Talk:Southern strategy

Weak intro, maybe even a one-sided slant

This entire entry is completely fake and written by a progressive activist. Seriously, this exists on Wikipedia? Can we make an entry on the Democratic Black Strategy about the Democrats support for welfare to obtain votes for generations? I would hope not, but this is exactly what has been allowed with this insane article. 98.199.196.39 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a horrific intro. May be a bit of hyperbole on my part. But I could even argue on a one-sided slant to this intro. At least, try some other sources beside NYT which has morphed to decidedly liberal. Something better than 'appealing to racism against African Americans' has to be in there. Let's stay away from any particular slant though, and look at things such as -- How can demographics, population movement from Northern, 'Rust-belt' type states, to the South not be highlighted, or even at the top of the list of rationales. I plan on working on the quality of this article -- a C Class -- unbiased as possible 10stone5 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article/source -- NYT, Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant By BOB HERBERT Published: October 6, 2005 -- has got to go as an overly POV source. It lays out a straw man that a comment by Bob Bennett, maybe innocuous, maybe taken out of context, maybe not, as a rationale for labelling the Republican party as the go to party of racism. These sorts of Wiki references have got to go. 10stone5 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This intro -- '... gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by absorbing the Democratic Party's alienated white, segregrationist base' -- seems much more relevant, much more logical, much more in tune with traditional history on how political strategy in the South has changed. This intro -- 'gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans' -- is much too inflammatory, and really quite hard to justify. If you are going to say the strategy was based on racism, then the type of racism has to be mentioned. Was it straight discrimination? Reverse discrimination? Provide some examples of this racism, not assume the racism was there because of the absorption of Dixiecrats. I'll contact the parties involved in these edits for feedback. 10stone5 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As you feel strongly about the 2005 Herbert piece, I've removed it. On the other hand, I don't agree that the New York Times is unsuitable as a source for this article in general. I think we also need to confront the reality (or at least the view widely reported by reliable sources) that the Republican Party "absorbed the Democratic Party's alienated white segregationist base" in part by "appealing to racism against African-Americans."

It's not just the lib'ruls at the New York Times who hold that view; it's widespread in political-science scholarship, and has been acknowledged directly from time to time by the GOP leadership itself. For example, our article quotes the famous interview with Lee Atwater, the most important Republican strategist of the 1980s and a former RNC chairman, in which he described the evolution of the strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

More recently, in 2005 Ken Mehlman (then head of the RNC) apologized to the NAACP for the GOP's "decades-old practice of writing off the black vote and using racial polarization to win elections." ([1]) So I think that the language about appealing to racism is, in many ways, supported by the available sources, although of course I'm open to discussion and would welcome additional reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Democrats controlled southern legislators for more than a hundred years ending that only 5, 10 years ago in many of those states. A so-called "Southern Strategy" would never take 40 years to give total control of the South to the GOP. Republicans voted for civil rights in far bigger proportions, and only a single Democratic Senator from 19 against Civil Rights became a Republican.

The article intro is a shameful demonstration of bias and this bias is the reason why so many are not donating anymore to the Wikipedia, barely all sources in the article are from partisan, low quality sources. Look into that: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

"In the book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.253.165 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the alleged term to the intro because the New York Times has an article stating that it's a myth that has been perpetuated for political reasons. Given the NYTs is a credible source this reference should be left in place. I also removed a previous "proof" statement because it was an open ended statement that said only that the GOP had neglected/not targeted AA interests. That is NOT the same as saying they were trying to appeal to racists. Not giving money to a homeless man is not the same as taking money from them. One can not use the lack of giving money to a homeless person as proof they are stealing from the homeless. The same is true of this GOP statement. It does not support the claim that the GOP is trying to court racists in the South. It only says they are not trying to actively court the AA vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.228.188 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of edit warring going on -- two IPs, both geolocated (coincidentally?) in the same area, keep adding language that has now been reverted by four different editors. The single source relied on is far from a definitive study. The following review [2] shows the books weaknesses:

"This is a disturbing book. In this slim volume of less than two hundred the authors set out to turn on its collective head what has emerged as the studied wisdom about post-World War II partisan change in the South. Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston stipulate that the demise of legal segregation largely drove the change in southern partisan loyalties from Democratic to Republican in presidential elections (something thathas long been known and something that runs directly counter to their dominant thesis). They claim that race was not as important a factor in the South's congressional contests. Then they promptly dismiss in importance their first observation to conclude that economic change - not race - was the engine" that drove partisan change in the post-1945 South."

