Talk:Redneck/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Must give reason for reverts

If you are going to change the work of other editors, please give a justification. The article you cited is actually an editorial. Absolutely not a NPOV source. You have to find a source that meets Wiki guidelines. Jasper23 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts=

The recent revert sources an op/ed article, and is blatently POV. This not only goes against Wiki guidelines, but takes the neutrality from the article as well. If the paragraph can be neutralized, and sources OTHER than an op/ed piece from New York can be access, by all means add it. But until then, keep it out of the article. Rsm99833 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

rsm99833..check your messages. Your last revert added in the op/ed article and made the page blatantly pov. There seems to have been some confusion as to which version was which and who was who.

My bad. I should drink my caffinated beverage before doing edits. Rsm99833 19:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

discuss disagreements on talk page

Jasper23, Rsm99833, and I have already explained why the "urban redneck" section and the thing about liberals using the word as an insult do not belong here. If you're having trouble finding the relevant comments, see #removing_urban_redneck_section, #explaining my deletions, #Must give reason for reverts, and #Recent reverts=. If you're having trouble understanding why you should respond to arguments on the talk page, please see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#First_step:_talk_to_the_other_parties_involved. --Allen 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What about those flags?

I don't get it. Why are the flags there? What does saltire mean in their captions?

Sincerely,

GeorgeLouis 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get a response, so I am removing them.

Your friend, GeorgeLouis 04:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand so you delete. Do you think that's reasonable? Saltire simply means a cross-shaped design in flags, etc.

Here's a link to an Encarta article about it:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/searchdetail.aspx?q=what+does+saltire+mean&pg=1&grp=ans

Scotland and Ireland were being discussed. So were rednecks and the "redneck flag" or Confederate Naval Jack. The flags represent a link in design as well as origin of a large percentage of the "redneck" population of the South.

Somebody restored the flags and explained saltire. I appreciate the definition; I thought it was a misprint for "satire." Then the flags were again removed, and I appreciate that, too. I am just full of appreciation.

Anyway, I don't think the Scottish national flag belongs in this article, since the article refers to Scots-Irish. Nor the St. Patrick's flag, which was not a symbol of anything very profound up to a few years ago, according to the brief research I did, which lasted all of 75 seconds. I don't think any redneck actually saluted one or flew one or blew his nose on one. And if we need a picture of the Confederate flag on the back of some ratty ol' pickup truck, maybe we should find one, or shoot one, and post it. Anyway, the flags are political symbols and don't belong smack dab against a section on etymology.

I am only trying to make this article a little more professional. The other graphics seem OK on without my examining them too closely.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole "redneck" article is political and unprofessional. Have fun with your deletions.

First of all, the flags do not resemble the confederate flag. Please look on the CSA to confirm this. Secondly, rather than complain about what's wrong, take some initiative, and add or edit material. If someone disagrees with your edit, bring it up in discussion here. We all do it. Why not you? Rsm99833 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly do resemble the Confederate Naval Jack. They are all SALTIRES.

As to your "if someone disagrees with your edit, bring it up here"...that is precisely what was done. George deleted the flags before he even knew what a saltire was. The only reason the flags were there was to show that a large portion of imigrants to the Old South were from areas where saltires were flown - Scotland and Ireland. If you can't see the connection, it's not because there isn't one.

First of all, I said nothing about the flags resembling the Confederate NAVAL flags. Please read what I wrote, thanks. Secondly, I do know the connection, AND have given sources to show this. Thirdly, please review the following link for flags [1]. Have a good week. Rsm99833 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read what you typed. You said "look upon the CSA"...I'm supposed to look upon the Confederate States of America? That made no sense to me. Now I know you meant look at the Wikipedia article about the CSA. You said the flags don't resemble the Confederate flag. The Naval Jack WAS A CONFEDERATE FLAG. I'm well aware of EVERY Confederate flag. The Confederate flag that was shown and DELETED was the Confederate Naval Jack. The one most associated with "rednecks" is the Confederate Naval Jack, not the "Stars and Bars." The "Bonnie Blue" Flag was also a Confederate flag, but you don't see people making a fuss over it being a "redneck flag" either. There were a lot more Confederate flags than the ones shown in the Wikipedia CSA article.

