Talk:Dixie (song)

message: There is another Theory on the Origin of the Dixieland Song.  New Orleans was a huge port in the South and the majority of the people spoke French.  Dix is the word for ten in French.  Riverboat people used the term alot and the term spread throughout the South. The South became known as Dixland. 
I've finished with Nathan as a source. What the article needs now is:
#The article needs some cleanup. Some information is repeated; the intro is too long and some of that info should go into the body of the article.
#The lyrics should be moved to Wikisource with only a stanza or two left here and moved into the main body as samples.
#We need to add information from Way Up North in Dixie: A Black Family's Claim to the Confederate Anthem by Howard L. Sacks and Judith Rose Sacks.
#We need to address the modern controversies around the song. There was a university relatively recently that decided to stop playing the song at football games, if I remember correctly. Perhaps Old Miss?
#Information from a modern, pro-"Dixie" source would be a good counterweight to the information in the "'Dixie' opposed" section.
#Perhaps some discussion of notable covers of the song is needed. Elvis Presley did it in "An American Trilogy". Are there others worth mentioning?</S>
I'll try to get to 1 and 2 this weekend. #3 will take some time, but the book's at my local library. #4 Can be done with some newspaper searches. BrianSmithson 03:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crossed out some items and added a couple more. More to come on the controversy. —BrianSmithson 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Crossed out the modern covers bit. Three ought to do it. --BrianSmithson 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen up! Don't you dare cross out any mention of my father's rendition, which must have been groundbreaking in his day, selling easily over a million copies. Almost all of them sold millions, when there were plenty of Victrolas, few decent popular (as opposed to classical) recordings, and Georgie Price (my Dad!) was one of the few famous real "recording artists", and RCA Victor, Edison, and Vitaphone were the only big companies, and he recorded for all three. They're so rare now, I've never heard "Dixie", but his rendition (you say "cover") was probably very much contributory to its popularity. Folks must have heard it over and over, many of them having nothing else to play! This is my ego you're fiddling with, now! Since it was already a popular song, he probably recorded it very early in his career, possibly around 1918 or so, without any sort of electronic amplification, but sheer vocal magnificence! And if nobody's here to stand up for Al Jolson, count me in for him, too. Y'all hear? Unfree (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list

message: Nathan goes into great detail about the structure of "Dixie's Land" on pp. 249-50 of Dan Emmett and the Rise of Early Negro Minstrelsy. And, frankly, it's over my head. In the hopes that someone who understands music-ese reads this, I offer the information here. If any of it looks like it should have a place in the article, please translate it into English and add it.
*It has "one rhythmic motive which, literally or varied, recurs constantly".
*The motive is "integrated into long, melodic phrases."
*"The entrances of the small group, singing 'Look away,' are always on the crest of the melodic line that has been set in motion by the soloist."
*The second part (beginning with "Den I wish I was in Dixie") "emerges from the first" part. "It takes up the anapaestic motive of the preceding section . . . stablilizes it, and spins it off into a new, more coherent phrase." Nathan summarizes to say that "the final chorus or 'refrain' carries out . . . what is suggested previously."
*The song's line describes "over and over the same triadic space".
*The song's line "could hardly be of a more outspoke major tonality than it is."
*The rhythm is not surprising, except for "a jolt in the middle of the song . . . caused by a sudden shift of accents in two almost identical phrases".
*"Forward motion is vigorous, but it is deliberately qualified by an element of awkwardness by way of frequent halts and unpliable intervals that, as it were, hang at an angle."
*"Its popularity may partially be attributed to the fact that "its melodic line, especially that of the second part, lends the text an inflection that approaches the naturalness of colloquial speech."
*Nathan summarizes all of this by saying that "Dixie" is "no polite, genteel tune. It has a considerable measure of toughness . . . and sounds familiar."
Please help. BrianSmithson 03:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical music info

message: I've been researching the subject, and the title "Dixie" is and has always been the most common name for the song. I originally moved information from Dixie to Dixie's Land in the mistaken belief that this was the original title, but even this isn't true; it was originally published as "I Wish I Was in Dixie". At any rate, I still believe a split from Dixie was warranted, but the move should have been to the common name, Dixie (song). —BrianSmithson 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've replaced one of the 30-second fair use clips with a full-length public domain rendition from the internet archive. Raul654 02:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Full song

