text:
Wildlife crossing

Wildlife crossings are structures that allow animals to cross human-made barriers safely. Wildlife crossings may include underpass tunnels or wildlife tunnels, viaducts, and overpasses or green bridges (mainly for large or herd-type animals); amphibian tunnels; fish ladders; canopy bridges (especially for monkeys and squirrels); tunnels and culverts (for small mammals such as otters, hedgehogs, and badgers); and green roofs (for butterflies and birds).

Wildlife crossings are a practice in habitat conservation, allowing connections or reconnections between habitats, combating habitat fragmentation. They also assist in avoiding collisions between vehicles and animals, which in addition to killing or injuring wildlife may cause injury or death to humans and property damage.

Similar structures can be used for domesticated animals, such as cattle creeps.

Roads and habitat fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation occurs when human-made barriers such as roads, railroads, canals, electric power lines, and pipelines penetrate and divide wildlife habitat. Of these, roads have the most widespread and detrimental effects. Scientists estimate that the system of roads in the United States affects the ecology of at least one-fifth of the land area of the country. For many years ecologists and conservationists have documented the adverse relationship between roads and wildlife, and identify four ways that roads and traffic detrimentally affect wildlife populations: (1) they decrease habitat amount and quality, (2) they increase mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions (road kill), (3) they prevent access to resources on the other side of the road, and (4) they subdivide wildlife populations into smaller and more vulnerable sub-populations (fragmentation). Habitat fragmentation can lead to extinction or extirpation if a population's gene pool is restricted enough.

The first three effects (loss of habitat, road kill, and isolation from resources) exert pressure on various animal populations by reducing available resources and directly killing individuals in a population. For instance, found that road kills do not pose a significant threat to healthy populations but can be devastating to small, shrinking, or threatened populations. Road mortality has significantly affected a number of prominent species in the United States, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi), and black bears (Ursus americanus). In addition, habitat loss can be direct, if habitat is destroyed to make room for a road, or indirect, if habitat quality close to roads is compromised due to emissions from the roads (e.g. noise, light, runoff, pollution, etc.). Finally, species that are unable to migrate across roads to reach resources such as food, shelter and mates will experience reduced reproductive and survival rates, which can compromise population viability.

In addition to the first three factors, numerous studies have shown that the construction and use of roads is a direct source of habitat fragmentation. As mentioned above, populations surrounded by roads are less likely to receive immigrants from other habitats and as a result, they suffer from a lack of genetic diversity. These small populations are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to demographic, genetic, and environmental stochasticity because they do not contain enough alleles to adapt to new selective pressures such as changes in temperature, habitat, and food availability.

The relationship between roads and habitat fragmentation is well documented. One study found that roads contribute more to fragmentation in forest habitats than clear cuts. Another study concluded that road fragmentation of formerly contiguous forest in eastern North America is the primary cause for the decline of forest bird species and has also significantly harmed small mammals, insects, and reptiles in the United States. After years of research, biologists agree that roads and traffic lead to habitat fragmentation, isolation and road kill, all of which combine to significantly compromise the viability of wildlife populations throughout the world.

Wildlife-vehicle collisions
Wildlife-vehicle collisions have a significant cost for human populations because collisions damage property and injure and kill passengers and drivers. estimated the number of collisions with ungulates in traffic in Europe at 507,000 per year, resulting in 300 people killed, 30,000 injured, and property damage exceeding $1 billion. In parallel, 1.5 million traffic accidents involving deer in the United States cause an estimated $1.1 billion in vehicle damage each year. On a larger scale, research indicates that wildlife-vehicle collisions in the United States result in 29,000 injuries and more than 200 fatalities per year.

The conservation issues associated with roads (wildlife mortality and habitat fragmentation) coupled with the substantial human and economic costs resulting from wildlife-vehicle collisions have caused scientists, engineers, and transportation authorities to consider a number of mitigation tools for reducing the conflict between roads and wildlife. Of the currently available options, structures known as wildlife crossings have been the most successful at reducing both habitat fragmentation and wildlife-vehicle collisions caused by roads.

Wildlife crossings are structural passages beneath or above roadways that are designed to facilitate safe wildlife movement across roadways. In recent years, conservation biologists and wildlife managers have advocated wildlife crossings coupled with roadside fencing as a way to increase road permeability and habitat connectivity while decreasing wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife crossing is the umbrella term encompassing underpasses, overpasses, ecoducts, green bridges, amphibian/small mammal tunnels, and wildlife viaducts. All of these structures are designed to provide semi-natural corridors above and below roads so that animals can safely cross without endangering themselves and motorists.

History
Written reports of rough fish ladders date to 17th-century France, where bundles of branches were used to create steps in steep channels to bypass obstructions. A version was patented in 1837 by Richard McFarlan of Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada, who designed a fishway to bypass a dam at his water-powered lumber mill. In 1880, the first fish ladder was built in Rhode Island, United States, on the Pawtuxet Falls Dam. As the Industrial Age advanced, dams and other river obstructions became larger and more common, leading to the need for effective fish by-passes.

The first overland wildlife crossings were constructed in France during the 1950s. European countries including the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and France have been using various crossing structures to reduce the conflict between wildlife and roads for several decades and use a variety of overpasses and underpasses to protect and re-establish wildlife such as: amphibians, badgers, ungulates, invertebrates, and other small mammals.

The Humane Society of the United States reported in 2007 that the more than 600 tunnels installed under major and minor roads in the Netherlands have helped to substantially increase population levels of the endangered European badger. The longest "ecoduct" overpass, Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailoo, in the Netherlands, runs 800 meters and spans a highway, railway and golf course.

Wildlife crossings are becoming increasingly common in Canada and the United States. Recognizable wildlife crossings are found in Banff National Park in Alberta, where vegetated overpasses provide safe passage over the Trans-Canada Highway for bears, moose, deer, wolves, elk, and many other species. The 24 wildlife crossings in Banff were constructed as part of a road improvement project in 1978. In the United States, thousands of wildlife crossings have been built in the past 30 years, including culverts, bridges, and overpasses. These have been used to protect mountain goats in Montana, spotted salamanders in Massachusetts, bighorn sheep in Colorado, desert tortoises in California, and endangered Florida panthers in Florida. The Henry Street salamander tunnels are tunnels under Henry Street in North Amherst, Massachusetts: they help salamanders cross Henry Street to get to vernal pools that the salamanders use for breeding.

The first wildlife crossing in the Canadian province of Ontario was built in 2010, along Ontario Highway 69 between Sudbury and Killarney, as part of the route's ongoing freeway conversion.

Costs and benefits
The benefits derived from constructing wildlife crossings to extend wildlife migration corridors over and under major roads appear to outweigh the costs of construction and maintenance. One study estimates that adding wildlife crossings to a road project is a 7–8% increase in the total cost of the project. Theoretically, the monetary costs associated with constructing and maintaining wildlife crossings in ecologically important areas are trumped by the benefits associated with protecting wildlife populations, reducing property damage to vehicles, and saving the lives of drivers and passengers by reducing the number of collisions caused by wildlife.

A study completed for the Virginia Department of Transportation estimated that underpasses for wildlife become cost effective, in terms of property damage, when they prevent between 2.6 and 9.2 deer-vehicle collisions per year, depending on the cost of the underpass. Approximately 300 deer crossed through the underpasses in the year the study took place.

Effectiveness
A number of studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of wildlife corridors at providing habitat connectivity (by providing viable migration corridors) and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. The effectiveness of these structures appears to be highly site-specific (due to differences in location, structure, species, habitat, etc.) but crossings have been beneficial to a number of species in a variety of locations.

Banff National Park
Banff National Park offers one of the best opportunities to study the effectiveness of wildlife crossings because the park contains a wide variety of species and is bisected by the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH), a large commercial road. To reduce the effects of the four-lane TCH, 24 wildlife crossings (22 underpasses and two overpasses) were built to ensure habitat connectivity and protect motorists. In 1996, Parks Canada developed a contract with university researchers to assess the effectiveness of the crossings. Subsequently, a number of publications have analyzed the crossings' effect on various species and overall wildlife mortality (see, , and ).

Using a variety of techniques to monitor the crossings over the last 25 years, scientists report that 10 species of large mammals (including deer, elk, black bear, grizzly bear, mountain lion, wolf, moose, and coyote) have used the 24 crossings in Banff a total of 84,000 times as of January 2007. The research also identified a "learning curve" such that animals need time to acclimate to the structures before they feel comfortable using them. For example, grizzly bear crossings increased from seven in 1996 to more than 100 in 2006, although the actual number of individual bears using the structures remained constant over this time at between two and four bears (Parks Canada, unpublished results). A similar set of observations was made for wolves, with crossings increasing from two to approximately 140 over the same 10-year period. However, in this case the actual number of wolves in the packs using the crossings increased dramatically, from a low of two up to a high of over 20 individuals.

reported that the use of wildlife crossings and fencing reduced traffic-induced mortality of large ungulates on the TCH by more than 80 percent. Recent analysis for carnivores showed results were not as positive however, with bear mortality increasing by an average of 116 percent in direct parallel to an equal doubling of traffic volumes on the highway, clearly showing no effect of fencing to reduce bear mortality (Hallstrom, Clevenger, Maher and Whittington, in prep). Research on the crossings in Banff has thus shown mixed value of wildlife crossings depending on the species in question.

