and "garbage", among other creative insults.

As I first said a full three weeks ago, the section is still accomplishing its purpose without either of the studies. This is probably the best course, as it prevents the perpetual troll, or other trolls in the future, from inserting bias in an area on which adequate research has not been conducted. No, the "Southern Focus Survey", which has been placed on a God-like pedestal on this page, does not hold all the answers to regional identity questions. I have no problem with the section as is written now. I will not accept a "compromise" in which an artificial measure - in this case, date - is used to demean one of my sources because on editor disagrees with its findings.

--Gator87 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh you don't seek to take credit so what does this imply when you stated it

"I wrote the entire portion on Kentucky, provided the citations"

While I'll give you credit for adding on this section, you were not the originator of this sub section.. I was the sole reviver of this sub-section contrary to your later add on's [5]. So as far as from scratch LOL please Gator who are you fooling it's all in the history of this page.

"The culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. It should also be noted that many in Kentucky (generally, those in western and northern areas) do not believe themselves to be Southerners, historically or culturally. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than it is Midwestern, as it is culturally and—particularly in southwestern Indiana—economically attached to Louisville, Kentucky."

This was the original that I revived after being dead for over year! Gator please stop it with your teeth grinding claims of me not accepting anything not Southern about Kentucky! If this was the case would I have fought on the Midwestern page also about the inclusion of Kentucky being on the map, (which 90% of Midwesterners on that page oppose). If I were truely against the notion of Kentucky not having non Southern influence then why am I more then pleased with your new contribution to the Midwestern page about Kentucky? You on the other hand have it ingrained in your mind that Kentucky can not be more Southern then Midwestern contrary to the evidence presented. Then when your opinion in the minority you will quickly hop on the band wagon and claim that you always felt it was more Southern (which is also shown in the comments of this articles edit history). So in other words you flip flop your opinion to ride with the concensus! An example is here

"we are quite aware that Kentucky is usually considered a Southern state" [6]

"I for one am from a family of Kentuckians who are also Midwesterners, not Southerners, and we would flat-out challenge to the grave the notion that Kentucky is anything less than a North/South border state" [7]

Not quite level are we?

While the date is present on the Southern Focus Study source, your source is a JSTOR abstract in which the date (and full article for that matter) cannot be viewed without access to JSTOR's in general! I was only able to view this study through a buddy so logically everyone cannot access the full content of this source and logically can't view the date.

As far as the relevance of the dates of the studies I'm not about to argue with you in circles Gator there is a 2 to 1 (texreb) concensus that the dates should be noted. However through your own ongoing attempt to label Kentucky as the essential border state and with no more affiliation the South then the Midwest you will do everything in your power to prevent the dates and ultimately the merrit of these studies to be viewed by the public! These studies are just as any other related studies (as I provided examples earlier), no matter how you look at it and try to twist it around Gator every one knows the Changing Usage study is older and less accurate then the Southern Focus Study. Albiet they weren't identical they were essentially measuring the same thing REGIONAL IDENTITY! You criticize the so-called "god like" treatment of the Southern Focus Study on this article, without the main idea hitting you on the head... Your preferred study is dated and these people are going by the most recent and accurate measurement of culture.

This would be like if egytologist would rather use the 1993 Brace study of the ancient Egyptians rather then the 2006 Keita study which refutes it on it's main points; It makes no sense and you know it! Don't come here criticizing me and claiming I'm all about Kentucky being 100% Southern and all that crap, when you can't even accept the merrit of these two studies, because it goes against your opinion! Just the fact that this talk page has never used your preferred study as an example of Southerness can easily be seen as merrit between the two can it not? In any means Gator I'm not backing down from this position that these dates should be mentioned as the concesus now states, as I will not allow people to be mislead by your deliberate shielding of the facts!

Louisvillian 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

1. As of late, you seem to like to say "you're not backing down", apparently to try to intimidate people with whom you disagree. I assure you, I am young, educated, and not going anywhere regarding this issue and your continued attempts to insert bias into this section (and this subject area in general), so that's really a pointless threat to me.

2. I stand corrected actually - you did add one sentence, a stub of information that you copied from someone's earlier work and pasted back into the Variations section, which primarly stated that Northern Kentucky is Midwestern while Louisville is Southern (a dubious claim, but I'm not re-opening that can of worms.) Subsequently, I wrote the entire paragraph around it and provided citations - starting here - [[8]] and continuing through the next series of edits, while you attempted to remove a variety of sources throughout the month of February because you disagreed with them.

3. For the sake of preventing another edit war, we can include the dates inside the section - and to compensate, I have re-written the section to emphasize the fact that the methods of the studies, not the dates (i.e., one of them presented choices, while the other one didn't) was reponsible for the different findings. With other framing information making it clear that an exact percentage will probably never be know, to remove the prior bias and provide some clarity for readers.

--Gator87 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve was actually the first to say "I'm not backing down" on the slavery disscussion on the Louisville talk page. I'am also young and educated, and as you probably well know I have not and will not back down from my stance on this subject (unlike yourself I.E. citydata.com).

Why thank you for the acknowledgement!!! I'm so glad you're now remembering the main reason why we are here debating right now. Oh my! How did you ever remember that there was already an article in existance that you wrote around and detailed, LOl you're kidding right? It was pretty humourous for the time watching you go about bragging about this article as "your idea from scratch" and what not without even giving credit to myself as the user who revived the article that NO ONE was thinking about. In any means I've never taken credit for the articles creation, so that little emphasis you've put into that statement isn't neccasary or shouldn't be directed towards me.

LOL Gator Okay so let me get this straight you've basically switched the order in which the studies are being presented, for what reason....? Dude you're not slick, and you know what I'm talking about!! The studies were presented by way of their dates, why in Hell would one go from the findings of a (2000's) recent study to an earlier one? Another thing, LOL Changing Usage study was published in 1986 as it says in the study, man the insecurities are surely coming out! I'm going to reword the Southern Focus study slightly and put the studies back in the order in which they were originally presented, BY DATE! Louisvillian 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You clearly still have not read the Changing Usage study, because the very first page says September, 1987, not 1986. I've reverted that, and will continue to revert it.

2. Back down on CityData.com? Uhm, no...one poll on that site found a majority of Kentuckians viewing Louisville as Midwestern, while another poll was split right down the center on the issue, despite your efforts to rig the poll by spamming random users to vote (in favor of your opinion, of course) on the issue. That's quite pathetic, and you're well aware of it; when something is not as you view it, it is rigged, old, obsolete, stupid, "crap", etc. etc. I had (and have) no intention of trying to battle your ignorance ad nauseum on that site; I simply provided some other sources to balance out your argumentation. And based on the votes (and people's pre-conceived notions), I'm hardly in a minority.

3. The map cited via Pfly's site is not available, and nobody has said when it will be available again. Until then, it cannot be cited, because it doesn't exist at the moment. If you want the map in the article, I would suggest uploading it to Wikipedia.

4. Find the Wikipedia principle that shows that studies should be presented "by date." Now you're displease because both studies are giving other weight, and the bias has been removed.

5. I removed the phrase "ironically", from your sentence on Virginia. That's hardly encyclopedic language and one should not disrupt Wikipedia articles to make a point, though you have a history of that. There was no such language in my sentence on Tennessee, which I added simply to reveal the dramatic shift as one crosses the state line. I have no problem with info on Virginia from the Southern Focus study, because in my view the entire point of that section is to raise the point that there is not one "master study" that has answered all of the questions regarding regional affinity - nor will there likely ever be, until somebody starts going door-to-door and taking notes.

Gator87 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually two of those polls read that the majority of voters thought of Louisville as a Southern city! [http://www.city-data.com/forum/kentucky/87582-ok-new-poll-more-options-about.html] [http://www.city-data.com/forum/general-u-s/89259-national-perspective-louisville-southern-midwestern.html]

"LOL answer this question does the sudden huge shift in votes in the poll that was almost unanimously stating this city is Southern, came within the last daylight hours of the last of the four days this poll was alive seem just odd? Does it also seem odd that of those 20 voters that suddenly and unanimously voted Midwestern not a single voter left a single post to back their position (unlike the earlier Southern voters) It's just common sense that this poll was rigged!"

Even to confirm my beliefs I've got several emails and PMS from a few friends on citydata stating that STX sent PM's to other users to vote Midwestern on the poll, claiming I was a troll, and this ironically happened after you put a troll alert on my head in your first post! I guess he just ran it to. In any means out of 3 polls two (which should have three) read that the majority of people see Louisville as a Southern city! In any case you have NOT responded to my post, in other words you've dropped out, you loss!

As far as the Meinings map goes here is the verification needed (according to yourself)

Hi.. yea that website has been down a bit lately. It should be more reliably up soon. I can't point you to another online source, but the printed version from which I made that copy is in the book: Meinig, D.W. (2004). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 4: Global America, 1915-2000. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10432-4. Sorry I can do more, but the web version should be up again "soon" -- make a copy for your own files! :) Pfly 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Louisvillian"

"and nobody has said when it will be available again. Until then, it cannot be cited"

Here is a post from Pfly about his website to me. Me personally I'd rather wait until the site is back up to post both of those claims, so I'll leave that up to you.

Well you've also completely reverted my edits, for what reason? You still have not given a reason for switching the original order of the studies...So no I'm not buying this unbiased crap, you had no ligit reason for this switch so it's being reverted. May I add unlike yourself I've not tampering with your new edits but simply putting back into the order in which they were originially in, Oldest to New or alphabetically according to the Wikipedia citing sources talk page http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources&action=edit&section=27

As far as Virginia goes I was merely showing that the Civil War is what many consider to be the deciding factor in a state's Southerness and with the Virginia example it clearly shows different. As far as your grammer correction

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. ironically (adv.)

is Standard as a sentence adverb, but many literary commentators have regretted the use meaning “unusually, oddly, peculiarly, or simply strangely or unexpectedly,” preferring instead that the word be restricted to occasions when genuine irony is involved. Leave my edits be! Louisvillian 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the dates of the studies should be noted, as well as the fact that they asked their questions in quite a different way, which could (and probably did) influence the results. This should not be a big deal. Just state these facts and don't make everyone read the footnotes to find out when the studies were made. They were just snapshots in time.--Parkwells (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what you said about northern kentucky being more midwestern is pure bullshit i have lived in northern kentucky my whole life and let me tell you something most people at least 90% have some type of southern dialect some stronger then others alot of southern appalachians came here from eastern kentucky the past couple decades.Now like it or not about 50% of cicinnati has some type of southern dialect as well sorry to disapoint you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.19.203 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Culture

A nation was described in the culture section, what with the mythologies, common habits, common area, etc etc. Just pointing out something interesting. 71.68.17.30 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to a comment

"Arkansas Democrats have swept all statewide offices. Some of you may not think it's a Southern state anymore?"

This is a waste of time, but...

Maryland and Delaware have moderate-liberal Democrats. Arkansas's Democratic party is similar to that of the Texas/Georgia Democrats before they were shot down. In other words, Arkansas Democrats still have credible challengers because they're moderate to conservative. There can be no comparison.

Incest?

"Incest is commonly practiced in Southern states. Brothers and sisters, daughters and fathers, fathers and sons all occasionally participate. Though still considered a taboo, incest is very popular in redneck southern communities and is part of southern charm."