And why is the apology for the Southern strategy, which is sourced, being deleted? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The apology was deleted because it was being used in a way that was incorrect. Apologizing for ignoring the needs and wants of African Americans does not mean there was a strategy to appeal to white racism. That is just as bad as the claim (in a section below) that claims that because "The NYT article doesn't say that the Southern strategy didn't exist, it says that (according to one book) it didn't work." (it didn't work) doesn't mean it didn't exist. Well the same logic applies. Saying the GOP ignored AA issues doesn't mean they tried to appeal to racists. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Censorship of the editorial cartoon?

http://www.littleafrica.com/incredibleart/58.htm

You can see the black guy's face on this version.

Neutrality Dispute Notice

Due to the our inability to reach a resolution on the neutrality of this article I have submitted it to the Neutrality noticeboard. [[3]]. I have added the POV tag because the article is currently on the review board. It should be removed upon completion of the review. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article does not read as neutral. Looking through the edit history it is clear that several references that refute the claims of the article have been dismissed. Editors have removed links to articles that refute the claims from the opening of the article. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring solely to your attempts to insert 'alleged' into the lead? I disagree that 'alleged' is the right word choice here, though their findings might be mentioned somewhere. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the lead of the article suggests the facts are not in dispute yet we have the same paper that started the claims (NY Times) also running an article that says the S Strategy is a myth. That alone should justify the claim "alledged". Furthermore, I see that previous attempts to add references that dispute the claim that the events are "true" have been removed. For example, why was the Revision as of 05:01, 31 December 2014 revision undone. Adding a section that disputes the claims is justified in an article such as this. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The NYT article doesn't say that the Southern strategy didn't exist, it says that (according to one book) it didn't work. Changing the lead to say 'alleged' implies that the strategy didn't exist when it clearly did. Whether or not it worked is a different question. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to any sources that refute the claim? TFD (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's clear we have some goal tending here. We have a few editors who are unwilling to follow Wiki rules and allow reputable sources that dispute their personal POV. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too. For instance, you keep removing any mention of the fact that the Republican National Committee in 2005 acknowledged and apologized for its "Southern strategy" of exploiting racial polarization to win elections. Why do you keep doing that? Because it looks like you won't allow reputable sources that dispute your personal POV. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly reading isn't a thing for you. Your article says no such thing but hey, why let reality piss on your party right? Your article here doesn't say what you claim. It does NOT say the GOP admits to the "Southern Strategy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence in that article is "The head of the Republican National Committee issued a sweeping apology to the NAACP yesterday for a decades-old practice of writing off the black vote and using racial polarization to win elections." The boldfaced portion of the sentence is the very definition of the Southern strategy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually tried to THINK about the topic you would see the issue with what you just said. Let me help you with that. First, the article is a reporter's retelling of what happened. Do you know the difference between a primary and secondary source? That article is a secondary source. Second, the speaker did NOT say the Southern Strategy or the specifics of it were true or even acknowledge them. Admitting that the GOP has ignored the needs of black voters doesn't mean they tried to appeal to racist voters. Also, any statements made at an NAACP meeting must surely be seen in context of trying to win votes just as "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" was an appeasement. --129.59.122.58 (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-responsive. "Using racial polarization" is a great deal different than simply ignoring the needs of black voters, isn't it? Yes, the newspaper article is a secondary source -- you're apparently unaware that secondary sources are the preferred source for wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, you (the IP) might want to look at both sources that you're committed to removing. The Washington Post source starts off thus:

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue—on matters such as desegregation and busing—to appeal to white southern voters. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

I mean, reading isn't a thing for me, and all, but that seems pretty explicit and hard to deny (not for lack of effort). MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at both sources. One doesn't say anything about a "Southern Strategy". The other has the reporter saying "Southern Strategy", with no quotes from the politician. Just because a reporter claims the Chevy "no go" Nova didn't sell well in Mexico, does that make it true in context of a story about marketing campaigns that failed across langauges?

