Talk:South (United States of America)/Archive 2003-2011

Fortunately or unfortunately, this collection of American states has historically been called "The South". I left off the "The" since we're kinda not doing that with destinations -- maybe that should go on the article naming conventions? -- (WT-en) Evan 11:00, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

Ooops, I just stuck Washington D.C. over on Mid-Atlantic, before I realized it was listed here. ... maybe it's OK to list Washington D.C. in both regions ? -- (WT-en) DavidCary 17:06, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)

I'd prefer that we didn't. --(WT-en) Evan 17:39, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)

OK. But I think of "The South" as the states that were part of the Confederacy. Washington, D.C. was never part of the Confederacy. Neither was Kentucky. http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/map1.html Times change. Maybe referring to something that hasn't existed since 1865 (the Confederacy) is not the best way to organize information for travelers in 2005.

-- (WT-en) DavidCary 19:31, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)

Washington is on the Maryland side of the Potomac. Arlington (which used to be in D.C. but was ceded back) is on the Virginia side. So Washington is not in the South, it's just outside it. -(WT-en) phma 21:20, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

Ugh. Well, I'd say this a close call. I've always heard Washington called a Southern city. I know it feels like the beginning of the South, when I'm coming from the mid-Atlantic states. Then again, it feels like beginning the North when I'm coming the other direction... Actually, I don't feel like I'm back in the mid-Atlantic till I pay that ^%)^*$! toll to cross those 10 miles of Delaware to get to New Jersey. Man, I hate that.

Anyways, you've got proximity on this one B-), so I'm going to concede the point. --(WT-en) Evan 22:51, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

I've always been under the impression that the South was everything under the Mason Dixon line. Maryland has been moved to the mid-atalantic though, so we're obviously not using that scheme. My personal belief is that the South encompasses all areas where sweet tea is easily obtainable, but I guess that's a tad subjective. --(WT-en) BrianUNC1 13:30, 3 Mar 2005 (EST)

I know this discussion has already sort of been had, but is Delaware really part of the South?? Isn't there someone around here thats from Delaware that can say? I've never heard of that before... -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 15:30, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Since it is also listed as a Mid-Atlantic State, I'd say no. I live in Northern Virginia, and think everything north of Virginia is out of the south. For that matter, I know most of Virginia considers Northern Virginia to not be part of the true South. -- (WT-en) repayne 16:12, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)

There's also the matter of West Virginia, which has always been a borderline state; it wasn't part of the Confederacy, but culturally it seems to be a better fit with the South (although certainly as you go further north, you could make an argument that it patterns together with Ohio and Pennsylvania). Personally, I'd consider it to be a Southern state, so I'm not sure that the Confederate argument is the best way to frame the entire page, at least not without some qualifications. (I think you could also make an argument for northern Florida, which is much less snowbirdy than Orlando and parts south.) -- (WT-en) Haem85 14:55, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

Just so you know, the same debate also applies to the northern third of the state of Kentucky, mostly the city of Louisville and the Cincinnati suburbs. I think the best thing to do is just acknowledge the fact that the boundaries are cultural and therefore somewhat fluid. Also, both Maryland and Delaware were orginally considered part of the South because they still permitted slavery at the time of the Civil War. However, the culture of the region has changed since then and it makes more sense nowadays to draw the line at DC --(WT-en) Greaselemur

Maryland and DC

Maryland and Washington DC are both in the Mid-Atlantic. We can move them here, or not, but let's make the choice and stick to it.

Also, please remember that this group of states is mostly a convenient way to break up the USA, and not a history lesson. I think that the DC-to-NYC corridor is much more cohesive as a travel destination than Maryland-to-Miami. --(WT-en) Evan 23:06, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Maryland and DC certainly are Mid-Atlantic rather than South to those who live there (as I did). I've argued elsewhere that there might be rare exceptions to the one-region-per-state principle, but Maryland isn't one of them. It's just plain Mid-Atlantic. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:29, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

The Mason-Dixon line is the border between North and South, culturally and historically. Maryland did not secede due to President Lincoln preventing her from doing so and we say y'all. We had the uglies of slavery and segregation and the beauties of sweet tea and magnolia's. Maryland is a Southern State. Maryland to Georgia were the Southern colonies of the British and each named after a British Monarch.

Maryland is and always has been a transition-zone state, which makes Mid-Atlantic a perfect fit, indeed a much better fit than for NJ, PA, or NY. You may say y'all while sipping sweet tea in St. Mary's or the Eastern Shore, but you're squarely in the minority in this state—most Marylanders would bristle at a Southern designation. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:16, 22 December 2010 (EST)

Charleston (South Carolina)

Does anyone object to swapping out Norfolk (Virginia) for Charleston (South Carolina)? I don't think Norfolk really has all that much to offer, whereas Charleston is a wonderful travel destination and is the quintessential "Southern" city. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Ha, I was just thinking this now, and checked the talk page to see whether someone agreed with me. That someone is me from three years ago. I'll make the swap now and see if anyone minds. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:19, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Oklahoma

Isn't Oklahoma suppose to be mentioned in this article? Oklahoma has been considered to be a Southern state in many occasions. Thanks, --4.232.102.193 04:14, 26 December 2007 (EST)

There are several states that fit into more than one region, and there have been some long and often heated discussions about which region to put a given state into. Currently Oklahoma is in the Great Plains (United States of America) region. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:50, 26 December 2007 (EST)

There's a better argument for Texas to be placed in the South than Oklahoma. The latter is correctly placed on the Great Plains article. (WT-en) Zepppep 14:18, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Wikipedia lists Oklahoma as a Southern state. Should this not match? Also, if Texas is mentioned as being often considered part of the South, then Oklahoma should be listed as well. I've lived in Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. I assure you that if you've listed Texas and Virginia as being culturally Southern, there should be no question that Oklahoma belongs on that list.