If you're going to make a serious allegation like that you really need to provide a better citation, like a link rather than some book that not everybody will be able to check. It's certainly a Southern stereotype, but how much truth is there in it, really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.203.177 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Speech/Cruisine Addition

I added an opening line or so to the Dialect section, which I thought was accurate and appropriate. Then, added a preface to the Cruisine section to match the change. I would like to get opinions as to how fellow editors feel about keeping it, altering it, or deleting it entirely. As I hope everyone knows by now, I am not hard to get along with! LOL TexasReb 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove this if you see fit... citations

I am trying to provide a source for one of my edits concerning the Civil War on this page but am unfamiliar with how to do so. If someone help me out it would be greatly appreciated. The section is entitled "Civil War" and the part in question is near the end of the section citing civilian casualties during the war. (the book for my source: [9] )

Southern Florida

The maps show South Florida, which is Florida south of I-4, as a part of the South. As this is an article about the cultural South, this seems out of place. The culture of South Florida has very few Southern traits. A few months ago, there was a map that showed Southern Florida striped. That map should be brought back. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the proposed map:

I disagree totally. NOT because I object to the map necessarily, and what you say, but because a LOT of talk and discussion went into the previous map before it was put into place (see Archives). Also, the present caption/tagline, which was worded for the previous, makes NO sense with the current map (i.e references to dark red, medium red, and stripped ). To take it on your own to make such changes seems to me very out of line. For that reason, I am going to undo it. Again, NOT because I think you are wrong about south Florida (or wherever) just that a lot of work and time has been spent and any major changes need to be discussed first. What say the rest of y'all? TexasReb (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above map, except I would've fully included Oklahoma in southern states. My reasoning behind this is that the territory that became Oklahoma was allied with the Confederacy. Although my basis for what should be considered "Southern" doesn't seem to be very popular. (i.e. former Confederate States) Mullhawk (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not only about the cultural South. It also covers the South as a geographical region, including in a commonly used 4-region division of the entire US. --JWB (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to try to draw a cultural map, it shouldn't follow state lines at all, and it needs to be from a notable source, for example the Dixie region in Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. (Even the map on that page is slightly squared off to state lines, compared to the actual map in the book.) Drawing a cultural map based on your own ideas is original research and a recipe for edit warring. --JWB (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. The caption can easily be changed (and already has been). As to my understanding, this article is about the cultural south. If it is about the geographical south, then California, New Mexico, and the like should need to be included. Ergo, Southern Florida should not be included. As for consensus point, it's just a matter of time until more people post. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See the Census Regions and Civil War maps. Those define the geographical South by whole states. A map showing cultural boundaries of the South would be much more complex than the one you posted, which is a compromise that is not quite either. --JWB (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mid-South

I'm from Tennessee and a lot of things in Tennessee are named Mid-South, such as the University of Tennessee's Mid-South Center for Biodefense & Security[10] and the Mid-South Fair[11] held in Memphis. I always guessed the Mid-South was like Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, maybe Kentucky. There's also the Mid-South Conference, a college sports conference, with teams in West Virginia, Tennessee, northern Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia. Complicating matters, there's the Foundation for the Mid South, which does work in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.[12] --AW (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like what I found for Southeast: there's no official definition and a lot of variation in different organizations' definitions, though there is a core area which is usually included. --JWB (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tedickey is reverting whenever I add in that the Mid South can also be described as the general area with Tennessee, Arkansas, etc, saying there are no reliable sources. Just above I listed various links to various organizations called "Mid South" which are in Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, and elsewhere. None of those geographical terms are set in stone, and I don't see any reliable sources saying Mid South = South Central United States either. --AW (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall if I did this instance more than once, but the practice of reverting unsourced changes is pretty pervasive in WP. Tedickey (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yours aren't sourced either. --AW (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, you'll provide an example of additions I've made which are unsourced. Finding examples by you are trivial. Tedickey (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First, please look at WP:OWN. Try Googling "mid south". Most of the results are all over the south, from AR to NC. I know that's not a reliable source, but it gives you an idea where I'm coming from. For example, the Mid South Fair is in Memphis. The Mid-South Coliseum is in Memphis. The Mid-South Conference is WV, TN, northern GA, MS, KY, and southwestern VA. Foundation for the Mid South - AR, LA, and MS. Mid South Bank - LA. Mid South Community College, West Memphis, AR. The Naval Support Activity Mid-South, a military base, is in Millington, TN.[13] Here are three news articles talking about the tornadoes which caused damage in TN, AR, AL and MS, saying they're in the Mid South.[14][15][16] Seems odd that all these things which call themselves "Mid South" are not in the Mid South as described in this article. The article for Mid-south itself says either it's either South Central US or "The region centered on the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area, including portions of West Tennessee, northern Mississippi and northeastern Arkansas, as well as the Missouri Bootheel and extreme northwestern Alabama." And the unsourced example you've made is that the Mid-South is the same thing as the South Central US. Where does it say that? Are you saying "South Central" and "Mid South" are the same thing because the terms are similar? I want to have a real discussion about this, not just you being snarky and reverting. I'm doing this is good faith, as I'm sure are you. --AW (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The text that I reverted to start with:

       *The Mid-South: variously known as the South Central United States,
         or an area including Arkansas and/or Tennessee and some surrounding states.

in the context of the links gives an area which does not necessarily include northern Mississippi (it's not mentioned). Adding Arkansas and/or Tennessee gives an entirely different picture than the South Central United States (which of course is no better-sourced than this topic). The casual reader would see this definition as omitting the Deep South, skirting around it in some fashion. Moreover, it's easy to find various agencies and commercial groups who have a headquarters somewhere and draw a 500-mile circle to denote their notion of a region. A well-sourced topic would use definitions from agencies whose expertise is in the underlying attributes (economic interdependencies,Enter away message text here. social, etc). Tedickey (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but "Tennessee and some surrounding states" would get Mississppi in some cases. It's not a region that's defined officially anywhere, which is my point. I'm not saying it's not the South Central US (although I haven't seen much evidence so far that it is), I'm saying that some people also refer to the Mid South as TN, AR, AL, MS, etc. and I don't think it's helpful to remove that. I'll look for some government agencies that say Mid South and get back to you. --AW (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

Why does Abcdefgh redirect to this (Southern United States) page? - Ageekgal (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history - vandalism Tedickey (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this article up to GA standards?

This article needs work to get it up to GA standards:

• The lead is too short and narrow - see WP:LEAD
• There are some Manual of Style issues - see WP:MoS
• The prose are spotty. Portions of the article are poorly written
• The article make some assertions which need to be backed by adding in-line citations from reliable sources
• The article isn't sufficiently broad in its coverage. For example, business, commerce and economics are barely addressed

Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm ready to pull the trigger and de-list the article. It's with deep regrets, because I'd very much like this to be a Good Article. I'm sure that it can be some day, but right now it simply doesn't meet the criteria.

Any thoughts at all? Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than agreement - probably not. Most of the edits on this page which catch my eye are opinion-based, lacking sources. Tedickey (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is, let's not be hasty on this. Just as the decision to create and caption some excellent maps came with a LOT of discussion and debate, so especially should anything so extreme as actually "de-listing" the whole thing. Remember, at one time this article WAS rated as top of the line. It can be again, so let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! LOL

I agree (and am probably "guilty" myself) that a LOT of what is contained has far too much POV and unsourced "facts." At the same time, let's not lose sight of that "The South" -- and all that entails -- is an extremely emotional and heart-felt subject for many, so naturally there ARE going to be entries that WILL reflect such a slanted viewpoint on many topics sub-associated. BUT...let's at least proceed from the premise that the majority of editors/contributors mean well and do their best to make the article into something to be proud of. *smiles*

Bottom line is, IMHO, an extensive re-work (not the maps though..those are GREAT! LOL), and edit is probably justified...but let's take it slowly, ok? 66.25.204.117 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)TexasReb

Tobacco

Since the narrative deals with contemporary companies, it seems there should be some discussions of the health risks discovered with cigarette and other forms of tobacco smoking, as well as the industry's attempt to keep that information out of the market forever.--Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC

I don't think an article on the Southern United States is quite the right place to post your concerns on the health risks of tobacco. The tobacco article itself covers that enough. --God Save the South (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

This section is inaccurate and will be getting changes. The Baptists and Methodists attracted followers before the Revolution and established many churches in the Tidewater in the first couple of decades of the 1800s, not later.--Parkwells (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics

This section skips over the reasons for the Solid South - the deliberate disfranchisement of African Americans and poor whites for decades. I've added some basic facts as to what happened in the late 19th c., as without those, no one would know why a civil rights movement was ever needed. This was way beyond NPOV, and breezily brushed by legal segregation and deprivation of basic citizens' rights for millions of taxpaying citizens. This is one of the many sections that needs more sources, too.--Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma

I've never heard it referred to as a Southern state - you need a source and should also note that other people think it part of the Midwest/West.--Parkwells (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this map may help. Oklahoma was even claimed by the CSA, even though it never formally seceeded. --God Save the South (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Census map is probably irrelevant in this instance. Regarding the CSA (Oklahome couldn't have seceded, since it was not a state til long after) - that's a reference to the Five Civilized Tribes, which is well documented. Post-Civil War is a different matter, which appears to not be documented well (certainly poorly in Wikpedia). Tedickey (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with the Census map, but will admit it was a surprise to me. Still, I think the text should say this is where the Census Bureau classifies it, and/or give other sources. To me (admittedly having spent most of my life on the coasts, so the middle geography starts shifting around in my mind map), it has always seemed more west/midwest.--Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As concerns Oklahoma (see Archives) there was a long discussion over exactly how to "color" the "modern day" map. Here was the original caption: Contemporary South

"The states in dark red are almost always included in modern day definitions of the South, while those in medium red are usually included. The striped states are sometimes/occasionally considered Southern"

As time went on, some detailed qualifications as to "sometimes/occasionally" were added by some editors to that particular map. Then the map of the Census Bureau was added...which supports the fact that yes, "sometimes" Oklahoma is considered Southern (definitely more so than Delaware!)...which was the whole reasoning behind the tagline of the contemporary map. The "citation" and "source" exists by that fact alone. TexasReb (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally, as someone who has lived within thirty minutes of driving or less from Oklahoma for the majority of the past eight years, I haven't really heard any allusions to Oklahoma being considered a Southern state. At the same time, I've also visited the grave of one of the Confederate Cherokee generals from the Five Tribes that Tedickey mentioned above. As with any border area, no answer is completely right. Just as Missouri and Illinois have regions which have or had an identifiable Southern culture, so does Oklahoma. Its probably best to treat Oklahoma along the same lines as the other examples.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What the deuce?

Just in reference to the census map, Maryland is most emphatically NOT a southern state. If they wanted to do it by region, it should have been included with Delaware, Virginia and maybe New Jersey and Pennsylvania as mid-Atlantic states. But if you absolutely have to fit them into Northeast or South, then Maryland belongs in the Northeast; both for geographical reasons (north of DC, which is usually considered the dividing line) and cultural reasons, as our culture is very much that of the Northeast and not the South. 147.9.201.163 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i think oklahoma is in part of "the south" as living in Oklahoma all my natural life, people all the time consider oklahoma as part of the "south" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.117.60 (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The article has some, certainly, but not throughout and not in areas where it really needs it, as in political contentions, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

-Removed { { unsourced } } tag from top of page; article as a whole has sources, and if any individual sections need sources/verification, tags should be placed there as applicable. Âme Errante (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy and History

These need beefing up - there was much more late 19th c. and early 20th c. economic development - boom towns and cities, than suggested here, and much more migration, even before WWII. Many people were already migrating to cities in the South for work before WWII - Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and two other cities all reached major populations, as did Atlanta, and others.--Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Why not have material in these sections that people don't know, for the many who won't go to the longer articles?--Parkwells (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a looksee. In the mean time, a great source for this topic is Edward Ayers New South.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudzu

I recently added West Virginia to the list of states with "kudzu issues", due to WV (especially the Souhtern part of the state) becoming infested with it. I even have proof. [17]. But for some reason SOMEBODY DELETED IT!! I am adding it back to the list.

