Talk:Southern belle

Southern belles and race/ethnicity
Hi! This isn't something I know a lot about so I am asking for information: could someone offer examples of southern belles of various races/ethnicities? All the examples in this article are caucasion, and given that part of the definition is "an archetype for a young woman of the American South's antebellum upper class" "nostalgic for a bygone era," I am wondering how this might apply to anyone other than caucasions? If the definition has been appropriated or expanded by (an)other group(s), I wonder if there needs to be a little more explanation? — scribbling  woman  12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have flagged for neutrality as it denies the existence of slavery despite the mention of the antebellum period. I did add one link regarding the context of southern upper-class plantation owners to the Plantation_economy page. I wish I had the time and resources to overhaul it.Zaums (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I came across this article by accident and frankly it is extremely one-sided. The mention that the Southern Belle usually detaches herself from the socio-economic implications of slavery would have sufficed. Instead of this, 40% of the article is a hardly related to the topic philippic against slavery. Wake up, Bolsheviks! This is an *international* encyclopaedia, not a forum for airing your personal (and usually narrow US-centered) cherished political leanings. I propose the removal of that part and the replacement with a single, concise, sentence to the same effect.16:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Guinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damf1 (talk • contribs)
 * The critical quote represents 30 percent of the text in this article. That seems about appropriate to me. Flyte35 (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should 30 percent of any article really be dedicated to the opinion of one critic rather than the bare facts themselves? That doesn't seem an appropriate amount of space to be giving to conjecture, in what is meant to be a fact-based encyclopedia. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.101 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyte35, please stop abusing Wikipedia for your personal political peeves. The blog entry you've cited has been deleted on numerous occasions and by different individuals. It has no bearing whatsoever on the Southern Belle that the individuals wanting to learn about would visit this article for. This is a community-driven encyclopaedia. Please stop. That notwithstanding, please up your sources. The Southern Belle has had more than her fair share of significantly more thorough investigation in the academic press. If you really want to inject controversies about racism into unrelated articles, you don't have to cite some "opinion piece" on some blog by some person with very questionable qualifications. While you do, make it short. \ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.25.249 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to. Flyte35 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We all know that you are not sure what is being specifically referred to, which is why you have been politely asked on numerous occasions to leave this article, or better this encyclopaedia, to people who want to contribute useful information to readers interested in the topic. If this is still unclear: your source sucks both in terms of relevancy and its quality. Is it absolutely necessary to bring up a vandalism case against you to put an end to this? \ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.25.249 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you, anonymous editor, just deleted the Gawker opinion piece, I assume you're concerned about that. Your concern doesn't seem valid. There's prohibition against including opinion pieces, if they're cited as such. Statements of opinion can be presented with attribution. Yes, it's been discussed in talk, but no one seems to agree with you that your edit is necessary or beneficial. Flyte35 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would seem that anonymous users actually happen to be more useful than registered twats. Quit the e-peen act, buddy. Read this talk section. Several people have asked you to stop, something you have kindly ignored. Several people have edited your favourite opinion piece out of the article, which you have successfully reverted despite being asked not to do so. Let's talk about "beneficial" contributions and how many people have agreed with you, shall we? If you want, we can easily escalate this issue and ask for the article to be protected, at which point your vandalism will be audited by non-anonymous users as well. Merry Christmas. \ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.25.249 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not vandalism. Vandalism "is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." That's not what's going on here. This is a normal content dispute. I don't understand why you wish to remove the quote in question, since it's perfectly appropriate to include opinion pieces in wikipedia articles. If you have some objection to the content of the quote, you should explain your concern. That might help us to come to a resolution. Flyte35 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo
This is a really good photo. Interesting composition, evocative take on a pedestrian subject. I don't, however, think it is entirely suitable here. It doesn't really tell the casual reader much about the Southern Belle. A still from Gone With the Wind would be better, or a fashion plate from 1845. — scribbling  woman  23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Daughters of the Dust, research Creole culture, and learn more about the lack of funding or attention given to major works of art that highlight women of color (in particular those racialized as black) in a romanticized fashion, and you'll have answers to much of your inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.189.38 (talk • contribs)


 * At first I was confused because this comment follows my comment on the photo, but I assume that you are referring to the earlier question, re. race? Apparently, and not surprisingly, there is a huge literature out there about racialized women in the South. I still think, however, that the statement "A southern belle can be of any racial/ethnic background" needs explanation, especially given that the definition goes on to say that Southern Belle's are "nostalgic for a bygone era": presumably slavery times/grand old plantations/etc. etc. The line "Although a southern belle can be of any background, traditional symbols in film have often been juxtaposed to the enslaved woman or hired maid servant" goes some way to explaining the use of women of colour in some of these representations, but the article does not explain how women of colour can actually be Southern Belles, nor offer any examples. Again, this is far afield from my areas of knowledge, but I had always thought that the Southern Belle was a white image, because of its history in plantation culture. I'm not arguing that the people who have written otherwise here are wrong, but I am saying that I think there needs to be some more explanation. This is a friendly, and interested, request for clarification. — scribbling  woman  12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the typical (or archetypal) belle is white, since there is a strong connotation of upscale leisure associated with the belle. However I would think that Whitley in the TV show A Different World would qualify as a belle.  In addition, in antebellum New Orleans, there was a thriving demimonde of quadroon and octaroon belles--they had debuts just like their white counterparts, albeit toward a different purpose (to secure a protector, rather than a marriage).72.229.110.85 (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The photo is a horrible example for illustrating the subject. There is nothing informative in it. All I see is a black and white photo of a woman with a ring, nothing unique or descriptive of southern belles. I think it should be removed. ~MDD4696 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It contributes nothing to the article. DELETED! 69.138.251.227 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic and fictional examples
Never heard of Sallie Ward, but Sally "Buck" Preston is a good example. Other historic examples of the antebellum belles: Lucy Holcombe Pickens, Varina Davis, lots more who might be more recognizable (and have a Wiki page) might help amplify the archetype.

Seidel statement
The Seidel statement could be better illustrated with examples as well: Scarlett O'Hare, Maggie Pollit, etc. Ismaelbobo (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC) What's up with tha statement? It looks like some random insult and could easily be a quotation taken out of context. --65.5.204.50 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New Sources
Anyone want to help me with expanding this article with more sources?ExitW3Must (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrists
The article says southern belles had to cover their wrists, but it also says that the picture of Sallie Ward was the symbol of southern belles. Said picture has most of her arm exposed. Clarification? Siúnrá (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Start Over?
This article is appallingly written. It reads as though it was written by a non-native speaker or a young child; it is full of incomplete sentences, incomprehensible sentence structures, improper uses of punctuation, and contains so many abuses of the rules of grammar than to list them would create more words than the article itself contains. As egregious as the grammar is, more concerning is the lack of references. I contend that there are no citations because most of the article is based upon the "author's" imagination. Perhaps it would be best to bin this abysmal mess and start afresh?

Racist history of the archetype
There is a properly referenced section in the article on the criticism of the Southern Belle as a racist archetype meant to idealize the slave-owning south. For no adequate reason, the section has been remuved multiple times by IP users over the years, with no adequate explanation as to why. If anybody has a good argument as to why it shouldn't be here, the talk page exists for a reason. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)