Talk:Southern United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southern United States article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Southern United States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Geographical south

Is everyone here totally oblivious to what the geographical (factual) south is? It stretches roughly all the way from central california to north carolina...the "south". The only "south" that is ever mentioned is the old south defined by political boundaries which stretches from southern Arizona and New Mexico to Oklahoma and Misouri to Delaware...I think this should be added with an image.

Can you produce references for it? --JWB 06:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)'
Take a map of the US, and divide it into quarters, and you'll see. You're STILL thinking of the "cultural" south, not the geographic south. -x
He is right, look at this: http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9144/geonorthsouthwf0.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The South does not include the Southwest, the Midwest is not in the West, the North does not specifically exclude the West but is never used when talking about the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast does not include the Midwest which is also in the northeast quadrant of the contiguous US. They are all historically, traditionally, and officially defined regions.
Googling "geographic southern us" gets exactly one hit and other variants get zero hits. This is not a term that is actually in use, which is the criterion for Wikipedia.
Googling "geographic southern" us gets a number of hits, most of which have nothing to do with subdivision of the US, and others like [1] which refer to the traditional South, not including the Southwest.
Sure, you can cut a map of the 48 states into four roughly equal quadrants or two roughly equal halves, but doing this yourself does not count for Wikipedia; notable sources do. --JWB 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can't see by cutting the US into halves that the ENTIRE geographic southern US goes from mid-California to north Carolina/virignia, you must be a complete moron. I just asked 3 of my coworkers if California is in the geographic south if I drew it out, and they said "I never thought about it that way, yeah, it is". How much more does he have to spell it out for you? GEOGRAPHIC US, not CULTURAL. I'm guessing it's simply because californians don't want to be lumped into the same group as southeasterners (CULTURAL southerners) because of their politics, in which case it becomes about prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.162.45 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You've said it yourself now: people have never thought about it that way. Wikipedia documents existing thought from published sources, not your original thought. WP:OR --JWB 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About time to Archive?

What do y'all say we "archive" this discussion here and start anew. It is getting verrrrry long! LOL TexasReb 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


I moved the MD threads to the archive since there seems to be a consensus for now. Let's see how long it takes before someone begins the debate anew. I don't want to touch any of the Kentucky threads, lets let Louisville or Gator tackle those :)
Lasersnake 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lasersnake. I found out why those areas are grey. Those areas are sparsly populated or have no distinct regional dialect. There are regions in the west that are still developing an identity. The PA regions have several dialects and a majority cannot be established.

That's probably a good idea, since it seems as if the debate has died down and the trolls have moved on. It is getting a tad cluttered. --Gator87 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah now that those trolls are gone (LOL) maybr we can work on soem more things. 74.128.200.135 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved most of the threads to the archive since they have been inactive for a while.
Lasersnake 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the old Kentucky discussion threads to the archive.
Lasersnake 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cultural variations

The "Cultural variations" section needs some major work. I removed the most egregious examples of unsourced, stereotypical racial observations, such as the claim that Puerto Ricans have moved from New York and "diluted" the southern culture of Orlando, Florida. However many other claims remain. All statements in Wikipedia articles must be backed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This requirement is doubly important when making bold claims about the cultural influences of immigration. Rhobite 04:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

>>I have some mixed feelings about this one, although I very much acknowledge the points made about stereotyping and the "reliable sources" aspect. With that said, however, to SOME extent, a section -- concerning culture, especially -- is going to be, by definition, influenced to some degree by POV. That is, the cold, objective, validity cannot be verified by studies or cited sources.

>>I don't know about Florida, but being a fourth generation native Texan, I can say that the mostly recent (and a goodly part of it illegal) hispanic migration into the state has had the effect of "diluting" the Southern culture in some of its regions (mostly West and South Texas).

>>One of the most "given" Southern characteristics of the South has always been the traditionally and historical existence of a sort of black/white duality in terms of demographics, law, culture and tradition. Often they have been very much at odds with each other (ala' Jim Crow laws) but in other ways, there has been the "blend" of the two that has played a large role in shaping the American South. And a certain something that bonds black and white Southerners in terms of THINKING of themselves collectively as Southern, that is not easily articulated to those outside the region. Nor can be truly understood by the latter.

>>On the other hand, hispanics have never really shared in all that, nor think of themselves as one with it. I don't know that any actual studies have been done to verify it, which is the main point. Sure, perhaps some more detailed surveys, oriented toward the ethnic SHOULD be done. But at the same time, some weight to those POV observations verifying changes within the South, cannot be totally dismissed... TexasReb 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

>>I modified the West Virginia part of this section. Most people are not very familiar with the history of WV and are using 100 year old sources for history, even James McPherson is guilty of this. I really don't know why, most of the information has been out there for at least 80 years. Anyway, I wanted to provide a map so that people can see what I am talking about. WV was cobbled together at gunpoint and was not a cohesive entity despite what you might read in general histories. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubyavee (talk • contribs) 02:21:30, August 18, 2007 (UTC). >>I forgot to sign my post above about WV, sorry.Dubyavee 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "secessionist county" mean in this context? That their representatives voted for secession when it came before the Virginia legislature? --JWB 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, JWB. It means that the citizens of those counties voted to secede along with the rest of VA when the vote was taken on May 23, 1861. If you click on the link I provided above you will see in green those counties that voted for secession. I would heartily recommend Mr. Curry's book for anyone interested in WV statehood. Mr. Curry's findings on the county vote are actually verified by the Constitutional Convention records of 1861-63. In James C. McGregor's "Disruption of Virginia" he quotes from those records-