Also, if that's not enough, take a look at the Hatfield-McCoy Trails web site in Southern WV. A couple of pictures show people driving on their ATV's through Kudzu. Colby Wells (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence and the cite don't agree. The sentence says "particularly big problem", while the cite - which by the way is not a reliable source - only says things such as "Patches of the vine are evident in much of the state", "has a distinct presence", etc. A reliable source would have numbers, e.g., how much is spent on eradication rather than ancedotal remarks by one person. Tedickey (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I take the Cardinal Amtrak train to visit my relatives in Huntington, WV, every August, and kudzu is very familiar to me from the train windows as we pass through Clifton Forge into West Virginia and south to White Sulphur Springs and Charleston. If what you are arguing about is kudzu in West Virginia, I would have to say that kudzu is very present.Dubyavee (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The related Kudzu topic notes that it is present all the way up to New York. Using a source equivalent to the ones given for West Virginia, another editor could simply paste in New York - and be just as nonfactual. A factual source for this would have some way to support the "particulary big problem", whether by (sourced - no random comments) comparisons with other adjacent regions, or by referring to budget figures for weed eradication, etc. The reason for the sentence (which by the way is unsourced for the existing list) is to highlight the parts which are the biggest problem. Removing the "particularly" aspect and just listing everywhere it's a nuisance would eliminate any value to the reader, since the related topic already has a map (unsourced ;-). Tedickey (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your going to say that a newspaper website from Beckley is not a reliable source? What more do you want? I have given you plenty of proof, unlike GA, MD and eastern KY which has no source at all what so ever. (Eastern KY and Southern WV are pretty much the same, and a state line can't stop kudzu from crossing the line.) The article should at least say that it's BECOMING an issue for WV. Colby Wells (talk) 21:00 or 9:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize your latest comment: since the existing sentence is poorly sourced, you feel impelled to add a "me-too" to the sentence. In contrast, I pointed out that the way to resolve the dispute is to find reliable sources. Googling on "extent of kudzu coverage" finds many hits, including a few which are relevant. For instance this comments that Estimates of kudzu infestation in the southeast vary greatly, from as low as two million (Corley et al.., 1997) to as high as seven million acres (Everest et al.., 1991). and The most severe infestations occur in the piedmont regions of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. That's an example of what you can find if you take the time. Tedickey (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

VA/WV

The picture is wrong, VA and WV should be seperated and WV in the stripes.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest Cities in the Southern U.S.

I might be dead mistaken, but shouldn't Atlanta (at least) be listed as well? Energyfreezer (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the top ten (which is what the list shows). The metropolitan area is large, and is shown in the next list Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern States Map

I'm a little concerned of the new map for this article. Maryland is considered a Northeast, occasionally Mid-Atlantic, but never a southern state. As already stated, it is above Washington D.C. which is the dividing line for north/south. I propose a more accurate map be set. Alexf92 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another dividing line is the Mason-Dixon Line, which is Maryland's northern border. Maryland is included in the Census definition of the south. Maryland is part of many southern initiatives, such as the Souther Regional Education Board. The University of Maryland was a founding member of the Southern Conference. Maryland was a slave holding state prior to the Civil War and continued with Jim Crow laws, as well as being part of the original Klu Klux Klan chartered "empire" after the Civil War. The colors of the University of Maryland's sports teams and the state song are both direct reflections of many Maryland's alignment in the Civil War. Recent polls of Marylanders (as evidenced in the archives) show that 40% consider Maryland a southern state. I could go on, but it doesn't matter. The obligation is on you to prove Maryland is "never a souther state." Regards from South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.219.216 (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are some of the jobs that existed in the southern colonies of America in the 17th century?

Im doing this project on the southern colonies of America in the 17th century and I need a little help on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.163.98 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Survey

(moved from user-page Tedickey (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Actually that information was correct. I (wiki editor Louisvillian) along with Wiki editor Gator were the main two contributors to that Kentucky Sub article on that page. The information came from the (which are already cited on the page) Southern Focus study in which the data is found several times on the Southern article's archives. So Im going to revert my edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.215.105 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The text in WP didn't agree with the topic. Looks as if you simply did a revert without rereading what you wrote. For example, WP says 60% of Virginians, and the external link says 82%. Tedickey (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No No below is a cut out of the data that could be viewed through links on the sources. The 60% was referring to the percentage of Virginians who viewed their "themselves as Southerners" the 82% came from asking if they believed that their "state/community" was Southern

WHERE IS THE SOUTH?

The South has been defined by a great many characteristics, but one of the most interesting definitions is where people believe that they are in the South. A related definition is where the residents consider themselves to be southerners, although this is obviously affected by the presence of non-southern migrants.

Until recently we did not have the data to answer the question of where either of those conditions is met. Since 1992, however, 14 twice-yearly Southern Focus Polls conducted by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have asked respondents from the 11 former Confederate states, Kentucky, and Oklahoma "Just for the record, would you say that your community is in the South, or not?" Starting with the third of the series, the same question was asked of smaller samples of respondents from West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Missouri (all except Missouri included in the Bureau of the Census's "South"). Respondents from the 13 southern states were also asked "Do you consider yourself a Southerner, or not?," while starting with the second survey those from other states were asked "Do you consider yourself or anyone in your family a Southerner?," and if so, whether they considered themselves to be Southerners.

It is clear from these data that if the point is to isolate southerners for study or to compare them to other Americans the definition of the South employed by the Southern Focus Poll (and, incidentally, by the Gallup Organization) makes sense, while the Bureau of the Census definiton does not. We already knew that, of course, but it's good to be able to document it.

--John Shelton Reed

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.215.105 (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be "found within the survey", but the link that you're pointing to does not give the information you're "quoting" here. Try to find a usable link. Tedickey (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this information is not verifiable, I found the original study/article for this and NO-WHERE did it say 60% of Virginians identified with the south ect ect ect ect ect.

Baltimore

Is there a reason Baltimore is included in the Metro Area sections but not in the Southern Cities section? gren グレン 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because there's some dispute over whether Maryland is part of the region. Tedickey (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Baltimore City may not be large enough to have made the top ten. It is included in major metropolitan areas of the South, but the city has lost population, like many older industrial cities. I don't know the source for the city population figures. Maryland is included in the Census Region of the South, which I think should end the discussion of where it belongs. At least use the official version as the basis of the article, and qualify it by narrative, if necessary.--Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason why maryland or delaware is not considered apart of the southern colony is because their not! If you are born above the Virginia state line,or above Tennessee or Kentucky or, actually above Mile marker 27 in Missourri you are considered to be a Yankee to us!So don't include yourself in something your not! Signed Rebel Pride! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustyboy1970 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Dustyboy1970 cannot even spell. "their"? "southern colony"? Sir, you pretty much lost all credibility starting with the first word you typed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.92.60 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article

This article is way to long and very obscure, it needs to be cut back. South Bay (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro/Article

• Introduction is not very representative of the rest of the article. It sounds like an essay I would write, it mention cuisine and changing culture without specifically address either those issues except for references into individual states. If it's about the American South, how can you define it as each state, and not the conglomeration that each of these states represents together. It's too unwieldy to have an article with this depth and coverage. Local variation is not needed, since this article is supposed to represent what the American South is, not what it is not! If a person really wants to know specifics, they can look up each state individually.. Schnarr 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion of poverty in the opening is very American-centric. By global standards, the South is very prosperous. Quark1005 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

South via/vs Southwest

I removed the recently added paragraph in the introduction as to the South, Southeast, Southwest connections and distinctions. Reason being -- while respecting that the posters points are very relevant -- it contain much POV and does not really fit into tone and theme of the said initial introduction to the subject. With that said, the history and evolution of the term "Southwest" and how it connects to definitions of the "South" is definitely worthy of a seperate sub-section. And I will be glad to start the writing. But would like to hear the general opinions of fellow contributing editors before I do... TexasReb (talk)TexasReb

See here: Talk:Confederate_States_of_America#Areas_of_control_and_Southern_Americana_today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the Texas presence in the West, carved into pieces, but still significant and the mere fact that Texas is considered Southern? Arizona was founded by Texans who had to deal with another Cowboys vs Indians scenario that existed between the cultures of Texas and Oklahoma, just Apaches this time. From Arizona, they struck at Baja California and lost that one big time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential history section

The following statements occur in the article: The South has produced the first winning presidential candidates for all but two major political parties in the history of the United States. The exceptions are the Federalist Party which claimed its first (and only) presidential victory with John Adams of Massachusetts in 1796, and the Republican Party whose first victory was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. While Lincoln rose to national prominence in Illinois, he was born in Kentucky. Given that Kentucky is included in many definitions of the South why is "Honest Abe" excluded from the list? Is this section based on birth or political history? If birth, Lincoln should be in; if politics, Lincoln is out. Either way a bit of clarification is needed. Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a comment on Lincoln's birth. Still not quite happy with it. Khajidha (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On similar grounds, shouldn't William Henry Harrison be removed. Although he was born in Virginia, he made is career in Ohio, and the northwest territory. (Lucas(CA) (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

POV to say 'hate group'

Close to the very end of the article we find this; "Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which believe that the League of the South is a hate group." Who cares what they believe? If you say that shouldn't you include what the League of the South believes what the SPLC is? In the first sentence of the League of the South says that it is "a Southern nationalist organization ... whose ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic." and it goes on to quote the League of the South as saying,

“We believe that Christianity and social order require that all people, regardless of race, must be equal before the law. We do not believe that the law should be used to persecute, oppress, or favor any race or class. We believe that the only harmony possible between the races, as between all natural differences among human beings, begins in submitting to Jesus Christ's commandment to 'love our neighbours as ourselves.' That is the world we envision and work for."

Now, of course not many people agree with them, but they don't sound racist at all and to include a statement in this article hinting that they are a "hate group" (the original quote said "racist hate group") is simply POV and not founded on facts which is why I say we remove it, quickly. I'll wait a while before I do though in case anyone wants to discuss this breach of NPOV. Invmog (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Map added by Grayshi

I submit that this map created and added by User:Grayshi as in this edit and removed several times by multiple editors is not an improvement over the previous/current map. It looks splendid, but it is vague and subject to opinion and original research. Moreover, it doesn't illuminate the topic any more than the previous map. So far, Grayshi is the only editor that apparently wants to make the switch while by reversion alone, it appears others are against the switch. Until the current consensus is changed to reflect the collective will to make the switch here, the Grayshi map is not the product of consensus. Hoppingalong (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I do not approve of Grayshi's maps. He has an agenda to exclude some census-defined regions of the South. Who is he to decide which regions get certain shades of red to indicate their "southern-ness"? His maps are too vague and too subjective. Stop replacing the maps, sir, or we will continue to reverse your edits, which you take at liberty without a backing of facts or consensus. There should be, like there is now, only 3 ways a state should be shown on the map: Southern (red), Not Southern (beige), and Southern with debate (striped red). It is inaccurate to shade maps because there is no way that a gradation can be accurate in describing the various degrees of southern-ness. For instance, I can tell you that the region of Maryland in which I work is more "Southern" than parts of Montgomery County (which is geographically to the south of me) - so, in no way, would the shaded map be accurate in this, and other cases. 96.244.92.60 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

I too agree with the Hoppingalong's points. The original map was the subject of extensive discussion/debate before being settled on by mulitiple editors (see Archives 2 discussion). No disrespect to Grayshi intended, but revisions of this magnitude and form should not be made without approval of other editors who have had a major hand in contributing to the map and caption-wording. And personally, I see no reason to change it. TexasReb (talk) TexasReb —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Revisionist history (West Virginia)?

Other editors should know that the "history" that an editor is summarizing here reflecting West Virginia disinterest or even repudiation of secession, is not supported in the History of West Viriginia article which has people voting, in deliberate fashion, for separate statehood by a margin of two to one, well exceeding the figures extensively quoted in the over-elaborate footnote. Editor should first gain consensus for his views at a lower level (West Virginia) before summarizing agreed-upon state history here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm - you appear to be citing Wikipedia as a reliable source (which it is not). Is the editor's source unreliable? Tedickey (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears I should explain my edit. The main article has only one sentence dealing with West Virginia statehood. I did not think it explained the situation very well, so I tried to put as much information into the sentence as possible. This is my original sentence-

"West Virginia was formed in 1863 by a Unionist government in Wheeling from 50 western counties of Virginia, though this was done with a minority approval from its residents."