Parks Canada is currently planning to build 17 additional crossing structures across the TCH to increase driver safety near the hamlet of Lake Louise. Lack of effectiveness of standard fencing in reducing bear mortality demonstrates that additional measures such as wire 'T-caps' on the fence may be needed for fencing to mitigate effectively for bears (Hallstrom, Clevenger, Maher and Whittington, in prep).

Collier and Lee Counties in Florida
Twenty-four wildlife crossings (highway underpasses) and 12 bridges modified for wildlife have been constructed along a 40-mile stretch of Interstate 75 in Collier and Lee Counties in Florida. These crossings are specifically designed to target and protect the endangered Florida panther, a subspecies of cougar found in the Southeastern United States. Scientists estimate that there are only 80–100 Florida panthers alive in the wild, which makes them one of the most endangered large mammals in North America. The Florida panther is particularly vulnerable to wildlife-vehicle collisions, which claimed 11 panthers in 2006 and 14 in 2007.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has used a number of mitigation tools in an effort to protect Florida panthers and the combination of wildlife crossings and fences have proven the most effective. As of 2007, no panthers have been killed in areas equipped with continuous fencing and wildlife crossings and the FWC is planning to construct many more crossing structures in the future. The underpasses on I-75 also appeared to benefit bobcats, deer, and raccoons by significantly reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions along the interstate.

Southern California
Wildlife crossings have also been important for protecting biodiversity in several areas of southern California. In San Bernardino County, biologists have erected fences along State Route 58 to complement underpasses (culverts) that are being used by the threatened desert tortoise. Tortoise deaths on the highway declined by 93% during the first four years after the introduction of the fences, proving that even makeshift wildlife crossings (storm-drainage culverts in this case) have the ability to increase highway permeability and protect sensitive species. Studies by and  report that underpasses in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties have drawn significant use from a variety of species including bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, mule deer, and long-tailed weasels. These results could be extremely important for wildlife conservation efforts in the region's Puente Hills and Chino Hills links, which have been increasingly fragmented by road construction. Los Angeles County's first wildlife-purpose built underpass is at Harbor Boulevard. It was built in partnership between Los Angeles County, California State Parks and the Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority.

Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, also known as Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing, in Agoura Hills, California, will be one of the largest overpasses in the United States after its stated completion in 2024.

Ecoducts, Netherlands
The Netherlands has over 66 wildlife crossings (overpasses and ecoducts) that have been used to protect the endangered European badger, as well as populations of wild boar, red deer, and roe deer. As of 2012, the Veluwe, 1000 km2 of woods, heathland and drifting sands, the largest lowland nature area in North Western Europe, contains nine ecoducts, 50 meters wide on average, that are used to shuttle wildlife across highways that transect the Veluwe. The first two ecoducts on the Veluwe were built in 1988 across the A50 when the highway was constructed. Five of the other ecoducts on the Veluwe were built across existing highways, one was built across a two lane provincial road. The two ecoducts across the A50 were used by nearly 5,000 deer and wild boar during a one-year period.

The Netherlands also boasts the world's longest ecoduct-wildlife overpass called the Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailoo (sand quarry nature bridge at Crailo). The massive structure, completed in 2006, is 50 meters wide and over 800 meters long and spans a railway line, business park, roadway, and sports complex. Monitoring is currently underway to examine the effectiveness of this innovative project combining wildlife protection with urban development. The oldest wildlife passage is Zeist West - A 28, opened in 1988.

Slaty Creek Wildlife Underpass, Calder Freeway, Black Forest, Australia
Another case study of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings comes from an underpass built to minimize the ecological effect of the Calder Freeway as it travels through the Black Forest in Victoria, Australia. In 1997, the Victorian Government Roads Corporation built Slaty Creek wildlife underpass at a cost of $3 million. Scientists used 14 different techniques to monitor the underpass for 12 months in order to determine the abundance and diversity of species using the underpass. During the 12-month period, 79 species of fauna were detected in the underpass (compared with 116 species detected in the surrounding forest) including amphibians, bats, birds, koalas, wombats, gliders, reptiles, and kangaroos. The results indicate that the underpass could be useful to a wide array of species but the authors suggest that Slaty Creek could be improved by enhanced design and maintenance of fencing to minimise road kill along the Calder Freeway and by attempting to exclude introduced predators such as cats and foxes from the area.

I-70 Vail Pass, Colorado
In 2005, area environmental groups floated the idea of a wildlife overpass west of Vail Pass. In 2010, ARC Solutions – an interdisciplinary partnership – initiated the International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition for a wildlife crossing over Interstate 70 in the high country west of Denver, Colorado; designers had to account for challenges unique to the area, including snow and severe weather, high elevation and steep grades, a six-lane roadway, a bike path, and high traffic volumes, as well as multiple species of wildlife, including lynx.

After receiving 36 submissions from nine countries, a jury of international experts in landscape architecture, engineering, architecture, ecology and transportation selected five finalists in November 2010 to further develop their conceptual designs for a wildlife crossing structure. In January 2011, the team led by HNTB with Michael Van Valkenburgh & Associates (New York) were selected as the winners. The design features a single 100 m (328 ft) concrete span across the highway that is planted with a variety of vegetation types, including a pine-tree forest and meadow grasses, to attract different species to cross. A modular precast concrete design means that much of the bridge can be constructed offsite and moved into place.

In late 2020, Summit County Safe Passages released the "I-70 East Vail Pass Wildlife Crossings Feasibility Study" for a wildlife overpass.

I-90 near Snoqualmie Pass
In 2005, the Washington State Department of Transportation received approval to begin a 15 mile safety improvement project through the Snoqualmie Pass area along the Interstate 90 corridor from Hyak to Easton, through the Central Cascades and Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area, including a series of wildlife crossings. Wildlife habitat on either side of I-90 will be reconnected with the installation of new bridges and culverts, protecting both wildlife and the traveling public. The construction of the wildlife overcrossing began in 2015 and was completed in late 2019. Work to restore habitat on the wildlife bridge over I-90 has continued throughout 2020, with 90,000 trees and shrubs planted on the overcrossing.

Interstate 80 in Parleys Canyon
In 2018, the Utah Department of Transportation announced a wildlife crossing over Interstate 80 in Parleys Canyon. The project was completed in early 2019 and measures 350 feet long by 50 feet wide. On November 19, 2020, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources released a video showing animals using the overpass. It is currently the only wildlife overpass in the state, though Utah has more than 50 wildlife underpasses.

Robert L.B. Tobin Land Bridge
On December 11, 2020, the Robert L.B. Tobin Land Bridge opened over Wurzbach Parkway in San Antonio, Texas' Phil Hardberger Park. The project cost $23 million and is designed for both wildlife and pedestrians. Construction began on November 26, 2018, originally expected to end in April 2020, and opened in December 2020. At 189 feet long and 150 feet wide, it was the largest wildlife bridge in the United States when it was constructed.

Canopy Bridge in Anamalai Tiger Reserve
Many endangered lion-tailed macaques used to be killed while crossing the highway at Puduthotam in Valparai, South India. Thanks to the efforts of NGOs and the forest department, several canopy bridges were installed, connecting trees on either side of the road. This helped to lower the numbers of lion-tailed macaques killed in the region. The Environment Conservation Group had initiated a national mission to increase awareness on the importance of adopting roadkill mitigation methods through their mission PATH traveling more than 17,000 km across 22 states.

title: Wildlife crossing


text:
Gmina Łapy

Gmina Łapy is an urban-rural gmina (administrative district) in Białystok County, Podlaskie Voivodeship, in north-eastern Poland. Its seat is the town of Łapy, which lies approximately 25 km south-west of the regional capital Białystok.

The gmina covers an area of 127.57 km2, and as of 2006 its total population is 23,132 (out of which the population of Łapy amounts to 16,583, and the population of the rural part of the gmina is 6,549).

Villages
Apart from the town of Łapy, Gmina Łapy contains the villages and settlements of Bokiny, Daniłowo Duże, Daniłowo Małe, Gąsówka-Oleksin, Gąsówka-Osse, Gąsówka-Skwarki, Gąsówka-Somachy, Łapy-Dębowina, Łapy-Kołpaki, Łapy-Korczaki, Łapy-Łynki, Łapy-Pluśniaki, Łapy-Szołajdy, Nowa Łupianka, Płonka Kościelna, Płonka-Kozły, Płonka-Matyski, Płonka-Strumianka, Roszki-Włodki, Roszki-Wodźki, Stara Gąsówka, Stara Łupianka, Uhowo and Wólka Waniewska.