Even if there are any sources claiming the Southern Strategy wasn't a thing, it would be fringe. Rhoark (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly a dishonest view and calls your objectivity into great question. Do you consider the New York Times a fringe source?

MastCell, I see in the past you worked very hard to put stock in the supposed apology but why shouldn't we put as much stock in his statements to CNN on the subject (Talk, archive 14 October 2013). Here is Mehlman on CNN discussing that article and apology http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/17/le.01.html So he doesn't agree that there was some racist plan. Since he doesn't agree then we have to take the Washington Post article as in dispute with a second reliable source (CNN). Remember it is the WP that claims. From the CNN transcripts:

Look, the fact is that we both agree, and the president proves it every single day, that policies and the people that engage in politics that is polarize along race is wrong. It always interests me when people say it was a Southern strategy. The fact is that folks in the North, the South, the East and the West sometimes did this.

People up north sometimes think that this is a southern problem. If you look today, the number-one state in America that has African- American elected officials is Mississippi. There's one state in the country that has the most state-wide officials, Texas -- three African-American Republicans, by the way.

And today it's the Democrat Party that is engaged in racially polarizing politics. That certainly reads like some political talk but it doesn't support the idea that there was some sort of racist plan to get southern voters. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality dispute has NOT been addressed and thus the tag should not be removed. Getoverpops (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You were tasked with suggesting changes after our reliable sources discussion and haven't suggested any. This comment of yours doesn't progress the conversation and you've already admitted to being absent from the discussion because you've been preoccupied with other things. Just asserting that the dispute is still open, doesn't mean it is. There has been no meaningful contribution for nearly a month and your absence for the last month from this conversation can be seen as dropping the dispute. If you wish to continue the dispute, then please provide constructive suggestions.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I was not tasked with anything. I was waiting for suggestions and further instructions from the neutrality dispute which you were working hard to derail. 2. Part of the reason why things seemed to go off track was your trolling of the topic. Getoverpops (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Because the neutrality dispute has been reopened the tag needs to be placed back on the article. I'm sorry you have trouble understanding this. Please read up on the rules. Getoverpops (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding alternative POV to the article

This article's neutrality is questionable. How should we add alternative articles into the text? I propose that we add "alleged" to the opening paragraph and include references that show that the facts and details are in dispute. This will allow the reader to see that there is more than one narrative. Since the facts and events are in question the opening should NOT state things as a given. I will add a dispute tag to the article so people can join the talk here.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created an account.--Getoverpops (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for the alternative view. TFD (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I provided them several times before other editors reverted the changes without justification and claimed edit war. Here are a few that have been in the article and removed by other editors

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0 http://www.redstate.com/diary/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

The above three have all appeared in the article. One is from the New York Times. At the same time the sources in the opening lead are on the whole not very strong. Two are from the the same author. One is an Op-Ed article and the other isn't clear one way or the other. Herbert doesn't offer proof or even evidence of a racist "southern strategy". Instead his articles accept on faith that it existed. The two books are simply referenced but without specific quotes or other information. How can a reader know what was actually said in those texts and if it actually supports the claims. Remember, we have editors here who think the GOP saying they were sorry for neglecting the interests of black voters is the same as trying to appeal to racism in white southern voters. If those sources are to be referenced we need the actual text. Finally we have Boyd's article which does say "southern strategy". Well that's hardly damning. Nixon also likely had a plan for trying to win city voters etc. So of all the opening articles at best there is one that actually supports with some evidence a racist strategy (Boyd). At the same time we have others who say otherwise. That doesn't mean Boyd is wrong but it does mean the facts are in dispute and the opening should not state disputed events as fact. Alleged is the correct term here.--Getoverpops (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A diary from redstate.com? Surely you jest. — goethean 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you read what I said you will see that I was simply reposting links that had previously been in the article in answer to a question. I did not pass judgment on the links.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I was actually about to post this, when the system refused to allow me to post since it would have deleted your post:

Having just reviewed the Wikipedia:Reliable sources archives it is clear the National Review is considered to be a reliable source. Redstate is questionable. --Getoverpops (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A "diary" from redstate.com is not an acceptable source. The National Review can be a useful source to demonstrate a partisan conservative take on an issue, but it is not a suitable source for statements of fact (see WP:BIASED). Ironically, of course, the National Review under Buckley was at the intellectual forefront of the Southern strategy, most famously when Buckley wrote in its pages:

the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

Kevin Williamson (whose piece you cite) is not exactly a renowned scholar of political science; he's perhaps best-known for comparing African-American children to primates, again in the pages of the Review ([4]), so your choice of sources is somewhat ironic if your intent is to deny that the right exploits racism for political purposes.

News pieces from the New York Times are suitable reliable sources for statements of fact. This is a book review of a work by two academics who take a somewhat revisionist line about the role of race in the political re-alignment of the South. This source (and the associated academic work) is sufficient to show that there are dissenting minority or revisionist views, which may be mentioned with appropriate weight and context in the body of the article, but we still need to give proper weight to the mainstream understanding of the Southern strategy, which is detailed in the existing lead.

On a more general note, I'm somewhat bemused by the effort to deny the existence of this strategy when even the RNC itself has acknowledged it, but such is life, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you define what exactly is the "southern strategy" then perhaps we can decide if their is evidence that it happened. Certainly every candidate has a strategy for getting votes in the south. As for the apology you claim, the articles you posted don't contain such a thing. They are an apology (as a way to court votes) but they don't admit to a racist strategy in the past. Again, I encourage you to apply the same standard of review to your own references as you wish to apply to mine.--Getoverpops (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Having looked I've only found references stating that the National Review is considered a reliable source. The POV is acknowledged but it should be considered reliable. I agree that redstate is not. I see you are being critical of several of my references. I would encourage you to apply those same standards to the references which are used to claim support for the claim. What do you mean by news pieces? One of the pieces in the opening is an Op-Ed. Your attack on Williams seems to be an attack the sources sort of claim. It is also clear that the claim of racism is not clear cut. Unless his arguments are shown to be flawed the article should be accepted as a reference. You are critical of a NY Times article that references the work of two researchers but you are willing to accept on faith the claim of a reporter who provides no references or supporting material? Sorry, either the NYT is OK or it isn't. Getoverpops (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the last sentence of your message. Please comment on content and not other contributors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to define what the "Southern Strategy" really is

The article needs a section that states, according to the article, what the "Southern Strategy" really is. Currently the term is ill-defined which allows for rather nebulous claims to be used as "support". It seems the thrust of the intro is that there was a policy to exploit racism and appeal to racist instincts to get votes. If that is the "Southern Strategy" then articles which don't support that claim are non-supportive even if they do use the words "southern strategy". For example, Apple (ref #8 at the time of this posting) is largely talking about the GOP having trouble reaching black voters. That doesn't mean there was a policy to appeal racist motives and a policy that happens to appeal to racists for non-racist motives would not fit the opening sentence of this article. In Apple's article he does say "soutern strategy" but he then goes on to say

"Republicans appealed to Nixon Democrats (later Reagan Democrats) in the Northern suburbs, many of them ethnic voters who had left the cities to escape from blacks, with promises to crack down on welfare cheats and to bring law and order; the party also fought affirmative action."

None of that proves racist intent. The "escape from blacks" is an assumed intent but Apple then says promises to crack down on welfare cheats (is that a bad thing? It was passed under Clinton) and improve law and order (a reasonable appeal at a time when crime was increasing). Finally affirmative action was mentioned. OK, but many are against that not because they are racist but because they see it as reverse racism (ie, you aren't treating people as equals because you are giving something positive to a group based on race). The above is an example but it appears that many of the references being used to support the idea that there was a plan to win over voters based on racism is not supported by many (most?) of the sources for this article. --Getoverpops (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bob Herbert article is Op-Ed, other opening articles are also questionable as support.