There is a lot of information there. My reference, a rather long footnote, is from the Debates and Proceedings of the First Constitutional Convention of West Virginia, which is considered a primary source by historians. I could have used McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom-"The voters overwhelmingly endorsed a new state, but the turnout was small." (pg. 303) Confirmation of this minority approved state is the fact that the Constitution created by Wheeling was destroyed by the voters once all WVians were allowed to vote in 1871. It was in use only 8 years.

There is nothing controversial, or even questionable in my edit. I would like to see it restored but I will not push it. Dubyavee (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The main point, here, is that there is a West Virginia. History does not support an usurpation or overthrow of the legitimate government by West Virginians except by legal majority vote. This is supposed to be a summary of the states articles. The article on West Virginia does not support this claim. Even, if it did, would it not be merely WP:SOAPBOX here for an unusual viewpoint of history? This is not the place to argue out very basic historical facts which are already documented in the state history article with lots of eyeballs. Not so many eyeballs here. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No - the only valid point is whether the statement was properly sourced. Your opinion regarding consensus is irrelevant, and appears to be uncivil. Try to stay on topic Tedickey (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic is West Virginia. I can "properly source" a statement regarding the Hatfields and McCoys. But West Virginia voted properly to enter the union. This was not contested by Virginia. The article, of which this is supposedly a summary, has nothing about violating democracy in doing so. This should not be a WP:COATRACK for alternative theories. There may be other article for that purpose. If you are contending that West Virginia is not part of the "Southern United States", that would be legitimate. But if that is not being contended, then anything regarding voting or feuds appear off-topic to me. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have gotten overblown. It is obvious from your first post that you are confusing the May 23 1861 vote on Virginia's secession from the U.S. with the Oct. 24 vote on statehood, two very separate issues and votes. If you want to use my talk page feel free, there is no need to inflict this upon others here.Dubyavee (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did confuse it. Nevertheless, the statement reads "At the election (May 23, 1861), secession was ratified by a large majority in the state as a whole, in the western counties that would form the state of West Virginia the vote was approximately 34,677 against and 19,121 for ratification of the Ordinance of Secession."

Fairly obvious that West Virginians did not want to secede from the US. Subseqauent secession from Virginia to rejoin the U.S. seems trivial by comparison of this vote with wide participation. How important was it to belong to Virginia as opposed to the US? Again, an irrelevant issue for this summarized article. Student7 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is TRASH.

It's garbage. Did Ayn Rand write this? Besides the unbelievably poor editing, which is in itself an affront to literary standards, would it surprise anyone to learn that this article about the South also contains extreme anti-Southern slant? It does not surprise me, having witnessed it on so many other occasions. It's interesting to note the differences between different sections, which obviously have been written by different authors. Some have a neutral viewpoint, but then when you get to the Civil War section, that's when the snide comments and extreme bias slip in:

"The Confederacy retained a low tariff regime for European imports but imposed a new tax on all imports from the North. The Union blockade stopped most commerce from entering the South, so the Confederate taxes hardly mattered" <--- snide comment

"Because of states' reluctance to grant voting rights to freedmen, Congress instituted Reconstruction governments." <---- right, this would have been prevented if Southern states had just agreed to grant voting rights. What an idiotic statement.

"Many white Southerners who had actively supported the Confederacy were temporarily disfranchised." <---- you misspelled "permanently." sure it ended up being temporary, but the intent was for it to be permanent.

"With passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (which outlawed slavery), the 14th Amendment (which granted full U.S. citizenship to African Americans) and the 15th amendment (which extended the right to vote to African American males), African Americans in the South were made free citizens and were given the right to vote. Under Federal protection, white and black Republicans formed constitutional conventions and state governments. Among their accomplishments was creating the first public education systems in Southern states, and providing for welfare through orphanages, hospitals and similar institutions." <---- WOW. No mention of the extreme and excessive graft widespread under the Reconstruction governments? The looting of of our homes, properties, and money? No mention of their putting our states under excessive debt? No, the Republicans came down and united with the "African Americans" and everyone lived happily ever after.

I'm just going to stop right there because I'm starting to get a bit pissed off at the crushing ignorance so pervasive on what is supposedly a repository for knowledge and learning. Is there any respect for neutrality here?

And for GOD'S SAKE, please, find an editor who can correct this terribly composed article. I damn sure won't attempt it knowing that my edits would most likely be reverted by some asshole moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.22.40 (talk • contribs)

trash? I suppose it's "rich white trash". People who have such highly developed critical skills are welcome to join the hard working editors here in improving the text. Rjensen (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not edited by one person. There are several of us (! :). Dozens, actually, who seldom agree with one another but who seldom review the same texts that others are interested in. As Rjensen as suggested, feel free to join in. Student7 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuckey's

There was a time (30s into the 60s) when about the only place one could stop on a road trip was Stuckey's. They advertised well ahead of time on billboards, had pecans, peanuts, etc. Travelers often looked forward to stopping there (in lieu of anything else!). On one hand, they are part of history, on the other, this kind of sounds like WP:SPAM now since it still exists as a company, though with lots of competition. Any ideas? Student7 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Where the census screws up... Delaware

Ok, it's fine if the census considers Delaware in the south. This means, however, since most of the population of Delaware is in the north part of the state, that most Delawareans are Metro Philadelphians.

So, the largest southern metro would be... tada: Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington metro area.

Where do you draw the line, though? Is the state geographically in the south, yet most Delawareans live in the Philadelphia tri-state? Is the Philadelphia metro area considered part southern?

Somebody in D.C. needs to clean something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe84323 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma

I've never heard anyone describe Oklahoma as southern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.58.86 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nezzdude

Nezzdude, you have deleted sourced material three times without any explanation besides "Why promote nationalism?" Please cease. This section of the article has been expanded and improved with examples and citations. Eastcote (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous reference supports new text?

Rjensen, I don't disagree with your assertion beginning "Apart from..." (10/22 00:45) but is this supported by the prior reference at the end of the new additions, which was "Cooper and Knotts"? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

yes it is, and I'll also add their new book that has more details. For example they say "The United States is increasingly homogenized. Strip malls, cookie-cutter housing developments and the rise of chain restaurants...." Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

edit wars

We have some editors who are challenging statements about the cionvergence of the South to national norms with citations that do not deal with the question -- like //(except for Medicare service use) [ref]Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, "Report to the Congress: Measuring Regional Variation in Service Use", (December 2009)[/ref] which compares regions inside south Florida. The argument is about convergence--coming closer to national averages--we all know the South used to be different, that is not the issue. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Related to this edit war, I have reported Rjensen to the 3RR Noticeboard. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the cusp of a 3RR violation here, so I'm going to step back from the revert button, but the fourth opening paragraph is just a mess of original research and vaguely sourced statements. There's no indication whatsoever in the sources provided by Rjensen that NCLB has had any impact on student achievement in the South with relation to the rest of the nation. The entire sentence in question needs much better citations to support the notion that the South is no longer regionally distinct. Can we get some more editors in here to sort the mess out? Uncle Dick (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree (though I am near 3RR, too, so I will leave things as is for now). In response to Rjensen's point above, the newer "increasingly similar in all 50 states, with smaller and smaller variations" language is better than "practically the same in all 50 states", but is still weasel word laden. And which version does the source support? I would remove the whole paragraph, or narrow its assertion, until better sourcing is produced. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah let's step back. The Medicare citation is not about the South and does not belong in this article but I apologize for reverting it. The argument about convergence of the South follows paragraphs about where the South remains different, and is based on the RS -- lots of studies show that the South is becoming more similar to the national average on many (though not all) indicators. The point about NCLB is that deferal law now requires all students in the US reach world standards by 2013, as per citation, which pushed every state in the same direction toward convergence. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But what about the "Southernization" of the U.S.? And states still have different standards under NCLB. Using that as an example is going to require some good sources. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hoppingalong makes the good point that the convergence is in part because of "Southernization" (the rest of the US looks more like the South), and he should add that point to the text. NCLB requires all states converge to international levels--which is in the future--and it has required all states to set up testing procedures, which they have all done. The procedures are very similar (lots of tests by state standards) although the state standards are not the same. That is a powerful example of convergence in schooling. Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit on it with my edit here. It turns out there is a Wikipedia article about the subject, Southernization (U.S.)! The whole paragraph (including my new sentence) still needs work, though. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

New addition to references

A new addition was made to references: "* Mark, Rebecca, and Rob Vaughan. The South: The Greenwood Encyclopedia of American Regional Cultures (2004)" References are usually done with a brand new article to get something in an article, quick and dirty. Now that we have an article, perhaps this can be added to appropriate sentences (in-line footnotes). We now need footnotes, not new general "references" at this point. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

South like everyplace else

Well, okay, particularly in the cities and suburbs the South is like everyplace else. Not so much the rural areas though where novel infrastructure is lacking. And like everyplace out of the Northeast, the vistas tend to be broader, roadways generous, traffic less onerous, traffic politer IMO, people are often politer too (out of their cars!  :). There is less animosity in the political process. Fewer people out to "get" somebody, regardless of the consequences. Less crime I think. More religious; since the South is mostly Protestant, this is very noticeable - one of the few Protestant religious centers in America. Fewer people doing "their thing" disregarding the opinions and feelings of others. Not as "clique-y as up North. So their are still differences. They just aren't as superficial. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Student7 is accurately describing rural America, north south east and west-- that is, the rural South is much like the rural non-South (except for the weather). Now that cotton is mostly gone, even the farming is similar. The South once was distinctive in its local rural merchants every few miles, but people now drive to Wal-mart 25 miles away.Rjensen (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Got to agree with you, Rjensen. Rural Alabama looks much like rural Michigan. In my experience, traffic in rural Alabama is actually more congested, and the houses closer together than in Michigan, and I've been all around both states. Regarding broad vistas, in my opinion there are more wide open spaces in the northern Midwest and upstate New York. And there have always been plenty of ornery people out to "get" someone in Alabama (I'm originally from there, by the way). And the South leads the nation in both property crime and violent crime. See FBI stats: [18] However, I think one of the remaining distinctions about the South certainly is the religion factor. Very noticeable, and a little disconcerting for the uninitiated. But by and large the South is becoming like most other places. Eastcote (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if the paragraph ought to be placed in its own article, if it can be generalized, and link to it from here under "Homogenization of America" or somesuch. Differences could be described. It seems to me that this could be placed into any article, Southwest, New England, etc. Student7 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that something happened in the South that did not happen elsewhere. The rest of the country was not regionally distinct but the South once was.Rjensen (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should consider "reworking" the language of the paragraph. It might be toned down a bit while maintaining the same objective. When wording annoys people, it is probably a good idea to rework it around the same reliable references. It reads a bit "funny" like someone with a pov. Not so sure that the same thing can't be said in a somewhat less annoying way. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be moved to the "culture" section, rather than be placed where it is in the opening of the article. The opening should define what "Southern United States" is, and then history, culture, economics, etc., belong below. Eastcote (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote has a good point. The lead should serve to introduce the topic which is not why the South does not exist today as a solid entity, but what the South is. This is a bit of a cavil which probably should be moved. Probably still should be rewritten, though. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

American Human Development Report

Once race is taken into consideration, the South mostly does well when compared to Northern states in education, for both blacks and whites. Mississippi does poorly either way, Massachusetts does well either way, so there are exceptions.