Neighbouring gminas
Gmina Łapy is bordered by the gminas of Choroszcz, Poświętne, Sokoły, Suraż and Turośń Kościelna.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gmina Łapy


text: User talk:68.77.32.117

title: User talk:68.77.32.117


text:
Table cell

A table cell is one grouping within a chart table used for storing information or data. Cells are grouped horizontally (rows of cells) and vertically (columns of cells). Each cell contains information relating to the combination of the row and column headings it is collinear with. In software design, table cells are a key component in HTML and webpage building, and it is part of the HTML source:

Colspan and rowspan
Every row must have the same number of table data cells, occasionally table data cells have to span more than one column or row. In this case the tags colspan and/or rowspan are used - where they are set to a number.

title: Table cell


text: User talk:68.37.50.206

title: User talk:68.37.50.206


text:
Weighted geometric mean

In statistics, the weighted geometric mean is a generalization of the geometric mean using the weighted arithmetic mean.

Given a sample $$x=(x_1,x_2\dots,x_n)$$ and weights $$w=(w_1, w_2,\dots,w_n)$$, it is calculated as:

 * $$ \bar{x} = \left(\prod_{i=1}^n x_i^{w_i}\right)^{1 / \sum_{i=1}^n w_i} = \quad \exp \left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n w_i \ln x_i}{\sum_{i=1}^n w_i \quad} \right) $$

The second form above illustrates that the logarithm of the geometric mean is the weighted arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual values. If all the weights are equal, the weighted geometric mean simplifies to the ordinary unweighted geometric mean.

title: Weighted geometric mean


text:
Talk:Deep South

Florida
Jacksonville, Florida should be included in the MSA's. This would make Jacksonville, located 10 miles from the Georgia border, one of four MSA in the Deep South with a population of over one million residents. Jacksonville is a historic deep south city, and labels itself "The Bold New City of the South."

Vapid References
Author is sidestepping proper journalism by 'faking' citations that do not lead to authentic references but to more - what may not be called otherwise - than spin and propaganda. Cleanup necessitated.

Previous format misleading
Previously I had posted a lengthy explanation of why I thought the article was misleading. However, after further reflection, I was able to make some small changes that addressed most of my concerns. There does seem to have been a problem with an earlier editor drawing on a source to define "Deep South" that used the "Deep South" label as a sort of arbitrary category, so that states were included or excluded for reasons that have little to do with the original meaning of the term. I suspect there are remnants of that in the article, but I've doctored it enough that I believe it is essentially accurate now. Ftjrwrites (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

view?
nothing about the reputation (whether fair or not) the deep south has? Saccerzd 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

optional guidelines
For optional guidelines on contributing see WikiProject U.S. regions

politics
"In presidential elections, the Deep South has tended to vote for the Republican candidate since 1964, the most notable exception being the third party campaign of governor of Alabama George Wallace in 1968." I think this is innacurate. This ignores Jimmy Carter in 1976. Bill Clinton also carried most of the "Deep South" in 1992, and a smaller part in 1996. Overall, I think it is too weak to categorize as a trend (although wait 20 years and it will probably be a safe call). State legislatures in the "Deep South" are generally dominated by Democrats, often with a Dem:Rep ratio of 2:1. The governors of these states tend to alternate between Democrat and Republican. The safest characterization is to say that Republicans, who had been shut out since the civil war, became a competitive force in the Deep South in the second half of the 20th century." Mauvila 01:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that. Before my edit, it just said "the deep south tends to vote for the republican candidate in presidential elections", with no qualification or time period, which seemed pretty ludicrous to me.  It may be well be better gone altogether.  Of course, being from Tennessee (not really Deep South, except maybe West Tennessee), where the state legislature ratio is more like 1.15:1 or 1.1:1, it would be easy to lose perspective.  That's where I think that things will really change.  I don't think that there'll be one Southern state where there is a 2:1 D:R ratio in the South in 20 years, even though in most it's been Democratic majorities for 130 years since the end of Reconstruction.  Unless there is another hugely popular Southern candidate, it's hard to see the Democratic Party carrying more than one or two Southern states within the next twenty years.  Rlquall 03:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * [[image:ElectoralCollege1976-Large.png|thumb|left|350px|1976 Presidential electoral votes by state. (Red = Democratic)]]Dystopos 5 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * Allow me to expand on what I tried to say 2 years ago, in reference to "since the 1964 presidential election the Deep South has tended to vote for the Republican candidate." Here are the electoral votes from the AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC & TN:

Yr    R     D 1964  47   44 1968   45    0   (46 Ind) 1972  93    0 1976    0   92 1980   80   12 1984   97  145 1988   97   10 1992   39   63 1996   51   51 2000  102    0 2004  106    0 2008   64   42
 * So it looks to me like over the course of the 12 elections since 1964, Republicans dominated the electoral college 6 times. Democrats dominated once. The vote was split R-D 4 times and R-I once. And, of course, these were almost all "all or nothing" votes, not representative of the significant minority votes. Perhaps its time to expand upon our generalizations and look at more direct party affiliation and direct voting data. --Dystopos 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 19 November 2008)

role of racism. If it is really true that shift from Dem to GOP was due to civil rights, shouldn't there be a more explicit note that this implies racism ? ON the other hand, perhpas the civil rights shift is part of a broader thing, eg you realy have a huge cultural divide between the liberal NY/MA/CA type areas and the south, and the civil rights act served as a catalyst.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (being from boston, where there is a famous picture of an american flag being used to spear someone durign busing riots, we know that racism ain't just in the south)

 * The post-WW2 era was the catalyst for many changes in the Deep South. One of these was the erosion of the one-party Democratic solidarity, and the consequent freeing of the electorate to develop the two-party apparatus which generally characterizes the rest of the country.  It is, however, just one of many aspects of modernity which have incrementally appeared in the Deep South and which are interrelated.  Segregation, for example, was incompatible with economic development.  Consider the impossibility, if you are a contractor, of trying to employ the best workers to build a stadium where White and Black athletes will both play and both races will buy tickets, if you have to house and feed your crews separately.  One-party states belong in dictatorships.  The rise of a competitive two-party political behavior is one of the most profound and pronounced demographic changes in the Deep South.  Richard David Ramsey 20:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure there is a two-party system in the South, and it seems to me that the region is becoming more rather than less Republican over time. Several things you need to factor in; first, the vast majority of the Democratic votes in the South come from the black vote, which goes Democratic in the hope of gaining protection from the threat (real or imagined) of the white majority.  The white majority that dominates the South is clearly Republican.
 * Second, a lot of the Democratic clout is simply the Democratic institution taking a long time to die. The Dems were the ruling party in the South for two hundred years, and many of the people who grew up in that era are still alive today; you can't expect such a life-altering switch to occur overnight.  But more and more of these people are dying off, leaving room for new generations who grew up knowing the Republicans as the defenders of Southern values against the hedonistic, unpatriotic, secular culture of the North - thus paving the way for a complete one-party system within a generation, like the old one but with the GOP in charge instead of the Dems.
 * Finally, the focal point of Southern identity since the seventies has shifted from race to religion; conservative Protestant (preferably Southern Baptist) identity politics, violently opposed to the religious diversity and liberalism in other parts of the country. And the religious right, ie the Republican Party, happens to be attached at the hip with white Southern theology.  I could see them losing influence in the Midwest, the Southwest and the Far West as time goes by, maybe also in fringe states like Virginia (getting bluer), Texas (immigration) or Florida (decline of the right-wing in Cuban-American politics).  In the Deep South?  Not for at least another hundred years, and not without a cultural revolution even more profound than the civil rights movement. 147.9.224.127 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Which states?
The image used in this article shows states that not not match any of the lists given in the text of the article. In particular, nowhere in the text is South Carolina described as a "Deep South" state, but it's marked in red on the map. This is somewhat confusing. I would consider South Carolina to be a properly not-at-all-borderline Southern state (as opposed to, say, Kentucky and most of Florida), but I'm only a Southerner by descent and not totally aware of the distinctions. Perhaps the point is that it's meant to give you some kind of idea but that exact distinctions vary? -Aranel ("Sarah ") 23:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If we mean by "deep South" the Cotton Belt, then the map is pretty accurate.Ezratrumpet 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Query - I'd like to change the phrase that claims that the Miami area is "completely free of any Southern cultural influence." This seems unlikely given the pervasiveness of ethnic foods that are traditionally "Southern." It also seems unlikely that any area of the United States could totally escape the influence of any other American culture. I know anyone can edit - but I'd like to bounce it off of those of you who have more invested in this page than I do. Thoughts? Ezratrumpet 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed the phrase. Ezratrumpet 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: Florida is more "Old South" than many may think.  North Florida is a given, but the Big Bend and Southwest parts of the state still are largely Old South.  Areas south of Miami are also very Southern, as is most of the coast north of Palm Beach.

