Talk:Southern United States/Archive 1

message: How do most Southerners treat Muslims that live in the South?
:I'm a Muslim living in the South, and I'm treated just fine. Stereotypical interpretations would be that Muslim Southerners aren't treated right, but that's the farthest thing from the truth. Stallions2010 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims

message: Although south of the Mason-Dixon line, that catagorizing of "The South" is not widely accepted anymore. Having grown up in South Carolina and traveled extensively throughout the southern states, when asked, most will not accept Baltimore or Maryland as being culturally southern.
On the other hand you have Kentucky a state that had over 80% of it's residence identify as Southerners on the Southern Focus Study (tied with Virginia) yet it is a striped state on the Map and Louisville has a star by it (indicating it may or may not be Southern). This map is based solely on Civil War alliances and nothing else, I mean it would be more logical to pur CSA in the captions am I wrong. Why not make a map that goes by the Southern focus study, every state that had over 50% of it's residents identify as Southerns should be labeled Solid red. Really the only changes to be made by this suggestion is to make Kentucky (had 86% of residences identify as Southern same percentage as Virginia) and Oklahoma (about 69% of residence identify as Southerns) solid red. Oh and take that rediculous star from beside Louisville. 
If this is to much work or something then can someone at least put in the captions Confederate states of America. I have a hard time beleiving that in this day in age Kentucky if not more is just as Southern as Virginia.
>>The Southern Focus Poll mentioned above was a good one. If I have it down right, it consisted of 14 seperate surveys between 1992 and 1999, attempting to find "The South" by where people SAID they lived in the South.   In 1999, sociologist John Shelton Reed (who is undoubtably the premier Southern culture expert in the country) did a study "consolidating" the findings inthe individual states over those years (which varied some from poll to poll).   Again, altough I don't have the actual article, but going by some reviews of it, the OVERALL finding was that over 90% of residents in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina's, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida said they were in the South.  Texas came in with 84%, Virginia at 82% and Kentucky at 79%. In Oklahoma it was 69%, and the above states constituted all in which a majority believed their state in the South.  That corresponded perfectly with the 13 state South as defined by Gallup polls and certain political concerns (such as the Southern Republican Convention).   Of the states included in the South by the  U.S. Census Bureau, just 14 percent of Delaware residents said they lived there, with Missourians at 23 percent, Maryland with 40  and West Virginians with 45 percent.
>>Although I don't have the particulars (but will try to post them when I can locate them), there was ANOTHER part of the question that asked the respondents if they, personally, considered THEMSELVES to be Southernerns.  This query has a lot of interesting ramifications in itself when figured into the whole equasion.  For instance, although an overwhelming majority of those surveyed in Florida said they lived in the South, only 51 percent considered themselves Southerners.  I am sure this is because of the influx of yankee migrants, and would guess that states like Texas, Viriginia, even North Carolina, would reflect the same discrepancy between the two questions.  Seems like that even in Mississippi and Alabama, a noteably smaller number of respondents considered themselves to be Southerners than actually living in the South. TexasReb 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a map, redrawn from scratch but copying a map of D.W. Meinig, who himself drew on a wide variety of regional studies to come up with this generalized map of the regions of the US.  It is supposed to represent US in 1950, but should holld up to today's US pretty well I think.  The strongest divides and regions he notes with grey shading (for "The Core") and the thickest black line-- for the "Primary Cultural Divide", between the north and the south, east of the Mississippi River.  It is interesting to see how his line diverges from the state lines along the Ohio River-- sometimes curving northward, sometimes south. It starts at Washington DC in the east, putting Baltimore north of the "primary divide" (of course such lines are inherently somewhat arbitrary and subject to dispute).  If I ever find enough time (unlikely!), I wouldn't mind making new maps for the regions of the US, perhaps with fuzzy colored borders and not so strongest based on state lines.  But time lacks.  Anyway here's the redrawn Meinig map:  http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg Pfly 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL  "Mormondom"
Below is an interesting article by John Shelton Reed (Southern culture expert and originator of the Southern Focus Poll so often mentioned in the discussion). 
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.
TexasReb 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baltimore

message: Again, as with many US-centric articles, there is no mention of Native Americans at all. How can the History of an American region be represented without some reference to its original inhabitants? Shame shame. Quinobi 18:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To futher advocate the aformentioned devil: Georgia Cherokees were so assimilative of the Southern culture that at the time of the Trail of Tears, many of the wealthier ones (such as Chief Vann) owned numerous black slaves which worked their plantations.  Some Mississippi Choctaws also owned slaves.  This assimilation attempt might merit mention, even though the attempt at coexistence (represented in part by the above, which was partially a move for assimilation and white acceptance) was a failure due to Jackson's insistance on Removal.
Rlquall 03:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native America 

message: That term was still in very wide use forty years ago during the centennial of the event, but is dying out raidly even among Southerners; I edited the article slightly in an attempt to reflect this.  Almost none outside of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and fringe groups like the League of the South still speak of "The War for Southern Independence" or "The War of Northern Agression", most call it, like the rest of the country, The Civil War, even though there was very little civility involved for the most part.  That having been said, the South has tens of thousands of Civil War buffs, ranging from intellectuals who want every detail throughly researched and authenticated, through a vast mainstream group which is interested in the history of the period, to those whose only interest in it whatever is the fact that it was a period of unquestioned white supremacy. 
It is true in the main that, "In the South, the past is ever present.  In fact, it's never even passed."  The resentment that many rural Georgians and other Southerners as well feel toward Atlanta goes so far beyond the traditional rural/urban rivalry, or even racism, that it is surprising to outsiders (and probably most Atlantans, especially white ones, are largely unaware of it or knowingly ingnore it) and is in part caused by the fact that modern Atlanta has so little connection to its own past in particular, the Southern past in general, or to its region.  Those who go to Atlanta to experience "the South" are apt to be disappointed, as in many ways they find a modern large city that fits anywhere in North America, only governed by blacks and with a black majority.
Rlquall 14:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a feeling the term "dope" in reference to soft drinks may have have been a product of the original formula, but I've never heard it said in Atlanta, but in the mountains of East Tennessee and hills of Middle Tennessee and only by older people, never anyone even middle-aged.
"For what it's worth, having spent the first 25 years of my life in the South, I have never heard it called anything but the Civil War." 
I've lived in NC for 10 years and have rarely heard the term "Civil War." 66.57.225.195 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War Between the States; Atlanta vs. The South 