From the Constitutional Covention in Wheeling: "January 13th Mr. Sinsel made some extremely illuminating admissions...He referred to the border counties as 'deadly Secessionist in sentiment and feeling', and predicted that after rebellion only Secessionists would be elected to public office. 'Who denies that McDowell, Wyoming, Raleigh, Calhoun, Gilmer, Braxton, Clay, Tucker, Randolph, Webster, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Pocahontas, Roane, Wirt, Monroe, and Greenbrier-add to that Barbour and many others-are all dominated by the spirit of rebellion?'" I hope this helps. If you want any other information let me know.Dubyavee 06:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some perspective should be kept on the relatively short history of Texas' "Southern" past. It was a booming frontier for just a couple of decades before the Civil War, not some long-established region of Southerners. People went there from IN and MI and all over the Midwest, not just the South. Give other people a chance to make it their own, too, including later immigrants.--Parkwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While certainly there were settlers from other regions (as there were, to one degree or another, in all other states of the South in their early days), the *vast* majority of those who settled Texas from the time it was open to colonization by Mexico were from the older states of the southeast. And it is that culture which in fact did establish it as a Southern state from the very beginning of statehood. Following that, the history of "Southerness" was not something that was relatively short in Texas, but exists to this day. It was one of the original charter members of the Confederacy and the second-to-last to be readmitted to the Union (and, following reconstruction, became a strong "Jim Crow" state). Today, it is that essentially Southern history and culture which still dominates Texas in -- just to name a few -- things like religious demographics (Southern Baptist church is the largest protestant denomination), speech (one of many sub-varities of what is broadly known as "Southern American English"), politics (part of the original Solid South originally democratic and now republican) customs and traditions (Confederate holidays, foodstuffs, black-eyed peas on New Years Day, etc). Of course to be sure given some other aspects of its history and large size (such as more recent migration), Texas taken as a whole is not a *typical* Southern state, but Southern in origination and in most of the important ways. Which is why it is, correctly, indicated on the map as "usually" included in the South, as opposed to "almost always". TexasReb (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Southerners defined the state, especially in the eastern part. In doing research I was amazed at how many other peoples migrated there, too. The pace of population changes was what struck me, but as you note, there were many aspects of political and social culture that were overriding.--Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Parkwells? Here is a excerpt from an article on "Texas speech" which appeared a couple of years ago in Texas Monthly magazine, which I always thought was a very good analogy (or metaphor) for the state is terms of its Southern identification. That is to say, essentially a Southern state, but not a typical Southern state. As a little background, the article itself concerned the most extensive study of "Texas talk" done to date. Here it is, and perhaps you might agree:
“The most basic explanation of aTexas accent is that it’s a Southern accent with a twist,” said Professor Bailey, who has determined that the twang is not only spreading but also changing. “It’s the twist that we’re interested in.” The preeminent scholar on Texas pronunciation, Bailey hails from southern Alabama; he has a soft lilting drawl that, for the sake of economy, will not be phonetically reproduced here but is substantially more genteel and less nasal than Bob Hinkle’s twang. The broadly defined “Texas accent” began to form, Bailey explained, when two populations merged here in the mid-nineteenth century. Settlers who migrated from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi brought with them what would later become the Lower South Dialect (its drawl left an imprint on East Texas), while settlers from Tennessee and Kentucky brought with them the South Midland Dialect (its twang had a greater influence in West Texas). Added to the mix of Anglo settlers from the Deep South and Appalachia who began talking to each other was an established Spanish-speaking population and an influx of Mexican, German, and Czech immigrants. “What distinguishes a Texas accent the most is the confluence of its influences,” said Bailey.
Anyway, I believe that sorta cooresponds in microcosm to the larger issue that while the Southern influence on Texas was/is unquestionably the dominant one, there were/are other cultural impacts that gave the state a bit of an atypical cast. TexasReb (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious many editors love the South, but this is still supposed to be an encyclopedia article. For more impressionistic writing, perhaps editors should seek other venues, like a Southern Living magazine. This is supposed to be factual and sourced.--Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This section roams in time, and it's difficult to know when editors think Southern culture was established. The 19th c. was a time of great migration, even after the Civil War, and the 20th c. accelerated the pace in some areas. Nothing was as static as suggested here. Stability was usually of only a few decades, at most.--Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive time?

I am wondering if it might not be time to archive this page (or at least goodly parts of it)...? It it getting very lengthy and not much has been contributed in a while. On the "hot topics" we can always revise them. Opinions? TexasReb 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's time to archive the whole thing. --Stallions2010 01:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Lasersnake 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Laser. Looks great! TexasReb 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kentucky dispute in cultural variations

