Jump to content

Talk:South of the Border (attraction)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed tower image

[edit]

I've removed Image:SOB Sombrero.jpg from this article as a possible copyright violation. Its description page lists it as public domain and "compliments" of their website, but provides no verification of such a claim. To avoid any possible copyright problem, I've substituted Image:South of the Border - The Sombrero Tower.JPG, which is a better quality image anyway. Tijuana Brass 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta love this place! :) NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboards

[edit]

Is there still a billboard for South of the Border on I-95 in Philadelphia? It was there a number of years ago, and if it's still there, it's got to be one of the farthest away. Third (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the 70's there were billboards as far south as I-95 between Jacksonville and St. Augustine, FL. 24.16.164.87 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks

[edit]

When I was a kid, SOTB's big attraction was fireworks. No one north of there sold them (or at least the good ones) so every trip to the region meant a stop there to load up on "things that go 'boom' ". 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro racist?

[edit]

The topic as to whether Pedro is a racist caricature is certainly worth noting given its notation is reliable sources. Sombreros and Motorcycles in a Newer South (King), Moon Carolinas & Georgia (Morekis) and Don't Go There! (Greenberg) are examples of sources that directly mention that the debate does exist. I’ve expanded relevant information in the about the character’s place in the concept of kitschy tourism (rather interesting story really) but nevertheless the character is, per the sources, arguable racist.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when you cite things for the first time, both in talk and in the article, can you please use a full title and full author name? In the article, "King 2012" needs the full WP:CITE treatment in the sources, from your previous edit. Safrolic (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations now standardized employing sfn template. Bibliography details are now all present.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexican", "Latino", "Hispanic", etc are not races and therefor it can't be racist. However, it can be considered xenophobic, offensive or prejudice by some. --104.61.153.65 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Dave.[reply]

Well taken. Listing as offensive rather than racist seems entirely reasonable to me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things certainly can be racist when they are against people of color which includes those groups above. No "race" is real in any scientific sense based on genetics. It's all about perception within society. Race is a social construction and so is racism but it's no less real. So there can be racism against Mexicans, for instance. So let's not make decisions on the article's content based on this mistaken interpretation of racism or race. SageRad (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Politically incorrect" WP:NPOV

[edit]

User:Labattblueboy seems to want the phrase "Politically incorrect" in the lead but the more neutral and accurate term "caricature" is already used, is "Politically incorrect" used in the sources? Even if it is does it conform to WP:NPOV? Is the fact that at least 3 and probably 5 editors have removed the phrase "Politically incorrect" and only Labattblueboy has restored it an indicator of what we should do? CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous established standard reached through consensus in the section above.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:98.225.173.217 @User:Old Naval Rooftops @User:104.10.137.189 @User:84.186.113.219 Why did you remove the phrase "Politically incorrect"? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you arguing that instead of "politically incorrect" some other term should be used. The sources state racist, I am not personally attached to any specific term just to the assurance that disputed nature of the figure is noted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arguably offensive" was the the text up earlier this year, suggested my an IP edit I think. Either way certainly up for discussing alternate text so long as the disputed nature is noted-Labattblueboy (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated I'm open to other terminology: arguably racist or offensive, or some other derivative. However the sources clearly note there exists the view it as offensive, and that needs to be noted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the better option is to just use "caricature" instead of accusing the logo of racism.  ONR  (talk)  13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody would be accusing an inanimate structure of wood and metal of being racist. If the word "racist" is used then it would refer to the presence of this caricature in this context being a racist artifact, and artifact of racist ways of thinking by the people who decided to erect this statue of Pedro, and perhaps it would also be an indictment of the general cultural context which seems to me to be mainly white touristic culture in the 1950s or 1960s (whenever the statue was put up) using a caricature of their limited ideas about Mexican culture and people in this way. SageRad (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Caricature" is a better word; then further along we can cite various objections to the caricature. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

HI. The section on Bernanke and the Simpsons is/ borders on trivia. Notable people should be reserved for towns/ cities/ states etc, not an agglomeration of businesses on an interstate. I seem to recall seeing elsewhere that we are now discouraging indiscriminate inclusion of trivia in articles, but this this is not much help, as it is a bit loose. anyone care to comment? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked the Bernanke passage. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up, Mangoe! Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South of the Border (attraction). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_of_the_Border_(attraction)&oldid=1202529475"