 * There are large pockets of northerners, primarily in Tampa/St. Pete, but no one would confuse those cities with anything up north.--Thresher 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're no doubt right, and it would help not to have to rely on original research for whatever we end up saying about it. --Dystopos 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment: Why is Arkansas being called a border state?  If anything, Arkansas is part of the Deep South, not a border state.  As a resident I should know.  Any state that borders Louisiana is not a border state.  It's an insult to cast Arkansas in the same category of being as Southern as Kentucky.  All of Arkansas culture, history, and geography point to be categorized in the Deep South.  Need I remind you of governor Orval Faubus and the Central High School Crisis?  Or that Arkansas was one of the only states that voted for George C. Wallace for president?  Or that Arkansas is part of the Black belt, cotton belt, and Bible belt?  Any state that has a Lee County or a Robert E. Lee day parade should be counted as part of the Old South, if not the Deep South.  Arkansas' as well as Tennessee's removal from being called "border states" would be accurate and appreciated.Longstreet09 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * And the border state link goes to Border states (Civil War), which does not list either Arkansas or Tennessee as border states. I don't much like the use of "border states" as a major region of the US.  I prefer contrasting the Deep South (or Lower South) to the Upland South (or Upper South).  The term "upland" contrasts nicely with "deep", not only with north-south connotations, but highland-lowland.  The Upland South could include the Appalachians and Ozarks, and arguably the Piedmont and interior plateaus and hills.  This Upland South region is often distinguished from the Lower or Deep South in many fields.. history, geology, ecology, economics, etc.  If I find the time I'll try to make a page for it (doesn't seem to be one now).  Arkansas, in this dual regionalization, would seem to fall into both regions, with the southern and eastern parts of the state being "lower" in both elevation and historical/cultural ties, while the northern and western parts being "upland" Ozarks and Ouachitas.  Here's a random map showing the basic idea: http://www.pfly.net/misc/GeographicMorphology.jpg  ..maybe I'll get to making an Upland South page, but regardless, I agree that the border state link for AR and TN is self-contradictory. Pfly 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed that reference for Arkansas and Tennessee. It just didn't make sense. Historians have written numerous times that the border States were the current group that is now listed. How TN and AR got into that originally shows someone was asleep at the wheel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.GeorgesCross (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Tennessee is a border state. It was the last state to secede, and it was the first state to re-enter the Union.  The eastern third of it remained unofficially with the Union throughout the American Civil War and, unlike Middle and West Tennessee, became predominantly Republican in the 19th century, a virtual anomaly in view of its surroundings (there's even a congressional seat over there which has never been represented by a Democrat).  Although Jim Crow played a role in Tennessee politics (the Ku Klux Klan began in Pulaski, and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in Memphis), the state has not generally manifested the kneejerk racist appeal which was so prevalent in the neighboring states to the south.  Tennessee has always used the single primary plurality party-nomination election structure typical of most of the rest of the country.  Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, AND ARKANSAS use runoff primaries (earlier openly referred to as "Democratic white primaries"), which bolstered the one-party system while systematically preventing Blacks from getting elected in a time when the Democratic primaries were "tantamount to election."  Tennessee has never used the system, which is virtually unused outside the South.  I have lived in Tennessee.

 * I have also lived in Arkansas. I'm a little restive over designating Arkansas as not of the Deep South, for the reasons others have given.  Much of Arkansas, particularly in the Delta region and the southern part of the state, is so closely akin to neighboring Louisiana and Mississippi that you cannot tell the difference without looking at the state highway markers.  At the same time, however, the Ozark people are a lot like the mountain people of East Tennessee, and the mentality of the northern and western parts of the state begins to be more like the Midwest.  The schools and universities are accredited by the North Central Association, not the Southern Association.

 * I could go on, but in such a mix I feel that the map for this article needs to shade Arkansas (but not Tennessee) the same as Florida and Texas, not firmly Deep South yet not quite border state either. Is this recommendation a useful compromise?  Richard David Ramsey 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Louisiana striped...? I always considered it to be part of the Deep South. And I agree, the part about Tennessee and Arkansas being border states is pretty absurd.ArkSoutherner 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Texas?
Is Texas part of the Deep South? In eastern Texas and the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the southern heritage is clearly visible. I'm not sure if it is included in this region, though. --unsigned comment by User:Stallions2010

 * Did you try reading the article? The answer is no. At least not usually. There's not a "Certification Board for Deep South Statehood" or anything. --Dystopos 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Parts of East Texas differ very little from Mississippi and Alabama, and should probably be included in the definition "Deep South" (John Shelton Reed includes portions of it in his definition in the book "1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South")  By the way, as a bit of trivia, although it is often used in history books to refer to those 7 states which initially formed the Confederacy (South Carolina thru Texas), the term Deep South is actually of early 20th Century coinage. At first, it was used to refer to north Louisiana, Mississippi, the southern parts of Alabama and Georgia (excluded the mountainous north), and the Florida panhandle. This area was seen to be the part of the greater South where Old South and Confederate traditions lived most strongly. Later, it became expanded in scope and today generally means the 5 states from Lousisiana to South Carolina. However, as Dr. Reed says in the above mentioned book" "The Deep South is roughly coextensive with the old cotton belt, a long arc extending from eastern North Carolina thru South Carolina and west into east Texas, with extensions along the Mississippi. This area can still be defined by locating rural counties with populations more than 25% black. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are commonly considered the Deep South states, although parts of these states don't meet the criteria and parts of adjoining states do. Many things thought of as Southern, from alligators and spanish moss, to peculiar voting habits in 1948 and 1964 are found in their most concentrated form (sometimes only) here." TexasReb 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Texas is greatly different than Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi or even Louisiana. With the exception of CERTAIN parts of East Texas most of Texas has its own regional identity although most of their southern characteristics were actually brought by settlers from Georgia and ALabama. This is present in much of the towns named after for their settlers former homes especially in Northeast Texas. Dallas is somewhat strange, to label it as southern is too specific it still holds elements which seperate it. For example in comparison with cities such as Birmingham or Atlanta, Dallas is pale in comparison with southern characteristics through history and culture and contributions to modern day southern culture. You must remember nearly all of the south was a backwood conservative region for most of the 60's and 70's while Texas and Florida prospered. Atlanta's growth which has been truly expansive and miraculous only started in the late eighties but also we are seeing much of Atlanta losing its southern heritage. Most of us remember the Forsyth county which dominated the media about a decade ago, county citizen pledging they would not change and would allow any "Coloreds" to move in. Now the county has grown 117% and has a significant hispanic and black population as well as transplants from Ohio, Michigan, and New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.43.11 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Post colonial?
In the intro paragraph is the phrase "post colonial expansion". perhaps this can be edited (at least, the word 'post' ought to be changed), as the actual term post-colonialism is completely unrelated to the usage of "post colonial" in this article. 71.198.153.155 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with the last part
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Gobbletyghook. Doesn't add up...

 * It has been fixed for you. Don't everyone thank me at once...  IP Address 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?
I take exception with this:

Although Florida is geographically the southernmost state, it is sometimes excluded from the Deep South due to the large amount of Northern migration to the state that has occurred since World War II. However, parts of the state, especially the Panhandle and the northern regions can be included in the characterization, with an unofficial "Southern" line possibly "drawn" around the area near extreme northern Hillsborough County, Florida, jutting northeast to above Orlando and surrounding counties; below this line, the culture tends to be more "Northern" due to said migration...

There are plenty of Southerners and natives (I am 5th generation Manatee County native) South of Hillsborough County. Yes, we have our share of snowbirds, but so does the entire state including North Florida. (Lived there too, thank you).

Florida excluded from being called Deep South? Our boys died in the Civil War too. I don't know what transplant gave you this info on the unofficial "Southern line", but its bogus.

00:17, 23 July 2006 --magialuna 66.82.9.61 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Fix the article: rewrite to emphasize that "deep south" is a cultural definition, and, over time,the area falling under this definition changes, and, this definition is really not restricted by state boundrys, eg the flordia panhandle is deep south whereas hilton head island in south carolina might not be; research triangle park in NC is probably not "deep south" whereas most of the blue ridge mountain area is, Cinnamon colbert (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Florida is becoming less unique in the South, as states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia also have similar splits. 70.125.198.158 (talk)

Founding members of the Confederacy as "Deep South"
>>Regarding the following definition on the "article" page:

 * South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana (Seven of the founding members of the Confederate States of America)

>>It appears that someone has added North Carolina to this list. I have no quarrel with this if those from the above states want to keep it. However, if that be the case, then the parenthetical phrase concerning the founding of the Confederacy needs to either be eliminated or the wording changed.

>>In fact, TEXAS was the seventh state to secede from the Union, and complete the list of those which had a hand in the initial formation of the Confederate States of America in Montomgery, Alabama. Like the rest of the "Upper South" (Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee), North Carolina initially rejected secession and did not join up until after the incident at Ft. Sumter made the situation either/or. This is NOT intended to disparage the Tar Heel State's commitment to the Confederate cause as, on the contrary, it fought bravely and nobly. Rather, it is just to point out a factual error contained within the said definition.

>>On a related tangent, I might suggest that another criteria of Deep South be added. The new one to be made of the seven original Confederate States (South Carolina thru Texas). Although the actual term "Deep South" did not come into being until well into the 20th Century, many history books use it to refer to the above states (in that era, the designation "Lower South" was used).