Gator here we have two different studies from two different decades, both studies differed in their findings. It only makes sense to mention the dates of both studies! There was a similar incident in this Wiki article[3] (look at the cranial section). There you have two studies that found made two different findings, only one study was conducted in 93 the other 2006, anyone with common sense would tell you that the dates should be mentioned, and just to note no such argument took place over those mentionings, because they are relevant. LOL it's like some sneaky sellsman crap being pulled here. Crap like this "Well two studies conducted on regional identity contrasted in their findings, but let's just not mention that one study is a decade older than the other" it's just crap! How in the Hell can you get upset if the mentioning of the studies's dates somehow diminish the merrit on one of the two, It's just fact! 74.128.200.135 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things:
1. It should be evident to anybody who's followed your edits that your only concern here is either removing or invalidating any studies that disagree with your opinions. I do not grant good faith because it's fairly evident that this is the only person of this edit - you have not contributed any material to this section, but you have steadily challenged it line-by-line from the very day that I wrote it. Another editor has left a similar comment on your talk page. This has been going on for months now, and it's getting old and pointless.
2. Date has nothing to do with the relevance of these studies - what you have failed to acknowledge is that the two studies posed their questions very differently. While the Southern Focus Study presented no choices to participants(as another editor has acknowledged), the Changing Usage study gave participants a full range of choices. What you (seem to) wish to imply is that because the S. Focus study is more recent, it is automatically more accurate and more meritorious. This is not so. I hardly believe that Kentucky has "radically shifted" its regional allegiances since 1987, which is common sense given the state's flat population growth. In any event, the dates of the studies are quite evident, in the citation, for anybody interested. The only reason you are so adamant in pulling them into the article is to introduce the (false) idea that the study that matches your strong bias is the only one that should matter.
3. In any event, mentioning the exact numbers is sure to stir up controvery anyhow, which is why I removed them. This is an extraordinarily complex dynamic, and no one study can possibly claim to have exact answers. For accuracy it is necessary to mention all points, and a fair compromise, which I had accomplished, simply acknowledges that some sources have shown majority Southern preference, while others have not. I'm not sure why this bothers you and nobody else.

--Gator87 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You know LOL to be quite honest at this point I could really give a damn about you and Steve's little collaboration to demean any and every edit I make to this subject. Last time I checked Gator I was one of the driving forces behind the second map on this page and also the creator (or resurrector) of Kentucky's little section in the cultural Variations sub section. If those don't count as contributions then please explain why not. Now on the other hand if I see an unsourced claim such as the map you created on the Southeastern Article then I will bring attention to it, as Wikipedia rules clearly states. In any means I'm not to sure how pointing out that a claim is not sourced is damaging or taking away from the article!

LOl Okay Gator you are really making this more complicated then it really is! So I'm going to show you the article that I reference to you earlier note how it is broken down by the dates of the studies.

"A 1993 study by C. Loring Brace et. al. of cranio-facial structures concluded that "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World."[31]

A 2005 study of Predynastic Upper Egyptian crania in comparison to various European and tropical African crania found that the predynastic Badarian series clusters much closer with the Tropical African series.

Another study in 2006[34] of ancient Egyptian craniofacial characteristics published by anthropologist C. Loring Brace found that samples from Naqada II Bronze age Egypt clustered primarily with modern Somalis, Nubians, Arabic-speaking Fellaheen farmers of Israel, and more remotely with various Niger-Congo speakers. This is another Wikipedia article [4]

Now please tell me how in this article the reader can identify which study is relevant if the dates aren't even mentioned? It can't be done!!! This is just an example from another Wiki article of how the dates are relevant as to which study holds more merrit. Yes Gator Merrit will come into play with inclusion of the dates, and your censoring of the dates is just another attempt on your part to present Kentucky as a no man's land, in which it has no more extensive ties to either region.

74.128.200.135 05:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're going to continue to ignore the differences in the way that the studies were conducted, but I'm not. These are not two identical surveys, conducted with the same question, with one merely being a more recent version of the other. And again, date has nothing to do with the relevance here - the reason that there is a difference in the studies' findings is because a wide array of choices for regional identification were presented in one, and not in the other, and not because of a minor time difference. Studies are routinely cited on these pages that are 50, 60 years old, so a 20 year old study is hardly "dated" - especially when speaking of low-growth state like Kentucky that is not changing in the same manner demographicaly as states like North Carolina and Virginia. Date does not make one of those studies "superior" to the other, which is what your biased edit was attempting to portray. That's a lie, and a highly biased one. The difference in these two credible sources merely shows that the exact percentages for regional affinities in Kentucky are difficult to establish, which is, really, the entire point of the section in Cultural Variations.
And no, you sure as hell haven't written a damn thing original in the Cultural Variations section, and the Edit History proves that - I wrote the entire portion on Kentucky, provided the citations, and you have been constantly attacking it, line-by-line, since day one because you don't want it on this page at all. Steve and I have brought attention to this becacuse you have done it on about half-a-dozen other pages - the Southeastern United States, Kentucky, Midwestern United States, Black Belt, just to name a few - as well, and it is getting very old. You do not contribute, but you do take the time to attack any and every source that disagrees with your viewpoint.
Granted, I have no problem keeping both of the studies out of the section. It is still portraying the correct message fine without them. If they are to be included, it is imperative that they are included without a purposeless bias.

--Gator87 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm not saying at all that they were identical studies , LOL even though you attempted to argue something similar to that in our earlier debates. But the goal of both studies are the same, regional Identity...Is it not? While the Changing Usage study conducted published in 1986 has found less than half of the state's population to identify with the South, the more recent and persistant Southern Focus Study has found that over 3/4's of the population idnetifies with the South. Unless somehow you find a reason why these studies aren't related, and with such a starx difference in the findings of two "similar" studies it's only logical for the date to be mentioned.

Well while you've so relentlessly tracked my every edit, you seemed to skip over the last few edits I've made which are not related to the subject at hand, so that little bit you just said was false! Even before those edits I've done nothing to damage to Wikipedia in any way shape or form, and if so Steve would have hopped on the chance to ban me. On Midwest Article, other than deleting redundant crap that Steve simply copied and pasted from the map's caption, I've stayed relatively quite there. In the Black Belt article I "added" a side explanation for Kentucky, you then add a little more to my explanation in which I commended you on (but ultimately ended up deleted in the final edit). The SouthEastern page, if anything you were the one who has reduced that article to about half of it's size, and that is apparent in the Edit. I find it funny how you attempt to take credit for this section when it was my damn idea to revive the long dead sub section in the first place.