message: We go from Civil war 1865 to The South Today(2004). Are there distinctly 'Southern' events occuring in the post Civil War (1864 - 1990s) that deserve mention? MPS 23:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitely needs to be some stuff about reconstruction, and a few sentences on the early 20th century wouldn't hurt either.-LtNOWIS 04:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing History 

message: This article is all subjective and doesn't belong in this article.
Eurytus
Your article doesn't make any sense and doesn't deserve response in this article. 24.125.42.74 01:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the Southern Culture in the 21st Century 

message: I don't like the opening sentence.  It implies that the South was known as "Dixie" only during the American Civil War, which is hardly the case.  Recommendations for improvement?
Rlquall 01:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie 

message: Should Missouri be added on as a Southern state? Though it was a border state sticking with the Union during the Civil War, there's still a good deal of Southern culture in S. Missouri and I think it'd be remiss to exclude them. Haverton 00:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's partially true, but not enitirely so See: WikiProject U.S. regions. -JCarriker 16:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
As far as cultural ID goes, Missourians themselves are more likely to identify as Northerners if they're from St. Louis or Kansas City, but rather opposite elsewhere.  I can only state this anecdotally, though eight years in Boone County counts for an awful lot of anecdotes. 24.124.123.100 20:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Much of southern Missouri reflects the Southern culture, not just the southeast portion of the state.  The problem is that Missouri really is the shifting ground from South to Mid-west.  The South does not end at the Arkansas border.  Though, people from Northern Missouri tend to think little of the people form Southern Missouri.  What it really boils down to is if the Missourian pronounces the name of the state "Missourah" or "Missouree".  Thats the dividing line between Southern and Northern/Midwest culture.<I style="color:#3333CC;">~ The Rebel At ~</I> 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Little Dixie is actually in north-central Missouri.--JWB 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I live in Missouri and I have yet to hear anyone who lives near, or north of the line between Kansas City and Saint Louis say "Missourah," except as a joke.--65.16.61.35 14:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missouri as Southern 

message: Considering how this guy is a communist, all references to his work should be removed.
::Didn't know that. While that isn't the only issue to consider about the reliability of a reference, after reading up on the guy he doesn't seem credible to me, so I removed the reference. Besides, his books was a reference to a minor point in the article that is now gone.--Alabamaboy 15:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Foner

message: Would it be okay to change the colour of that map box to something more agreeable to the eye and more in line with wikipedia appearance? Something like #ccf, as seen to the right? And, if that change would be okay, are there other pages like this one with that table in it? (I just happened to stumble over here near-randomly, don't know much about this page). If there are, I'm happy to change the other articles too, if people are happy for me to change 'em. --Qirex 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. In fact, the box colors used to be different. Please change the color as you see fit.--Alabamaboy 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied and pasted this discussion to the WikiProject U.S. regions discussion page as I've found that this box, with these colours, is at approx 20 other pages similar to this one. I suggest new comments go there from now (and please do come and comment, I don't want to do this if it proves unpopular). I will leave quick notes at those other pages about this discussion. --Qirex 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours and appearance

message: Why were these added as MSAs only?  Several of these cities have significantly different populations in the CSAs, which are better representations of what most people would view as the "metro area".  Anyone object if I pull those #s instead?  -Jcbarr 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Metro populations

message: I notice that there is nothing about the abortion issue and the culture wars to explain the Southern defection from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.  Surely that needs to be included as well. Joey1898 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion

message: Of the text below, I'm moving the bolded text here, because as it stands now it seems POV to me:
 Groups including the League of the South continue to promote secession from the United States, citing a desire to protect and defend the heritage of the South. On the other side of this issue are groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which believes that the League of the South is a hate group.
It is worth noting that most people in the South do not believe in either of these extremes. They instead value their heritage while also recognizing the need to continue improving race relations and embrace the changing nature of the South.
This second paragraph implies that the SPLC is extreme, and the word "instead" suggests that the SPLC is against valuing southern heritage.  I don't think the SPLC would agree with either of those characterizations.
--Allen 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC and League of the South 

message: Rjensen, you need to provide references to your historical analysis edits and clean up some POV issues with your edits before we go with them. For example, where in the pre-Civil Rights south were there small cities with integrated neighborhoods? Even if there were a few, these were not the norm and to state it as is makes it sound like the norm. Second, your political history analysis is good but needs references (especially since it is more analysis than mere stating of historical fact). Your sentence "First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominated such Southerners" makes it sound like this was a deliberate choice by National Democrats when it was instead the outgrowth of the South's political power. In addition, the statement "Georgia was the last state to fall" is very POV, making the Democrat loss of the South sound like a dictatorship falling. I have left in your politics edits but made a few changes to blatent POV issues. The stuff like the comment about presidental elections above I hope you can clean up. You still need references, though, and I hope you will provide them. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions.  Talking pre 1960, neighborhoods in towns and small cities were usually integrated. As for political history I was mostly following Black, Earl and Merle Black. The Rise of Southern Republicans (2002) Rjensen 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference. I'd still want to see a good reference on that neighborhood thing. BTW, I didn't mean to initially delete your politics edits. I'd just noticed that some vandal a month or so back had deleted a number of stuff from the article and I was just trying to reinsert it. Got carried away when I hit your stuff. My bad.--Alabamaboy 15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide references, get rid of POV edits 