>>I of course realize that few consider Texas -- as a whole -- a Deep South state today, nonetheless history books include it in their definition (albeit non-existent in the day)when referring to secession and the War. TexasReb 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Texas, Louisiana, and Florida
All three of these states are definitely part of the Deep South.

 * I would definititely include Louisiana, although there could be some question about certain parts of south Louisiana where the Cajun and heavily Catholic influences do not quite fit the mold of "Deep South." As to Texas and Florida, I also agree except would tend to limit it to East Texas and the Florida panhandle. TexasReb 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Texasreb you are incorrect,Louisiana is part of the deep South. Southern Louisiana has a great Catholic influence, how does this change its standing as a Southern state? In New Orleans there was a huge population of Free People of Colour that owned $2 million dollars in real estate in the 1820s, and in the 1840s they even owned more. So is does this make New Orleans not a Southern city? Also they article is poor with little or no valid proof! Also Texas is not part of the south, it is a western states.--Margrave1206 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I believe if you had read my post correctly, you would see that I agreed Louisiana is a Deep South state. However, I said that certain characteristics of southern Louisiana do not completely fit the general perceptions of Deep South. Note I said *Deep" South, not the South per se, as you seem to have misunderstood or misread.  Also, Texas is unique, but it is *not* a western state if by the West one means grouped with such as Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, etc, having very little in common with any of them.  Texas is essentially a Southern state, in history (charter member of the Confederacy), settlement patterns (settled overwhelmingly by folks from other Southern states both before and after the War), 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 its history and large size, Texas taken as a whole is not a *typical* Southern state, but Southern in origination and in the important ways. TexasReb (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * You are no doubt well intentioned, Texasreb, but you ignore a few facts, such that the first shot of the American Civil War was ordered by that rambunctious south Louisiana Cajun Catholic General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard. South Louisiana (I live there) is definitely in the Deep South, geographically and spiritually, and indeed represents part of the diversity of the Deep South.  There is something wrong with discrimination, wherever it has occurred, but there is nothing wrong with being from the Deep South.  If you doubt this, go over to Jennings (it's in Jeff Davis Parish) wearing your Texas-whatever sweatshirt and ask a few people, Black or White, Catholic or Protestant, why they don't want to leave.  Richard David Ramsey 19:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate your opening remark, I am still not sure exactly the nature of your disagreement with my earlier post. In fact, I clearly said I DO consider Louisiana a Deep South state.  However, I do stand by that there are parts of southern Louisiana that do not fit that general perception of Deep South (such as the large French Catholic influence as opposed to the heavily Southern Baptist population in some of the other Deep South states).  This was not intended as an insult, just an observation.  I mean, there are areas of north Alabama and Georgia which have an "mountain South" aspect which too is a bit different from other parts of the those two states.  It doesn't mean they aren't Deep South though...

 * As to your statement "there is nothing wrong with being from the Deep South"? I agree completely.  Matter of fact, I am proud that East Texas is also often considered part of this sub-region.  My family lines go into the Deep South and my family tree is fertilized with the blood of my Confederate ancestors.  I am a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and have spent a lot of my adult life writing (even been published some) and passionately defending and revering the South and our common history and culture.  I take a backseat to no man in my love of the South and things Southern. And further, I apologize to no one for the privilige! I hope that clarifies things a bit.  TexasReb (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

General Beauregard was a white Creole, not a Cajun. 69.171.160.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

Florida and Louisiana I thought of as being in the Deep South, but I have never known any one to include Texas as a state in the Deep South. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * As a whole, Texas is VERY seldom included in definitions of the Deep South (except when applied in the historical sense as a charter member of the original Confederacy). However, when the term is applied to interstate regions, East Texas is quite often included.  As it should be.  TexasReb (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mid South
When I was stationed in Memphis in the early 1970s, I heard the term 'Mid South' used rather often, but it was used interchangeably with 'South' to refer to the region. Is this term still in use today?LorenzoB 05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban section a mess
The section on the Urban Deep South was a mess and I've tried to fix it a bit. I took out references to cities in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. These aren't in the Deep South. In the section on communities enriched by newcomers, I replaced Jacksonville with Tampa, as more representative of this trend. Jacksonville's large military population generates some diversity but it is more representative of the Deep South's more entrenched cities which did not receive discussion in this section (though they probably should have been addressed.) Jacksonville ought to be grouped with Savannah, Charleston, Pensacola and Mobile as cities that have seen modernization and prosperity in recent years, but have more held more stubbornly to their Deep South cultural legacy than the other areas. I got the impression that this section was originally lifted from something discussing the New South in general and not focusing on the distinctiveness of the Deep South.Ftjrwrites 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits have greatly increased the amount of original research, unverifiable conclusions, uncited claims and POV. This article really needs to be overhauled with reference to published sources rather than our own understandings of this shifty term. --Dystopos 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor article
Urban areas in Southern states such as Atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, Florida, in the post-war era have also absorbed waves of migrants seeking economic opportunities and warmer climates. This migration, according to some, has diluted some distinct cultural traits of the region. Thus, they are not considered a part of the Deep South. On the other hand, the blending of diverse cultural traditions is integral to the South's distinct urban cultures, such as in New Orleans, Louisiana, Birmingham, Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi What is wrong with this article? Just because people move to Urban areas they are no longer Southern? Who wrote this? --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research
An article of this length and on this subject should include multiple sources, preferably inline citations, especially for some of the characterizations and blanket statements:
 * In recent years, the term has been used loosely and often perjoratively to refer to states in this general cultural region without regard to the term's historically defined limits.
 * Because the culture of large areas of Florida and Texas have been changed by migration patterns of the last half-century, these states are often no longer included under the term. However there are certain parts of these states, such as East Texas and the Florida Panhandle. that retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South.
 * Any vaguely defined area within the South that is characterized negatively by anti-intellectualism, romanticizing the antebellum era, sustained racism, entrenched political corruption, ardent Protestant fundamentalism, lack of modern amenities, rejection of modern ways of life, poverty and a general lack of upward mobility; while characterized positively as patriotic, pious, persevering, honest, appreciating simple comforts, respecting the common man, hospitable and cultivating folk wisdom. When used this way, the term becomes a stereotype with heavy cultural baggage.

While some of it is definitely true, going through the trouble of finding sources will weed out the inaccuracies, original research, and problems with POV.  Altairisfar talk  01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. A proper citation concerning East Texas and the Florida panhandle was added. TexasReb (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that the article is much improved, no huge OR or POV problems now.  Altairisfar talk  04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Did some cleanup to source what I could, removed some of what I couldn't.  Altairisfar talk  03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida and Texas
RE: The following "definition" in the Usage of the Term section:

''While the northern part of Florida is sometimes referred to as part of the "Deep South," Florida as a whole is not usually considered "Southern" by many residents of Deep South states due to the fact that 15% of Florida's population are retired people from all over the country. This is also especially apparent in coastal South Florida. Many families (especially from the Northeast) move down to Florida, and have become well-cemented into the area. This creates a cultural atmosphere very distinct from the rest of the Deep South. The culture is even further influenced by the huge Hispanic presence (20.1% of the population is Hispanic with 15.94% as White Hispanic). While Deep South states have some semblence of a Hispanic population, they are nowhere near Texas' or Florida's in size.[citation needed] This diversity occurs mainly in South Florida and Central Florida. However those native to Florida (sometimes referred to as a Florida Cracker), in many parts of the state, such as the Florida Panhandle, North Central Florida, the Florida Heartland, and parts of rural Florida, do maintain the Deep South culture.''

I didn't want to remove it without consulting others. IMHO, however, while the points are well taken, it doesn't really belong under "Usage". Instead, perhaps, it could be made part of a totally seperate section concerning cultural variations within the Deep South (such as is done on the Southern United States page). That is, featuring Texas and Florida and why, today, neither are (with the exception of certain areas) really considered "Deep South"...even though they have the historical credentials. Thoughts? TexasReb (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Florida and Proposal that Deep South definition be reserved only for North West Florida
I would argue that FL is not part of the deep south by any means, unless you count north west Florida as being representative of the state as a whole. A mere visit to South Florida, the Tampa Bay area, Orlando, Jacksonville, dispels any false notion of Florida as the deep south. Culturally, linguistically, and ethnically, Floridians are NOT southern by any standard and far out number those who consider themselves to be in the deep south. Of course, there are rural portions of rural central and south west FL where some populations may retain cultural and linguistic aspects usually associated with the deep south but certainly, FL is no deep south state... In fact, I would argue that FL is one of the most diverse states in the union. From its inception, FL has been a melting pot of cultures, its largest city in the 1820s when FL was sold to the United States, St. Augustine, was a melting pot...

Tampa at the turn of the century was a safe harbor for immigrants from Italy, Spain, Germany, and Cuba and this is reflected in its culture.

Congressional representation and FL's battleground status in presidential elections clearly reinforces the fact that FL is not a deep south state.