message: Is the recent shrinkage of the text for Notes and References based on a Manual of Style recommendation (in which case I will take my issue over there) or was it just an arbitrary choice by one editor? As one of the "older people" around here, um, well, I don't see like I used to. Wikipedia is not just the encyclopedia for twenty-somethings. If you like your text small, I'm sure you can do something with your personal stylesheet. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I shurnk it beacuse the list is so long- as far as I know it's not mentioned in the MoS - I think it looks neater smaller, and 90% isn't a terrible reduction, that being said I don't care one way or the other.--nixie 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's within my ability to read, but I imagine we have readers who are a step more decrepit than me. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text size 

message: Bob Dylan never "paired" Dixie and the Marine Hymn in concert; he never even performed them both at the same show. Verify with the setlist.com search engine , which doesn't link to results consistently, or work your way through the 1990-91 setlist charts at www.bjorner.com. Monicasdude 18:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit's from Trager's Bob Dylan encyclopedia. Here's the exact quote: "Dylan alternated an instrumental version of 'Dixie' with another unlikely instrumental choice, 'Marine's Hymn (From the Halls of Montezuma)', to open a short string of 1990 concerts at the height of the Persian Gulf conflict . . . ." I'd trust it over some web references. — BrianSmithson 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misreading the quote; he's referring to short instrumental openers at the beginning of shows. The two songs were never played in a medley.  And anybody who puts "the height of the Persian Gulf conflict" in 1990 isn't to be relied on. Every Dylan setlist for the period has been published -- in Isis magazine, in Glen Dundas' "Tangled (Up In Tapes)", in Bjorner's Bob Dylan Performance Guide (a print as well as a web resource)  and in many other places. The recordings of virtually every show Dylan played in the period circulate among his fans. (It's true of Dylan, Springsteen, the Grateful Dead, and many other artists).  And Dylan didn't just alternate the two songs mentioned, he also started shows with songs like "Old MacDonald Had A Farm" and "Shenandoah." This isn't even a close question. There's no "pairing." Monicasdude 22:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take your word for it, as you're obviously a fan. Perhaps Trager was stretching to make a point (or, more likely, to fill pages of his encyclopedia by including an entry on "Dixie"). At any rate, the reference to his book should probably go too. Let me make sure I didn't refer to it elsewhere. — BrianSmithson 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reading Trager as saying that he played Dixie in one show, the Marine's Hymn in the next, etc. etc. One could consider having this selection of tunes occupy the same place in successive shows as "pairing" them, but, as Monicasdude points out, they were never played together and Trager's implication is probably stretching. --Dystopos 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be worth mentioning, but we need something more solid to go on than simply our inklink about Dylan's intent in singing it (i.e., a source citation). — BrianSmithson 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are simply WAY too many artists who have performed "Dixie" to single out ANY of them. Dylan is no different. Doovinator 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan performances 

message: Why is this article not locked/protected???  It's featured on the main page and is being constantly Vandalized!
Clarkefreak ∞ 02:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is simple vandalism, given the quotation from JWales that's atop the mutilated page.  I think the page is being attacked by a user or users who find the image placed on the main page offensive (it is, after all, a racist caricature). I think it would be appropriate to replace it, on the main page, with the image of Daniel Emmett used elsewhere in the article, and to add a caption to that image on the article page more specifically identifying the racist character of the image. While the mutilation of the article is clearly unacceptable behavior, the action should be understood as a political act, as the replacement of one set of offensive images with another. In short, the mutilated page is intended to say that, as offensive as the sexually explicit images are to one audience, the racist imagery is no less offensive to another.  The repeated descriptions of the action as mere vandalism are simply reinforcing the perception that Wikipedia and Wikipedians are insensitive to racially offensive material. The unacceptable reaction to the way the material was presented on the main page should obscure the fact that the underlying objection was in an important sense valid. Monicasdude 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree Monicasdude, while the song book cover in question is in fact offensive, it should be noted that it in fact part of American history, for good or bad, and as such, it's continuance is necessary. The vandalism however was in the hundreds of obscene pictures of male penis, and vaginas, NOTHING to do with the article itself. Furthermore, if the vandal (for the person or persons unknown are indeed vandals) has an objection to this article, THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT IN THE TALK PAGE, or where their criticism may be heard and discussed instead of subjecting hundreds of individuals, including children who use wikipedia for school, to what amounts to soft-core porn. There are outlets for their views, and the objection is in fact invalidated through the means with which it was presented. If you find the cover art offensive, I suggest you find a more appropriate GNU friendly picture of Dixie that shows it's historical importance. Meanwhile, I'll will continue to my search to help police wikipedia from the FILTH and blatant DESTRUCTION of scholarly articles that are destroyed each day by thugs. 
This is despicable, and should not be accepted in Wikipedia.
 
