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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2006.
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.
Musical Theatre Portal
Dixie (song) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:

{{POV}}

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)
I believe that plantatian was in Maryland. I'l find refrences and source it.Die4Dixie 13:55, 4 October 2007 (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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Phillips (talk • contribs)

Take a look at our article on racism. The fact is that minstrel shows and blackface speak is not "ebonics", it is an exaggerated and mocking form of African American Vernacular English. The "exaggerated and mocking" part is the key. As for whether what Ali G does is racist, that's probably a discussion for the Ali G page. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments; you do it by typing ~~~~ at the end.) — BrianSmithson 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm sorry, but as reluctant as I am , I have to agree with these editors.IMHO, we should list the original lyrics( as well as the modern ones) and let people draw their own conclusions from the facts. Racist and racism are an emotionally charged words , and there use, again IMHO< force feeds a point of view. I don't like the way this has been presented here, and my post in now way should be interpreted to agree with the sentiments expressed by the ANON user. Just that I agree that there is a dispute.Die4Dixie 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Claim of NPOV

I think that to merely put the lyrics that have been chosen, and the amount of space devoted to them give undue weight. I propose to add the modern Lyrics. I doubt that you will find anyone alive today that sings this in the manner portrayed. If anyone can find a source in the , lets say, the last 20, 30 ,40, or even 50 years that can show this song being sung in this manner,I invite them to share it.This page, IMHO, shows a strong anti southern bias.I now make a public declaration of good faith , and invite any editor who cares to discuss this to voice concerns here. I do not have time to do it right this second; however, propose to go line by line though this article. I will discuss any changes I make before hand here on this talk page first. I am placing a disputed tag at this time for the neutrality.Die4Dixie 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sory , i didn't mean to revert your removal of may tag. I was still working on getting it in. I am here to work in good faith . I invite you to discuss your ideas here, in this forum . I don't edit wasr, so as i said . sorry for puttinng it back on while i I was unaware of your removalDie4Dixie 14:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That having bee quickly said, typos and all, I'll lay out my reason. The lack of the modern lyrics as they are sung today givesn the impression that everyone today singing thew song sings it as if it were some Black Face parody. This is not true. The lack of balance gives is in violation of the NPOV policy.Please replace the disputed tag, as I am disputing this, and come here and discuss this. I also plan to have it reviewed for its good article status, just so you will be aware. I look forward to discussing why you dispute my POV tag.Die4Dixie 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I jumped to an wrong con clusion and I'm sorry. When THe pov dispute tag dissapeared, and I saw the edit log, with yours as the last one, I made a mistake. My server was acting up. When i went back and checked, I dont know what happened.Sorry. I know realize you have no idea what the heck I was talking about.Die4Dixie 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the POV template for you (if you add the "tl" marker before the template, it creates a link to the template rather than posting the template itself). I will now respond to what seem to be your concerns.

You seem to dislike the phrase that "Its lyrics, written in a racist, exaggerated version of African American Vernacular English, tell the story of a freed black slave pining for the plantation of his birth." This is assuming you are the anonymous contributor who removed "racist" (and whom I reverted). I stand by the discussion above. By any definition of the word, the faux-black dialect used in blackface songs was and is racist. I am not against ammending the sentence to say "The lyrics of these earliest versions, written in a racist, exaggerated version of African American Vernacular English, tell the story of a freed black slave pining for the plantation of his birth." That would clarify that it's the blackface minstrel (original) verisons of the song under discussion and not the modern ones.

You also seem to want to post the modern lyrics to the song. I am against any more lyrics posting. This is an encyclopedia article, and it should treat the topic in a concise manner. That's why the lyrics that are there are not the full lyrics, and why they are accompanied by critical commentary. However, I am not against a note that says something to the effect of, "Modern day performers sing 'Dixie' without the blackface lyrics present in the earlier versions." This could be accompanied by a sample stanza or chorus. If you can find a source that describes exactly what modern-day singers sing when they perform "Dixie" (I don't think they sing all the nonsense about Will de Weaber et al), that could be added too. This all hinges on finding appropriate sources, of course.