BTW, if you need proof... just spend a few days in South Beach and then try to argue that FL is a deep south state. I'm tired of people constructing this notion that FL because of its geographic location in the American south is a culturally southern state and if you need proof, go read the other articles on FL...

I propose that this article and definition be limited to north west FL and the pan handle, NOT the whole of the state of FL.--Jutland86 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Isn't this already basically what the article says? Pfly (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

they talk like yall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.160.60 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Deep South" = Derogatory?
Maybe I've missed it, but I've never heard people who live in these areas use the term "Deep South". It seems to be a term used solely by outsiders, to convey a sense of separation and "otherness". It is reminiscent of the way some used to refer to "deepest, darkest Africa". The area in question also happens to have the largest concentration of black residents of any part of the country. I'm not sure how all of this fits together, but I think this term, beloved by the media and elites on the coasts, is the product of a noxious stew of condescension, bigotry, and perhaps even veiled racism. The "Deep South" sounds like some kind of dark, mysterious jungle you're afraid to venture into, where the inhabitants are probably primitive and dangerous. I cannot help but think that the intent of those who use this term is (consciously or unconsciously) pejorative and derogatory.
 * Reading between the lines, it appears Anon is providing a bit of evidence for the Deep South being a nasty place that dislikes outsiders. in any case that's not how it was used in Mississippi-- The state Archives said in 1940: "Dr. Rowland was the author of many invaluable historical works on Mississippi, and was a leader in interpreting the materials of history of the Deep South, the Confederacy, and Mississippi..." The Saturday Evening Post commented in 1928, "The deep South, compared with New England, is no longer backward". Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Early usage
The US Supreme Court used the term in 1888 ["They developed primarily in the Deep South to..."} see link Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Virginia and West Virginia
I thought that Virginia and West Virginia were in the Deep South - the article does not seem to mention these states. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they are not in the deep south. The "deep" part being the key.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are classified as being in the Upper South.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Better explanation of ancestry identification in 1980
Not sure where to add this, but it seems as if this map <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg&page=1 suggests that the claim that "People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana.[3]" might need some nuancing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.202.147 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 82.228.202.147. "Predominate" can mean "to hold advantage in numbers" or "to exert controlling power". It is too ambiguous in context: "People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana."Noillirt (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree - added context within the article to the list of '%of "English" ancestry by state in the Deep South in 1980' (much new immigration and migration has taken place since then) by saying that "European Americans" who identified single ancestry showed .... Otherwise the contention makes no sense because it disregards the numerous African-American majority areas (some of their ancestry was English or British Isles, too, but many do not identify that way.) Based on the above map, it appears that by 2000, many European Americans in the South simply identified as "American" if choosing only one ancestry, rather than differentiating among Northern European countries. By that time, their lines likely included numerous national ancestries, anyway.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 * But a second issue is that the 1980 percentages were based on statewide totals and only on those who identified only one ancestry. Among whites, more identified as "English" only than any other ancestry except in LA, where those who identified as "French" only in ancestry were the largest European-American group. By 2000, after years of identity politics, as the above map of predominant ancestry by county shows, more people were identifying only as Americans, rather than naming one British Isles or Northern European group. But in many counties, residents who identified as African American outnumbered those who identified as American or any northern European ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

demographics
"People of English ancestry traditionally predominate in every part of the Deep South except for southern Louisiana" my eye. Unless Africa was somehow part of England during the colonial period. the Black Belt runs right through the deep south, and as anyone who has every actually been there knows much of it is > 50% african american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.160.189 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Arkansas redux
Shading Arkansas the same as New York and California is misinformed and misinforming. If whoever did so does not want to consider Arkansas part of the Deep South, at least color it as a border state. If the state voted for George Wallace and the people in it say y'all, and if it had a Democratic governor who stood in a schoolhouse door to stop Blacks from enrolling, it's definitely Deep South or pretty close. Observe too that, when the University of Arkansas athletic programs left the old and now defunct Southwest Conference, they went into the SEC, not the Big 8. Keeping Arkansas out of the Deep South and the border states ignores the state's history, culture, and love of catfish and barbecue. Rammer (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 * This is not a slam against Arkansas at all. But -- IMHO -- the whole state is not included on the map for two reasons.  One, it is not "almost always" regarded as part of the Deep South (as is the case with LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) and, it was not

a charter member of the original 7 state Confederacy (that is, those which seceded before the start of the War and initially formed it), which is the reason of Texas and Florida to be colored (albeit of a different shade of red to offset them as whole states from the modern-day definition).

 * But note however? That the area of eastern Arkansas and western Tennessee close to the Mississippi River are mentioned, same as East Texas and North Florida.  So the good Southern folk of Arkansas need not feel slighted in the least!  :-)  TexasReb (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Origins Section
Based on something that Rjensen mentioned -- and a more careful reading on my part -- as to the topic in the source cited, I am going to make a slight revision in that section. I apologize for my original mis-interpretation, and hope to correct it. TexasReb (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ok go ahead. Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead image is misleading
As a non-US reader, the lead image is confusing. This is for two reasons. The difference between the red colours is not sufficiently great enouch. One of them could be changed to greeen, blue, yellow, whatever. The second confusion is the states that are indicated. I have never thought of Florida as being Deep South. Perhaps I am incorrect, but if the modern perception is that it is not, Florida (and other states} should not be highlighted. If they are involved in the article in some other way (e.g. confederate states), then a further image in the relevant place could show this.  This lead image must be clearer because some readers might look at the image only and not want to delve into the text for further details to explain it.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 * You know you have a problem when the image caption explains that part of the area shown does not meet the definition of "Deep South"... I say nuke the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Economy or Economic history
The article does not have much to say on the economic history or the current state of economy of the region.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"The dirty dirty" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The dirty dirty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the further reading section contain references about the Black Belt?
Should the further reading section contain references about the Black Belt?

Background:

At Talk:Black Belt (geological formation) and Talk:Black Belt (geological formation) there was a consensus that the term "black belt" is not in common usage the way phrases like "sun belt" and "rust belt" are used and is not a commonly-used phase today outside of physical geography. The page was renamed from Black Belt (U.S. region) to Black Belt (geological formation) without objection.

then created Black Belt in the American South which, while not a phrase that is in common use the way "bible belt" is, is clearly used by enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article.

Rjensen then inserted content into Deep South referring to the page he created and inserted multiple references to the black belt into the further reading section of Deep South article.

The question before us is whether material about the black belt but not about the deep south should be retained to the further reading section of the deep south article. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Remove. it has not been shown that the two concepts "deep south" and "black belt" are synonymous. The borders shown in the Deep South article are quite different from the borders shown in the Black Belt in the American South article. The black belt extends into North Carolina and Virginia. The deep south does not. The deep south extends to Louisiana and part of Texas. The black belt doesn't go much past the Mississippi river. But more importantly, pretty much nobody says "Town X is in the black belt" while all sorts of people say "town Y is in the bible belt" which, BTW raises the question of why we don't have a bunch of further reading citations talking about the bible belt. I say that we should limit the further reading section to citation that are specifically about the deep south, not some related area such as the bible belt or black belt.
 * While not relevant to this article, the relationship between the geographical term "black belt" and the sociological term "black belt" is more complex. The black soil led to cotton plantations, which led to large numbers of slaves, which led to a majority black population long after the end of slavery. The problem is that by only counting those blacks who are in the area with the soil, anyone using black belt" as a shorthand for "majority black population" ends up missing places like Detroit, which is 82% black. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Retain. There is a false assumption here that deep South and black belt are synonymous. No one states that. The consensus since the 1920s has been but the is overlaps with the deep South, with an "arm" into the Virginia tobacco region.  Activists and scholars use the terminology in the 21st century. (1) Here's a 2020 definition: "The Black Belt is a swath of fertile soil – and an eponymous region – that extends from Virginia south through the Carolinas before arcing west through the Deep South and ending in the Mississippi Delta." From an organization doing philanthropy in the South today.  (2) Scholars use the term And emphasize the overlap: for example in 2012 political scientist Seth McKee concluded that in the 1964 election, "Once again, the high level of support for Goldwater in the Deep South, and especially their Black Belt counties, spoke to the enduring significance of white resistance to black progress." (3) Here is a 2019 book by a leading Ivy League historian Bruce Kuklick, A Political History of the USA (2019) p 108 that emphasizes black belt and its overlap with Deep South: "By the middle of the 19th century, the plantation owners who most stridently sponsored slavery and expansion spread in an arc from South Carolina and Georgia to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and (finally) eastern Texas, “the black belt.” Here in the “Deep South” slavery was most rooted, and the characteristics of what became “the Old South” most clearly spelled out."  (4) "The black belt counties of the deep South" are discussed in Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (2018) by Avidit Acharya, p 251. (5) A leading expert on American politics is Kevin Phillips in The Emerging Republican Majority: Updated Edition (2014) He goes into detail on the overlap in the 1968 election --eg page 255: "Wallace won very high support from Black Belt whites and no support at all from Black Belt Negroes. In the Black Belt counties of the Deep South, racial polarization was practically complete." Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So it is your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? The Bible Belt also largely overlaps but is not the same as the deep south. Would you be so kind as to explain why you did not add multiple references to the bible belt to the further reading section of this article? Would you care to explain why you did not add multiple references to the Old South? I can think of half a dozen more things that are contained in or overlap with the deep south, but you only added further reading entries related to the page that you created. That seems a bit promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Black Belt is a major part of the Deep South and has a sophisticated literature that readers interested in the Deep South may find of value, especially is they are interested in blacks/slavery/race relations. As for the Bible Belt--I am the #1 contributor of text to that article, among the 1000 editors who have worked on it-- see statistics here on Bibl Belt  As for the Old South article I am by far the #1 editor there--see statistics here. I note that Guy Macon has have jumped in to the Old South by ERASING the useful link to the Black Belt. So I have been adding info while some folks are subtracting info. Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Evasion noted. Again I ask, is it your position that simply because part of something is in the deep south that justifies multiple references to it in the further reading section? Repeating the fact that the black belt partially overlaps the deep south again and again as if someone disputed it does not answer the question asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * when I find what I consider a useful reference that deals with the Deep South I will add it to the reading list. That's what happened here. When preparing the new article Black Belt in the American South a week ago I looked at about several dozen possible scholarly articles and books (most of which I had read over the years). Six that seemed to be highly relevant to Deep South so I added them here on Feb 15--within hours Guy Macon erased all of them without reading any of them --which I think was a bad mistake. Erasing out of ignorance or edit warring is bad editing in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do the references actually mention some sort of connection to the deep south by name (not just a passing mention noting the partial geographical overlap) or do they just "seem (to Rjensen) to be highly relevant to Deep South"? Of your most recent additions, three are available online. Two make no mention of the deep south at all and the third only mentions it in passing. You need to provide a reliable source that specifically discusses the deep south and the black belt and establishes that the two are related. So far all I am seeing is you repeating again and again that in your personal opinion the deep south and the black belt are related and that in your personal opinion the deep south and the bible belt are not related ("related" in the sense "we need to stuff a bunch of references about one into the other"). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. above I've demonstrated through quotes from multiple reliable sources that there is a significant overlap --The black belt is a major part of the Deep South, although it also extends a little into the border-South in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 21  February 2020 (UTC)