message: I suppose there are more important errors to fix, but I found it funny that someone suggested that the Dukes of Hazard was filmed in Georgia.  Anyone who has ever driven through Georgia knows that it looks nothing like Hazard County, since the TV show was filmed in California.  
--Skeenbr0 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV 

message: The article points out that North Carolina is moving away from it's southern heritage. As a native of North Carolina I do not believe this is accurate. It is true that there are certain leaders in Charlotte, most of them native N. Carolinians, who are attempting to erase the cities connections to the Confederacy, renaming streets for example, in the spirit of making Charlotte a "world class city". However, for every person who opposes southern culture in the Charlotte Meto Area there are probably three more who approve of it. Even those who seek to down-play Confederate sympathy have attempted to build on other aspects of southern culture, the NASCAR hall of fame is a good example of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.19 (talk • contribs) 
:I think the biggest problem is that the paragraph contains opinions that aren't attributed to anyone.  Rather than trying to figure out whether NC is really moving away from its heritage, we should figure out who thinks it is and who disagrees, and say so.  --Allen 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlotte 

message: Under the "Music" section I noticed that any mention of Southern (particuarly in carolinas) "Beach Music" was missing.  Thus, noting its widespread cultural influence (especially in South Carolina) I added it to the list.  Feel free to agree/disagree.
Much love - haere e hoki,
Jack Jenkins
--Jack 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beach Music Mention... 

message: *It has been noted in many music documentaries that the strong drum beat in rock/blues comes from the Native Americans and African Americans.  Both used drums in their tribal ceremonies and rites. --Bookofsecrets 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music FYI 

message: Just because someone comes from the British Isles doesn't mean they are 'Celtic', ever heard of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions (just to name a few)? --Cameron Nedland 23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Celtic" is much overused these days. I've added David Hackett Fischer's viewpoint to Scotch-Irish American#Scotch-Irish as a general term in response to the "Celtic" assertion there. --JWB 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic? 

message: If Atlanta is considered the economic powerhouse of the Southern States, why is Texas then dark red and not striped?  Either the Atlanta article needs to change (to note that Dallas and Houston are at least equally as important), or this one needs to (to make Texas striped and not solid).  Consistency is key, I think. Tomwithanh 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlanta 

message: As a native Houstonian, I vote Texas is uniquely its own region that blends both cultures and regions.  Houston is definitely a blend of both regions, with a large African American population, Piney Woods being closeby, and with a very large Hispanic population, many first-generation.  It's very easy to find authentic Southwestern cuisine and Southern cuisine here, although I have never heard of some foods listed in the Southern cuisine article.  As you travel north and east of Houston to the Arklatex area, southern influence is dominant.  Many southwestern style foods you find there are not authentic.  As you travel northwest, west and southwest of Houston, Southwestern influence is dominant, and the only culture you can find if you travel far enough.
The representation on this map should be consistent with the Southwestern US article, which puts Texas in stripes.  According to the Texas article, the state is in both regions.  This subject is debatable and always seems to be a matter of opinion.  Therefore I believe the two articles should be consistent -- either list Texas as both Southwestern and Southern (solid), or sometimes considered both (striped).
::I've never considered Texas to be Southern.  I think it's more Southwestern.  Plus it covers such a large area, and there's lots of different cultures represented. Dubc0724 12:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas undoubtedly Southern? 

message: I travel the entire state, including the backroads, in connection with my work. There is little doubt that Anglo and African American Texas is solidly Southern in its culture. West Texas certainly has landscapes and habits that seem curious to those of us from the east of Interstate 35, but I find that the essential manners and mores of that region have little in common with western states such as Arizona or Colorado. East of Interstate 35 and north of San Antonio is where the vast population of the state is located. That regions accents, manners, race relations, food, dress, religion, history and folkways bind us solidly with our cousins to the east. South Texas is another matter. The population down there is majority hispanic and the question for the future will be how the immigrants down there assimilate with the rest of us and how much of their culture we adopt. For better or worse.
Was in the CSA and therefore Southern. Case closed. WillC 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regions like "The South" or "The Midwest" don't have strict definitions that everyone agrees to; they are naturally vague, but useful.  I agree that The South often/usually includes Texas, but not always.  And I often hear of Texas as a region of its own, an idea that makes some sense given its size and history (Lone Star, etc).  Also, if one is using environmental factors as part of the way they think about regions, in addition to human cultural stuff, then a lot of Texas doesn't seem much like The South at all.  Anyway, just adding the idea that regional terms like "The South" are often about more than human culture, and that Texas, while Southern, seems to often be described as its own region.  A common regionalization of the US I see is:  New England, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, Texas, Southwest, California, Mountain, Northwest.  But the point is, trying to define general regions strictly, especially using state borders only, is likely to be an exercise in frustration.  Pfly 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas 

message: Funny, I don't know any Missouri types who think of themselves as Southern....they are all Germanic-style Midwesterners in beliefs and speech patterns....yet Delaware types I know are as Southern as Southern can be. WillC 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Considering Oneself

message: There is a disagreement over which map to use on this (and other Southern) articles. Let's see which people prefer.--Alabamaboy 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map--please pick your favorite! 