How's that sound? — Brian (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian, if I may call you that, I am inclined to disagree. Do I think the lyrics as they appear in older versions to be racist? They could certainly be interpreted that way.But if we don't have a reliable third party source, then it is our own original research. I think bandying "racist" with out a cited and reliable third party source tries to spoon feed a POV, almost as if we are afraid without a gratuitous connecting of the dots for our readers that they will be incapable of coming to a "right thinking" conclusion. If it is that important that lyrics that haven't been sung in likely 150 years( IF there is a cite that says the Rebs were singing the articles most prominent version in the trenches or while facing the North in mortal combat, I'd like to see it!:)) appear in the article, but the ones that have been in vogue for much, much longer should not, it seems we are trying to skew the article purposely. Now it was not I whom you reverted, as I like to try and talk things out here before whacking away at something that someone feels so passionately about.As you point out so rightly , this is an encyclopedic article, and deal with the matter concisely. I would propose removing the quaint, antiquated verses and putting the modern song, properly cited of course. I would be happy with both appearing too.I will be proposing this articles good article status be reviewed because of the POV issues. I'm now going to go through the article and document the original research and the more blatant or glaring issues. I'm certain that it wont be exhaustive. Wikipedia editing doesn't have to happen over night. I doubt we'll be going anywhere either of us any time soon, so we have plenty of time to work this out.Very respectfully,Die4Dixie 00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Die4Dixie, there is not one shred of original research in this article. I should know, I certainly hope there isn't any original research in this article, as I wrote it. Everything is backed up by reliable sources. The reason the "antiquated" version is analyzed is because that was the first and most popular version. And, yes, this version has racist lyrics. If you want citations, I can provide them, but I think it a bit silly to even imply that lyrics written by a white man to mock black men is not racist. Like I said, I have no problem stating that white Southerners removed the dialect and then giving an example stanza and chorus. The article already provides several examples of other versions popular during and after the Civil War.
If you wish for the article to be reviewed, the proper forum is Featured Article Review, as this is a Featured, rather than Good, Article. — Brian (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think that one verse of a more modern, non-dialect version would be in order. I agree with Die4Dixie that the song is still in common use, and it is not sung nowadays in minstrel dialect. I suspect that this was, to some degree, already becoming the case within decades of its origin. No, I don't have citations for that last statement, and I'd suggest to Die4Dixie (since he seems to be the most concerned to rectify this) that he seek such citations: they are probably not too hard to find, but will probably be in books rather than online. - Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Books are good, as I read better than I type;). With out those cites of third parties( reliable, of course) the conclusion appears to be yours, Brian. The problem of backing things up with reliable sources is the backing up needs to be shown so that other scholars have access to the sources that you have used. This is nothing unusual, and considered standard in any academic circle or peer reviewed publication. I'm concerned that there is no cite that the lyrics were an exaggeration of the AAVE geolect of the time and area. Mark Twain(S.L. Clemens) was very careful in his reproductions of the dialects spoken along the Mississippi in his time. The lyrics don't seem to be that different to my untrained eye. I was kinda wondering which yard stick of popularity is used in declaring that that version was the most popular/ I would venture that it din't stay popular very long and that possibly the version with the longest currency would be the most popular. Humbly,Die4Dixie 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(Forgive the unindent . . . ) I decided to look through my library to see how the question of blackface dialect is handled by different writers. What I found is that attitudes toward this question have varied with time. Hans Nathan, writing in 1962, says, "Also [the] dialect [of Emmett and Brower while performing with the Virginia Minstrels] must have been more genuine [than a preserved scene performed by the duo in 1846], for it is known that Negro minstrels 'made a study of Negro dialect a specialty . . . . As a result, no two adopted the same type of darkey for a study . . . . The Kentuckian differed as much from [the] Virginian, as the south Carolinian did from the Alabamian, or the 'field hand' frm the genteel house servant.'" Here, he's quoting an undated, early 20th century clipping by H. B. White called "The Origin of Ethiopian Minstrelsy". Robert Toll, writing in 1974, says, "The Virginia Minstrels combined the raucous qualities of the fronteir with what audiences believed were authentic Negro song, dance, dialect, and humor . . . ." (p. 36), and "Minstrels used heavy dialect to portray Negroes as foolish, stupid, and compulsively musical." (p. 67); Robert B. Winans, writing in 1984, says, "The minstrel performers sang in dialect, which as written in the song sheets bears little resemblance to actual black American speech patterns." ("Early Minstrel Show Music, 1843-1852", p. 146).

