Talk:Culture of honor (Southern United States)

NPOV?

This article doesn't appear to be very neutral. There is no balance to the claims made and only studies that support this idea are cited. I think there is some serious work needed to remove the appearence of POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but, as is, the article surely is funny although perhaps unintentionally so, not because of the style so much as the verisimilitude of the description. Rammer (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite the "studies" referenced, this remains as an opinion piece. Does Wiki post editorials? Tom Wolff (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

The refs appear to be incorrectly formatted and therefore display improperly in the ref section. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected this now. --Cyfal (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Typos Galore!

There seem to be several repeated typos in this page ("dueling" vs. "duelling", for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidChipman (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dueling is the proper American spelling. 192.156.59.39 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Violence in Southern culture bias

I fail to see how the study by Osterman & Brown is unbiased against culture-of-honor states in schools. Coming from an area of Southern Illinois near the Kentucky border, it's unfair to assume that everyone who comes from a culture-of-honor state will be more likely to bring a weapon to school; The same risk is present everywhere else, and is therefore unfair to pin this assumption on a culture like Southern culture and assume that all Southerners are inherently violent to those people commit a wrong against the person or others. It's a syllogism in of itself just as much as saying all Southern people want a "lifted" truck. Southerners carry and value their own honor and pride highly (such as defending a lady or with their work), but it takes the education on the homefront too, as well as learned logic. Sure, Southerners practice their own code of honor and chivalry, but they're not barbarians like Osterman & Brown suggest them to be, by doing something like bringing weapons to school. Fights are usually settled with fisticuffs and then walked away from.

As for suicide rates, it's unfair to assume that Southern white people will commit suicide as most are actually quite properly educated and/or carry a strong Christian faith knowing that suicide is a sin as much as "Thou shalt not kill", which the authors fail to mention in their paper, implicitly or explicitly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.55.20 (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the English Gentry

The former colonies in the Southern States were much more populated by English Gentry, either before the English Civil War or just after they escaped from it. It is important to consider that monarchs of Europe gifted plantations to privileged citizens. Even though their numbers may be small, you only need one king to have a monarchy- i.e their cultural influence was strong The soft 'R' in their speech and their values etc. The Southern Culture of Honor, is the descendant of the Chivalric Code.

04/27/2015

Removal of peer-reviewed research about honor culture and war

The editor Springee removed a peer-reviewed study by recognized experts in a leading social science journal that linked honor culture to conflict. The editor falsely claims that the study is "only tangentially related to the topic": the term honor is mentioned 130 times in the article. The content should be restored ASAP. This is precisely the kind of content that should be in WP articles: peer-reviewed studies by recognized experts in the best journals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First, an IP editor removed it (the first time this addition was challenged). I agreed with their removal. The problem is the material is only tangentially related to this topic. Thus it doesn't matter that it was a RS (or at least a peer reviewed paper on a subject). You are the editor who originally added the content so please explain why it is DUE (per ONUS). As a argument why it isn't, this topic is about the culture of honor in the southern US. It isn't about how presidents deal with wars. This is especially problematic if we don't put some sort of scope on time frame etc. Springee (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"this topic is about the culture of honor in the southern US. It isn't about how presidents deal with wars." Don't pretend to be obtuse. The study is about the relationship between honor culture and war: it's firmly about the subject of the article. This is standard WP:HOUNDING, solely intend to harass and eat up the time of another editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL as well as WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I just took a look at the source and added the material back into the article. You then reverted the material again (just like the IP, btw). You claim that the material is only tangentially related to this article. I just took a look at the source. It can’t be defined or classified as tangential in any way. It is about this topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Waiting for a reply from User:Springee to these concerns per WP:BRD. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The removed paragraph merely quoted the conclusion of the study without drawing the connections the study examined between honor culture and U.S. involvement in war. If the paragraph can be rewritten to bring out these connections, then it would become relevant. Can you elaborate on your concern with time frame? The article already covers from the first British settlers to present day (school shootings, suicide). Lee Choquette (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

After looking over the RS, I too am curious as to why it was removed. It talks about Culture of honor, specifically the Southern US, and is properly attributed as not to use wiki-voice. How is it UNDUE for being "only tangentially related"? I think Snoogans is acting in good faith here. The random IP that put this (Irrelevant study. Obviously you can't just reduce war to "it's a Southern president so it's different". Studying something on an idiotic basis doesn't make it more correct.) in their edit summary also seems to be lacking a certain amount of faith, and decorum if I'm being perfectly honest...DN (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The rationale for removal doesn’t hold up. The article is precisely about this topic. I restored it, and yet it was removed again. It appears that only a drive-by IP and one registered editor are deleting the material. From what I can tell from this discussion, there is consensus to restore it. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, no consensus. The topic was already discussed. Springee (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. We are engaging in BRD. You’re the only editor keeping this material out of the article based on a rationale that I don’t believe is supported. The source is directly about this subject; it is not tangentially related as you claim. This appears to be a case of IDLI. The discussion is not over because you aren’t engaging in it. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)