message: * Map 1 I vote for Map one because it is more information-dense (letting the reader know at a glance which states are usually considered part of the south and which are only sometimes considered part of the South). Tha map is also simple to understand. In my opinion, Map 2 actually provides less useful information that Map 1.--Alabamaboy 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The vote

message: I agree wholeheartedly with it. Have the rest of you ever lived in Kentucky? Been there? It did not secede because it wanted to remain neutral and help work out a peace in the tradition of native son Henry Clay. They were incensed by the 13th Amendment; they thought they could have their cake and eat it too by legally remaining a slave state in the Union. When that was no longer a possibility, they wished they had seceded. WillC 11:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can understand the issue with Kentucky, not everyone considers it part of the South percisely b/c it didn't secede. That is what Map 1 attempts to do, show where there is disagreement about which states are considered part of the South.--Alabamaboy 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kentucky historians agree the state joined the Confederacy after 1865.[Coulter 1926] Even Louisville (an important Union stronghold) switched its sympathies. Rjensen 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify your comments....you mean that KY gravitates more towards the South after 1865? WillC 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking along the same lines. Would that work for people?--Alabamaboy 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, border states. WillC 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the map has been reverted to stripe Florida, which may be ambiguously Southern, but is certainly not a Border State.--JWB 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is worth noting that many places in the Southern Appalachians (such as E. Tennessee) were pro union had very few (if any) slaves. As for Kentucky, a large reason for the state oiffically not joining the CSA is that the state's largest and 3rd largest urban centers, Louisville and Northern Kentucky, were pro union while Lexington was very divided. The Western and South Central parts of Kentucky were and have always been very southern. Had the population centers been located here, the state would have swung the other way. 65.138.71.171 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think southern Florida should be striped. It's too arbitrary a distinction; I know plenty of people from Tampa, Ft. Meyers, etc. who consider their city to be Southern, and a lot of the people who wouldn't consider Miami part of the "real" South also wouldn't consider  places like Jacksonville or Gainesville. Maybe the whole state should be striped, but I think it's better to just leave it all solid, and explain the rest in the article.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This map has been a by-state map. The article would benefit from more detailed maps of the geography of Southern culture, but that would be a separate and bigger effort than simply striping South Florida, which opens up the question of all the other ambiguous regions. --JWB 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Above Rant

message: I support JCarriker's map revision b/c one editor should not make an arbitrary change like that, especially when many editors are trying to come to consensus on the map on this very talk page. For now I have also reverted the map's caption. I do not support the statement that the South is based on slavery OR that South Florida is not considered part of the South.  I would also like to propose that we are splitting too many hairs here with the different versions of the map's caption.
How about we see which of these options people can support:
Option 1 (the map's original caption: "Exact definitions of the South vary from source to source. The states shown in dark red are usually included, while all or portions of the striped states may or may not be considered part of the Southern United States." That caption gives all views wiggle room for whether or not a certain area was considered part of the South.
Option 2: If people don't want to go with the original caption, then how about "Geographical definitions of the South focus on the 11 deep-red states which seceded to form the Confederacy in 1861. The Border slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia, shown striped, did not secede. Oklahoma was Indian Territory and not a state in 1861, but it did have slavery."
What do people think? Personally, I lean toward Option 1 b/c once we start nickpicking what exactly makes the South then the caption ceases to be useful and becomes as long as the Georgraphy section of this article. best,--Alabamaboy 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's just an amazing coincidence that the South = slave states of 1860? Hardly. Actually there was even a war on the slavery issue. Denial of that basic fact looks pretty silly. Rjensen 13:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an idiot and I'm aware of Southern history. However, the fact is that slavery existed in every colony of what became the United States (even New York!) and existed in some Nothern states well into the 1800s. To say that "Geographical definitions of the South focus on slavery" is as misleading as other definitions people have give since that would mean Northern states which allowed slavery must be Southern :-). However, the way you've rewritten the caption ("All the red and striped states were slave states in 1860, when the Civil War decisively shaped the Southern image.") works for me.--Alabamaboy 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're agreed...but slavery was abolished in North by 1799 (NY) and 1805 (New Jersey). so the slave distinction dates to about 1800 (hence the popularity of "Mason Dixon Line" after 1800) Rjensen 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relation between the Civil War and slavery is complex enough to deserve paragraphs and whole articles. A single caption should not attempt to take it on. The caption should be as simple and direct as possible. As little as "Confederate States solid; Border States striped" would suffice. --JWB 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: I am changing the major metropolitan areas to match the map. All cities that are located within the solid Southern states will not be starred; however, the cities within the striped states will be. Please note that cities such as Baltimore, Tulsa, and Louisville will have stars, but cities such as El Paso will not. This is in compliance with the map, which shows Maryland, Oklahoma, and Kentucky striped, but Texas (obviously) solid. Thanks. --Stallions2010 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is a good idea. --Stallions2010 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan areas 

message: I reverted the words "it's willfully prolonged" in the following bit from the article because it oversimplifies too much, and anyway, "it's" is misspelled.  But in reading the paragraph more closely, the whole thing seems silly:
"The Southern United States or the South constitutes a distinctive region covering a large portion of the United States. Because of the region's unique cultural and historic heritage, including the doctrine of states' rights, it's willfully prolonged institution of slavery, and the legacy of the American Civil War, the South has developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music and jazz, rock 'n' roll and blues), and cuisine."
It implies that the South's historic involvement with states' rights, slavery, and the Civil War are unique to the South and what made the South what it is.  None of those things were unique to the South.  The legacy of the Civil War shaped the whole country.  States' rights have been an issue in many parts of the country not in the South.  And slavery was important in the North as well as the South; even after the North abolished slavery, Northerners continued to participate in the slave trade and had enormous interest in slave-run cotton production.
Every region is distinctive in some way or other, and every one can be said to be unique.  There's got to be a better way to put it. Pfly 05:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unique Region

message: I clearly belive that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!
Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. Im from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutly HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconciterate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.
Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.
If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????
It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty usefull to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORSED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are natrually South.
Subject 3: MD.
Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.
I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!
Yet 81% of Marylanders consider themselves Northern (Southern Focus Study). How do you explain this? SwedishConqueror 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason Kentucky did not secede is that they thought they could have their cake and eat it too....slavery was legal in the USA, so why leave? WillC 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MD/VA/DC 