...== "Black Belt" hyperlink leads to incorrect location ==
 * Remove - not enough overlap to make it further reading. The article is geographic and cultural, a geologic bit seems just OFFTOPIC for inclusion and not appropriate for Further per MOS:FURTHER  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello - There's a hyperlink in this article attached to the term "Black Belt" (which is used in the article in a social/political/demographic sense) that leads to an article on the geological term "Black Belt", which is obviously nothing to do with this topic. Sorry, I don't know if I am able to edit this article, and I don't want to mess with it myself as I'm not that tech savvy. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:20E3:7700:1960:1C74:7A34:4B17 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Data discrepancy.
There's a discrepancy for the second graphic. The subtext ("Southern Black Belt counties with an African-American population of 30% or higher in 2000.") versus the details of the graphic ("Southern US counties that were at least 40% Black or African American in the 2000 Census.") versus the CC license ("File:Southern counties with a majority African-American population in 2000.png"). -- Which is it, and what best matches the article text?

Also, is there more current data? Gprobins (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

@ससलल 154.84.165.75 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Deep South


text: User talk:65.30.253.91

title: User talk:65.30.253.91


text:
User talk:Twitmodes

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Twitmodes


text:
Talk:National Heritage Area

article title
It appears that Ireland also uses this term. They best choice of title for this article is not clear. We have National Historic Site which discusses those in Canada and the U.S. in one article. U.S. National Marine Sanctuary uses U.S. before the name but we have National Monument which redirects to oddly-capitalized National monument (U.S.) which mentions that Ireland uses the term but doesn't say where the article on Irish ones is located. National Memorial, National Preserve, National Recreation Area and National Historical Park discuss U.S. only. Rmhermen 01:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Areas Listed are not accurate
based on NPS contact list (Aug. 15, 2009). Cleanup required. I will try to get to it. BradK (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

something is fishy
Something is wrong here:
 * 1) The External Links section points to the National Park Service's National Heritage Areas website
 * 2) This provides a Microsoft Word file (of all things) which states that there are 49 such entities. This is reflected in the article. (I would think it safe to assume that nps.gov keeps such material updated.)
 * 3) But the Blackstone Valley is not on the list.
 * 4) But the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a National Heritage Area, I'm pretty sure. And has been for some time.
 * 5) And the Blackstone Valley article sure seems to think so. It states "The John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a National Heritage Corridor...", with the link pointing to this article.

So either the National Park Service's list at nps.org is incorrect, or I and the the Blackstone Valley article are wrong. Although it would seem odd for such a major entity as the NPS to publish incorrect information, maybe they just dropped the ball. The fact that the list is in Word format is odd. Maybe that's not the only odd thing about the doc.

I have assumed this to be the case and consequently added [[Blackstone Valley]] to list. This raises (or, as the moderns like to (incorrectly) say, "begs") the question, what other omissions are in this article.

FWIW, the article now contradicts itself: it still states that there are 49 National Heritage Areas, but there are now 50 entries in the list. Until a thorough review is made, I'm not sure how to resolve this. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I can't easily find any definitive, official list of these places. --doncram (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 * A "printable list of all 49 Heritage Areas" is available in Word document format from link here as file "contact.DOC". That seems to be an official list, with official names of the areas, similar to National Park Service documents listing their National Historic Landmarks (NHLs).  Like the list for NHLs, this could be incomplete if there have been subsequent changes.  The current version there is dated November 2010 however, so it should be pretty current.  My quick count confirms 49 items in it.  So it seems the article should be revised to list just these 49.  The "John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor" is one of several "corridor" ones included in the list.  So if there are currently 50 in the wikipedia article, it is some other one that is not a National Heritage Area. --doncram (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

National Heritage Areas added
The president signed S.47 which designated some new National Heritage Areas, added them to the list. Several don't have existing articles yet. Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Heritage Area


text:
File:BookCerneEvangalist.jpeg

Image from the Book of Cerne.

title: File:BookCerneEvangalist.jpeg


text:
USS Spot

USS Spot (SS-413) was a Balao-class submarine of the United States Navy, named for the spot, a small sciaenoid food fish of the Atlantic coast, with a black spot behind its shoulders.

Construction and commissioning
Spot was laid down on 24 August 1943 by the Mare Island Navy Yard at Vallejo, California. She was launched on 19 May 1944, sponsored by Mrs. A. A. Gieselmann, and commissioned on 3 August 1944, Commander William S. Post, Jr., in command.

September–November 1944
Spot completed fitting out at Mare Island on 18 September 1944 and moved to San Diego for shakedown. After a yard period, Spot departed for Hawaii and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 14 November 1944.

First patrol, December 1944 – January 1945
Accompanied by USS Balao (SS-285), Spot got underway for the Marianas on 4 December. They were joined by USS Icefish (SS-367) en route, and the trio arrived at Saipan on 15 December 1944.

Two days later, the hunter-killer group headed for the Yellow Sea. On 7 January 1945, Spot sank two small trawlers with her deck gun. Four days later, she destroyed a small freighter by gunfire. On 13 January off Shanghai, the submarine sank two trawlers by shellfire, and she repeated the feat the next day. In a night sweep through the Elliott Islands on 18 and 19 January, Spot torpedoed a cargo ship and a tanker.

As Spot came down the west coast of Korea, she sighted a small ship and fired her last three torpedoes. All ran shallow and missed. With only 1,300 rounds of 20 mm ammunition remaining, the submarine closed to 800 yd and opened fire. The enemy made an unsuccessful attempt to ram. No one manned the Japanese ship's machine gun atop her pilot house; her top deck was in shambles; and the ship was dead in the water but not sinking.

Spot waited for an hour and then sent over a boarding party of seven men to plant demolition charges and search for intelligence material. After about ten minutes on board, the party had to abandon as the ship listed to port and sank by the stern. The boarding party was recovered and one Japanese prisoner taken. The submarine returned to Midway on 30 January for a refit and training period.

Second war patrol, February – March 1945
On 24 February, Spot began her second war patrol which took her, USS Queenfish (SS-393), and USS Sea Fox (SS-402) into the East China Sea. On the second night in her assigned patrol area, Spot expended all torpedoes attacking a Japanese convoy. They sank the passenger-cargo ship, Nanking Maru, and damaged a freighter. The attack was made in heavy weather and shallow water. Spot was surfaced and heading for deeper water but could not elude one of the escorts, the minesweeper W-17, which closed to 4200 yd and opened fire. Spot manned her guns and returned the fire even though she was wallowing heavily in the rough seas. A lucky hit by her 5 in gun knocked out W-17 's forward gun and saved the submarine from almost certain disaster. Spot secured her guns, cleared the bridge, and submerged. The escort dropped a few depth charge patterns which caused no damage, and the submarine returned to Saipan on 23 March to reload.