The anonymity you use while referencing the studies (I.E. not mentioning the name, date, conductors) shows your true motive and to some extent your own insecurity that merrit will be shown. Rather than state it is the Southern Focus Study or the Changing Usage study you insist on keeping them unamed and as unspecific as possible, and reason, other than then this Bias that you're insisting will damage the Article?? The only thing this damages is your goal of making Kentucky out to be "the" Modern day border state, with no stronger bond to one region than the other. In any means I'm not trying to start back up the debate, But I think the dates of the studies should be mentioned, and I think the best way to do this is concensus.

Louisvillian 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

>>Of course, this is a dispute I hope the Kentuckians can work out between themselves. But personally, I can't see what it would hurt to include the dates of the studies especially if the differentiating criteria between the two are made. TexasReb 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Gator knows it would damage his plans of labeling Kentucky an essential border state rather than a Southern one. Louisvillian 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't seek credit for edits here, but it was my idea to create the Kentucky paragragh in this area - I researched, wrote, and cited it from scratch. You have not contributed a damn thing in this section (other than trying to reduce it to nothing, because you don't want anything that challenges Kentucky's "Southern-ness" on this encyclopedia) or on any other page for that matter. You can continue to falsely say otherwise as you wish, but the page history and your personal edit history prove otherwise.
Regarding your invented "conflict", the authors, dates, and affiliated institutions of the studies have always been available through the citation...so this is really a non-issue. Again, the difference in date has nothing to do with the different findings of the studies (though "Louisvillian" would very much wish it so, as to enforce his iron-clad, narrow-minded perception of things, through bias, into this article); the studies were conducted very differently and came to very different results. This shows that an "exact" number regional affinity in Kentucky will be difficult to establish; I insisted on keeping the section vague including removing exact percentages - something I've insisted on since day one, but Louisvillian relentlessly attempted to insert. I only inserted the 47.86% number as a counterbalance because Louisvillian insisted on inserting the exact number for his Southern Focus source, and then, of course, to remove any credibility to the lower Southern percentage by labeling the Changing Regions study as "post-dated" and "garbage", among other creative insults.
As I first said a full three weeks ago, the section is still accomplishing its purpose without either of the studies. This is probably the best course, as it prevents the perpetual troll, or other trolls in the future, from inserting bias in an area on which adequate research has not been conducted. No, the "Southern Focus Survey", which has been placed on a God-like pedestal on this page, does not hold all the answers to regional identity questions. I have no problem with the section as is written now. I will not accept a "compromise" in which an artificial measure - in this case, date - is used to demean one of my sources because on editor disagrees with its findings.

--Gator87 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Oh you don't seek to take credit so what does this imply when you stated it

"I wrote the entire portion on Kentucky, provided the citations"

While I'll give you credit for adding on this section, you were not the originator of this sub section.. I was the sole reviver of this sub-section contrary to your later add on's [5]. So as far as from scratch LOL please Gator who are you fooling it's all in the history of this page.

"The culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. It should also be noted that many in Kentucky (generally, those in western and northern areas) do not believe themselves to be Southerners, historically or culturally. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than it is Midwestern, as it is culturally and—particularly in southwestern Indiana—economically attached to Louisville, Kentucky."

This was the original that I revived after being dead for over year! Gator please stop it with your teeth grinding claims of me not accepting anything not Southern about Kentucky! If this was the case would I have fought on the Midwestern page also about the inclusion of Kentucky being on the map, (which 90% of Midwesterners on that page oppose). If I were truely against the notion of Kentucky not having non Southern influence then why am I more then pleased with your new contribution to the Midwestern page about Kentucky? You on the other hand have it ingrained in your mind that Kentucky can not be more Southern then Midwestern contrary to the evidence presented. Then when your opinion in the minority you will quickly hop on the band wagon and claim that you always felt it was more Southern (which is also shown in the comments of this articles edit history). So in other words you flip flop your opinion to ride with the concensus! An example is here

"we are quite aware that Kentucky is usually considered a Southern state" [6]

"I for one am from a family of Kentuckians who are also Midwesterners, not Southerners, and we would flat-out challenge to the grave the notion that Kentucky is anything less than a North/South border state" [7]

Not quite level are we?

While the date is present on the Southern Focus Study source, your source is a JSTOR abstract in which the date (and full article for that matter) cannot be viewed without access to JSTOR's in general! I was only able to view this study through a buddy so logically everyone cannot access the full content of this source and logically can't view the date.

As far as the relevance of the dates of the studies I'm not about to argue with you in circles Gator there is a 2 to 1 (texreb) concensus that the dates should be noted. However through your own ongoing attempt to label Kentucky as the essential border state and with no more affiliation the South then the Midwest you will do everything in your power to prevent the dates and ultimately the merrit of these studies to be viewed by the public! These studies are just as any other related studies (as I provided examples earlier), no matter how you look at it and try to twist it around Gator every one knows the Changing Usage study is older and less accurate then the Southern Focus Study. Albiet they weren't identical they were essentially measuring the same thing REGIONAL IDENTITY! You criticize the so-called "god like" treatment of the Southern Focus Study on this article, without the main idea hitting you on the head... Your preferred study is dated and these people are going by the most recent and accurate measurement of culture.

This would be like if egytologist would rather use the 1993 Brace study of the ancient Egyptians rather then the 2006 Keita study which refutes it on it's main points; It makes no sense and you know it! Don't come here criticizing me and claiming I'm all about Kentucky being 100% Southern and all that crap, when you can't even accept the merrit of these two studies, because it goes against your opinion! Just the fact that this talk page has never used your preferred study as an example of Southerness can easily be seen as merrit between the two can it not? In any means Gator I'm not backing down from this position that these dates should be mentioned as the concesus now states, as I will not allow people to be mislead by your deliberate shielding of the facts!