Thanks, I'll have a nice week, God willing. You have a nice week as well.

Just FYI, The Naval flag while it was flown under the CSA as an identifier, it was NOT the confederate flag. That was a Naval Battle Flag. A very big difference. Would you hold up a the modern US Navy flag in place of the US flag? Rsm99833 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is A Confederate flag. If you held up a US Naval Jack, the US Stars and Stripes, a Confederate Naval Jack, the Confederate Stars and Bars, then asked which was the Confederate flag most associated with rednecks and the Old South, which do you think they'd point to?

Capitalization of redneck.

Hello, everybody. I realize that some folks would like to capitalize redneck, but I have found no dictionaries that do so. If you find any, please cite it here. Thank you so much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Style on "words as words"

Dear fellow editors:

I am enjoying editing this article because I am learning a good deal from it, and I set forth the information below in great good will for all of you to consider:

In conformity with most stylebooks, when we talk about words and phrases AS words and phrases, we should italicize them. For example:

The term redneck was first used by green men from Mars who landed in the Australian outback and were amazed to see white men on horseback.

But when it is used in a normal sense (not as a word in itself), we should leave it in Roman (NO italics) and not capitalized, viz.:

You might be a redneck if you like hound dogs and drink moonshine whisky.

Of course, if it's a book title, the word IS capitalized, and the entire title is put in italics:

The Redneck Revolution by Steve Nance (Ocean Park Press, 1985).

When we see a direct quote, we should leave the capitalization and italicization as it is inside the quote marks, viz.:

Professor Smedlley G. Snurkins wrote of the phenomenon: "We can certainly identify with the 'Redneck' philosophy in some respects."

In my most recent edit, I have tried to stick to the above rules. I sincerely hope you agree and will try to follow them.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbados

Are we sure that the "poor whites" were also descended from slaves? Is there a source? It would seem that the offspring in the first generation would be classified as black and the baby's descendants would most likely not be "poor whites." Let's discuss. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a source. A couple of them, actually. First, you have the book Redneck Redneck Manifesto by Jim Goad [2] and also 'They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America' by Michael A. Hoffman [3]. Rsm99833 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Will you put "slaves" back, with a footnote? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love to, except I'm horrible with putting in footnotes. Would someone with a bit more experience do this?Rsm99833 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just paste in the URL where you want your footnote and put TWO square brackets around it. Or — just paste in the URL without the brackets and let somebody else do it. Try it; you will have a sudden sense of power. GeorgeLouis 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the scarf

The term redneck refers to the red scarves worn by Scotch Irish militia's during the American Revolution-Whiskey Rebellion. No mention made of that crucial fact. Citations abound, take your pick.

Put it up yourself. Don't forget to source. Rsm99833 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparable terms

"Redneck" is not like "nigger". The latter is generally considered a far more derogatory term. I don't see any need to include it in this article. -Will Beback 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some people don't consider "redneck" particularly derogatory even when used by outsiders. Virtually nobody sees "nigger" as anything less than the most vile racial insult in America when used by outsiders. Even when used by insiders, the uses are very different. "Cracker" would be a closer analogue, and even that's nowhere close. --Allen 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminding involved users about the page Wikipedia:Profanity, for possible future issues. Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A more comparable term might be "queer", which has been reclaimed and is no longer considered derogatory whether or not used by outsiders. Same goes for "redneck". I don't see it as a particularly derogatory term. In point of fact both are terms of pride in ones own identity. 70.108.83.142 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is close. Even so, I don't see the need to include any other term. We do a good enough job of explaining the point without need comparisons, especially those we draw ourselves. -Will Beback 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigger please! Queer is so much worse than Nigger, it is beyond comparison. Imagine this exchange: "Bubba - I hear't your son is a Nigger/Queer!" Obviously Bubba would be much happier to have a black son than a homo one. 66.138.26.9 07:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case neither is like "redneck", a term which any father would be happy to hear applied to his son. Which brings us back - why do we need a comparison? If one is good than maybe we should include several - "Queer", Nigger", etc. -Will Beback 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy. There are many arguments for exclusion and I have not heard one decent argument for inclusion. This stays out. Putting it back in is semi-vandalism. Jasper23 07:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Redneck is usually not an insult :| Many southerners refer to themselves as a redneck. And i think its getting a little predjudice about the gay and racial comments so can we please stop as it is offensive Malevious 13:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Racial slur is a racial slur. You don't get decide which one is "more offensive" to most people. State the facts and keep your personal interpreation of other peoples thoughts out of wikipedia.68.187.117.71 09:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