message: Kentucky has Midwestern influence, and as you said it has prodomiantly Southern History. Forgive me if I seemed a little agree, I was under the impression that you were trying that whole Checks and Balances BS that other's have tried to pull. However I  still maintain the argument that Kentucky is by default a Southern State. Yes it's grouped in the Upland South and up till yeterday was grouped in with the Midwest on their Wiki map, However as you can see if you track this debate on the Midwestern article the inclusion of Kentuckyof the Midwest has sparked furry into many "TRUE" Midwesterners. For the most part however I've sort of leaning more towards the striping of Texas and Virgnia moreso than the solisifying of Kentucky and Oklahoma.
Reguarding Louisville again it is a mix of Southern and Midwestern culture. You brought up some excellent points and labeled the crieteria that is neccesary to label a city whatever it leans more to. 
However I would like to address the Midwestern points. 
1. You brought up Louisville's status as a manufacturing Center. Manufacturing and the whole rise and fall rustbelt era was not restricted to states North (or having proximity) to the Mason Dixon Line. An example of a Southern city that's went through (and is still going through) the Rust Belt or manufacturing decline is Birmingham, Alabama. This city ranked along side Louisville in population throughout it's history and was dubbed the "Pittsburg of the South", during it's porsperous years. Just like Louisville and other manufacturing centers it's population went on the decline in the 1960's falling out of the top 50 in the 90's headcount. According to that argument Birmingham, Alabama, must be classified in the Midwest in that Category. Not to mention that Louisville was refered to as the manufacturing "Capitol of the South."  With the inclusion of Alabama's premiere city I wouldn't at all claissfy that as Midwestern or Northern. Not Mention New Orleans and Memphis were Southern cities with economy's that relied heavily on Manufacturing.
2. As far as the Southern Focus Study goes this is how I see it (in the percentage of self identified Southerners) Kentucky 68%, Texas 68%, Virginia 60%, Oklahoma 53%, Florida 51%, If Kentucky ties with Texas and ranks ahead of Virgnia and is not solidly then the map is flawed. I again think that since all of these states have cultural variations than all of them should be striped. If it is possisble stripe the states according to how Southern they are. If Misssouir is more Midwestern than give it more stipes, If Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas are more Southern than give them less stripes.
3. As far as climate maps go they vary as much as Texas's landscape I mean 
http://wmc.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/images/phys.gif
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/regions.gif
http://cirrus.dnr.state.sc.us/images/7dTDataSERCC.png
http://es-ee.tor.ec.gc.ca/paper_data/UVI_climatology_US_Canada_0403/fig10-03.gif
and then all these would suggest that Louisville is more Mid-Southern
I'm no meteorologist or anything, But I don't notice a big difference in climate between Louisville, Cincinnati, St.Louis, Memphis, Nashville, and Little Rock. That's just me!
4. Louisville's Catholic population is really nothing compared to New Orleans and that enitre area of Louisana. Which has the heaviest concentration of Catholics in the Nation. Despite that fact New Orleans I've never heard New Orleans to refered to as anything other than Southern. Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio Texas unlike many Southern cities have a huge Hispanic populations contributing to their Catholism, yet despite that are generally accepted as Southern cities. According to this Richmond and Baton Rouge (which is also in Louisiana) diocece have more Catholics than Louisville. Not to mention that Raleigh is not to far behind Louisville.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scus1.html
5. Dialect-SOUTHERN. I've provided sources and in every one Louisville is with the range of other Southern cities. I mean these are all different sources and are the only ones I on the engine. Despite these similarities between Southern Ilinois (which according to Dr.Reed heavily influenced by Southern culture) Louisville was still grouped in by the Linguistic experts.  Here they are again.
http://www.geocities.com/yvain.geo/diausa.gif
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap2.GIF
http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialMap.gif
http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/mapping/map.html
http://www.msu.edu/~preston/LAVIS.pdf
http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/AmDialLnx.htm
Well on Metro T.V.'s YPAL ( I beleive it was over the bridges) some one speaker trying to emphasize Louisville's great past said that," People came from all over the South for Louisville's great art seen, not Atlanta, not Dallas, But Louisville." 
It's a Southern city to its bones (referring to Louisville)
http://www.daytondailynews.com/travel/content/travel/destinations/kentucky/louisville042300.html
"The once sleepy southern city "
http://www.acfnewsource.org/democracy/louisville_lure.html
6. Politians throughout Louisville's history have labeled and marketed Louisville as a Southern city. There was a program (very talked about)   over an hour and a half about Louisville's history (came out in the 1970's) on KET (channel 15 locally) that showed the aftermath of the 1937 flood and the mayor at that time along with the citizens were concerned a Louisville's position as one of the South's premiere cities (in terms of population) and he promised the city wouldn't slip. May I also mention that in this footage Louisville was only regaurded as a Southern city and the Midwest was not brought up once.
When Candice Cliff (however you spell it) interviewed some Old lady about a book that was about Southern Belles, she said "Ya no we Southern Belles have to stick together"
I as well most people I've come into contact with reguard Louisville as a Southern city. I'll say it has Midwestern influence, But to say in a Tug of War Minneanapolis on one side and Birmingham on another (Louisville's the rope) Birminghams winning by a bit.
To call a state that has over 70 Confederate monuments compared to 2 Union Northern is silly. TO call a state with the second largest slave owning population Northern. To call a state that had over a quarter of it's population be accounted by slaves Northern. To call a state where Tobacco is the cash crop Midwestern, To call a state where blacks can be found throughout non majorly urbanized areas in signifigant numbers Northern, To call a city that got bypassed in the great migration Northern, To call a state that was ran by Jim crow Northern, To call a state that has the 3rd largest Southern Baptist population Northern, To call a state and city that was said to have suceeded from the Union (after the war) Northern, To call a state with over 3/4's of it's residents (80%) Northern or Midwestern (now how silly does that sound), To call  a state whoose Gov. is annaully called on for the Southern Gov. convention Northern, To call a city  that produced the OFFICIAL Southern Belle Midwestern,  LOL how REDICULOUS does that sound.
Oh I think you forgot to include Louisiana, Texas, and Florida in that Catholic argument. Despite differenes in ancestry leading to a large (some of the largest) Catholic populations these states are still Considered the most Southern states (exaggeration of Texas and Southern Florida). Well as you can see from this map every Kentucky county boarding the Ohio River with the exception of Jefferson (the most populated) and Oldham county have over  a quarter of their residence identify as Baptist. With the exception of the counties immediately boarding Cincinnati, which fun in the same range as Jefferson and Oldham at 10-25% which is also true for Shelby/Memphis, County TN, Richmond, Houston, and Jacksonville.
As far as the Tea thing UUUUHHHH where do you go in Louisville I like to take my father out to eat alot and he's big tea drinker "big" (all he drinks) I've never in my memories have heard him or anyone for that matter say they need some sugar. I frequent Cincinnati amd even there I've never seen anyone with tea have to ask for sugar NEVER. LOL I guess folks from Richmond (former Capitol of the Confederacy) and Texas's major cities have something to prove by that map.
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif 
I guess we see this different ways, I see it as a balancer and the Southern side is the heaviest, which to me makes it Southern (I round it off). You (I guessing) see it as though while it's mostly Southern, however there was still that weighing that was neccisary to determine this and you feel that the other side shouldn't be forgotten about. I don't feel that the Midwestern conponents should be ignored just as Texas's "Texmex"/Southwestern culture shouldn't be ignored, Or like Virinia's Northern Influnce from neighboring Washington shouldn't be ingnored. I feel that's what makes each of these states different in no matter how small. While you atleast acknoweledge that Louisville is a prodomiantly Southern city, as I stated I round it off and say that it's a Southern city. I acknowledge that Kentucky has Midwestern Influence and I would rightfully agree with a map that lables not only Kentucky and Oklahoma, But Texas, and Virginia as Mixed influenced states. 74.128.200.135 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop posting novel-length responses.  People who are actually from Louisville know that the Confederate Monument has been defaced multiple times, and most people here laugh at it or joke about it.  Further, I know Louisville is not Southern in dialect because of actual experience.  Most people I run into have an even Midwestern dialect.  That's just the way it is. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, one of my best friends is a Civil War author, and he fills me in quite well on Louisville and Kentucky's Civil War history. What I've said about it is accurate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kentucky and Louisville