On 27 March 1945, Spot resumed her patrol. On 31 March 1945, she was on the surface in the Philippine Sea 425 nmi southeast of Kagoshima, Kyushu, Japan at 29.23333°N, 137.3°W when she sighted a destroyer that offered no recognition signals. Spot maneuvered to close when the destroyer turned towards her and increased its speed. When the range was approximately 5,500 yd, the destroyer opened fire. Spot fired a recognition flare that the destroyer answered with a second salvo. As Spot submerged, another salvo straddled her conning tower. After Spot reached a depth of 450 ft, she and the destroyer exchanged recognition signals and the destrover discontinued its attack. The destroyer was later identified as USS Case (DD-370), which reported firing fifteen 5 in rounds. Spot suffered no damage or casualties in this friendly fire incident.

Third and fourth war patrols, April – July 1945
During the first week of April, Spot guarded the approaches to Kii Suido. After aircraft from the Fast Carrier Task Force sank battleship Yamato, a cruiser, and four destroyers in the East China Sea on 7 April, the submarine patrolled in that area. She hunted off the China coast and then conducted a reconnaissance of Kokuzan To, off Korea and decided to shell a radio station on the northwest tip of the island. On the evening of 25 April, she surfaced and began the bombardment which hit an oil storage area, several barracks, and set the radio station on fire. Spot returned to the Mariana Islands on 4 May for refit.

Spot began her last war patrol on 2 June and performed lifeguard services off the coast of Honshū until 23 June. She then patrolled in the East China and Yellow Seas, sinking two junks by gunfire before returning to Saipan on 18 July. The submarine sailed for Hawaii the next day.

Spot arrived at Pearl Harbor on 29 July for an extended overhaul and was still there when hostilities ceased. She sailed for San Diego on 27 August and provided services for antisubmarine warfare units there from 3 September 1945 to 2 March 1946. The ship then sailed to San Francisco to prepare for inactivation. She was decommissioned at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard on 19 June and attached to the Pacific Reserve Fleet.

Honors and awards
Spot received four battle stars for World War II service.

Chilean Navy service
In January 1961, Spot was towed to Pearl Harbor for modernization in preparation for transfer to the Chilean Navy. A streamlined sail was added but, unusually for a post-World War II submarine, her deck gun was retained.

The Chilean crew reported aboard later in 1961 for training, and on 12 January 1962, Spot was loaned to that government under the Military Assistance Loan Program. She was renamed Simpson (SS-21), in honor of Chilean admiral Robert Winthrop Simpson (1799–1877). The submarine arrived in Chile on 23 April 1962.

On 1 August 1975 the submarine was sold outright to Chile, and struck from the US Navy Directory. In 1980, Simpson was used extensively by director Kinji Fukasaku in the disaster film Fukkatsu no hi (titled in EnglishVirus and Day of Resurrection). The film features spectacular footage of Simpson operating in the Antarctic.

Simpson was significant for being one of the last submarines to have a deck gun; she was disposed of by the Chilean Navy in 1982.

title: USS Spot


text:
Talk:John Bruton

Photo
Is there any chance of a better photograph of him? The one we've got is excessively small. -- Arwel 01:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is copyright/GFDL - AFAIK the current one is cropped out of a photo taken by a Wikipedian and so is definately OK. There is a decent 'promotional' headshot on Bruton's own website. Blorg 09:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I found a decent EU photo of him. It's been uploaded. Hoshie 03:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All-Party talks
I disagree that he was opposed to the Brits going slow with All-Party talks. I recall Bruton supporting Unionist arguments that there should be no talks including SF before decommissioning, until late into his term. Peter O Connell

"Public School"?
Who wrote this? What country are we talking about? Clongowes is a private secondary school. El Gringo 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Such exclusive schools are known frequently as public schools in Ireland. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when? Can you footnote that? El Gringo 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wife
This article BTW contains a lot of POV. The statement Some have attributed Bruton's softening on social issues such as divorce to the influence of his wife, Finola is absurd. Anyone who knows the couple knows that she is more conservative than JB. He was actually talked into supporting divorce at the start of his leadership by Jim O'Keeffe, TD. FearÉIREANN \(caint)  19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement no longer appears in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Date format
Ireland uses International Dating (dd/mm/yyyy) not American Dating (mm/dd/yy). The right to place Irish articles in ID is explicitly stated in the MoS. I've reverted Raul's reversion. Super Jumbo's edit was correct. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish name
Is there any evidence that John Bruton ever used the name Seán de Briotún? -- Evertype·✆ 00:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In all probability, he never used it outside of Irish class in school. However, when he was Taoiseach, it may have been used in official translations of press releases and such. Snappy56 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "May" is not good enough! I'm asking for evidence. There are 21 citations on Google and all of them are Wikipedia related except for some discussion in Irish wondering whether he ever used the name or not. We've got to do better. -- Evertype·✆ 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before for Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen and their Irish names. It didn't really reach a conclusion. Remove it, if you feel strongly about it. Snappy56 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruton: the embarrassment of it all
I see a revision at 02:20, 18 June 2007, by an anonymous user (71.166.150.103) who was clearly a Bruton fan, removed entirely the (highly embarrassing) parts about Bruton's comments during the visit of Charles Windsor. It also removed his comment about the "fucking peace process", corruption in his government/the resignation of Michael Lowry, and it seems anything which he didn't like including the gombeen's description of him as "John Unionist". I'm restoring all of them. 78.16.98.134 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 * ---This is an encyclopedia entry, not a tabloid newspaper. It's goal is to be as dispassionate as possible.

title: Talk:John Bruton


text:
Template:OEIS

(sequence in the OEIS)

title: Template:OEIS


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike delaney

Mike delaney was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Mike delaney
Vanity. Student at SUNY Purchase; article submitted from SUNY Purchase IP (whois 199.79.168.252). --MarkSweep 01:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedy, if possible.  We should consider amending the rules for obvious violations like this one. - Lucky 6.9 01:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. --Gtabary 09:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I am fascinated by the thought of his autobiography, Read this book, given that he was born in 1986. He should fill it full of sex, send it off to an agent and see if he can get it published. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 15:44, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --MPerel 09:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: User talk:69.161.6.253

title: User talk:69.161.6.253


text:
Stanley Praimnath

Stanley Praimnath (born October 27, 1956) is a survivor of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He worked as an executive for Fuji Bank on the 81st floor of the South Tower (WTC 2), the second tower struck that day. He was one of only 18 survivors from within or above the impact zone of United Airlines Flight 175.

September 11, 2001
When American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower, Praimnath started to evacuate from his 81st floor office in the South Tower, but he returned when the security guards of the building said the South Tower was secure, and workers should return to their offices. Whilst making a phone call from his office, he looked out the south side of the building and spotted United Airlines Flight 175 flying towards him. Praimnath froze up as the aircraft approached, unable to decide what to do, but at the last moment he dove under his desk just as the plane crashed into the building. The left wing sliced through his office and became lodged in a door 20 ft from him. Praimnath was bruised and exhausted, and covered in debris after the crash, which left him stuck and unable to escape on his own.

While Praimnath called for help, Euro Brokers executive Brian Clark, from the 84th floor, and a group of his coworkers were debating in the stairwell whether to descend through the impact zone using the stairwell, which they had been told was impassable, or to climb to the roof. Clark heard Praimnath's cries for help, and made his way to him by using his flashlight and following his voice. As Clark was on his way to find Praimnath, he looked back towards his coworkers and saw they had decided to climb up the stairs instead of going down. Because of the decision to ascend the stairs, all of Clark's coworkers were killed, except for one, Ron DiFrancesco, who reversed course.

Once Clark had found Praimnath, the two men made their way to the stairwell, which Clark had already been told was blocked further down. However, Clark and Praimnath wanted to see for themselves if the stairs were really impassable. They descended the stairs, and while there was debris in some spots, the two men were able to get through it and continue down the stairs and out of the building. They were two of only eighteen survivors from at or above the impact zone in the South Tower. After the two men had made it outside and walked two blocks away from the South Tower, they stopped and looked back at the building they had just exited, and Praimnath said to Clark, "You know, I think that building can come down." Clark was in the midst of replying, "Those are steel structures, there's no way—", when he was cut off by the South Tower starting to collapse.

As the dust cloud from the collapsing South Tower approached them, they ran south and entered 42 Broadway as the wave caught up to them. Inside that lobby they exchanged business cards. Clark made his way home to New Jersey; Praimnath went to the hospital for his injuries. Later on that evening, after midnight, when Praimnath had finally gotten home from the hospital, he called Clark to find out what had happened to him. The two men, who had never met before 9/11, remain friends and have appeared on numerous shows and documentaries telling their story.

In popular culture
Praimnath's and others' stories were told on the 2006 BBC docudrama 9/11: The Twin Towers. His story was also chronicled in the documentaries United by 9/11 (2006) and 9/11: One Day in America (2021).

title: Stanley Praimnath


text: Category:Military of Chile

title: Category:Military of Chile