The American Human Development Report does not take race into consideration, even thought the federal government (in educational reporting) does. It is a private organization. Their only intent, as I see it, is to prove that a) The North is superior to the South, or b) states voting Democrat are superior to states voting Republican. Either way, even with footnotes, it does not seem to me that this is sufficiently npov to be listed here. It was correctly erased recently by a respected editor for lack of references. But maybe even after references are supplied? Student7 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Article seems biased

"Sociological research has indicated that Southern collective identity stems from political, demographic and cultural distinctiveness. Studies have shown that Southerners are more conservative than non-Southerners in several areas including religion, morality, international relations and race relations.[6][7] This is especially evident during presidential elections and religious attendance figures.[8][9] In the 21st century, the South remains demographically distinct with higher percentages of blacks, lower percentages of high school graduates, lower housing values, lower household incomes and higher percentages of people in poverty.[10] That, combined with the fact that Southerners continue to maintain strong loyalty to family ties, has led some sociologists to label white Southerners a "quasi-ethnic regional group."[11]"

That sounds like some biased someone wrote that to make southerners out to be mostly undereducated and poor. That is far from the case. 70.178.26.108 (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See partial answer in preceding subsection. Hard to get this into a summary. If you can figure out how, go ahead. White Vermonters, for example, do not perform better than white Floridians. Black people from Connecticut may underperform blacks from Georgia. But when you lump them together, it makes the North look better, which they like. And they own the media. But not the government which has these figures. Student7 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried to change article. While I agree with the underlying premise that "Southerners are different", my sentence did seem to undermine the momentum of the paragraph. I think the whole paragraph and maybe subsection needs rewriting. And BTW, Southern Blacks view themselves different in a positive way than Northern Blacks. Not just restricted to whites. Let's face it, "the South" was created by both blacks and whites, working together. That they are both similar in many ways should not be surprising. Student7 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is some of the most biased unsourced information I have ever seen. Get a source and a non-bias paragraph updated or I will remove the paragraph in question. That is beyond ridiculous and untrue regardless of who agrees on it. Suffyy (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could be more specific.

There are (in two paragraphs) from five to seven citations. We can discuss the reliability of these references if you like. It is difficult or sometimes impossible to erase material that has reliable citations. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient. Southerners do tend to have less income per capita. They also have lower cost of living which isn't mentioned here. They do, as a group, tend to have lower educational achievement, though their performance in school is not necessarily wanting. Maybe people with higher degrees leave. I don't know. But this needs to be criticized on the basis of fact, not your gut reaction. Student7 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

..My gut reaction? Fact? There is no 'fact' or 'reaction' in this. This isn't because I do not like it. I'm asking for somebody to update this in a sourced and nonbiased way.It's untrue, unsourced and to be honest people aren't very happy about the unsourced update you made to the article. This isn't me not liking the article, this is about how you are vandalizing this article. There is no proof whatsoever to show that the south has more blacks than whites as well as 75% of southern folk being muslim and the remaining 2% being christian. There is also no proof whatsoever to show the southern high-schools are failing and that the average IQ is 75. Last I checked the north was the district having difficulty with it's high-school's due to it's high populace. You make people in the southern region out to be monkeys on pogosticks while the north have a nice laugh. I'm asking for a fix. I stated that if you are unable too, then I will do so. This isn't about my gut reaction. This is about your biased and unsourced article on a class importance wikipedia page. Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a valid source of information. --Suffyy (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

?? The article doesn't say any of these things. Pfly (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We were talking to ...108 originally. Troll? Student7 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

""However, when race is taken into consideration, Southern whites do as well as Northern whites, Southern blacks do as well, or better, than Northern blacks.[11][12]""

Your right. This article isn't biased in any way shape or form, blacks are better than whites and all of the south are poor muslim farmers.. You have obviously never been to the southern United States, yet you make it out to be a 'only poor people live here' place to go too. When I was reading this I compared the southern united states to the small villages of Africa that have no clothes, and only a small tent for shelter. I had to go to google pics to discover that they actually have jobs, income, housing and churches down there.Suffyy (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comparing groups of people like that is very constructive for the article. There might be other studies that are better to use in the article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "comparing groups of people like that"? What groups of people?

What do you mean by "constructive". Student7 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Civil War produced century long depression

I have read (and believe) that the Civil War produced a depression from which the South did not recover until WWII. If true, I think it should state this. Some of the parameters have been covered, "unfriendly to business" which probably needs elaboration; redistricting, which didn't take place until the 1960s, whereas recovery started taking place much earlier, so maybe not that much of a factor.

The South struggled on without a "Marshall Plan," quite devastated and decapitalized after the Civil War. This in turn led, rather inevitably, to keeping the black population in a subordinate position, retaining a limited number of decent jobs for whites. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Machine politics

The article is adequate over the disenfranchisement of blacks. Didn't notice (maybe it is there) that the same happened to whites (poll tax). Also the machine politics of some states should be mentioned. It was being practiced in NYC and Chicago, as well, but usually not on a statewide level as it was in the South. Byrds in Virginia, Longs in Louisiana, Talmadge in Georgia, Crump in Memphis (city). I'm sure I've missed a few. Since this is a summary, they only need a brief mention. Problem: some have no real article on the machine itself in Wikipedia yet. Student7 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem here:

From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments which had provisions for voter registration, such as poll taxes, residency requirements and literacy tests, which were hard for many poor to meet. Most African Americans, Mexican Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites were disfranchised, losing the vote for decades. In some states grandfather clauses were temporarily used to exempt white illiterates from literacy tests. The numbers of voters dropped drastically throughout the South as a result. This can be seen on the feature "Turnout in Presidential and Midterm Elections" at the University of Texas Politics: Barriers to Voting. Alabama, which had established universal white suffrage in 1819 when it became a state, also substantially reduced voting by poor whites. Legislatures passed Jim Crow laws to segregate public facilities and services, including transportation.

While African Americans, poor whites and civil rights groups started litigation against such provisions in the early-20th century, for decades Supreme Court decisions overturning such provisions were rapidly followed by new state laws with new devices to restrict voting. Most blacks in the South could not vote until 1965, after passage of the Voting Rights Act and Federal enforcement to ensure people could register. Not until the late 1960s did all American citizens regain protected civil rights by passage of legislation following the leadership of the American Civil Rights Movement.

Fat&Happy (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense

"When blacks are combined with whites, it appears that the South has lower percentages of high school graduates, lower housing values, lower household incomes and higher percentages of people in poverty.[5] However, when race is taken into consideration, Southern whites do as well as Northern whites, Southern blacks do as well, or better, than Northern blacks"

If both blacks and whites do better than their northern counterparts, how can blacks and whites together do worse when combined? (Surely cannot be the case that Cubans in Miami drag down the average that much, as there aren't many other hispanics in the south.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.92 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's say, that half of state S is black and they make 50% on a test. The other half of state S is white. They make 100%, for an average of 75%. Compare that to State N which has 99% whites who make 80%, while the 1% blacks make 40%. The average for state N (not untypical northern state BTW) exceeds State S. BUT, if you compare white students against white students, which northern states (except Massachusetts which does well either way) hates to do, whites do better in state S. BTW, blacks in state S do better as well.

I've made the example extreme for ease of comparison. But this is true of many northern comparisons of student performance against the South. BTW, Mississippi does poorly either way, alas. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the short answer to the above question "If both blacks and whites do better than their northern counterparts, how can blacks and whites together do worse when combined?": See Simpson's paradox. It happens this way because the South has a higher fraction of the group that does more poorly.

Another thought: The above quote from the article lumps in "lower housing values" with some negative indicators of education and income. "Lower housing values" is out of place there -- you could just as easily call it "lower housing costs" instead of "lower housing values", from which point of view it is a good thing. Anyone object to my taking out that one from the list? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern definitions

The caption of the first map in the article says "Modern definitions: The states in dark red are almost always identified as being in "the South", while those in medium red are usually included." Florida and Virginia are shown in medium red. I seriously doubt that I've ever seen a definition of "the South" (as opposed to, say, "the Deep South") that excluded Florida and Virginia. In the absence of a source for them being "usually" rather than "almost always" included, I think the map needs to be changed in this regard. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is pretty obviously a WP:OR - WP:SYNTHESIS issue without a compelling (or any) source. I would stick with the Census Bureau definition for the map. Hoppingalong (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right -- categorizing the states by frequency of reference is synthesis. The set of states given some coloration is identical to the set of states in the Census Bureau map with the addition of Missouri (which I have, but only on rare occasions, seen included -- and of course it had a star on the Confederate battle flag). I'll delete the synthesis map and add a link to the map in the Deep South article. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting the elimination of the "Modern Definition" map to include the said map. This map was created (see Archives 1) based upon multiple studies and extensive discusion/debate among editors at the time. It was emphatically NOT based upon POV of any one person. Rather, again, an incorporation of extensive input, etc, by editors interested and astute in the area of Southern studies. One of these areas was self-identitication with the region. There is no reason to take it out. I agree, however, that citations are needed (in addition to those mentioned in the now archives pages) TexasReb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Well, that extensive discussion among astute editors contained mostly POV and OR of the various discussants. While I might have missed it, I can't find any sources in that discussion to justify the caption of the map:

The states in dark red are almost always identified as being in "the South", while those in medium red are usually included. With less frequency, some sources may also classify one or more of the striped states as "Southern".

Please correct me if I'm wrong -- can you direct me to a particular entry in that discussion (please give a quote and a date of the post) that gives a source stating the frequency of inclusion of the various states? If not, then the frequency assertion is synthesis, and it should not be in here by Wikipedia rules: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

I think it's pretty clear that there was NO source for the assertions in the map, or else it would have been given at the time that the map was included.

And I still contend that it's absurd to say that Florida and Virginia are "usually" but not "almost always" included in the South. Do you disagree? The presence of an unsourced absurdity in the map and its caption is a pretty good reason to remove the map. Duoduoduo (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, contary to what you say, it is not pretty clear the sources do not exist just because they were not included at the time. That was simply an oversight that I said I agree -- in retrospect -- should have been done from Day 1. Also, there is no one particular entry in the discussion. Rather it was many and over quite a bit of time before a consensus was reached. As I mentioned earlier, go to the Archives 1, and you can view it in its entirity. One major reason for the map being so labeled was based upon a seven year Southern Focus poll -- taken bi-annually -- involving some 17,000 respondents -- which attempted to "find the South" by where a majority of residents said they lived in the South and considered themselves Southerners. Another was based upon a study by James Shortridge and published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, asking those surveyed to list their primary regional identification. The whole thing can easily be found by reading thru the now archived material. And there were a few other sources cited. I agree those sources should be cited. No problem there. I don't have time at the moment (typing from a laptop out of town in a motel room! LOL), but I will be happy to add them later.