message: It seems like many editors are unhappy with the current regional map.  On the discussion page for this map, I made the suggestion, by reading and re-reading the discussion here, that a map along these lines be created (by any editor with the ability to edit PNG files):
Solid States 1. Arkansas 2. Louisiana 3. Mississippi 4. Alabama 5. Georgia 6. Tennessee 7. South Carolina 8. North Carolina
Striped States 1. Florida 2. Texas 3. Oklahoma 4. Missouri 5. Kentucky 6. Virginia 7. West Virginia 8. Maryland 9. Delaware
What's the consensus on this?
--67.158.145.218 06:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am firmly against striping Texas and Florida, and I will try my best to prevent this. If the majority of their residents consider themselves Southerners, no one has the right to stripe these states. A great defending link: http://usadeepsouth.ms11.net/texas.html. PLEASE read the main points of this article. Honestly, most Texans will get greatly offended if one says they are not Southerners. I count as one of them. Florida is part of the South as well. If it isn't, name one region that it's part of and I will see if it fits. Florida is too small to form its own region. A region like "Texas and Florida" would not make any sense, as the states are not connected and they do not share a great number of similarities. Texas is not the West. Like I said, most people who say that have not been to every region of the state, if been there at all. Take Fort Worth, Texas for example. The city is known as "Where the West Begins", but not in the literal sense of the phrase. It is like Fredericksburg, Texas, which is known for its German flavor. Fredericksburg is obviously not part of Germany. The same goes for Fort Worth - in fact, the vast majority of its residents say they are Southerners. I know this from personal experience. As in the article I provided the link for, you can exclude us from the Southeast, from the East - but you have no right to exclude us from the South. I would be greatly offended if Texas and Florida were striped, and I would constantly fight the decision. --Stallions2010 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for a new map 

message: I would be in favor of redefining the region based on this analysis, and I believe that the curren map is a good one. When 68% of Kentuckians consider themselves Southern, it seems silly to stipe Kentucky on the map; clearly, Kentucky is a Southern state. Similarly, when 19% of Marylanders and 12% of Delawareans consider themselves Southern, striping those states is at best a nod to historical pretension; both Maryland and Delaware are obviously Northern. 
Also, the striping of Virginia is patently ridiclous. It just is. Virginia should be made dark red. 
SwedishConqueror 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one who has lived both in Kentucky and in the Deep South, I dispute that. Kentucky is a blend of Appalachian and mid-western, and bears only a superficial resemblence to the real south. Pollinator 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Focus Study

message: Just so that I understand it, the current consensus is:
*Kentucky as solid red (68% view themselves as Southern)
*Missouri as either striped or excluded (a mere 15% view themselves as Southern)
*West Virginia as striped or excluded (25% view themselves as Southern)
*Oklahoma as solid red (53% view themselves as Southern)
*Virginia as solid red (60% view themselves as Southern)
*Maryland and Delaware completely excluded (only 19% and 12%, respectively, view themselves as Southern)
All of this corroborated by the Southern Focus Study's findings. 
Are we all pretty much in agreement on that?
SwedishConqueror 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Texas and Florida, whose residents consider themselves mostly Southerners, should be solid as well. --Stallions2010 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All states that have over 50% of their populations saying that they are Southerners should be solid. They should not be compared with the Deep South states. Florida = barely half, but still over 50%. Texas = well over half (also, I don't think it's 68%, I think it's 86%. Provide the proof, please.) Kentucky = over 50%. All of these states should be solid, then. Why is it that you are so against solidifying TX, KY, and FL? Even Alabama and Mississippi have areas that are not completely Southern in culture. Shall we stripe them too? --Stallions2010 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Consensus

