Talk:South (United States of America)

Rebel flag is a political statement
If you think it isn't, see how many black Southerners fly it to show their regional and cultural identification with the South. I realize that many whites, in the North as well as the South, think they are the arbiters of whether the things they say and do are racist, so sure, many white Southerners who fly the rebel flag or have the stars and bars on their bumpers would deny they are racists, but let's not pretend so hard. I changed the wording, not to what I actually believe, but to a phrasing that's a little less of a pretense that it's all just regional pride. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be difficult to really say. Totally and completely aside from skin-color, is the regular American flag just a national flag, or is it a political statement in support of the ideals of the rebels in the Revolutionary War (No taxation without representation, secession from the British Empire, etc)? Probably Both, and it's probably much the same with the Southern flag.


 * The difference is few Americans would oppose to the Rebells in the Revolutionary War, whereas many Southerners would oppose the Rebells in the Civil War. For most Americans there's no need to separate the political aspects of the regular American flag from the cultural identification aspects; that's not the case with the Southern flag. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering that the purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve for all time and extend slavery into new territories, we know what their flag represents, and if some whites pretend it's just cultural, ask some Southern blacks how they feel about the Rebel flag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The slavery thing just makes it thornier, as if it weren't thorny enough already. I'm not taking sides here, but they would probably say that the Southern flag no more represents slavery because of the civil war, then the American flag represents stealing Indian land because in the Revolution, the Rebels purpose in the revolution was (in part) to settle beyond the appellation mountains, which the Brits weren't letting them do, or something along those lines. Point is, allot of them, right or wrong, honestly just don't see it that way. According to this "28% of Americans say that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, while 59% of Americans say the flag is more a symbol of Southern pride"


 * As for the "Very few Southerners remain loyal to any secessionism or slave-holding ideology today", my impression is that, while support for slavery is practically zilch, at least a large minority of Southerners would support the Rebels in the Civil War, and not see that much difference beaten them and the Rebells in the Revolution, again not taking sides, just saying how some Southerns would see it. I'm not the best person to ask about what southerners think tough, Northern Virgina is culturally more Northern then Southern, but This says "roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners." To say "Very few Southerners remain loyal to any secessionist [..] today" could be misleading, it doesn't distinguish between present day support of present-day secessionism from present-day support of historic secessionism. To take the Revolution as an example, one can certainly believe that the 13 colonies were right to declare independence from the British Empire in 1776, while simultaneously bereaving that they would be wrong to declare independence from the United States in 2014, indeed that's the viewpoint of most Americans. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On a related note, this sentence is misleading: "Kentucky and West Virginia [...] did hold slaves at the time of the Civil War, but Kentucky never completely seceded, and West Virginia seceded from Virginia in 1863 in order to rejoin the Union [...] while Missouri, also a slave state in 1861, remained part of the Union though with much conflict"