Zidel333 03:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt that this vandalism has anything to do with the article. Seems like a juvenile prank, more likely. As for the mainpage image, it does depict men in blackface. However, it is a) so small on the main page that it's hard to tell that it's anything other than guys in suits with canes and b) a legitimate illustration of the article. Furthermore, the blurb on the mainpage says flat out that the lyrics to "Dixie" are racist. Retracting the picture would violate Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, if someone wants to protest the image, then I agree with Zidel333; take it up here. It is inappropriate to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and letting them get their way — if indeed their "way" is a change of the image — is tantamount to ignoring our own policy. — BrianSmithson 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the quotation from JWales at the top of the mutilated page, referring to children in Africa, was a signal as to the intent of the mutilator.  I don't disagree that the image is appropriately used in the article; I simply think the context which it reflects is not as clearly established as it could be. As for the main page, I think the way the article was presented was unfortunate.  While in the article itself, the commentary about the song's racist connotations accompanies the picture, on the main page, the image and the commentary are separated by the page layout; the initial impression created by the main page is quite different than that created by the article itself.  As for letting the mutilators get "their way," I fear that is exactly what is happening.  The point of the mutilation is not to force changes in the article, but to dramatize what the mutilators believe is racial insensitivity at Wikipedia.  What the mutilators "want," if they expect anything from this demonstration, is more evidence supporting their argument. And ignoring the underlying concern -- even though the specific provocation was certainly not intentional -- reinforces their position. Monicasdude 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM 

message: Dixie banknotes are not an urban legend.  http://louisdl.louislibraries.org/AAW/image/icon137.jpg
I've restored my paragraph on derivation of the term.
According to A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles (1951), by Mitford M. Mathews, three theories most commonly attempt to explain the term:
# The word preserves the name of a kind slave owner on Manhattan Island, a Mr. Dixy. (Slavery was legal in New York until 1827.) His rule was so kindly that "Dixy's Land" became famed far and wide as an Elysium abounding in material comforts.
# Ten-dollar notes issued by the Citizens Bank of Louisiana before the Civil War bore the French dix, ten, on the reverse side and were consequently known as "dixes" or "dixies". Hence, Louisiana and eventually the South in general came to be known as the land of "dixies" or "dixies land".
# "Dixie" derives somehow from Jeremiah Dixon of the Mason-Dixon line defining the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania (the northern boundary of Dixie). -- Dixie Raul654 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. But this belongs at Dixie, not here. The song was named for the place, and where the place got its name is not pertinent information here. — BrianSmithson 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that paragraph is perfectly understandable without any more information. It says that the New York slave owner story was common at the time, so Northerners used it to sort of thumb their noses at the South, who had appropriated the song. Please don't gum up the article with information that does not belong here. — BrianSmithson 20:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck out incivil comment. Apologies. — BrianSmithson 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I believe that plantatian was in Maryland. I'l find refrences and source it.Die4Dixie 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie Notes 