William J. Mahar, writing in 1999, however, offers the most thorough analysis by far of the dialect used by blackface comics. He writes, "Some dialect words were imported into the [minstrel] vocabulary to help establish some credibility for the 'delineation' of stage characters, because language differences were among the primary indicators of otherness in real life. If the dialect samples were too extensive, however, the average listener unfamiliar with the dialect's deep structure as well as its surface features would probably not understand the performance. Dialect cannot, then, be a direct indication of the writer's or performer's intentions or beliefs. . . . Regardless of whether the burnt cork comedians held racist beliefs themselves, they recognized . . . some phonological similarities between Black English Vernacular (BEV) and lower-class and low-prestige dialects . . . . [He gives several examples.] All the texts highlight the phonological features (sounds) by highlighting orthographic peculiarities (spellings) rather than imitate deeper structural elements of grammar and syntax. [He gives a few more examples], but the major issue seems to be that the speakers sound different or that they speak in a colloquial manner. . . . The dialect attributed to the abolitionists in the "Negro Lecture on Locomotion" [a blackface stump speech] sounds like Black English and allows the author to rank them among the low-prestige African American language users whose cause they championed." (p. 77)

He later remarks on some of the conventions in blackface dialect that are part of BVE: the substition of /d/ or /dd/ for /th/ between vowels, the use of /f/ for /th/ in word-final position, the dropping of the final /t/ in words like last, and the "pidgin pronunciation pattern of replacing voiced stops and aspirants in word-final position with voiceless endings." (p. 78)

He then touches on the racism of the minstrels' use of this dialect: "Dialect use, however, was simply assumed for any unacculturated Americans, but especially for African Americans, because of the prevailing racist theories that linked difference with some form of deficiency." (p. 85)

More from Mahar on the authenticity of the dialect: "The denial of any linguistic interaction between blacks and whites on the stage or in real life is incorrect, especially if it is based on the conviction that no African Americans 'talked' as the minstrels depicted them. There are too many examples of African American phonology, vocabulary, syntax, and other features of Black English Vernacular that refute such denials, even when it is conceded that the minstrels did not fully comprehend how black Americans demonstrated their creative approach to language use through their own dialects." There was "a relative high incidence of Black English in early minstrelsy to a low in the late 1850s". (p. 98-99)

He concludes by saying that, "the claims of authenticity [of dialect] are better judged against the commercial desire to guarantee that audiences would receive relatively competent entertainment for their money rather than an accurate depiction of behavior. . . . ." In other words, the dialect was used more for comic effect than for authenticity concerns. (p. 99)

One last note from Mr. Mahar: "Moreover, dialect and literary theory studies have advanced to a point where it is possible to recover aspects of African American culture and literary style through more sophistcated analyses of major authors, as well as through the investigation of folklore and slave narrative collections. Such investigations have revealed examples identical to those appearing in the minstrel repetory, thereby refuting the idea that the so-called minstrel show dialect was a totally artificial creation of malevolent or misinformed entertianers. Although the relationship between the stage dialect and black vernacular may range from the completely superficial resemblance to the relatively accurate rendering, depending on the particular minstrel company or the decade within which the group was performing, it appears that some of the claims about authenticity do have a basis in fact. " (99-100)

In light of Mahar's analysis, one to which I didn't have access while writing the article, I would support a change of "racist, exaggerated" to "comic", "stage", or somesuch.

Regarding the lyrics presented in the song, I'll recheck my notes to see if there is anything said about which versions were most popular, the ones with or without the minstrel dialect. I would be fine with Jmabel's suggestion to include a representative verse and chorus of a non-dialect version. I would support replacing completely the chorus (at the end of the "Lyrics" section) with a non-dialect version of the same, provided a source can be found that provides one. A non-dialect version of the first verse is probably also in order.

The article does, however, explain in what ways the song is routinely heard today, specificaly, as part of a melody (in which case the whole song would not be sung) or as an instrumental piece. If Die4Dixie can find some source to back up that the song is sung in full-form today and in what circumstances (and what verses), that would be great information to add to the article.