 * Missouri, Kentucky, and Virgina each had two state governments, one Unionist and one Confederate, both claiming to be the legitimate state government. It wasn't that Kentucky "never completely seceded", it was that two organizations, both claiming to be the Kentucky state government, disagreed on if Kentucky seceded. The West Virginia part is especially misleading: First of all it was the Unionist State government of Virginia that crated West Virginia, not West Virginia that declared independence from Virginia. Secondly to say West Virgina "rejoin[ed] the Union" implies it ever left. The Confederate state government and it's supporters of course believed that Virgina left the Union, but as far as the Unionist state government and it's supporters were concerned Virgina was a Union state. Similar stories with the other states (minus the state splinting in two), Unionist government says it's a Union state, the Confederate government says it's a Confederate state. I'm focusing on Virgina because I'm a Virginian, but this just seems very disrespectful of the unionist Virginians. I'm not asking we explain all of this, but the present-state oversimplifies things to the point of not just being mesasleading, but being downright disrespectful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You make a lot of good points. We don't want to get too detailed about history, but some of the text in the article should be rephrased for accuracy's sake. The thing about settling beyond the Appalachians was a dispute that was ended long before the Civil War, though. Anything beyond the original 13 Colonies, Vermont (previously part of New York), Maine (previously part of Massachusetts) and Florida (previously a Spanish colony) is over the Appalachians, including most of the Southern states. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the Wikipedia article about the Appalachian-line, but my point wasn't to debate the flag per sy, my point was simply to give an example of how it is that some Southerners (rightly or wrongly) don't see it that way. My main point is, there isn't universal agreement on allot of things, whether it's the flag, or whether the border states (minus Maryland and Delaware) were Union of Confederate, and we shouldn't pretend there is or take one side and present it as fact. All we can really say about the the status of border states is that there was disagreement on if they were Union or Confederate, and all we can realty say about the flag is that a person who flies it doesn't necessarily mean it as anything other then just the flag of the South. This applies especially to the border states thing tough, sense there were soldiers from the border states fighting on both sides, and they deserve our respect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. The dispute between the British mother country and the colonists about settlement across the Appalachians predated the Civil War by about 100 years, given the title of the article you cite. But as for all the other points you're making, please plunge forward and make some changes of wording in relevant articles to reflect them. If someone ends up disagreeing with your wording, it can always be discussed, but the discussion would probably be a good one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You could debate weather that 80 years or so between the two wars makes much moral diffidence with the Indian land thing, but that really isn't my point. My point is simply that there is honest disagreement about the flag among people who are neither prejudiced against Black people, nor the South. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I partly misread your first sentence, I worded that last post more strongly then I otherwise would have. By presenting that link I didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing that the wars were about a century apart. I was actually trying to show that the line wasn't quite in the same place as the Appalachians themselves (Maine and most of present-day Vermont were east of the line). I didn't want to dedicate a post to saying that because it was beside my point, and not that relevant to this guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Segregation de-facto vs de-jure
The reason I said "de-facto" was that, by my understanding, the Supreme Court at first ruled that Segregation was constitutional on the basis of Septate but Equal, but reversed it's original ruling because the "Equal" part was never taken seriously. My understanding is that the races were de-jure equal (albeit septate), but de-facto not so much (to put is mildly). Segregation is not my strong suit, so maybe there's just something I'm missing here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Put simply the law, at the constitutional level no less, required equality (de-jure), but the law-enforcers didn't care and made things unequal (de-facto). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not quite accurate. We've since come to realize, for instance, that separate is inherently unequal.  Powers (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That too of course, but that's beside my point. By my understanding, ever sense that first ruling the races were supposed to be treated equality, even if the "not septate" came in the later ruling. The government obviously did not take that first ruling (and its de-jure equality) seriously, but that didn't magically mean that that black people weren't entitled to equal protection under the law. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Point is Black people are not second-class citizens, that first ruling (by my understanding) recognized that, and any attempt by politicians or law-enforcement to treat black people as second-class citizens was and is illegitimate. Doesn't mean it didn't happen all the time, but that by no means makes it legitimate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Separate but equal" was a legal fiction in violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment, designed to justify the otherwise illegal oppression of black people (and at the same time, the Court held that minimum wage and maximum hours laws violated the "due process under the law" for corporations). The guiding principle of this site is be fair, and pretending that Jim Crow laws didn't create de jure inequality is not being fair and not something I think anyone should dignify at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said the "equal" part was never taken seriously, that's more or less why the "separate" part had to go to be 14th amendment-complyment (don't misunderstand me, I wouldn't be any fan of segregation even if it truly were equal). I think we're just defining "de-jure" differently, because otherwise I'm not seeing where we disagree. The way I see it, any law, interpretation of a law, or actions of law-enforcement, that deprives black people, or any other group, of the right to equal perception is illegitimate; de-fecto not de-jure. Especially sense that first ruling recognized that the "equal" was required, even if it didn't do away with the "separate". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The way I see it would be calling it "de jure" that would be unfair and dignifying segregation, but again, I think the only reason we disagree on that is that we have different definitions of "de jure" and "de facto". The reason I added the "de facto" in the first place was that without it the guide came too close to comfort to saying that Black people's status as 2nd-class citizens was legal, and as you said it was "in violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment". Making Black people 2nd-class citizens wasn't otherwise illegal, it was illegal period, regardless of any fiction used to try to justify it. Put simply leaving out the "de facto" felt like it was almost dignifying segregation. You're probably not the only person who would misunderstand the "de facto" to have the complete opposite of its intended meaning tough, so probably best to leave it out. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there is one other area we disagreed on. I was giving the Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they intended to uphold the Constitution, and that it was the politicians who treated the "equal" part as legal fiction. You weren't giving them the Court the benefit of the doubt. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I give them no more benefit of doubt than Mr. Plessy and his association of New Orleans Creoles did in 1896, when they were utterly convinced they would win in court and shocked beyond measure that the Court, which had been taken over by Democratic appointees and made a purely political/racist decision, ruled against them. De jure means by law. De facto would mean that segregation was done by individuals but without the support of laws, arrests by police, and imprisonment by court orders. The fact that the court adopted a pretense of "separate but equal" is no more relevant than whatever rationalizations the National Party in South Africa used to justify Apartheid. We had no less apartheid in the South and much of the rest of the US 60 years ago than they had in South Africa. And yes, I certainly think the Court was violating the intent of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court determines what the law is, for better and for worse, so it was they, and not Mr. Plessy and his supporters, who carried the day until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.


