Talk:Upland South
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Upland South appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 December 2006. |
 |
 |
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] Second image
Since the article discusses the Upper South in addition to Upland South, anyone fancy knocking up an image of the United States highlighting Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas in a deep colour, and Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland in a lighter shade of the same colour, to illustrate the politically defined "Upper South"?. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Kentucky is a Southern state damn!!!! I mean some people here are absolutely determined to put that same funky ass map of what they consider the South on every related article (the maps are based solely on Civil war alliances). I mean what else would be the cause to classify Kentucky with a Midwestern state like Missouri or Midatlantic states like Maryland and Delaware. In the Southern focus study Kentucky TIED with Virginia at 86% of it's residence identifing with the South. SO please tell me why should Kentucky not be the core Mid-South.... Forgive me if I'm a little upset but I think it's fruitless to make an article of another section of the South if you're going to use the same old Confederate maps to classify a states Southerness. If the American South page wants to base the cultural South solely on the Civil War them let them, But this is the upland/Upper/Mid South in this region Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia are the Definitions.
- I agree.. it's part of why I prefer the term Upland to Upper, although even the term Upper South ought to include Kentucky. A problem with defining region by state lines is, I think, that it tends to come down to state politics at some point in the past. Sometimes the Midwest is still defined by the terms of the Ordinance of 1798. So yea, I agree, although I also think it could be nice to have a state map of the Upper South, even if it is impossible not to do it without controversy. It's funny you mentioned Missouri as being Midwestern rather than Upper South, as the parts of Missouri I've been through (the southern parts, Ozarks) felt as Southern as the parts of Kentucky I've been through. Missouri certainly felt different from Kansas at least. In any case, I agree that the states most fully in the Upper/Upland South should be Tennessee and Kentucky, at least. Pfly 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I added one of the "funky" maps showing the political state-based Upper South. I know these maps tends to generate controversy, hopefully this one won't be too bad. I opted not to use the striped lines and simply described the definition used and mentioned "definitions vary". The only serious arguments against the map I can think of are on including Missouri and not including Maryland. Missouri is the wild card state, belonging and not really belonging to a whole range of regions, but based on Civil War era regionalization, from which the term Upper South ultimately dates, Missouri is clearly part of the region. Its founding as a state is also strongly bound up with the Upland / Upper South. Maryland seems much more of a stretch, especially in modern times, and it didn't fit the simple definition given in the caption anyway. I thought about drawing a colored line around the states that did secede (ie, all except Kentucky and Missouri), but decided that would not be helpful. The text describes it all anyway. The secession definition is just one of a variety of definitions of the Upper South. Before the Civil War the Upper South simply meant the northern part of the South that was not so heavily involved with cotton production. Pfly 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation needed for map
Seeing the "citation needed" added to the map of the Upper South, I added two references. The online reference has info about "states that did not secede during the Civil War until after the Battle of Fort Sumter", but is limited to CSA states only (Kentucky and Missouri left out). I added to reference to Meinig's book, which has tons of information about the Upland/Upper South, with both Kentucky and Missouri definitely part of it originally, and Missouri becoming increasingly identified as a Midwestern state in more recent times. The same user, anonymous 74.128.200.135, added another "citation needed" to the map, even though there are two references already in the caption. The edit summary says "source does not make specific reference to states that are apart of this region". Nothing was posted on this talk page or on my talk page. I don't understand the edit summary -- both references do specific references states, especially the book, which is full of info about the region.