So far as the Virginia and Florida question you ask? Well, again (along with Texas and Kentucky) the three-tiered map was based upon the sources mentioned above and it is but a truism. Most sources will always/almost always classify those dark red states as being in the modern day definition of the South. The other four states are usually included. Some sources -- with varying degrees of frequency and based upon the dependent criteria -- may list one or more as being in the "South." To repeat, however, I agree that these sources should be cited (without it becoming impossibly lengthy to list). On a related tangent, would you not agree that the map is accurate based upon your own personal experience (I am assuming you are also one involved in Southern studies)? I hasten to add I am NOT suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that personal experience be a consideration as to the map itself; just that -- personally -- does it not square with your own observations, research, etc? Anyway, please go back and go over the information and debate/discussion in the Archives, and the sources which lead to the development of the map. Finally, yes, again once again, I agree that those sources should be cited. TexasReb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Just to add to the above. I would not have any objection to discussing a re-wording of caption and/or content IF such is discussed and agreed upon aforehand. My main reason for reverting was because you took it upon yourself to do a total deletion without having researched a bit on the whole history of how and why the map was "drawn up" the way it was. A lot of people put a lot of time and exchange (sources and otherwise) before coming to a consensus. Therefore, it seems quite presumptuous for any one person to discard it without first having another discussion on the matter. Likewise, the addition of the "see Deep South" should -- IMHO -- be replaced with something like: For various definitions of the South, see (link): http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_regions

I say that because, why should the Deep South link be included, but not "Upper South"? Or "Border South'? and etc, etc. With all due respect it seems like you have a personal stake in this. Which, as it is? I can sympathise with and understand. Being a fourth-generation Texan (of Deep South ancestry) who firmly considers my native state part of the South (both historically and culturally), I have been known to get into very heated debates (sometimes with distant Deep South kinfolk! LOL) over the question. However, I am not blind to the fact, in the aggregate, that Texas (plus Virginia, Florida, Kentucky...sometime even Arkansas) are not included with the same frequency (sources verified) as the generally regarded Deep South states. Although DEFINITELY more so than a Missouri, Maryland, and for sure, Delaware. This was what -- in a nutshell -- the map was intended to reflect. I hope you might agree with all the above. It seems to me the only thing needed is to provide citations for the same. Which, is no problem at all. Wellllll, maybe it IS a problem...as there would be too many to list as backup of the point (Archives 1). TexasReb (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Added during/right after edit conflict:

Since you ask about my own (irrelevant) OR, (1) the coloring of the map looks plausible as an impressionistic measure of "degree of southernness". But that's OR no matter whether it comes from me or from the consensus of a large number of discussants; (2) it absolutely is not my experience that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are "almost always" identified as being in the South -- they are always so identified; and (3) it again is absolutely not my experience that Florida and Virginia are "usually" rather than "almost always" identified as in the South.

You say that "Also, there is no one particular entry in the discussion." Either there is a particular entry that gives a source that says something about the frequency of reference to each state, or there is not. (And I can't find it.) The mention of the source can't be in the discussion without being in a particular entry in the discussion! To say that it's a consensus that emerged from the discussion is to say that it is WP:synthesis, which is against Wikipedia rules.

Just so we are clear here, I have no problem with re-opening this issue for discussion/debate, and keep/modify/reword/etc, the map itself and/or the caption. My issue was its elimination entirely without the said discourse. Had you approached in that manner, then we would probably not be having this conversation as such.TexasReb (talk)

The key problem here is this: The map is synthesis and hence is inappropriate for Wikipedia unless there is a single (or more than one) source that by itself (without combining sources) specifically says that "these states are almost always...", "these states are usually...", and "these states are included with less frequency". Duoduoduo (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point is a good one on many levels, I agree. Further, it is difficult to summarize (because the archived postings were so dis-joined and dis-connected as to chronological order and topic) all the input and sources cited for the agreement upon the said map. Also, it has been a couple of years since all this transpired. The whole thing really got started when a debate erupted over just exactly which states were generally classified as "Southern." Originally, it was just map of the Old Confederate States. This lead to a "map edit" war (or sorts) with objections flying about like hailstones in a thunderstorm. I fully agree with you that the 5 generally regarded Deep South states (SC, GA, MS, AL, LA) are "always" included in the South. But the qualifier "always" was used because bordering states like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas, were agreed to be part of it. See what I mean? The "core Southeast" states, which may vary a bit in themselves. Texas, Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky (and Oklahoma was added later by another poster) are usually included in various definitions of the South. Missouri, Maryland and Delaware are seldom considered part of the South by most sources...yet some do indeed include them. so they were striped.

What I am getting at, is that (and I think you will agree), that "the South" -- unlike any other region -- is subject to so many varying definitions outside of that considered so by the Census Bureau -- that those involved in the controversy felt it is important to include a map illustrating such (no pun intended). That is, a simple map of the Confederacy or one of the Census four major regions would just really not have emphasized that particular point...which IS important to imparting information for readers as to how the South may or may not be defined. It is important to make certain distinctions, wouldn't you say? No way can Maryland be put in the same class as Texas or Kentucky or Virginia and, further, it is definitely arguable for the latter to be in the same genre as Mississippi or Alabama. In any respectable article about the South, then the above does need to be noted (even if not at all in those exact words), as to which states belong and why and to what degree based upon numerous books/articles/studies/surveys/etc.

Ok, now at this juncture of the conversation, I go back again to agreeing with you (and a few others) that yes, it is probably time this map and citations need to be re-evaluated and discussed/debated. I have no problem at all with that, as I have even -- believe it or not -- thought about it myself as to re-introducing the topic. Again, my only real issue was the elimination of the map without prior discussion with others. As I know you are aware, we always assume "good faith." If it is now time to go back to the table? Then let's go! Southern studies have long been an avocation of mine, and I get the impression they are of yours as well.TexasReb (talk)

Added after reading latest entry by TexReb:

I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a personal stake in this. My desire is to make Wikipedia as good as possible within the rules of Wikipedia, as I'm sure your desire is too. Let's not make it personal, okay?

You refer to 'why the map was "drawn up" the way it was'. If it was "drawn up" and not taken directly from a particular source (perhaps transcribed from sentences to map form), then it is synthesis and against the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To repeat, I agree with your point. It is a synthesis...but it was one made in good faith. That is important to keep in mind, I think. I've no doubt I can find peer-reviewed articles and major encyclopdia concerns which would back up the map (in the sense of how the South is defined), and the citation needed would be provided then and there. BUT...I would rather we all discuss it before we make a major change. Also, I absolutely agree with not making it personal. We are definitely on the same page in that regard! We can disagree as reasonable men of good will and intentions. I never meant it to be otherwise. *offered handshake* TexasReb (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"X% of state population consider themselves Southerners" is not equivalent to "state is X% part of the South". If the map is showing the former, it should be labeled accurately as the former. --JWB (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Very true! Noting again that this was not the ONLY original criteria, your point is very well taken (maybe another might be added at another time citing the study...?). I agree with all you say, JWB TexasReb (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody make a credible argument the map is not wp:synthesis? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I will concede that point (mainly because I have no choice!) A Southerner knows when he is outflanked! LOL), but I still ask all y'all to keep in mind the original intent and the "good faith" clause! So let's re-open it all for another exchange as to how to improve the map and caption...? Or decide whether or not to take it out entirely and replace with something else...? I still vote we keep the old one as an outline to work with...but yep...I am convinced that it needs improvement on exactly what and why the potentionlly new version should look like and explained. TexasReb (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources at all, so, no, I can't really see how this is synthesis. This whole thread really has been less than productive. We can source the map and recolor it to show varying definitions the proper way (i.e. "Light red - The South according to X[ref]; Red - The South according to Y[ref]; Dark red - The South according to both; etc.); we can also simply use the perfectly reasonable USCB-sourced map. The South isn't something that's concretely defined, so I do see the "need" for a map like that. Duoduoduo has a point in the OP but "against the spirit of Wikipedia" seems a little dramatic! This is not that serious of an issue. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. My position that it is synthesis assumed that there were some sources at least. I guess it is synthesis at best, totally unsourced at worst. I would remove the "modern definition" map, and go with the USCB map on top and possibly move up the map of the Confederacy and border states. The USCB map is not perfect, but no map is. The text of the article can address that, and does to a limited extent. There is no doubt that the USCB map is the most used deliniation of the regions(s). And then we avoid any WP:WEIGHT by improperly weighting one view of unknown weight over another of unknown weight. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Geography" section of the article lists three subdivisions used by the Census Bureau, which could be usefully rendered in different colors on a version of the USCB map. It also lists 11 other terms used to define all or part of The South, most of which include sources. I don't have either the software or the skills to do this, but if somebody could make an animated map along the lines of the one in the lead of the Continent article, rotating views between these definitions, it would resolve the issues of sourcing and undue weight while adequately illustrating the different viewpoints. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I can put together an animated map that cycles through some definitions. Swarm ^{u | t} 19:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with all that this is a GREAT idea, Fat and Happy! That is, an animated map cycling thru various definitions of the South. Thanks equally, Swarm, for taking on this project! Looking forward to seeing and discussing your appreciated efforts! TexasReb (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this post is a bit of a "synthesis" in its own right (pun intended!), of a couple of things that have been discussed/debated above...so just wanted to see if we are all on the same general page here, so to speak:

1. All of us generally agree that the "Modern Day Definitions Map" needs "re-work" in some form or fashion. It's original "fault" (acknowledged to have been in good faith) was the lack of official sources/citations to back up the color-code. The devil is going to be in the details...

2. Before a major change is made as to map coding/caption, it should be agreed upon aforehand by at least a majority of active, contributing,editors, concerned. And all having a chance to voice their opinions and provide input.

3. A revolving/cyclical/animated map of various definitions of the South might be THE best one to replace the one extant (i.e. Modern Definitions). Keep the USCB map for sure, yet recognize another is needed to illustrate the that the South as a region subject to many varying considerations as to its boundaries/sub-regions/etc.

What say y'all? Is this about where we stand...at least at a starting point...? TexasReb (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems just about right. I would only take minor issue with number 2; I would prefer to remove the "modern definition" map now since we all agree it is not ok per Wikipedia guidelines. That would make the USCB map the first map on the aritcle, which is where I would keep it. Then, whenever Swarm gets it done (subject to discussion here), add the rotating map as the second map. Really the only question I'll have with the rotating map is to be sure only definitions that have some weight per the sources get included to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Consensus! Hoppingalong (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we all definitely seem to be getting somewhere! *smiles and thumbs up*. More on this in a minute (in the next reply to JWB), but yes, agreed that the Census Bureau Map should be the first one listed (for one thing, that is the way it is done with all the other regions of the United States on Wiki). However, I would argue against eliminating the "Modern Definitions" *outright* until another is settled upon. In the interium? Let me advance the suggestion that perhaps the one in controversy be placed beneath the Census ONLY for the moment...until Swarm comes up with another which reflects all the different/changing definitions. In other words, the "Modern Definition" map's time is limited...but hang with it for just a biiiiiiit longer! Definitely agree on your major points! TexasReb (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The four United States Census Bureau regions separated by color, with the nine divisions further separated by shading.

The "modern definition" map is venerable (2005) but just bad. It is not even synthesis but an agreement among editors active at the time. There are newer maps in Wikipedia and Commons which have more information, use sourced facts, have better colors, etc. It should be deleted now regardless of whether something else will replace it.

Just for example, at right is a map I did a couple of years ago which shows the 4 CB regions including the South and the 4 CB divisions within the South. --JWB (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What do y'all say to this? JWB, can you put your map in place as the "lead" but ONLY include the Southern states and the said divisions? That is, not a full blown map of the U.S., but just the SOUTH (as definined) with the color codes...? YET...keep the other for a *short* time (and really, there hasn't been all that much objection to it until recently, so it should be able to go on a bit longer! LOL); until Swarm can get something together for us all to look over and debate/discuss as to replacement of the "Modern Day"...? What does everyone think? TexasReb (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't think the census divisions are all that important, but fine with such a map in any case. Swarm ^{u | t} 14:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is something -- alluded to earlier -- that I wanted to toss out in the FWIW department. The "Modern Definitions" map? (which it is in general agreement needs to be replaced with the type Swarm is working on for later discussion). Anyway, it occured to me that the former might still have a place either *somewhere* else within *this* article, or else in another related one (perhaps "Culture of the Southern United States"?). That is to say, since it was originally largely based on self-identification polls/studies (i.e. Southern Focus Poll, Annals of American Geographers, etc), the "caption" and "blurb" be re-worded to reflect such. AND, add the aforementioned source(s) for such...?