 * I should say, I understand your argument perfectly and hope I don't sound disrespectful toward you, because that isn't my intent at all. Instead, my intent is to disrespect the completely discredited rationalization the Supreme Court made in their now long-overturned 1896 decision. Recognizing that it was a legal decision does not legitimize it, in my view; it just acknowledges a reality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether the Court intended to uphold the Constitution aside, the problem here is we have three "levels" but only two terms (de-facto and de-jury) to describe those three states: legitimate-law; illegitimate-law (meaning laws that are unconstitutional in this case), abuse of law-enforcement authority, and the like; and actions by individuals outside the government. The lesson here is be careful with your terms when covering things briefly, as our history sections do. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What the Supreme Court says the law is, the law is, period. There's no ambiguity there. People can dissent and say they're violating the Constitution, but they are the ones who have the power to enforce their interpretation, period. So that's de jure. It was wrong, but it was de jure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No disrespect taken, but I think you misunderstood part of my position. I don't believe that Wikivoyage should show our personal interpretation of the Constitution rather then that of the of the Supreme Court; that's not what I was trying to do. We may have much more tolerance of original research and lack of sourcing then Wikipedia, but that's taking it way too far. It also wouldn't usually make scene to, in historical contexts, show the court's present-day interpretation rather then the interpretation they had at the time; I wasn't trying to do that either.


 * What I was trying to say was: even by (my understanding of) the Separate but Equal interpretation the court had at the time, making black people second-class citizens is a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It doesn't matter why the court interpreted the clause the way they did (we can't be expected to read their minds), it doesn't even matter if the only reason they interpreted it that way was to provide an excuse for Separate and Unequal. That was their interpretation, that's what matters, yet the politicians (and some police) refused to take the "Equal" part seriously. Ignoring the "Equal" part was blatantly illegal and illegitimate (de-fecto not de-jure); as you said "[w]hat the Supreme Court says the law is, the law is", and the Supreme Court (whatever their reasons) said "Equal".