message: I removed this tag because it doesn't seem that there is significant real controversy about any actual content. Perhaps the person who added it was referring to the discussion of vandalism above, however this does not seem to me to be a content or neutrality disagreement. Rather, Monicasdude was trying to ascribe logical motives to vandals, and others were disagreeing with her assessment of the vandals who have not disputed the content, simply destroyed it with pictures of white peoples genitals. Hypothetical controversy with semi-hypothetical users does not warrant an NPOV tag. Makemi 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To run my argument into the ground, I don't think they're vandals, but retaliatory provocateurs; and it's not the content of the article itself that provoked this, but the way it was displayed on the main page. As for "logical motives," I think the mutilators' agenda was indicated by the JWales quote about children in Africa. Monicasdude 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think you took sarcasm where none was intended. I do think you have a point. I also think that the mark of vandals is to make no attempt to communicate displeasure in a productive way, while destroying the work of others. I have seen no discussion besides this by-proxy one. I'm not saying the vandals have to know all the processes of wikipedia, they simply have to make some sort of good faith attempt to communicate. There is a larger discussion to be had of inherent racism in wikipedia. The answer is not to vandalise an article which actually attempts to address it in a somewhat positive way. I don't think "retaliatory provocateur" is necessarily contrary to the wiki's definition of vandal. Also, I personally think you could take the vandalism as a rather racist prank, as in "Here, little children in Africa, is what I think you deserve," rather than some kind of anti-racism commentary. In either case, was inappropriate, and wasn't well articulated enough to make me think the article deserves an NPOV tag. Makemi 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the NPOV tag is appropriate for the article, either; I don't think this incident is really "about" the article itself.  I wouldn't be surprised if it has some roots in the deeceevoice controversy (which is not to say that that user is involved; it really wouldn't seem to be consistent with her rather direct responses). And, a point which inexplicably escaped me earlier, I think this is better characterized as an extreme WP:POINT violation than as simple vandalism. Monicasdude 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: I think this is significantly relevant. I live in the US and had never heard the tune until this movie came out, and its likely those in other countries had a similar experience. The only problem is that I really can't find a section to add it in, and anytime I've tried to add a "cultural references" section to any featured article, it's seen as "vandalism"
* Perhaps it's more relevant to an article on JibJab than it is to this article. Readers unfamiliar with the song can make use of the wikilink from there to learn more here. If you find a published reference affirming that JibJab's use of the song has greatly increased public exposure to the melody (which, let's face it, is pretty deeply enmeshed in American culture already), then it may be relevant here. Until then, I'd have to say that the reference is insignificant. --Dystopos 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of jibjab's "Good to be in DC" flash?

message: Lucius1976 has changed one sentence from "'Dixie' was adopted as an anthem of the Confederacy" to "'Dixie' was adopted as an (inofficial) anthem of the Confederacy". I reverted, and he reverted back. Here's why I reverted: The sentence says "an anthem" and not "the anthem"; it should thus be clear that no one is claiming there was ever anything official about "Dixie"'s status. But in the spirit of compromise, I've changed the passage to read, "'Dixie' was adopted as a de facto anthem of the Confederacy". — BrianSmithson 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie as anthem 

message: Why is the Ebonics used in the song described as racist?  Black culture should be as legitimate a subject for mockery as any other culture and to suggest otherwise is racist.  Anyway, Ali G manages to do what he does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Phillips (talk • contribs) 
:Take a look at our article on racism. The fact is that minstrel shows and blackface speak is not "ebonics", it is an exaggerated and mocking form of African American Vernacular English. The "exaggerated and mocking" part is the key. As for whether what Ali G does is racist, that's probably a discussion for the Ali G page. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments; you do it by typing ~~~~ at the end.) — BrianSmithson 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what my American heritage dictionary has to say on racism - ra·cism (r³“s¹z”…m) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. --rac“ist adj. &  n. - . I do not believe what Ali G does (and, for that matter, pretty much *any* sketch comedy by Richard Prior, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and a *slew* of other very funny comedians) meets either of those defintions. Raul654 02:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but as reluctant as I am , I have to agree with these editors.IMHO, we should list the original lyrics( as well as the modern ones) and let people draw their own conclusions from the facts. Racist and racism are an emotionally charged words , and there use, again IMHO< force feeds a point of view. I don't like the way this has been presented here, and my post in now way should be interpreted to agree with the sentiments expressed by the ANON user. Just that I agree that there is a dispute.Die4Dixie 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist

message: For most non-Americans at least, this song is best known through Elvis Presley's singing it as part of his "American Trilogy" song which he introduced as an extravagantly-staged and arranged closer for his live shows in the 70's (I think it was debuted on his Hawaii live broadcast). I think this is worth considering for inclusion as for someone of his cultural stature to not just include it in his set (and with his backing singers, the soul trio Sweet Inspirations, ironically having to become increasingly audible in later years as his vocal performances suffered) but to use it so - as such a contrived "showstopper" had to have been one very controversial endorsement. If its agreed that this is worth considering, I'll look up the how and why etc and any comments/criticisms/justifications. Elvis toured constantly in the 70s - as well as having extensive Las Vegas residences - and throughout the nation, so how such a "Southern" song was so spectacularly endorsed by him  0 and after the Civil Rights Era gains and consciousness too - is worth considering, I think. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that says that "Dixie" is most widely known outside the US as part of "An American Trilogy", that is information worth including, yes. — Dulcem (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis' American Trilogy 

message: Question above says it all. Would I be lynched or spat at in the South for having Dixie as my ringtone? Is the song looked down upon as a symbol of redneck culture or as a valid way to express one's Southern heritage? The article expresses some opinions on the matter, but it tries to skirt the issue and really needs to utilise sources that express the real situation on the ground, not merely print the lofty opinions of some academics. As a Brit with little idea of the South, in my Euro-trash opinion the article needs to clarify. 86.143.205.139 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems pretty clear to me. If you had "Dixie" as your ringtone, certain people would instantly look at you askance, others would sing along. Some would see it as a symbol of redneck backwardness, others as a symbol of heritage. I'm not sure where such "on the ground" information would come from. News reports of people getting beat up for playing "Dixie"? I think the article does the best it can with the issue. That said, if you know of some sources for the type of information you're talking about, please let us know. — Dulcem (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this article be more concrete on the modern acceptability of Dixie? 

message: For some reason the entire article past the heading "Lyrics" is being rendered inside the sample box, which is disastrously ruining the layout.  I don't know if this is a bug in the software, but when I go to edit the article and then click "Show preview" without actually having edited anything, the preview renders fine.  The page does not render properly, previews do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkinkade (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page not rendering properly past heading "Lyrics" (issue fixed!) 

message: I never imagined that the drawn out "oh" at the very beginning was an afterthought. It's hard to imagine a drawn-out "I" for an opening upbeat! Unfree (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh!

message: 'Dix' is French for ten, a new orleans bank released common banknotes in the early 19th century with a large 'Dix' on the back, if someone wants to document this and include it in the article, please do. 24.205.84.24 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of term

message: In the "Modern Interpretations" section, the transition from the second paragraph to the third is somewhat bothersome to me.  The second paragraph ends speaking on events from 2002 and 2009, and then the third paragraph opens up with, "The debate has since moved beyond student populations".  The third paragraph then goes on to talk about events in 1971 and 1989.
Looks like a slight oversight when someone added the University of Mississippi stuff, they didn't alter the following paragraph.
Thanks [I edited b/c in the original post I left out 1971]67.142.178.23 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little cleanup for someone 

message: Why does the sentence mentioning the song as Lincoln's favorite contain the line, "who apparently saw no racism in it"?  This is somewhat unnecessary and controversial itself since many people contend that Lincoln himself was racist.  In his 1858 Senate race debate against Douglas he even said that he was, "in favor as much as anyone of having the position of superior race assigned to the white man."  Emperor001 (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln's favorite

message: Dixie was banned from Ole Miss games in 2009. This article implies that it is still in use.
Interestingly, the ban was not put in place because the school considered the song itself to be offensive, but because they wanted to stop the fans from doing offensive chants when the song was played.
Source: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/nov/10/ole-miss-chancellor-halts-song-segregationist-bagg/ 75.65.8.84 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that, but WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. Buffs (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Mississippi's use of Dixie 