Can we please stop adding the metal music shit to the article? it isnt a stereotype about rednecks. the stereotype for rednecks is they listen to country music not metal so can we come up with a decision so this stuff can stop? Malevious 20:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in Georgia. I know for a fact rednecks listen to it because I'm a redneck. But I know people will keep taking the metal list down because of preconceived notions of what a redneck really is. Listen to some Pride and Glory or post Marauder Blackfoot and then tell me rednecks don't listen to metal. Grow up and get real instead of believing a wimpy version of what we're like.

Biased Article

This article is very pro-usage of the word "redneck". The article should also state the other viewpoint against the usage of the word.Casey14 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see so much bias interwoven through-out this article and found it disturbing on several levels. There is also some very good information contained in the article as well ( where good = accurate and relevant ). Too many of the passages, though, seem only to document the contributor's ingrained prejudices. The second paragraph, as the first example, is something that I found to be entirely out of place. It lacks relevance and simply repeats opinions from a very biased source (that I read and personally found very offensive). In an article that offers a dozen possible sources and definitions of the words cracker and redneck, to assign specific personality traits to the (unidentified) members of these groups is not acceptable to me. We all have opinions, and many of us are careful to try and base our opinions on verifiable facts. But that does not make our opinions into a facts. Nor does referencing another's opinion make it a fact. I would favor removing the second paragraph entirely since I see multiple problems with it and very little that is truly relevant to the topic. The origin of the words hillbilly and cracker in the Scots language is relevant but would be better addressed elsewhere in the article. I don't think the overly broad statements referring to the characteristics of individuals in these groups is appropriate. I would be very interested in other viewpoints on this. Allan Floyd Stewart 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I think the entire "history" section should be deleted. Some of it could form the basis of useful text for other articles that are actually about groups of people. But this is not an article about people; it is an article about a term and a stereotype. As soon as it becomes, even in part, an article about people, then we are actually labeling people with a word usually seen as derogatory (and poorly defined as well). An encyclopedia has no place calling people rednecks. --Allen 04:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No response; deleted section. --Allen 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Castravalva, I explained my reasons for deleting the history section above, but you reverted my edit without explanation. Please explain your thinking here. --Allen 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AtomicTherapy, I explained my reasons for deleting the history section above, but you reverted my edit with the edit summary "rv vandalism". My edit was not vandalism by any standard. I assume your edit summary was a mistake, so please explain why you think the history section should be restored. --Allen 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the other editor, but would never call you a vandal. I would however like a chance to pare down the history section, and perhaps add some additional sources, rather than throwing the whole thing out. Can you give me a couple of weeks to work on it incrementally? Thanks Castravalva 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page message, Castravalva. Sure, I'll wait a few weeks. I'll try to keep an open mind, too. But I do find it hard to imagine salvaging much of the history section, as least in this article. As I said above, I don't think an encyclopedia should call anyone by a usually-derogatory label, which is what I think we do when we write about "actual rednecks" in any manner. I don't think the article should be about anything more than the term itself and the associated stereotype. AtomicTherapy changed the section title from "history" to "history of usage", and I think this points in the right direction: a history of the word "redneck" and how it has been used would be great for this article. Unfortunately, the section as it stands is entirely about people, not about the word.

If the section were correct, well-sourced, and stopped referring to people as rednecks, then it would be great for Wikipedia, but not for this article. It would then be better merged into articles like Southern United States, Appalachia, Social class in the United States, and other related articles. --Allen 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress - please be patient with me. Thanks. Castravalva 02:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)