As a final note, when I wrote the article, I had a hard time finding anything in reliable sources to argue that "Dixie" is a legitimate element of Southern history and culture (as opposed to a racist relic). I wanted very much to present this viewpoint in the final section of the article with more support behind it, but i was simply unable to find the sources to back it up. This might be another area where Die4Dixie can help out, I hope. It would be wonderful to find a recent academic piece that takes this view. — Brian (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem, by John M. Coski, may offer some useful information for the heritage point of view. — Brian (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
One final note from me: I'll be out of town this weekend (a 3-day holiday in Japan), and my internet access may be spotty. Apologies if I'm unable to actively participate in this discussion over the next few days! — Brian (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you response to my concerns. I will not make any edits to the article unless we can come to agreements here, and I'm in no hurry. I agree with your proposal about changing the description of the lyrics. As I explore the issue further, I might want to revisit it.Enjoy your time off! The most recent time that I heard Dixie sang ( I also sang too) was when the Sons of Confederate Veterans paid homage to my great-great grandfather and other confederate veterans at their final resting place in Cool Springs, Georgia, in the late Spring of last year. (Not on any big maps). The SOV frequently sings at re interments and other functions. My anecdotal reports would not be worthy of inclusion, of course. I will need to track down some third party sources. I also want to declare that I have a small agenda. This article was linked to in a discussion about my user name which you can see here and on my user page. I am concerned that the article can be used to beat Southerners over and over again. I have no problem with the historical aspects of Dixie being presented. It would be academically dishonest were I to want to obfuscate the history of the song. But I do want that history to be balanced, and for readers to be able to look at the article, the lyrics as they were, and be able to draw their own conclusions. Not that they be able to say," Well, Wikipedia said it was racist....so you know it must be." I Guess I'd like to see it toned down a little bit, but be accurate and honest.I think that the mentioning of the dancing in the lead, and then being mentioned again in the section of the lyrics is just a tad over board. I think it could just be presented where the lyrics are, perhaps with another sentence saying what is in the lead. This is only a suggestion, but IMHO, the first mention is gratuitous. I think you have done an excellent job, and its an article of which you can be justifiably proud.I also appreciate your giving me some leads, and I will be consulting JSTOR though my institutions library. So we are not in any hurry.Die4Dixie 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a spare moment, so I can comment a bit. :) The Confederate Battle Flag book I mentioned discusses the modern use of "Dixie" by Confederate heritage groups, so that would fit in with your anecdote. I appreciate you owning up to your "small agenda", and I admit that mine is to try to keep the article from whitewasing "Dixie"'s history (no pun intended ;) ). I'm not sure what you mean about the "mentioning of the dancing in the lead". Can you elaborate? At any rate, gotta go! — Brian (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've consulted a number of new sources, and I'll be updating the article with the information I found in the next few days. Most pertinent to this debate, I found a citation for the most well-known version of the song (Emmett's, minus the black dialect), modern singing of the song (Confederate heritage groups), and defense of the song against its detractors ("cultural genocide"). There's more here and there too. — Brian (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great! Still working on those midterms. I'll keep checking back , but will be unable to contribute in any coherent way 'til later on. Thank you for the work you are putting in.Die4Dixie 04:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
I finally got a chance to update the article with the information I found. Let me know what you think. — Brian (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Much better.Still working on school stuff right now. What do you think about moving the alledged black origins of the song closer to the top? Great work ,BTW. Respectfully, Die4Dixie 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
Where do you propose it move to? The structure as it is now first relates Emmett's claim (the most widely recognized, and the traditionally accepted one) and then follows with the Snowdens (a more recent, and much more controversial claim). — Brian (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Elvis' American Trilogy

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

If you can find a reliable source that says that "Dixie" is most widely known outside the US as part of "An American Trilogy", that is information worth including, yes. — Dulcem (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Could this article be more concrete on the modern acceptability of Dixie?

Question above says it all. Would I be lynched or spat at in the South for having Dixie as my ringtone? Is the song looked down upon as a symbol of redneck culture or as a valid way to express one's Southern heritage? The article expresses some opinions on the matter, but it tries to skirt the issue and really needs to utilise sources that express the real situation on the ground, not merely print the lofty opinions of some academics. As a Brit with little idea of the South, in my Euro-trash opinion the article needs to clarify. 86.143.205.139 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Raph

The article seems pretty clear to me. If you had "Dixie" as your ringtone, certain people would instantly look at you askance, others would sing along. Some would see it as a symbol of redneck backwardness, others as a symbol of heritage. I'm not sure where such "on the ground" information would come from. News reports of people getting beat up for playing "Dixie"? I think the article does the best it can with the issue. That said, if you know of some sources for the type of information you're talking about, please let us know. — Dulcem (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)