message: Currently, it reads that Kentucky is "normally included in the group of Southern states, but sometimes partially included, geographically and culturally, in the Midwest".  Certainly from all the discussion on this page, someone has a reference or two they can stick to this.  I will actually give barnstars for this.  :) Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is from a native: Kentucky: where South, Midwest, and Appalachia mingle Pollinator 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting read.  Not sure if it's more than just an essay, though.  But I agree with the author, certainly.  Louisville and the Northern Kentucky area near Cincinnati are unmistakably midwestern in their culture. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gator87, I looked through the 10 references, and while they definitely should lead anyone to believe that Louisville is disputed, none of them seemed definitive enough to back up Kentucky's partial "midwesternness" in its article (please "argue" with me if you think I'm incorrect).  I also tried to look for the government map you speak of, but there's so much talk on that page, I can't find it.  Could you give me a link to the map? Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that will help.  I will wait before adding that as a reference until more is collected.  Hopefully, I can spend some time soon looking for additional references. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly Kentucky's soil types and agriculture are predominantly northern. It's definitely not in the cotton belt. Tobacco is grown; it's traditionally thought of as southern, but the variety grown in Kentucky - burley - is not the southern type; it's the type that's grown as far north as Ontario, New York, and Connecticut. Blueberries are not the southern rabbiteye varieties but the northern highbush. Apples predominate over peaches for orchard fruit. Kentucky's famous bluegrass will hardly last a season in the South, but grows just fine in Ontario, Canada. Pecans grow only in a few protected locations. I could go on with many more examples, but I'm sure you can catch the point. A southern agriculturist would see only a little that would be familiar. Pollinator 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid this shows that the anon really doesn't understand Louisville history that well. Louisville was solidly Union during the war, with the city being a *major* Union supply hub, a significant war planning location, and *multiple* Union fortifications stood throughout the city.  This is absolute fact.  It is often said that Louisville (and Kentucky) joined the Confederacy (politically) after the war.  Yes, this is true, due to how badly the Union military commander Burbridge treated not only Confederates but also Kentucky civilians during the war.  However, as a political movement (which led to the monument being erected in the 1880s), it was finite and withered away in the 20th century.  The anon may want to note that there have been efforts in recent years to balance that monument with Union-related monument(s), or move it to Cave Hill Cemetery, so almost nobody will see it any more.  The southern influence on Louisville politics died away a long time ago, as you might notice with our Jewish major, who has held that position since the mid 1980s.  A truly Southern city would never elect a Jew and you know it.  Louisville is practically in the North/Midwest by most measures *today*. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, the anon also probably doesn't know that the slave issue is irrelevant, as the biggest slaveholder in the area, the very influential *Republican* Speed family (one of whom became Lincoln's Attorney General, and another one was Lincoln's bedmate, I'm not kidding!), badly wanted to keep Kentucky in the Union and worked with Lincoln to make it so, including having Lincoln ship in loads of arms for Union sympathizers.  The Union sympathy in Louisville was essentially "let's keep the slaves *and* stay in the Union"). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, slavery was the economic backbone of many places outside the South. A great portion of the cotton produced by slaves in the South went to textile mills in New England and England. Towns like Lowell, Massachusetts were dependent on slave-produced cotton from the South. New England had dominated the slave trade until it was outlawed (and even afterwards), and continued to pour money into the slave system. Without capital and support from New England and England, American slavery would have been very different. While it is true that New England and England did not have populations of slaves, many of the people owned slaves and plantations in the South, the Carribean, and elsewhere. The booming textile mills of New England and England were deeply dependent on slave-produced cotton. I just wanted to point that out - that economic dependence on slavery was far from limited to the American South. Pfly 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with a cite in the Kentucky article 

message: I would also like to mention that reclassifying Maryland and Delaware as Southern would require extensive revision of other Wikipedia articles; both the Northern United States page and the Northeastern United States page classify Maryland and Delaware as Northern in their maps, and the Northeastern page in particular makes repeated references to Maryland, from its MARC train system to its Democratic voting patterns to the heavy Catholic population in Baltimore to the food (an entire section of the Cuisine of the Northeastern United States page is devoted to Baltimore). 
My point is this: most Wikipedians seem to be in agreement on this already, and if we ignored their clear consensus on the issue we would be forced to overturn a great deal of information that currently lists Maryland as what it is, a Northern state. 
SwedishConqueror 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Consensus III

message: I think we should revert to the old map where all of Florida was solid red. We should revert it to the way it was to show the US Census Bureau's definition of 'The South.' We should have the map that shows Southern Florida as striped under the Culture of the Southern United States section to show the where Southern Culture is prominent.
Also, technically speaking; West Texas and North Texas have a culture more closely tied with the American West, so west Texas should also actually be striped. The same goes with Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia's southern culture has been watered down as much as South Florida's because of all the Northern influence on that region. So Northern Virginia should be striped as well. Skillz187 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: West Texas and South Texas no doubt have a more Western/Hispanic influenced culture. But North Texas definitely does not. Along with East Texas, it is one of the more Southern regions of Texas. East Texas' Southern culture far surpasses North Texas', but North Texas still has a relatively stronger Southern influence rather than a Western one. Texas is a Southern state. However, the cultural variations in Texas are complex, due mostly to the rough terrain and large Hispanic population of some regions of the state. West and South Texas are the regions in which the cultural variations are predominant, not the North, Central, East, or Panhandle regions. --Stallions2010 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done a great job! Thank you. Finally, someone understands my point. --Stallions2010 03:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, I'd like to point out that most Texans live in the southeastern part of the continental U.S. Texas is obviously in the southern portion of the country, and the eastern part of the country ends in eastern Palo Pinto County, Texas. Although more land area is in the western portion of the continental part of the country, the vast majority of people live east of P.P. Co. Most major cities, including Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, Austin, Waco, etc. are east of this point. San Antonio's city center is in the western section of the country BARELY, but the eastern areas of the city as well as the eastern suburbs are on the eastern side of the country BARELY. Interesting, huh? --Stallions2010 03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BellSouth isn't the most reliable source...they leave out key Southern states, like Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Don't get me wrong, I agree completely that Kentucky is the South. But BellSouth is a company that cannot operate in as large a range as the entire South. --Stallions2010 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Map Showing Southern Florida Striped