I'll take your word for that (I've only been to the Panhandle, and nothing about it seemed remotely Southern to me). I've added a note about Oklahoma below the regions list. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 11:31, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Though as a side note; what Wikipedia thinks is entirely unrelated to Wikivoyage --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 12:58, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Understand

"Today, the South is defined as more of a cultural region than a geographical region, since the United States extends much further west now than they did during the War."

This line bothers me. The borders of the contiguous US have not really changed since Gadsden Purchase which was seven years before the War of Southern Insurrection. So the Southern geographical area of the United States had been there for quite some time before the war (see Mexican-American War).

Perhaps the line can be edited to something along the lines of, "Today the South is defined more by historical cultural similarities that date back to the early days of the United States and during the time of the colonies. Today, The South is synonymous with a region that attempted to secede from the Union and/or were slave states."

—The preceding comment was added by 98.116.32.206 (talk • contribs) .

A fair point. This is a wiki, of course, so feel free to change anything you feel needs changing. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:13, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

To say that "It is not true that Southerners remain loyal to any ideology separating them from identifying first and foremost as Americans due to the American Civil War which occurred in the mid 19th Century," seems incredibly dishonest and misses some of the best parts of the South. Intense regionalism, anti-Federal feeling (evidenced by the tea party movement, new interest in secession, etc). Anyone who can watch the 150th Anniv celebration of the States' Independence from Federal Tyranny which have been ongoing this year knows that this isn't true. God Save the South still has meaning. And no, we're not talking about the North along for the ride. —The preceding comment was added by 216.162.156.85 (talk • contribs)

Stay Safe

The targeting of non-whites or ethnic groups for serious harassment is rare.

I honestly don't feel that emphasizing this is extraneous. As it stands, this line to me seems to insinuate that there is a possibility that something like this has a better chance of happening in the South than elsewhere, when in fact, there really isn't. (WT-en) Peyton 00:12, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

So are you in favor of its inclusion or not? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:52, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm in favor of its inclusion, it's just that the tone of this line seems to imply that there is still a risk beyond the shadow of a doubt for non-whites to visit the South. I just feel that it needs a little more emphasis, but my edits keep getting reverted for being extraneous.(WT-en) Peyton 18:55, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Oh, that was you? I think the problem was that your edit went a little too far, like saying "There's no discrimination here to speak of -- no, really, would I lie to you? It's safe, really!" and the reader wondering why you're so insistent about it if there's nothing to hide. The second revert was because you shouldn't just re-add material that was reverted. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:43, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

I understand. Obviously it was not my intent for the edit to sound that way, but I didn't think it would be construed as going too far. (WT-en) Peyton 22:32, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Personally, I think the line is okay as it stands. Such targeting is rare, but a reputation does exist and it's important to point that out. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:57, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

What exactly do you mean by that? That it's important to point out that the reputation exists, or that the reputation exists but it's preposterous and outdated? (WT-en) Peyton 15:57, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm not personally acquainted with the situation, but certainly the perception exists. We shouldn't try to ignore that fact, but neither do we need to go overboard with the denials. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:39, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

My stance on the matter is, yes, the reputation exists, however undeservedly so due to 200-odd year old perceptions of what the South is like and the media doing everything it possibly can to contribute to them. (WT-en) Peyton 16:58, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Yams and Sweet Potatoes

Yams and Sweet Potatoes are two different vegetables entirely, and are not even related to each other. I have edited this misconception in the "Eat" section of the page to simply say sweet potatoes instead of yams. The scientific name for yams is ""Dioscorea Species"" and for sweet potatoes it is ""Ipomoea batatas"", so they are clearly not the same crop and should not be confused with eachother. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Nemuri (talk • contribs)

As I'm sure you know, sweet potatoes are often called yams in the United States. However, I think your edit is fine as everyone knows what a sweet potato is and "yam" may be considered ambiguous. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:14, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Travel warning?

I think as floods and tornadoes have recently struck the south (especially among the Mississippi River and a few other states) I think it's fair to add a travel warning. (WT-en) Action52 14:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

A warning might make sense for specific cities that are inaccessible due to flooding, but I'm not sure how useful a blanket warning for an entire state or region would be to anyone planning a trip. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Agreed; the tornadoes pose no danger to travelers now, and the flooding is highly localized to Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi within a few miles of the river. I think leaving the warning to affected regions is sufficient. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:52, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't think the warning boxes now being added are appropriate. For example, this edit states that nonessential travel to Arkansas should be avoided. Why? The highways and airports are open. Memphis just got slammed with record flooding and was still able to host NBA playoff games without interruption. Warning boxes for towns or other areas that are actual disaster areas might make sense, but state-level warnings like these seem to me like overreactions to the latest news headlines. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:38, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, way overblown. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:52, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

I've reverted the warning boxes pending further discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:17, 16 May 2011 (EDT)