Am I missing something? Perhaps anon user 74.128.200.135 could reply here with something more specific? I posted a note to User talk:74.128.200.135 about it. I'd be happy to supply a reference for whatever it is that still needs one, just tell me what it is. Region maps based on states can be controversial, as I mentioned above. If the map is unacceptably controversial, let's just remove it. Pfly 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problems I have is the contradiction between this, page, and the Southern U.S. page. On the map of the "current" South Missouri is a "ify" Southern state and that statement is cited with two sources. Now on this Missouri is definantly considered Southern or /Upland Southern (according to the map). The source that you cited the map with, made no mention of specific states that are included in the region. And I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as such. I just related Wiki pages to reflect each other. I feel that a two tone map is in order for this page those states that are definantly apart of the Upland South and those states that are sometimey. Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia seem to be the states that are always included in this region by different sources so they should be dark red. Missouri, Arkansas, and North Carolina are ify and vary from reference to reference. 74.128.200.135 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah ok, gotchya, thanks. I reworded the caption of the map of the Upper South to clarify that it is based only on a specific historical issue, which is also explained in more detail in the main article's text -- that it is just a map of those "slave states" that did not secede until after Fort Sumter (and counting Kentucky and Missouri for their attempts to secede). Being so specific and historically based, the map doesn't contradict the Southern U.S. map, which is meant to be more general in scope, if I understand right. The caption here also mentions that this is just one definition among many -- it just happens to be one of the few that is specific enough to be mapped by state so easily. But I'm still not sure whether the map does more help than harm, and often consider removing it. For readers who don't read the full text, the map may give a false impression -- that these states are in fact the Upper South, when they are just one definition among many. So... what do you think? The caption could be clearer on these points. We could not have a state-based map at all. Personally, I don't care whether the map stays or goes -- not having it may be better. But I'm reluctant to try to make a more general map using multiple tones, stripes, etc. The non-state-based map on the page seems to already give readers a general sense of where the region is located. Pfly 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can see Missouri being being more categorized as a Midwestern state than a Southern state, but where do you put Arkansas or North Carolina? I have always thought of North Carolina as an Upper South state, and I guess Arkansas is somewhere in between the Upper and Lower South. But I guess it would be wise to stripe those three states. As for Kentucky, I think it's solidly an Upper South state.ArkSoutherner 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'am actually for the political definition of the Upper South. I feel that most people (who even care) generally include Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee as the Upper South. North Carolina and Arkansas on the other hand are states that are dangling the Deep/Upper South Line. Missouri however is again my main beef with the map. This state while it has Southern qualities is overall Midwestern, But the Political maps states otherwise. This situation is kind of similar to the old mapping scale in which they only used to the U.S. census bureau's definition of the regions and made no real effort to detail the degree of a state's regional identity, by shading the entire region one shade of red. One big problem with that on this article is that the Upper SOuth is not an "official" region of the U.S., but at the same time the Deep South isn't either, But they still have a political map detailing the "general" acceptance of the state's that constitute that sub region. 74.128.200.135 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather see the page's content improved (it could use it!) rather than debates over whether a certain state is or isn't, or sort of is part of the region. This page already has a non-state-based map (which I think is more useful and accurate than a state-based map, fuzzy edges and all), and the text describes how states like Arkansas, for example, are "sort of" part of the region better than a striped-style map would (the Arkansas Ozarks are upland/upper, while the Arkansas Delta region is not -- a striped state would not show that). The political map is unnecessary since the text describes the region by state in detail, and there is a better map at the top of the page. Also the political map is misleading since it is based on Civil War era stuff. I made and added the political map, with some reluctance, unsure whether it would help or hurt -- I'm going to take it out now. I wouldn't mind a political map being here, but am afraid of the kind of endless debate that dominates pages like Talk:Midwestern United States, Talk:Southern United States, and Talk:Mid-Atlantic States. Perhaps someone can help with the content? The history section could really use more information about what happened between the early 1800s and today (a lot happened!). Pfly 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I love how Kentucky (I mean, come on, KENTUCKY) is not included in the South but Maryland (I can't even begin to convey how ridiculous this is) is. Kentucky is a Southern state, and Maryland is a Northern one. Wikipedia's definitions of these regions is an embarrassment to encyclopedic study.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.174.2.205 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- Have you read the article Upland South? Does it says that Kentucky is not part of the South? Before you condemn an article as the dumbest thing you've ever seen, it may help to read it first. Otherwise you may embarrass yourself. If reading is too much trouble, just look at the map and try to remember which state is Kentucky and which is Maryland. Pfly 06:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Southwestern PA
I thought I was the only one that noticed the Upland Southern influences here in Southwestern PA, it's interesting someone else did too as far as the map goes (and do they have a source for it though?) But I have to wonder if they're confusing Southern culture and Appalachian culture because there are minute differences in the two. Second officer 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This source talks about the Ohio Valley as part of the Upland South however: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/TURNER/chapter5.html, but it really defines this region before the common post Confederate definition. Second officer 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not to enthusiastic about the map on this page either, or rather it's defintion of the Upper South. I'm not to sure if this map is better then a political one that shows the state's generally included in the region. Now there was issue with it a while back, But maybe a two toned map like the one of the Deep South page should be used. The reason I say that is because the main problem I had with the old Political map is that Missouri was considered a state which is always included in the region, in which it is rarely especially when there is an option to put it in the Midwest. State's like Arkansas are often thought of as the Deep South and it be shaded to indicate this. I love the rest of the article however and PFly has done a wonderful and thorough job on it. Louisvillian 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