 * This is just for the record sense we both agree that the "de-facto" should be left out. I just don't want someone reading this and then thinking that I would go inserting my personal opinion where it isn't warranted, or something. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You think that we should take a Supreme Court decision with mind-reelingly warped rationalizations that was written by racists literally. I don't. We will not agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Awful banner
This has got to be one of the worst and least representative banners out there. A gray, hazy, smoggy city from a distance does not give any idea of what this region has to offer. I almost think the default banner would be better since it at least doesn't give a negative impression. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better banner here? Texugo (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a specific one, off-hand, but some ideas that come to mind are an antebellum plantation mansion in a state like Louisiana, antebellum city houses in places like Charleston, SC or Savannah, GA, or perhaps a scene with Spanish moss or/and magnolia trees. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly difficult to find. =(  Powers (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes me look like I'm just lazy to look for one, but I just came across this again, and found the banner so awful, and then was surprised to see that I'd already started this conversation. Really, it's awful. The default banner is better than this. At least it's not misleading people to think that the whole South of the US is some weird smoggy mess. Changing this now. Texugo (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the weird smoggy thing from wikidata. Let's find something reasonable. Texugo (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New banner is up! ϒpsilon (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Loads better. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and states' rights
I hate to quibble but while [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_%28United_States_of_America%29&diff=2723249&oldid=2721229 this edit] is an improvement over [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=South_(United_States_of_America)&diff=prev&oldid=2721229 the text I removed], I think it still overstates the case. It seems to me that the only reason the Southern states were interested in states' rights was because they wanted the autonomy to continue taking advantage of their slave-based economy. Powers (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is true that that American Civil War was fought mostly about slavery, it wasn't fought only about slavery. The South was opposed to a lot more of what the Whig/Republican Lincoln represented than just free soil.  If you look at the classic example of state's rights, Calhoun's Nullification Doctrine, you find that it was written not in response to slavery, but to a high tariff.   The South was also opposed to the North foisting industrialization on them. Pur ple back pack  89    23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just can't agree. The nullification issue, for instance, simmered for many years before the Civil War, but it was purely a political issue. The only thing that precipitated actual hostilities was the election of Lincoln, whose Republican Party threatened to disallow the expansion of slavery. Powers (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Powers, I think that point of view oversimplifies things. BTW, have you seen this clip from the Simpsons?  It summarizes our dichotomy. Pur ple back pack  89    18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Simplification is good when it comes to giving brief overviews. The inclusion of mere political differences like the tariff issue obscures the real reason why shots were fired. It wasn't because of tariffs; it's because the South feared for the continuance of their very way of life. Powers (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Powers, but I won't make a Federal case of it. People can always do their own research and draw their own conclusions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well nobody in the South was crying "states rights" when they forced the Northern free states to catch their fugitive slaves for them. And I don't hear to many people clamoring for states rights now when it comes to gay marriage or legal hemp/marijuana/pot/whatever you wanna call it. That being said: Why was the tariff important in the first place? The Northern states wanted to protect their young industry from cheap British imports, whereas the South - lacking any kind of industry - wanted cheap British industrial products in exchange for their slave produced cotton. Thus the tariff issue is in many ways related to the slavery issue and ceased to be an issue after 1865. And it is also worth noting, that the vast majority of people in the North weren't against slavery for moral reasons, or because they thought slaves were equal to free white citizens (although some abolitionists may well have thought so), but because of economic and political reasons (thanks to the 3/5s compromise a Southern white voter had more representation than a northern white voter - ironically this became even worse after the slaves gained their freedom but lost their voting rights thanks to Jim Crow). And I think it is fair to say that the very term "states rights" is loaded and kind of dog whistle politics, as many white southern racists know it to mean either segregation or slavery, depending on the time period. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I would certainly support a consensus on this basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm going to lose this one, ain't I? Though I would take issue with your "no state's rights anymore", Hobbitschuster.  There have been attempts in conservative states recently to nullify court rulings on gay marriage. Pur ple back pack  89    15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Southern conservatives have previously supported Federal laws and constitutional amendments to outlaw same-sex marriage and abortion nationwide, when they thought they could get enough support for them. The retreat to "states' rights" on these questions is tactical and not principled, with very few exceptions (probably including Ron Paul). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both worthwhile banners. The new one is hampered by haze, though, and doesn't strike me as a great composition, beyond the steamboat, which itself is cut off at the top. Keeping in mind that these banners represent entirely different views of what the South is, I vote to retain the current image, which is of a beautiful, restful rural scene. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the new banner is a significant improvement. I like the current one better. Danapit (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Different views of the south, but the original is so much nicer as a picture. I could imagine a different shot of a steamboat as a banner, but really not this grey and cutoff image. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the second better, but before winning it would need a more lively picture, so current for now. Syced (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