Louisvillian 17:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things:
1. As of late, you seem to like to say "you're not backing down", apparently to try to intimidate people with whom you disagree. I assure you, I am young, educated, and not going anywhere regarding this issue and your continued attempts to insert bias into this section (and this subject area in general), so that's really a pointless threat to me.
2. I stand corrected actually - you did add one sentence, a stub of information that you copied from someone's earlier work and pasted back into the Variations section, which primarly stated that Northern Kentucky is Midwestern while Louisville is Southern (a dubious claim, but I'm not re-opening that can of worms.) Subsequently, I wrote the entire paragraph around it and provided citations - starting here - [[8]] and continuing through the next series of edits, while you attempted to remove a variety of sources throughout the month of February because you disagreed with them.
3. For the sake of preventing another edit war, we can include the dates inside the section - and to compensate, I have re-written the section to emphasize the fact that the methods of the studies, not the dates (i.e., one of them presented choices, while the other one didn't) was reponsible for the different findings. With other framing information making it clear that an exact percentage will probably never be know, to remove the prior bias and provide some clarity for readers.

--Gator87 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve was actually the first to say "I'm not backing down" on the slavery disscussion on the Louisville talk page. I'am also young and educated, and as you probably well know I have not and will not back down from my stance on this subject (unlike yourself I.E. citydata.com).

Why thank you for the acknowledgement!!! I'm so glad you're now remembering the main reason why we are here debating right now. Oh my! How did you ever remember that there was already an article in existance that you wrote around and detailed, LOl you're kidding right? It was pretty humourous for the time watching you go about bragging about this article as "your idea from scratch" and what not without even giving credit to myself as the user who revived the article that NO ONE was thinking about. In any means I've never taken credit for the articles creation, so that little emphasis you've put into that statement isn't neccasary or shouldn't be directed towards me.

LOL Gator Okay so let me get this straight you've basically switched the order in which the studies are being presented, for what reason....? Dude you're not slick, and you know what I'm talking about!! The studies were presented by way of their dates, why in Hell would one go from the findings of a (2000's) recent study to an earlier one? Another thing, LOL Changing Usage study was published in 1986 as it says in the study, man the insecurities are surely coming out! I'm going to reword the Southern Focus study slightly and put the studies back in the order in which they were originally presented, BY DATE! Louisvillian 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You clearly still have not read the Changing Usage study, because the very first page says September, 1987, not 1986. I've reverted that, and will continue to revert it.
2. Back down on CityData.com? Uhm, no...one poll on that site found a majority of Kentuckians viewing Louisville as Midwestern, while another poll was split right down the center on the issue, despite your efforts to rig the poll by spamming random users to vote (in favor of your opinion, of course) on the issue. That's quite pathetic, and you're well aware of it; when something is not as you view it, it is rigged, old, obsolete, stupid, "crap", etc. etc. I had (and have) no intention of trying to battle your ignorance ad nauseum on that site; I simply provided some other sources to balance out your argumentation. And based on the votes (and people's pre-conceived notions), I'm hardly in a minority.
3. The map cited via Pfly's site is not available, and nobody has said when it will be available again. Until then, it cannot be cited, because it doesn't exist at the moment. If you want the map in the article, I would suggest uploading it to Wikipedia.
4. Find the Wikipedia principle that shows that studies should be presented "by date." Now you're displease because both studies are giving other weight, and the bias has been removed.
5. I removed the phrase "ironically", from your sentence on Virginia. That's hardly encyclopedic language and one should not disrupt Wikipedia articles to make a point, though you have a history of that. There was no such language in my sentence on Tennessee, which I added simply to reveal the dramatic shift as one crosses the state line. I have no problem with info on Virginia from the Southern Focus study, because in my view the entire point of that section is to raise the point that there is not one "master study" that has answered all of the questions regarding regional affinity - nor will there likely ever be, until somebody starts going door-to-door and taking notes.

Gator87 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually two of those polls read that the majority of voters thought of Louisville as a Southern city! [9] [10]

"LOL answer this question does the sudden huge shift in votes in the poll that was almost unanimously stating this city is Southern, came within the last daylight hours of the last of the four days this poll was alive seem just odd? Does it also seem odd that of those 20 voters that suddenly and unanimously voted Midwestern not a single voter left a single post to back their position (unlike the earlier Southern voters) It's just common sense that this poll was rigged!"

Even to confirm my beliefs I've got several emails and PMS from a few friends on citydata stating that STX sent PM's to other users to vote Midwestern on the poll, claiming I was a troll, and this ironically happened after you put a troll alert on my head in your first post! I guess he just ran it to. In any means out of 3 polls two (which should have three) read that the majority of people see Louisville as a Southern city! In any case you have NOT responded to my post, in other words you've dropped out, you loss!

As far as the Meinings map goes here is the verification needed (according to yourself)

Hi.. yea that website has been down a bit lately. It should be more reliably up soon. I can't point you to another online source, but the printed version from which I made that copy is in the book: Meinig, D.W. (2004). The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 4: Global America, 1915-2000. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10432-4. Sorry I can do more, but the web version should be up again "soon" -- make a copy for your own files! :) Pfly 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louisvillian"

"and nobody has said when it will be available again. Until then, it cannot be cited"

Here is a post from Pfly about his website to me. Me personally I'd rather wait until the site is back up to post both of those claims, so I'll leave that up to you.