I have to admit though, I am not sure exactly how to word it all. I will work on it and run it past y'all first, regardless. Main point is that, the "old map" might still have a place somewhere and in some capacity, perhaps...? TexasReb (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I have so far. Can anyone think of anything that should be added to the map, taken out, or altered in any way? Are there any reliable sources that define the South differently that I should include? The current map is based on both the USCB and Encyclopedia Britannica, so that's all I have ATM. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall, as initital impression, I like it. However, just to toss out of couple of points/suggestions that might be worth considering/talking about: 1). I have some issues with including Arkansas and Florida in the Deep South. Yes, I know a source is provided, but other sources will list things differently (see this Wiki article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Deep_South). IMHO, it would be better to stick with labeling the Deep South as the five states which are, today, almost always included (LA to SC). In a nutshell, stick with the obvious! LOL 2). Change to title from "Gulf States" to "Gulf South", reflecting the terminology used with in main article. 3). Perhaps consider adding a seperate catagory of "South Central states" (to balance with "Southeast"). Which would include Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana for sure, and perhaps Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee. This is sourced by EB, as I recall...

Anyway, those are just some initial thoughts. Again, this is a great start and thanks, Swarm, for your time and efforts! BTW -- I am in the process of working up a new title and blurb for the old "Modern Definitions" map which more reflect a South according to Southern identity studies (from peer-reviewed sources). I will post it here first and see what everyone thinks. The map, if approved, can then be moved down to the "Culture" section...or included in the larger "Culture of the Southern United States" article if agreed upon. More on that later. TexasReb (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good! I'll work on your suggestions. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that, mercifully, U.S._state#Regional_grouping does not go through this agony. I am not suggesting they should!  :) The above hair splitting seems entirely too picky IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Such is the way of Wikipedia. :P Some issues get attention on one article in ways that no one cares about on another. It may be a bit picky, but everything above is a valid concern about long-term sourcing issues. Swarm ^{u / t} 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"As well" and Race

This passage has been a point of contention above. "When blacks are combined with whites, it appears that the South has lower percentages of high school graduates, lower housing values, lower household incomes and higher percentages of people in poverty.[5] However, when race is taken into consideration, Southern whites do as well as Northern whites, Southern blacks do as well, or better, than Northern blacks" Two citations are provided. The latter "Social Science Research 5, 349-383 (1976)Background Characteristics in the U.S. Adult Population 1952-1973: A Survey-Metric Model James A. Davis, National Opinion Research Center and Dartmouth College" is from 1976. Thirty-five year old research on students from at least 38 years ago, especially research pertaining to this subject done almost exclusively in the Jim Crowe era, is not relevant. The former citation contradicts what it claims to indicate. White southern students have lower scores using this educational metric than white non-Southern students.

If we use the metrics mentioned in the early sentence, each also seems to be verifiably incorrect. Southern HS Graduation rate among whites is lower[19]. Every Southern state has a higher white poverty rate than the national average [20].

Frankly it just sounds like crypto-racism with some defensiveness... As in the South's poor showing across most measurable quality of life standards can be traced solely to the size of the African American population. PantsB (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "crypto-racism" means. The South with a larger number of minorities who have not been socially advantaged, do indeed have lower scores than the rest of the country. However, when you (and this is not WP:OR, BTW, but pointed out in citations) compare marks by race, which the US Government does, you will find that, generally, the South does "well-enough" among elementary and secondary school attendees when grouped by whites when compared with Northerners; then by blacks. This was not true for Mississippi which does poorly either way. This was not true for Massachusetts which did well either way. But it is true for most states. Whites vs whites, Blacks vs blacks. In general, the more minorities you have, the worse, primary and secondary school marks are. So Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, etc. are just kidding themselves! Note that these studies do not cover college education. Student7 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbolism

Why is there a symbolism section? Looked at the other US region pages from the US portal and none of them have symbolism sections. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to have a section for this without any references. The only citation is at the end of the second sentence and is in reference to the described views of a group and makes no mention of flags or symbols. Going to delete this section in a few days if I don't see any responses. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We have the section because the topic is important enough. the presence of full-length major books on the topic of Southern symbolism (Tony Horowitz, Confederates in the Attic (1998); James Martinez et al., eds. Confederate Symbols (2000, University Press of Florida.) show that it's not a trivial issue--indeed it gets contentions esp re Confederacy,slaveholders, KKK members. So it needs coverage; no other region has anything like this controversial issue.Rjensen (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans in the South

This sentence is problematic:

They were defeated by settlers in a series of wars ending in the War of 1812 and the Seminole Wars, and most were removed west to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma and Kansas).

While technically true, we should mention the effects of disease, and explicitly mention ethnic cleansing and genocidal intent of expelling the Natives from their land, rather than euphemising it by calling it 'most were removed west'. I'll update the section later. 209.2.49.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's Grant?

Not once is Ulysses S. Grant mentioned in this article, although Sherman is. Very strange. Ileanadu (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Central theme

One editor denies that the South has a reputation for racism and has never heard of the "central theme of southern history" that historians have discussed at length for over 80 years. Here is the text that editor wants to erase: One of the "central themes" of southern history, scholars have agreed, is the commitment to white rule; some see it as the most important central theme. Charles W. Joyner (1999). Shared Traditions: Southern History & Folk Culture. University of Illinois Press. p. 193. The South has traditionally shown the strongest instances and rules favoring racism against Blacks and Hispanics. Chad Richardson; Michael J. Pisani (2012). The Informal and Underground Economy of the South Texas Border. University of Texas Press. p. 260. Alison F. Slade; et al. (2012). Mediated Images of the South: The Portrayal of Dixie in Popular Culture. Lexington Books. pp. 9–11. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help). It goes back to 1928 when the most famous southern historian of that era (1928), Ulrich B. Phillips of Yale maintained that the desire to keep their region "a white man's country" united the white southerners for centuries. Read his famous article http://www.jstor.org /stable/1836477 at JSTOR. By 2000, and citing Phillips, Jane Dailey, Glenda Gilmore, and Bryant Simon argue: [ "Introduction" in Jane Dailey, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon, eds. Jumpin' Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights (2000), online excerpt.] "The ways in which white southerners "met" the race "problem" have intrigued historians writing about post-Civil War southern politics since at least 1928, when Ulrich B. Phillips pronounced race relations the "central theme" of southern history. What contemporaries referred to as "the race question" may be phrased more bluntly today as the struggle for white domination. Establishing and maintaining this domination--creating the system of racial segregation and African American disfranchisement known as Jim Crow--has remained a preoccupation of southern historians." Many other scholars from Vann Woodward to David Potter to Ira Berlin have commented on the issue. The text that was erased cites Charles Joyner a prominent Southern historian, in his 2012 book. Joyner says that since 1928, "few have doubted that white racism was a central theme; many have doubted that it was the central theme. But most have recognized that Phillips was on to a good thing with this "central theme" business, and over the past 2 generations, one might say that the central beam of southern historians has been the search for a central theme." Rjensen (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a very clever way to word it, Rjensen! LOL That is, take your POV and state if it is not agreed to, then "another editor" (which could well be me) "denies" something. The South's so-called "reputation for racism" is at least partially due to that of NE media portrayal, to avoid facing the elephant in their own living room. And the sources you cite do not support such a broad claim as made. One concerned south Texas alone. In the latter (Mediated Images of the South), in reading over the pages mentioned, it also states that today, Southerners, according to certain studies, are even less likely than their fellow countrymen to have "racist" attitudes. The others you bring up in the above post also concern the past, not the present. There is not a single region of the country I could not link to a "racist" past if scab picking is the purpose. Heck, far as that goes, the biggest difference in the South and the NE was that we were just less hypocritical about it all.

I may be wrong, Rjenson, but I get the impression that you want this included because it reflects a certain disdain for the South on your part. Like I say, that might be innacurate, but I call it like I see it. With all that said, I certainly respect your intelligence and contributions, even if I might vehemently disagree with some of the content and thesis.

But back to the point and to also mention, even if such was true at one time (however, seems there was little bias against the Irish or Jews in the South, huh? LOL), it isn't today. The passage is inflamatory, a least somewhat POV, and serves no purpose as in introducing the South as a region. Therefore, I submit that this sentence/statement belongs -- if indeed anywhere at all -- somewhere other than the opening paragraph. I am going to delete it again, but will not do so henseforth until other editors weigh in on the subject or an official ruling is made. TexasReb (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Texasreb

I will delete it because the sources do not support the assertions. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Texasreb admits the racism used to be there -- who can deny the thousands of lynchings and the blocking of the vote? --but has now disappeared. No source is provided--it would be very good to have a source that said the racism ended in 19xx. , and no discussion of the "central theme" that so many scholatrs have written about. Texasreb makes the POV conclusion that there is a "certain disdain for the South on your part" -- which is totally false. His own user name Texasreb reeks of POV. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not "admit" anything in the way you frame it. "Racism" (which can mean just about anything the user wants it to mean) is nothing unique to the South. As I said earlier, the only difference in the system of Jim Crow laws down here and the de-facto in the North and West, was just that Southerners were less hypcritical about it. This seeming scab-picking on your part is, yes, to me, what I see as a general disdain for the South and Southern history. That is my opinion only, but I am sticking with it. Yes, it is POV on my part, so what? You are entitled to your POV as to my screen name. TexasReb. I use it to indicate pride in both my Texan and Southern heritage. So what, again?

In any event, your latest addition of lynching stats, etc, seem, really, to be little more than spite. And I say again, while there may be a place in the general article for such, it better belongs in the "Jim Crow" or "Civil Rights" section, not an introductory paragraph about the Southern states as a region. I mean, would it be properly placed for someone to write in an opening of the Midwest region that the KKK was most powerful there? Or that Dr. King once said along of the lines of "if you want to teach a white Southerner to hate, send him to Chicago..."? Or that the most violent resistance to integration was in the NE and Midwest?

This is not trying to "white-wash" history (no pun intended! LOL), but rather put things in a proper place and persepective. I hope other editors will weigh in on this subject. As it is, I am not deleting anything from Rjenson, but addng my own commentary for needed balance! TexasReb (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Geographical limit

Hi, I added a small section in the introduction, to point out that "southern" in this case is more of a traditional definition than an actual geographical definition as some states are actually central (or Northern) while some other "Southern" states are not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.66.189.19 (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Need a ref to support your choice of 36 30 lat as "defining and limiting". Seems there is far more to it than that. Also, the "above/below" wording is problematic. Vsmith (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"...every Southern state with the exceptions of Maryland,..."

Maryland is not a southern state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.219.49.13 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit odd to lump Delaware, Maryland, and Washington, DC (our nation's capital) in with "the South." However, for official governmental purposes, DE, MD, and DC are considered to be in this region. 98.221.128.109 (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance at its best. Maybe yall should look into our history and travel to the places where our culture is strong and you would think differently.

Historically speaking, Maryland didn't secede from the Union, even if some in the state sympathized with the South. And to put Washington, DC in the South in historical terms is indeed silly, it was the capital of the Union after all! But I understand there's a little more to it than that.

However, the average Marylander wouldn't consider himself a southerner. In some places, yes, collectively, no.

98.221.128.109 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't speak for the average Marylander. We are way more South than we are North, but I just consider us to be Mid-Atlantic. We are a melting pot of Southern, Northern and East Coast influences. Very interesting place to live. Northerners and Southerners equally don't want to claim us and equally want to dump us off on the other. The government should just create new guidelines because really, W. Virginia, Virginia, DC, Delaware, Kentucky and N. Carolina aren't southern to me either. You have the Mid-West which isn't even in the west, but we can't be called Mid-East for obvious reasons...not the north, not the south, so what are we? Mid-Atlantic, that's it. 69.251.26.101 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Historically, the two states are counted because the Mason-Dixon line is t]he historical boundary between north and south. They were slave states as well, even if they did not secede. Currently, they are more like the northeast. 66.183.104.162 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the Mason-Dixon line was the border between colonial Maryland and Pennsylvania. Delaware later broke away from PA for feeling neglected as those lower counties. Technically, Delaware is NOT below the Mason-Dixon line, as the MD-DE border is part of the line. DE had also abolished slavery before the war. See the article Mason-Dixon Line. 98.221.128.109 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

kentuck is also not a southern state  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.82.22 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 

Population

The US Census Region links come here, so could someone in a country where you can access US gov't websites kindly put the population of the entire region up already? Preferably in the first or second sentence of the lede but a demography section (with historical levels) wouldn't be out of line if you have the time.

