Talk:Redneck/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Invalid Cite

"In recent years, members of the American Left from the West Coast and New England have taken to calling Christian Conservatives as "Rednecks" presumably as an insult. [1] This practice succeeds in insulting both Rednecks and Christian Conservatives, but is grossly inaccurate based on the pro-labor, anti-establishment, anti-hierarchy religious orientation of traditional Rednecks." The cite for this article is an opinion piece at the nydailynews. I do not think this counts as a valid cite for a "fact." Anyone else care to discuss?Manufracture 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is right. We can still use this source, but it should be attributed as an opinion. "Charles Krauthammer, in a 2004 opinion piece in the NY Daily News, criticized the American Left for..." -Will Beback 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Its July and it still hasnt been fixed. I am taking it out. Also, found almost the exact same line but completely unsourced under the page for "cracker". If someone wants to fix it and put it back in thats fine. Jasper23 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Extraterritorial conclaves section

I'm not going to just remove this section right now because it has some useful info, but it doesn't belong in this article. This is an article about a stereotype, not an actual group of people. The information belongs in articles about the various people it describes. --Allen 02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I don't want to cause trouble, but there are plenty of northern rednecks. In fact I usually hear it qualified as "Southern redneck" if the term is used toward a southerner, and appalacian's are hillbillies, not rednecks...

Sam Spade 02:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Growing up in Texas, I was told that the term "redneck" referred to white Alabamians who worked the soil the composition of which included alot of red clay. Marc Grossberg

what does disclaimer mean?

Please note that this article describes a stereotype and therefore it has to express certain stereotypical views. They are included here in order to document the existence of the specific socioeconomic group, and to a lesser degree ethnic group, to which these stereotypes are believed to apply.

I removed this from the top of the page a few days ago and someone put it back. Why is it here? And what does it mean? If "express" means describe, well, of course it describes a stereotype. If "express" means that the article itself has to say things like, "rednecks are such-and-such", then no, it doesn't have to do that. Why would it? And what about this second sentence? Why would we be trying to document the existence of whatever class or ethnic group? What does that have to do with explaining the redneck stereotype? --Allen 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

consistency?

WhiskyWhiskers, you undid a lot of changes with your last edit. Could you explain exactly what you found inconsistent about the previous version? Thanks. --Allen 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WhiskyWhiskers, thank you for using a longer edit summary for your last edit. However, I still feel like you haven't fully explained the changes you want to make. For example, User:H Bruthzoo argues that the three flags serve no purpose in the article. You seem to feel that they do serve a purpose. What purpose do you think they serve? How do images of the Irish, Scottish, and Confederate flags help a reader understand the redneck stereotype? Thanks. --Allen 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I'm removing them again. --Allen 06:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Band "Redneck"

I've just bought a record from a band called "Redneck" called "Wonderland". As I guess from the cover, they seem to be from Australia. The record was released on Columbia Records/Sony Australia in 1998. I guess it might make sense to either include the band in the article or to have a crossways-page linking to this article and one on the band. But since I'm a wikipedia-beginner and don't know about the band yet, I'll leave this to you :). --cypher 15:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Album is called Redneck Wonderland by the Australian band Midnight Oil. The use of "Redneck" in this instance is not used to describe the historical Ulster-Scots "Redneck", but to describe right-wing, unsophisticated rural dwellers of Australia (Similar to the perjoritive use of the word found in North-America and elsewhere). The Album title was a reflection of the government of the day and the band's belief that it was creating in Australia a Redneck Wonderland. Mdgr 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Church of Scotland

The Church of England was never the official church in Scotland. Be careful about claims that the National Covenant was signed in blood; this is largely based upon myth. Rcpaterson 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word trash

There should be a link to the terms white trash and trailer trash.Some people may use the terms interchangeably . Someone proud to be a redneck may use the terms as an insult to people of a lower economic class or considered morally inferior.

Modern usage is totally innacurate .Everyone is not a redneck ,even though it's currently the cool thing to be.If you want sources do a google search and read some blogs.

removing urban redneck section

I am removing the Urban Redneck section. It has sources, but none of the sources actually use any of the terms discussed. I can see how one might take the concepts described or alluded to in the references and decide to call them "Urban redneck", etc., but that is original research. Also, please see WP:RS; blogs are not normally considered reliable sources. --Allen 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

explaining my deletions

I am re-deleting both the "Urban Rednecks" section and Daily News op-ed thing. For the Urban Rednecks section, an anon is re-adding the section with the edit summary, "McW version". This means nothing to me. Please explain here on the talk page. For the Daily News thing, several people have noted on the talk page that the text is POV, and no one has offered a counter-argument. In this context, the section being "longstanding" is not a good enough reason to keep it. --Allen 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)