message: *  --Javaweb (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible resource 

message: Question the neutrality of this section (and a few others) as pro-support leaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Interpretations 

message: This is a very old FA that has taken on some uncited text, and needs a prose brush-up.  Is anyone able to bring the article back to FA standard, to avoid a Featured article review?  If so, I will list other issues (sources need to be checked).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dixie (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071104233628/http://media.www.thedmonline.com:80/media/storage/paper876/news/2002/01/30/News/dixie.Sees.Less.Play.At.Tad.Pad-1581532.shtml to http://media.www.thedmonline.com/media/storage/paper876/news/2002/01/30/News/dixie.Sees.Less.Play.At.Tad.Pad-1581532.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dixie (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://thedmonline.com/article/no-love-dixie-chancellor-pulls-bands-pregame-piece-after-chanting-continues
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305122036/http://home.att.net/~dmercado/audio/dixie.mid to http://home.att.net/~dmercado/audio/dixie.mid
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: During the years that ARTURO TOSCANINI CONDUCTED THE NBC SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA he made a tour to the American Southern States. The maestro in planning an encore for these concerts requested if there was a popular piece of music that they could play. "Dixie" was recommended and was indeed played and a recording was made. When Toscanini discovered it racist overtones he forbidits release and never performed it again. Copies of the recording exists in private hands. Taking the words to the song out it is a jolly good tune and as pure music one should be looked at as such.
JRPG (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noted there's another reference to this on the Todo list at the top of this page. JRPG (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced anecdote by [[Special:Contributions/222.152.209.54|222.152.209.54]] transferred from article.  I'm not familiar enough with the subject to comment further 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dixie (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522054105/http://www6.miami.edu/miami-magazine/fall01/boldbeginnigs.html to http://www6.miami.edu/miami-magazine/fall01/boldbeginnigs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208081708/https://www.bencarson.com/song to https://www.bencarson.com/song
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think this song should be in the "American Patriotic Songs" category. Setting aside that it's infobox specifies it as an anthem of the CSA, which was created in opposition to the USA and in support of succession (the opposite of patriotism), it's regional, not national. While it may be a tribute to a part of America, that category does not include songs like Oklahoma!, California, Here I Come or New York, New York. There are plenty of medleys that include Dixie that collectively may be patriotic in nature, but alone, it is only about a particular region, not the country as a whole.
The discussion of it as a patriotic song in the article only makes the claim that it was included in one songbook of "patriotic songs" and cites Justice William Rehnquist including it in singalongs at a judicial conference that takes place in the south (the region the song references). Of the two, only the songbook makes any claim of "American patriotism" and the existence of that book isn't cited, nor is it's actual name, only that it's from Boston.
To be honest, the claims in the article trying to pass the song off as patriotic are pretty flimsy, one being unattributed and the other being a poor interpretation of a singalong performance taking place in the south as being "patriotic" because a chief justice was involved. It really comes off as an attempt to sanitize the song's place in history. That aside, it's certainly not a nationally patriotic song, as the category would require, and it should be removed, as well as from the navigation box of "Notable American Symbols," on which it is an outlier.
If nobody else will remove it, and there's no good argument not to, I'll try to remember to do it myself. Boblamont (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: American Patriotic Songs Category?

message: I added the original lyrics because its important to see them particularly in light of the comments in the article that "Dixie" is about slavery.   Note there is no reference or hint of slavery or states rights in the lyrics.   The song was in fact a baudy tune.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseidave (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Original Lyrics

message: How do we reconcile the fact that this song was sung by white men mocking african americans with the claims that this song is not racist? Is it objective to present those claims that the song is not racist with validity despite the fact that the song originated from black minstrelsy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1303:ddf2:a14d:496c:a006:5570 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledging the black minstrelsy origins in the discussion of racism 

message: Could someone explain how his quote supports the claim that the song is not racist?
Also, I was having trouble finding background information of this author. Someone had written without any source that, "many black musicologists have claimed that the song is not racist" after which he/she showed this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1303:ddf2:a14d:496c:a006:5570 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Dennison