It seems almost perverse it isn't already here. If editors have previously added the population and someone removed it, could they kindly explain themselves? If it's a definitional issue, just include populations for each definition. — LlywelynII 09:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Maryland

Maryland has left the Southern Council of Governments and joined the Eastern Council (I'm not going to provide a link, Google it) and no longer considers it a Southern state based on politics. Perhaps the census is not a valid way to determine what is Southern and Northern, and instead political leanings and affinity should be used for this article. 208.20.166.226 (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation 88

In addition to the terrible wording of this section, making it sound like an argument, the claim that the south has the most traffic fatalities is backed up by a citation discussing political leanings, not regional locations.

http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/11/traffic-deaths-a-surprising-dimension-of-the-red-state-blue-state-divide/

The article says absolutely nothing about any particular region having higher fatalities than the next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.44.41 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas

Philadelphia has one MD county included in its MSA, but it seems a bit silly to include the entire MSA in the list since the vast majority of it lies outside of the South. This begs the question: should only MSAs be listed which have their principal city, and thus the bulk of their population, within a Southern state? This would exclude Cincinnati and Louisville would remain; I think this is fair. Akhenaton06 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Revolution

I reverted your [Rjensen] edit to "Southern United States" because your edits introduced opinions and unsubstantiated claims. It replaced statements of neutral facts with unsourced analysis and opinions. Your response was to restore your edit with the edit summary "drop analysis based on children's encyclopedia and use modern scholarship". I believe your edits were made in good faith, but you did not cite - using inline citations - any new sources for the "children's encyclopedia" or the "modern scholarship". Please note that Wikipedia requires specific citation of reliable sources - please see WP:SOURCES and WP:CITE, or content may be removed or reverted, as I did. I am reverting your edit once again with the expectation that you will specifically cite your sources using inline citations before making another edit to this article. Thanks, hulmem (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

the simplified The World Book: Organized Knowledge in Story and Picture, is for children & is not a reliable source. I added a good source: Robert Stansbury Lambert, South Carolina Loyalists in the American Revolution (1987) which you replaced with a kids book. Just what "opinions and unsubstantiated claims" were involved? Rjensen (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

More flexible map

The image at the top has the following caption:

The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau.[1] The "South" and its regions are defined in various ways, however. (See Geography section.)

We need a more flexible map that colors states differently depending on what definition of the South is being used. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. This has already been discussed above in "Modern Definitions". It is best to use the Census map and then explain variations in the article. Otherwise people start defining regions based on ludicrous maps such as the "Plant Taxonomic Database Standards" or by typing in "Southern United States maps" into Google images and using the results as a basis of definition.Dubyavee (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dubyavee (in disagreeing with Georgia guy's good faith proposal). Maps can be every bit as much Original Research as text, or worse. Sometimes the 1,000 words a picture represents are disproportionate. Better to explain in prose proportionate to what one is describing. Maps should not be "flexible" they should be Verifiable. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Charitable Giving

There is a reliably sourced edit that keeps getting reverted about charitable giving in the south. Instead of edit warring, please discuss here and wait until there is a concensus to move on. Thanks!Jacona (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your source is an article in Daily Finance based on a graph in mintlife based on an article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy based on data from the IRS for 2008.[21] It is always better to use the best sources rather than third-hand commentaries. Notice it does not say "Eight of the ten most charitable states are located in [the South]." Instead it says that on average, people living in the ten states and earning over $50,000 per year donate more of their discretionary income. But that finding is skewed by two things. First people in the deep South have less disposable income than Northerners. Second it includes giving to churches. Notably Utah rates highest because Mormons must give 10 percent of their income to the church. But the Mormon church spends very little on what would be considered charity, it invests. Southerners of course give money to evangelical churches. You really need a good source that analyzes and explains the material. TFD (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. This edit/revert is borderline Original Research because the source does not contain the "analysis" or gloss the editor wishing to insert the sentence has put on it. Why not note that the South has 16 of the top 50? Unfortunately, the South also has more than a dozen of the bottom 50. Anyway, it doesn't add to readers' understanding of the Southern United States. I do not think it should be included, especially as it is now. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with TFD This edit/revert doesn't make a lot of sense here. The data from which this is sourced is 7 years old now, changes dramatically when increasing the scale of the study and feels non sequitur for this article. If someone is interested in adding a charitable giving section and expanding exponentially on the topic, I think it could have some relevance, but as it stands, the one sentence statement is the kind poor representation that is used in propaganda instead of encyclopedic knowledge. In fact, the original contribution even referenced the Mason Dixon line, and is the only place it would have been mentioned in the entire article about the American South.Tenthrow (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there are any other voices here to support the edit in question. Tenthrow (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in to oppose the language regarding charitable giving -- it doesn't add to the value of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tenthrow, other voices may need a little time; not everyone is on WP every day. If we move to claim concensus after only two days without hearing from the "pro" side, we may be guilty of a rush to judgment. I would like to hear from whomever it was that originated this reference. We have time, it is not a race. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we've waited long enough. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SouthWest

Who created this, someone from the UK, as is typical at Wiki? Oklahoma and Texas are in the Southwest USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.194.130 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas was part of the Confederacy. Oklahoma was a confederate sympathizer. Whoever drew this up decided they were both part of the South. Not sure I would have included Oklahoma myself just for that reason alone.

It is not unusual for non-ocean bordering states to be considered part of more than one section of the county. In fact it is unusual for most states to be in only one section. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of us got together a few years ago in coming up with the maps (the details can be followed thru now archived pages). It involved quite a few considerations until a general consensus was reached. One (of many) criteria considered was the results of a 7 year Southern Focus Poll which attempted to define the South by where a clear majority of people considered themselves to live in the South and thought of themselves as Southerners. These states were the 11 of the Old Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma.

On a related tangent, noting the OP's point about Texas and Oklahoma being in the Southwest? The thing is, the term "Southwest" is very ambiguous. In the original sense, it literally meant the western part of the larger South. Later on, when they became states, New Mexico and Arizona were also considered "Southwest." And, often, these four states were grouped into a common Southwest without regard to obvious historical and cultural differences. Texas -- and to a lesser extent, Oklahoma -- were shaped by forces from the American South. On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona have very little "Southern" about them. In a nut-shell, Texas and Oklahoma are Southwest as in "western South." New Mexico and Arizona are Southwest as in "southern West." Two different critters! LOL TexasReb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, but anyone spending any time in NM and AZ will understand that Oklahoma follows southern culture and not the Southwest. Eastern OK and Texas are nothing like all of NM and AZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryan74 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between the former Confederate States of America and their cultural sympathizers and the geographic southern United States. Of course someone will argue heritage whatever that means. This is an encyclopedia, not a leftist folklife festival. North and south are geographical terms. Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I live in North Carolina now, but was raised in Oklahoma, specifically Tulsa OK. I think it is far easier to understand Oklahoma as a Southwestern state than as a a Southern state. In particular, while certainly post-civil war racism existed in Oklahoma (the Tulsa race riots are a prime example) Oklahoma was not part of the Old South, was not even a state at the time, and a number of small "free black" towns existed in the Indian Territory. Secondly, I can point to many cultural icons in Oklahoma that have little to do with the South, notably the Gilcrease museum, with one of the finest collections of Western art in the country, and the Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City. Western cultural traditions even are apparent in the clothes people wear. Rarely in North Carolina do I ever see a man wearing a bolo tie, a cowboy hat or cowboy boots, except as ironic cowboy costume, but walk through the airport in Tulsa and you are bound to see them. Finally, Native American heritage is taught in schools in Oklahoma, is celebrated culturally, and I would cautiously suggest that prejudice against Native American, while extant in Oklahoma, is balanced by a great deal of appreciation for Native culture, and celebration of Native heritage. Let's not forget that the trail of tears originated in the Old South, and ended in Oklahoma. Yes, Oklahoma is not the same as NM or AZ, but neither is it the same as North Carolina or Alabama, and I would argue that it has far more in common with Southwestern states that Southeastern states. Chris van Hasselt (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the majority of Oklahomans consider themselves southern. The dominant culture in Oklahoma is southern. Oklahoma has much more in common with Alabama than it does Arizona. This is especially true in Southeastern Oklahoma. North Carolina is a lot different than Louisiana, but they are both states in the south. The culture is widespread and has many variations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryan74 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting phrasing, saying majority of the state identifies southern and then emphasizing specifically in the southeast, I have only heard people in the southeast identify as southern. I do not think it is true that the majority identify as southerners, plus the southeast is an extremely small percentage of the state's population, less than 10%. The northwest is much more aligned Midwest, granted they make up a tiny percentage too. I am far more familiar with OKC than Tulsa but they seem to identify much more Southwest than traditional southern.

There are actual studies on the matter that you can google. One being from the University of North Carolina that indicates almost 70 percent of Okalhomans consider themselves to be southrons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.95.221 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Literature

I noticed that there was a Literature section, which I believe was necessary, for that was a gap in the Southern United States that needed to be filled. Upon going back to edit and add to this section, Literature is no longer there. Did someone take it down for a specific reason? If not, I think it would be worthy to add, again.Abeat3 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Confederate states

The states of the Confederacy need to be enumerated near the outset. That is one common definition of the South. deisenbe (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Disparity in metropolitan areas?

In the "Major metropolitan areas" section, how is it that San Antonio, TX can be listed with an MSA of 2.2 million, and NOT listed under CSA, where over half the list has less than that? Similarly: Austin,TX? Something fishy with the stats.... Hooperswim (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

West Virginia date of statehood

I have reverted two edits which pushed West Virginia statehood back to 1861 instead of 1863, the year it entered the Union. It did not split from Virginia in 1861, the process began in 1861. It was all Virginia, not just in the view of the Confederacy but also in the view of the United States government. The senators and congress men were seated in the US Congress and Senate as "VIRGINIA", not West Virginia. Over half of West Virginia voted for the Confederacy and considered itself part of Virginia. This is basis history, there should be no need for this.Dubyavee (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Missouri

So, Missouri is in the Bible Belt, but not considered in the American South? Are they any wiki-editors from Missouri who can tell us just what Missouri is (South, Midwest, West, East, North even), because an argument can be made that each corner of Missouri is identifiable with one of those zones. Could we not say that the Missouri Boot heel is considered the American South? Joltergeist (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delaware and Maryland

The inclusion of Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Delaware as "Southern" is a complete joke. Historically they might have been Southern, but are obviously not now to any thinking person. West Virginia should not be included due to their separation, but obviously the political and cultural ties of nearly the entire state match those of the South, unlike the overpopulated, ultra-liberal enclaves of Delaware and Maryland. After the Civil War the history of those states and the South was very, very different.

It's absolutely insulting to any true Southerner to have Maryland mentioned as Southern in the same breath as Tennessee. The only people in Maryland and Delaware who actually believe the state is still Southern are leaving in droves and flocking to the real southern states of Virginia, North Carolina and Texas to escape the out-of-control taxation and one-party politics. As for the District of Columbia (ie possibly the most liberal city in the country the capital of the Union with Union monuments in every square and nary a southern accent in earshot). The 100 year old Census designation is not the only designation in existence and is very outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.2.210 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Wikipedia Visiting Scholars opportunity at Rollins College

Of potential interest to editors/watchers of this page, Rollins College is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles in one or more of the following topics, and in particular these topics as they relate to the South in general or Florida in particular: American writers; American literature's connections with feminism, desegregation, the civil rights movement, environmentalism, or political activism; late 19th and early 20th century development, urbanization, and tourism; connections between the South and Cuba in the early 20th century, especially in higher education.

This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see Rollins College's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)