Talk:Dixie (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Dixie (song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Dixie (song) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2006.
Peer review Dixie (song) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] To-do list

I've finished with Nathan as a source. What the article needs now is:

  1. 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.
  2. The lyrics should be moved to Wikisource with only a stanza or two left here and moved into the main body as samples.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. Information from a modern, pro-"Dixie" source would be a good counterweight to the information in the "'Dixie' opposed" section.
  6. Perhaps some discussion of notable covers of the song is needed. Elvis Presley did it in "An American Trilogy". Are there others worth mentioning?

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)

Crossed out some items and added a couple more. More to come on the controversy. —BrianSmithson 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Crossed out the modern covers bit. Three ought to do it. --BrianSmithson 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical music info

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)

[edit] Requested move

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)

  • Support. —BrianSmithson 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—I nearly requested this myself when I happened across the article a few days ago; nowhere else have I ever seen it as "Dixie's Land." A.D.H. (t&m) 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dystopos 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Izehar 23:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • DONE. jengod 01:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full song

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)

[edit] Text size

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Dylan performances

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 [1], 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)

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)
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) [2] 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)
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)
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)

Please review the songlist from the soundtrack to the (Dylan) movie "Masked and Anonymous"; 'Dixie' is track #11 (and a wonderful version of the song it is). This has historical relevance to this article as he records it as a piece of musical Americana, and free of the racial baggage that has accompanied it over the recent decades. His reputation as an icon in civil rights circles is important, as perhaps he is one of the only artists that could pull this off. -- Frunobulax 08:08, 31 January 2006 (EST)

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)
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)

[edit] Massive Vandalization -- Is Listed on Main Page

Somebody put all kinds of pictures of genitals on this page!

Removing vandalism (!). Not sure where the orginal article is. Zidel333 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just placed a protection tag on the page to prevent this massive vandalism effort. Will restore in a few days. altmany 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Good jib Altmany :)
Zidel333 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Only admins can protect pages, but the vandalism seems to have subsided anyway. The vandal probably thought the article was really protected when he saw the template. --TantalumTelluride 00:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. The vandals are back at it. Several admins are present in the page history though. They can be trusted to take appropriate action. --TantalumTelluride 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting for the portection against vandalism so much as I mind the fact that this is Featured Article on teh Main Page which thousands will see. It is so prime a target for vandalism, that perhaps wikipedia policy can e changed to protect aritcles on the Main Page for their duration on said Main Page, so vandalism on this scale can be halted. My third grade bRother was horrifed btw. - Zidel333 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't protect featured articles for reasons outlined here Raul654 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still think something should be implemented. It just seems to take more time to keep reverting then stopping the vandalism in the first place. I'm fighting a losing battle though. :)

Zidel333 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a way an administrator can completely delete these obscene edits? The user who pulled this stunt ought to be blocked, too. My goodness, these edits are still accessible and can be viewed by children. [[Briguy52748 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)]]

This is ridiculous, every other edit is a vandal. So about 50% of the time someone clicking on this featured article will get a page full of genitalia. Edits oughta be restricted in some way at least temporarily Jarwulf 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's what they are doing. They register 3-10 usernames using one IP address, and then use each one exactly once to vandalize. They never trip the autoblocker because they never attempt to edit after being blocked. And, based on the way the IPs are jumping across the spectrum, I suspect they're using TOR. Raul654 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at recent changes what they are doing is creating the user name, vandalising the article and then logging out, all within a few seconds. Potentially it's possible to do that with any IP, particularly with how slow this page is to load once it has all the pictures of penises on it. -- Francs2000 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, and then they log back in using a new username registered with the same IP. The question now is - can someone verify they are from TOR? And assuming the answer is yes, we need to persuade a dev to turn the autoblocker turned back on. Raul654 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have clearance to check who users are behind the usernames I'm afraid. But yes I think we need the autoblocker back, even if only for a temporary period. -- Francs2000 01:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Check the block log for blocks I have dolled out in the last 5 days. You'll see what I mean. Raul654 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys! It's time to semi-protect this article. Really. I know the arguments, but it's just not worth it when you have a 50% chance of seeing filth. Makemi 01:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The problem is that this doesn't seem to be regular main page vandalism, but rather a concerted and successful effort by one or two people. I would hope that even a half hour semi-protect would discourage them/make them bored/their parents would make them go to bed. Makemi 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Makemi. Semi-protection shouldn't be absolutely out of the question. It was created to combat this exact type of vandalism. --TantalumTelluride 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM

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)

Seriously, lock the article temporarily.

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)
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)

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)
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)

Does anyone else find it hilarious that all the genitalia pictures are already in use on Wikipedia?

[edit] Dixie Notes

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. "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)
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)

Actually the article is missing something without this. The claims that the song refers to New York don't make sense without a description of the competing etymologies. I'm going to restore the paragraph. Durova 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Having looked at the paragraph, it really doesn't reflect the above quotation the way I thought it would. I'll leave things unchanged. However, User:BrianSmithson would do well to read WP:CIVIL

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)
Struck out incivil comment. Apologies. — BrianSmithson 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Mention of jibjab's "Good to be in DC" flash?

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)

[edit] Dixie as anthem

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)

[edit] Racist

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/x/Talk%7EDixie_%28song%29_79df.html"