Well you've also completely reverted my edits, for what reason? You still have not given a reason for switching the original order of the studies...So no I'm not buying this unbiased crap, you had no ligit reason for this switch so it's being reverted. May I add unlike yourself I've not tampering with your new edits but simply putting back into the order in which they were originially in, Oldest to New or alphabetically according to the Wikipedia citing sources talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources&action=edit&section=27

As far as Virginia goes I was merely showing that the Civil War is what many consider to be the deciding factor in a state's Southerness and with the Virginia example it clearly shows different. As far as your grammer correction

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. ironically (adv.)

is Standard as a sentence adverb, but many literary commentators have regretted the use meaning “unusually, oddly, peculiarly, or simply strangely or unexpectedly,” preferring instead that the word be restricted to occasions when genuine irony is involved. Leave my edits be! Louisvillian 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the dates of the studies should be noted, as well as the fact that they asked their questions in quite a different way, which could (and probably did) influence the results. This should not be a big deal. Just state these facts and don't make everyone read the footnotes to find out when the studies were made. They were just snapshots in time.--Parkwells (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

A nation was described in the culture section, what with the mythologies, common habits, common area, etc etc. Just pointing out something interesting. 71.68.17.30 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to a comment

"Arkansas Democrats have swept all statewide offices. Some of you may not think it's a Southern state anymore?"

This is a waste of time, but...

Maryland and Delaware have moderate-liberal Democrats. Arkansas's Democratic party is similar to that of the Texas/Georgia Democrats before they were shot down. In other words, Arkansas Democrats still have credible challengers because they're moderate to conservative. There can be no comparison.

[edit] Incest?

"Incest is commonly practiced in Southern states. Brothers and sisters, daughters and fathers, fathers and sons all occasionally participate. Though still considered a taboo, incest is very popular in redneck southern communities and is part of southern charm."

If you're going to make a serious allegation like that you really need to provide a better citation, like a link rather than some book that not everybody will be able to check. It's certainly a Southern stereotype, but how much truth is there in it, really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.203.177 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speech/Cruisine Addition

I added an opening line or so to the Dialect section, which I thought was accurate and appropriate. Then, added a preface to the Cruisine section to match the change. I would like to get opinions as to how fellow editors feel about keeping it, altering it, or deleting it entirely. As I hope everyone knows by now, I am not hard to get along with! LOL TexasReb 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove this if you see fit... citations

I am trying to provide a source for one of my edits concerning the Civil War on this page but am unfamiliar with how to do so. If someone help me out it would be greatly appreciated. The section is entitled "Civil War" and the part in question is near the end of the section citing civilian casualties during the war. (the book for my source: [11] )

[edit] Southern Florida

The maps show South Florida, which is Florida south of I-4, as a part of the South. As this is an article about the cultural South, this seems out of place. The culture of South Florida has very few Southern traits. A few months ago, there was a map that showed Southern Florida striped. That map should be brought back. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the proposed map: The states in red are almost always included in modern day definitions of the South. Maryland and Missouri are occasionally considered Southern, while Delaware is only rarely considered part of the South. Oklahoma is sometimes considered Southern because the area of Oklahoma, then known as Indian Territory, was allied with the Confederacy. South Florida is rarely considered Southern because of Northern and Latin American influences. West Virginia is considered Southern by many, because it was once part of Virginia..

I disagree totally. NOT because I object to the map necessarily, and what you say, but because a LOT of talk and discussion went into the previous map before it was put into place (see Archives). Also, the present caption/tagline, which was worded for the previous, makes NO sense with the current map (i.e references to dark red, medium red, and stripped ). To take it on your own to make such changes seems to me very out of line. For that reason, I am going to undo it. Again, NOT because I think you are wrong about south Florida (or wherever) just that a lot of work and time has been spent and any major changes need to be discussed first. What say the rest of y'all? TexasReb (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above map, except I would've fully included Oklahoma in southern states. My reasoning behind this is that the territory that became Oklahoma was allied with the Confederacy. Although my basis for what should be considered "Southern" doesn't seem to be very popular. (i.e. former Confederate States) Mullhawk (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not only about the cultural South. It also covers the South as a geographical region, including in a commonly used 4-region division of the entire US. --JWB (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to try to draw a cultural map, it shouldn't follow state lines at all, and it needs to be from a notable source, for example the Dixie region in Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. (Even the map on that page is slightly squared off to state lines, compared to the actual map in the book.) Drawing a cultural map based on your own ideas is original research and a recipe for edit warring. --JWB (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. The caption can easily be changed (and already has been). As to my understanding, this article is about the cultural south. If it is about the geographical south, then California, New Mexico, and the like should need to be included. Ergo, Southern Florida should not be included. As for consensus point, it's just a matter of time until more people post. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See the Census Regions and Civil War maps. Those define the geographical South by whole states. A map showing cultural boundaries of the South would be much more complex than the one you posted, which is a compromise that is not quite either. --JWB (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-South