message: I'd like to continue responding to the anon/"Louisvillian" who keeps leaving very lengthy responses here, but this page has become too unwieldy and is thus a pain to both look for responses and respond to them.  And since most of the talk is recent, it would seem odd to archive it.  Whatever should we do? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2,000 lines of text is an awful lot. I'm no longer even sure what is being debated. Pfly 03:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pick the forum that has the best fit.  The worst that can happen is that the topic gets moved to another forum. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 74, I would suggest that it is time for you to create an account...it'd make communicating with you much easier!--Stallions2010
Hello! I stumbled across this page and noticed the map request. The maps I made (historic and modern) were from the two-map request above by TexasReb. There is so much discussion here I was not sure if that was the final consensus so I can change it if this isnt right. Cheers, --Astrokey44 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After a few more days to make sure this is really resolved, we should archive this overly long talk page and start a fresh one.  I'll do it if I remember and no one else does it first. Pfly 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Stallions2010 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries :) By the way note that shortly after they were added an anon IP changed the modern map to a map that removed Delaware and Maryland - from :Image:US map-South Modern.png to :Image:US map-South Moderne.png (extra 'e'). Is this the consensus that they are not included?, it just looked a little suspicious being an anonymous edit. --Astrokey44 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page too unwieldy 

message: ++++ Please do not delete my post again.  I am sorry my opinion differs to yours, but that is my entire point!  Everyone has a different opinion as to what is the South.  Thats why a three tone map was created in the first place.  Besides, it is rude :) ++++
The new map is great. Thank you for creating it.
	 
However, it appears not everyone is happy with it. That is fine, but before modifying it, how about we actually discuss changes before they are made? Not everyone will agree 100% with what is presented, but that is why compromise is necessary. For example, it appears by IP addresses that atleast one Kentuckian thinks Maryland should not be included at all. But, at least one South Carolinian (me) wouldn't have included Kentucky on a map of the South.   Perhaps shaded, but not solid.  Sorry, but when I think of Kentucky, I think of Appalachia or the Mid West, not the South. But, I am will to concede my own definition will not match everyones.
So, please discuss before you change anything...
++++ Oh, and my point wasn't that Kentucky shouldn't be included on the map just because I don't consider it a truly Souther state.  Rather, I meant that the same can be considered true of many of the states on the new map; they have mixed status.  The three tones are there to indicate "relative" Southerness, so if everyone simply  edited the image because they happen to disagree with it, we might as well link the map to the one for the Deep South and be done with it. ++++
I really don't have strong feelings either way regarding Delaware and Maryland and their inclusion in the contemporary South, though from my experiences residents of Maryland are more likely to contend that their regions of their state are "Southern"; I've never heard this type of a reaction, personally, from residents of Delaware.  Personally (though admittedly, it counts for nothing) I wouldn't include either in the South, except with the strongest of the strongest of reservations; I believe that Southern cultural influence ends at Northern Virginia, not Baltimore or Dover.  Idefinitely don't believe we should give the Census Bureau too much weight in our considerations, though, as they operate using arbitrary boundaries such as the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon line that do little to reflect cultural boundaries.
--70.168.88.158 09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, interesting opinion. What part of SC do you live in, if you don't mind me asking? Personally I see Kentucky as a Southern state with a little Northern influence in it. What's the opinion of South Carolinians about Texas being part of the South? --Stallions2010 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charleston? That is probably my favorite town in the world, along with Fort Worth, Texas. Man, Charleston is nice...can't get much more Southern than that. Yes, I agree that Texas is a mix of Southern and Western influences, but I wouldn't ever categorize it as part of the West/Southwest -- it's pure Southern country. But as for Charleston, I didn't know that Northerners were moving in there. I'm considering retiring there...that is, when I do, which will be a long time from now. --Stallions2010 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the Map 

message: Not many historians, geographers or state experts call Kentucky Midwestern. The reason is that Kentucky historically DID influence the Midwest through out-migration but there was very little back-influence. That is few Midwesterners went to Kentucky. Slavery was the main feature that distinguished Kentucky from Ohio-Indiana-Illinois. The historic battles over railroad access to the upper south--Cincinnati vs Louisville-- is another factor that made for a big difference. Rjensen 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kentucky not midwestern 

message: I, as a Southerner, am surprised that no one has made any mention of Waffle House and Chick-Fil-A in the article. These two restaurants are deeply associated with the South. Perhaps we should make mention of them...what do y'all think? --Stallions2010 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dining 

message: Okay, I'm from Maryland, and I do not think that Maryland or Delaware should be included. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I've lived in Maryland and Virginia, traveled through Delaware, and spent extended periods of time in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. 
Delaware is basically Maryland, Jr. (you know it's true); and Pennsylvania, while different from Maryland, is much more similar to it than Virginia. The first time I ever visited Northern Virginia, which is considered that state's wealthiest area, I thought of it a "small town" kind of place. Virginians were shocked, but I was raised in Maryland and grew up with something else. In all honesty, I can see no real difference between Delaware and Maryland, aside from the fact that Delaware is far less urbanized (the accent between the two states is almost identical; both are very similar to the Philadelphia dialect).
West Virginia, meanwhile, is definitely part of the South. Outside of Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington Counties, Virginian is very rural. I live in such an area, about ten miles from the West Virginia border, and can tell you that there is no measurable difference between these neighboring states (except that West Virginia is even more desolate than the majority of Virginia, if that's at all possible). 
It just bugs me to see Maryland striped on the map, since I know from experience what life in both Maryland and Virginia is really like. Beyond its extreme northern portion, Virginia is very agricultural, very conservative, and VERY Southern. Placing Maryland into the same category is actually funny to me. It's probably one of the most misguided opinions I've ever heard.
AND WOULD SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT A DAMN WAFFLE HOUSE IS!?!
Sunlight07 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maryland and Delaware