down up and other directions
I think somewhere in the "by bus" section there are a lot of mentions of down and horizontal as directions. Should we change that to North South and other more geographic terms? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

New title?
The title looks very awkward, with four bracketed words. Shall we call the article southern United States instead? /Yvwv (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The South (notice the "magical capitals") is not the same as the southern US - the latter would include states like California that never seceded, because they are undoubtedly in the south in a geographical sense. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we're using pure directions, this would be "Southeastern United States", but that really wouldn't be so instructive for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the American South? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 11:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "American South" is an improvement on the current title. "Southeastern United States" is becoming more common in Florida with reference to the state and its neighbors, but Florida, of course, isn't within our South region! I don't see why The South couldn't be the title of the region, as I'm not sure the use of the definite article is common when referring to the direction or a region to the south of another. I think anyone searching "The South" is probably looking for the southern United States.
 * I can't say I've heard California be described as being in the "southern United States," so I don't rule that out as a title, but my favorite would be The South, followed by Southern United States, followed by American South, followed by the current title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "The South" seems best. If we do that, though, I think Gambia has to be The Gambia. So I say, let's make both of those changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it could potentially be confusing for people not from the U.S. "The South" may refer to the south of England for someone from there, or perhaps southern Vietnam to someone from there. The dog2 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. So then Southern U.S.. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. That could also be ambiguous since California is geographically southern, but definitely does not fall under the "Southern" cultural umbrella. As unwieldy as it is, I think keeping the status quo may be the best compromise to avoid all these potential ambiguities. The dog2 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the least bit ambiguous. Southern California is not the South, and how is Southern U.S. more ambiguous than South (United States of America)? It's not; it's just shorter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, if you're absolutely sure that "Southern United States" would not be taken to mean California, then I won't object to changing it to that name. The dog2 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be more likely to than the current name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose any title that simply just said "South" or "The South" – South is a cardinal point that could be almost anywhere that is, well, south. Most non-US readers wouldn't immediately associate the term "South" with this region, or only be able to with some context. I'm sorry to break it to you SelfieCity, but in regards to I think anyone searching "The South" is probably looking for the southern United States., without mention of the US in its name in some form is a blatant example of ethnocentrism, because your statement is only true in the United States. Also, as a continuation of The dog2's point, when I was in India, when most referred to "the south", they often referred to South India, which has a way larger population than the American South.
 * As for what this should be renamed to, I would prefer "American South" to prevent any ambiguity. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 07:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "Southern U.S." is more specific, if you're concerned about people being confused. Someone might think "American South" means South America, I suppose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For a bit of a perspective from someone who's not from the US, most people outside the US would either call it the "US South" or the "American South" hence my suggestions. The reason I'm not a fan of "Southern US" or "Southern U.S." is because as HS mentioned, it can also refer to California and some other states that we do not categorize as part of the South. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 08:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought. "Southern U.S." could in theory just be a more generic term referring to the southern half of the contiguous U.S., in which case it would include California, but exclude some of the more northern states of the South like Kentucky or Virginia. On the other hand, if you say "American South" or "U.S. South", I know exactly what it refers to. As for the potential ambiguity of "American South", I think a English speaker will know exactly what that refers to given the most common English usage of the term "American", but I can understand the concern that it would be confusing to Spanish or Portuguese speakers. The dog2 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Southern United States seems like the best bet from the above discussion, if we don't want The South for the stated reasons. I've never heard of California being put in the Southern United States bracket, nor Arizona or Nevada. These states are in the West - they might be in the southern half of the country if you drew a line through the middle from east to west, but that doesn't make them part of the Southern region which is widely understood to include the Deep South, plus surrounding states. We don't have to do things like WP does them, but their terminology frequently indicates common usage, and WP's article for Southern United States includes roughly the same states included in this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrasings "American South" and "U.S. South" don't feel idiomatic to me, or I think to other Americans, but "Southern U.S." does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "American South" is idiomatic, though to my ear it has a slightly literary or old-timey feel. "Southern U.S." is also idiomatic but sounds vaguely bureaucratic to me. I agree that "U.S. South" is not very idiomatic. I think either "American South" or "Southern United States" would make a good title for this article; my slight preference is "American South". —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Y'all
I'd like to discuss these points:

''It is used frequently in casual conversation, but is usually excluded from formal speech. Though you might hear the word frequently, it is best to be careful if you attempt using it when visiting as you may appear mildly condescending toward the locals.''

What types of formal speech is it "usually excluded from"? I didn't think it was, as Southern politicians and preachers use it. Who doesn't use it in what situation, and what would they substitute for it? Also, I think what's condescending is to imitate the accent. I'm a New Yorker and after spending a summer in Greensboro many years ago, I adopted "you all" as part of my everyday speech, but I don't say it in any accent other than my usual fairly mild New York accent. I doubt I've offended anyone by saying "How are you all doin'?" or "What do you all want to do?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about formal speech, but as for visitors using the word "y'all", I agree that that seems unlikely to cause offense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It might sound unusual to hear someone with, say, a British accent use "y'all", but it would be completely acceptable. It would only cause offense if you deliberately say it in a way that's meant to sound mocking, but you can do that with almost anything.
 * I think we can just omit the comment about "formal speech". Saying that it's used in casual conversation already implies that it's less suitable for formal speech. Omitting that leaves it deliberately vague, which I think is accurate; there are times when it might be acceptable and times when it might not. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll make the edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Spanish
In light of this edit, to make it short, "vosotros" does not exist in Latin American Spanish. It may be understood, but it sounds about as quaint as "thou" does to modern English speakers and it is indeed virtually only found in the bible or texts from Spain. If addressing a group, Latin American Spanish always uses "ustedes". Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not quite so, Hobbit. In Uruguay and Argentina, "vosotros" is used a lot. For reference, I'll copy here from the "Rioplatense Spanish" article in Wikipedia: "One of the features of the Argentine and Uruguayan speaking style is the voseo: the usage of the pronoun vos for the second person singular, instead of tú. In other Spanish-speaking regions where voseo is used, such as in Chile and Colombia, the use of voseo has at times been considered a nonstandard lower speaking style; whereas in Argentina and Uruguay it is standard." When studying Spanish in Brazil, this topic is not lightly emphasized. Ibaman (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Vos" and "vosotros", though etymologically related, are different words, with different meanings, different verb conjugations, and different possessive and object pronouns. What Hobbitschuster said is correct. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "vos" is second person singular. "Vosotros" is second person plural. They are to each other as "thou" is to "y'all". Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about Spanish. If it's really important to make the distinction, we can use "in Spain". Using parentheses feels weird to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I wanted to say in some way that vosotros only exists in certain dialects of Spanish... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? This article is not for teaching people Spanish. If the example is too problematic, remove it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we change "vosotros" to "vosotros"/"ustedes"? That would cover both Iberian and Latin American Spanish. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ustedes is also the polite plural form although in Latin America the distinction has been lost in the plural (not in the singular though) Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. Since modern English doesn't have a T-V distinction, I think it won't hurt to gloss over that bit of complexity in this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)