I'm from Tennessee and a lot of things in Tennessee are named Mid-South, such as the University of Tennessee's Mid-South Center for Biodefense & Security[12] and the Mid-South Fair[13] held in Memphis. I always guessed the Mid-South was like Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, maybe Kentucky. There's also the Mid-South Conference, a college sports conference, with teams in West Virginia, Tennessee, northern Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia. Complicating matters, there's the Foundation for the Mid South, which does work in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas.[14] --AW (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like what I found for Southeast: there's no official definition and a lot of variation in different organizations' definitions, though there is a core area which is usually included. --JWB (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Tedickey is reverting whenever I add in that the Mid South can also be described as the general area with Tennessee, Arkansas, etc, saying there are no reliable sources. Just above I listed various links to various organizations called "Mid South" which are in Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, and elsewhere. None of those geographical terms are set in stone, and I don't see any reliable sources saying Mid South = South Central United States either. --AW (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall if I did this instance more than once, but the practice of reverting unsourced changes is pretty pervasive in WP. Tedickey (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yours aren't sourced either. --AW (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Accordingly, you'll provide an example of additions I've made which are unsourced. Finding examples by you are trivial. Tedickey (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
First, please look at WP:OWN. Try Googling "mid south". Most of the results are all over the south, from AR to NC. I know that's not a reliable source, but it gives you an idea where I'm coming from. For example, the Mid South Fair is in Memphis. The Mid-South Coliseum is in Memphis. The Mid-South Conference is WV, TN, northern GA, MS, KY, and southwestern VA. Foundation for the Mid South - AR, LA, and MS. Mid South Bank - LA. Mid South Community College, West Memphis, AR. The Naval Support Activity Mid-South, a military base, is in Millington, TN.[15] Here are three news articles talking about the tornadoes which caused damage in TN, AR, AL and MS, saying they're in the Mid South.[16][17][18] Seems odd that all these things which call themselves "Mid South" are not in the Mid South as described in this article. The article for Mid-south itself says either it's either South Central US or "The region centered on the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area, including portions of West Tennessee, northern Mississippi and northeastern Arkansas, as well as the Missouri Bootheel and extreme northwestern Alabama." And the unsourced example you've made is that the Mid-South is the same thing as the South Central US. Where does it say that? Are you saying "South Central" and "Mid South" are the same thing because the terms are similar? I want to have a real discussion about this, not just you being snarky and reverting. I'm doing this is good faith, as I'm sure are you. --AW (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The text that I reverted to start with:
       *The Mid-South: variously known as the South Central United States,
         or an area including Arkansas and/or Tennessee and some surrounding states.
in the context of the links gives an area which does not necessarily include northern Mississippi (it's not mentioned). Adding Arkansas and/or Tennessee gives an entirely different picture than the South Central United States (which of course is no better-sourced than this topic). The casual reader would see this definition as omitting the Deep South, skirting around it in some fashion. Moreover, it's easy to find various agencies and commercial groups who have a headquarters somewhere and draw a 500-mile circle to denote their notion of a region. A well-sourced topic would use definitions from agencies whose expertise is in the underlying attributes (economic interdependencies,Enter away message text here. social, etc). Tedickey (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but "Tennessee and some surrounding states" would get Mississppi in some cases. It's not a region that's defined officially anywhere, which is my point. I'm not saying it's not the South Central US (although I haven't seen much evidence so far that it is), I'm saying that some people also refer to the Mid South as TN, AR, AL, MS, etc. and I don't think it's helpful to remove that. I'll look for some government agencies that say Mid South and get back to you. --AW (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Why does Abcdefgh redirect to this (Southern United States) page? - Ageekgal (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history - vandalism Tedickey (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article up to GA standards?

This article needs work to get it up to GA standards:

  • The lead is too short and narrow - see WP:LEAD
  • There are some Manual of Style issues - see WP:MoS
  • The prose are spotty. Portions of the article are poorly written
  • The article make some assertions which need to be backed by adding in-line citations from reliable sources
  • The article isn't sufficiently broad in its coverage. For example, business, commerce and economics are barely addressed

Your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm ready to pull the trigger and de-list the article. It's with deep regrets, because I'd very much like this to be a Good Article. I'm sure that it can be some day, but right now it simply doesn't meet the criteria.
Any thoughts at all? Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Other than agreement - probably not. Most of the edits on this page which catch my eye are opinion-based, lacking sources. Tedickey (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is, let's not be hasty on this. Just as the decision to create and caption some excellent maps came with a LOT of discussion and debate, so especially should anything so extreme as actually "de-listing" the whole thing. Remember, at one time this article WAS rated as top of the line. It can be again, so let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! LOL
I agree (and am probably "guilty" myself) that a LOT of what is contained has far too much POV and unsourced "facts." At the same time, let's not lose sight of that "The South" -- and all that entails -- is an extremely emotional and heart-felt subject for many, so naturally there ARE going to be entries that WILL reflect such a slanted viewpoint on many topics sub-associated. BUT...let's at least proceed from the premise that the majority of editors/contributors mean well and do their best to make the article into something to be proud of. *smiles*
Bottom line is, IMHO, an extensive re-work (not the maps though..those are GREAT! LOL), and edit is probably justified...but let's take it slowly, ok? 66.25.204.117 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)TexasReb

[edit] Tobacco

Since the narrative deals with contemporary companies, it seems there should be some discussions of the health risks discovered with cigarette and other forms of tobacco smoking, as well as the industry's attempt to keep that information out of the market forever.--Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC

I don't think an article on the Southern United States is quite the right place to post your concerns on the health risks of tobacco. The tobacco article itself covers that enough. --God Save the South (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

This section is inaccurate and will be getting changes. The Baptists and Methodists attracted followers before the Revolution and established many churches in the Tidewater in the first couple of decades of the 1800s, not later.--Parkwells (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

This section skips over the reasons for the Solid South - the deliberate disfranchisement of African Americans and poor whites for decades. I've added some basic facts as to what happened in the late 19th c., as without those, no one would know why a civil rights movement was ever needed. This was way beyond NPOV, and breezily brushed by legal segregation and deprivation of basic citizens' rights for millions of taxpaying citizens. This is one of the many sections that needs more sources, too.--Parkwells (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma

I've never heard it referred to as a Southern state - you need a source and should also note that other people think it part of the Midwest/West.--Parkwells (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this map may help. Oklahoma was even claimed by the CSA, even though it never formally seceeded. --God Save the South (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The Census map is probably irrelevant in this instance. Regarding the CSA (Oklahome couldn't have seceded, since it was not a state til long after) - that's a reference to the Five Civilized Tribes, which is well documented. Post-Civil War is a different matter, which appears to not be documented well (certainly poorly in Wikpedia). Tedickey (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll go with the Census map, but will admit it was a surprise to me. Still, I think the text should say this is where the Census Bureau classifies it, and/or give other sources. To me (admittedly having spent most of my life on the coasts, so the middle geography starts shifting around in my mind map), it has always seemed more west/midwest.--Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As concerns Oklahoma (see Archives) there was a long discussion over exactly how to "color" the "modern day" map. Here was the original caption: Contemporary South

"The states in dark red are almost always included in modern day definitions of the South, while those in medium red are usually included. The striped states are sometimes/occasionally considered Southern"

As time went on, some detailed qualifications as to "sometimes/occasionally" were added by some editors to that particular map. Then the map of the Census Bureau was added...which supports the fact that yes, "sometimes" Oklahoma is considered Southern (definitely more so than Delaware!)...which was the whole reasoning behind the tagline of the contemporary map. The "citation" and "source" exists by that fact alone. TexasReb (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotally, as someone who has lived within thirty minutes of driving or less from Oklahoma for the majority of the past eight years, I haven't really heard any allusions to Oklahoma being considered a Southern state. At the same time, I've also visited the grave of one of the Confederate Cherokee generals from the Five Tribes that Tedickey mentioned above. As with any border area, no answer is completely right. Just as Missouri and Illinois have regions which have or had an identifiable Southern culture, so does Oklahoma. Its probably best to treat Oklahoma along the same lines as the other examples.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What the deuce?
Just in reference to the census map, Maryland is most emphatically NOT a southern state. If they wanted to do it by region, it should have been included with Delaware, Virginia and maybe New Jersey and Pennsylvania as mid-Atlantic states. But if you absolutely have to fit them into Northeast or South, then Maryland belongs in the Northeast; both for geographical reasons (north of DC, which is usually considered the dividing line) and cultural reasons, as our culture is very much that of the Northeast and not the South. 147.9.201.163 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The article has some, certainly, but not throughout and not in areas where it really needs it, as in political contentions, etc.--Parkwells (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

-Removed { { unsourced } } tag from top of page; article as a whole has sources, and if any individual sections need sources/verification, tags should be placed there as applicable. Âme Errante (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economy and History

These need beefing up - there was much more late 19th c. and early 20th c. economic development - boom towns and cities, than suggested here, and much more migration, even before WWII. Many people were already migrating to cities in the South for work before WWII - Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and two other cities all reached major populations, as did Atlanta, and others.--Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Why not have material in these sections that people don't know, for the many who won't go to the longer articles?--Parkwells (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a looksee. In the mean time, a great source for this topic is Edward Ayers New South.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudzu

I recently added West Virginia to the list of states with "kudzu issues", due to WV (especially the Souhtern part of the state) becoming infested with it. I even have proof. [19]. But for some reason SOMEBODY DELETED IT!! I am adding it back to the list.

Also, if that's not enough, take a look at the Hatfield-McCoy Trails web site in Southern WV. A couple of pictures show people driving on their ATV's through Kudzu. Colby Wells (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence and the cite don't agree. The sentence says "particularly big problem", while the cite - which by the way is not a reliable source - only says things such as "Patches of the vine are evident in much of the state", "has a distinct presence", etc. A reliable source would have numbers, e.g., how much is spent on eradication rather than ancedotal remarks by one person. Tedickey (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I take the Cardinal Amtrak train to visit my relatives in Huntington, WV, every August, and kudzu is very familiar to me from the train windows as we pass through Clifton Forge into West Virginia and south to White Sulphur Springs and Charleston. If what you are arguing about is kudzu in West Virginia, I would have to say that kudzu is very present.Dubyavee (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The related Kudzu topic notes that it is present all the way up to New York. Using a source equivalent to the ones given for West Virginia, another editor could simply paste in New York - and be just as nonfactual. A factual source for this would have some way to support the "particulary big problem", whether by (sourced - no random comments) comparisons with other adjacent regions, or by referring to budget figures for weed eradication, etc. The reason for the sentence (which by the way is unsourced for the existing list) is to highlight the parts which are the biggest problem. Removing the "particularly" aspect and just listing everywhere it's a nuisance would eliminate any value to the reader, since the related topic already has a map (unsourced ;-). Tedickey (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your going to say that a newspaper website from Beckley is not a reliable source? What more do you want? I have given you plenty of proof, unlike GA, MD and eastern KY which has no source at all what so ever. (Eastern KY and Southern WV are pretty much the same, and a state line can't stop kudzu from crossing the line.) The article should at least say that it's BECOMING an issue for WV. Colby Wells (talk) 21:00 or 9:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
To summarize your latest comment: since the existing sentence is poorly sourced, you feel impelled to add a "me-too" to the sentence. In contrast, I pointed out that the way to resolve the dispute is to find reliable sources. Googling on "extent of kudzu coverage" finds many hits, including a few which are relevant. For instance this comments that Estimates of kudzu infestation in the southeast vary greatly, from as low as two million (Corley et al.., 1997) to as high as seven million acres (Everest et al.., 1991). and The most severe infestations occur in the piedmont regions of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. That's an example of what you can find if you take the time. Tedickey (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)