The opening sentence of this article seems to contain the real thrust of the entry. It says there was a plan, called the "southern strategy" and it was based on appealing to racism. Two of the 5 supporting links are by Bob Herbert. They ran in the New York Times however, they ran as Op-Ed articles. Wikipedia is clear on the use of such material. They can not be taken to be the opinion of the New York Times nor should they be taken as reliable statements of fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In this case Herbert is a political commentator so his claims as to events should be taken as such. This means they are not sufficient to be proof that the "southern strategy" was a racist appeal by the GOP as claimed. This supports the need to state the opening sentence as alleged in light of other authors and academics who state that no such strategy existed.

The contents of the book by Carter are not listed so a reader can not judge if they support the opening sentence or not. Furthermore, no page reference is included. Carter is an academic, so are the authors of texts which dispute the validity of the "southern strategy". With that in mind why should we believe Carter and not the others? The same issue applies to the reference to Branch's work. We don't know the content in which his work is supposed to support the opening sentence of this wiki entry.

Boyd's article has a number of accusations but lacks references. It was also written at a time when Nixon was under a great deal of political pressure due to Vietnam. Basically it would be hard to separate political spin from actual facts of the time. Remember that to support the opening of this wiki the reference MUST show that the intent was to appeal to racism.

At the same time we have several sources that dispute the facts and events as described and show that there was no campaign to appeal to southern voters on racial grounds.

Based on the above alone it is reasonable to start the article with some indication that the opening sentence is an accusation that is in dispute rather than established fact. Getoverpops (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Herbert - Atwater Link does not support the paragraph

In the Evolution section of the article there is a interview that claims to be Herbert speaking with Atwater. As mentioned by a previous editor this whole section is questionable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_strategy/Archive_1#Bob_Herbert.27s_Article The text does not mention Herbert at all and the link is to a citation, not the interview. If we are to accept this as an interview with Atwater by Herbert the actual interview should be the reference, else we have no context and no way to know Herbert is involved. In short the citation is broken and the information should be removed until a reliable source can be found. Furthermore the entire interview should be included to provide the proper context. Again this is why the article needs to contain an alleged type "disclaimer".--Getoverpops (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that Herbert interviewed Atwater. Herbert was reporting on the interview conducted by Lamis. Check the Southern Politics reference. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It says it in the Wiki article, "Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater,". If Herbert wasn't involved with the interview why was he mentioned. Furthermore, Atwater was a teenager at the time the "southern strategy" was allegedly proposed. Why would we listen to his take?

I would not suggest mediaite as a reliable source, however, they talk about the interview and suggest there was far more context to the comments that appears in the small quote we are given in the Wiki article:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-broadcasts-misleading-edit-of-lee-atwater-quote-to-portray-gop-as-racist/

This isolated remark from a more than 40 minute conversation clearly lacks important context:

Atwater began the interview by asserting that race and party were the dominant issues in the South prior to the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Following that, Southern voters became focused on the economy and national defense — in a sense, setting a trend for the nation because (with the exception of the Vietnam War) much of the Northeast, Midwest and West were still focused on local issues like agricultural and industrial policy in the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections.

The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race thing but on economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered, you know, ultraconservative and everything.

What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act and [Tennessee Valley Authority] and all that bullshit. But, if you look at the economics and the national defense, what happened is the South went from being behind the times to being mainstream.

The Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons: number one, race was not a dominant issue, and, number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been quote “southern issues” since way back in the ‘60s

“So, Reagan goes out and campaigns on economics and national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism. Any kind of reference,” Atwater continued.

He went on to chide white Southerners for their lack of knowledge of the true impact of the Voting Rights Act on American voting patterns. “There’s just no interest and no intensity on that thing among white voters,” Atwater said with an audible hint of derision.

Atwater goes on to say that the “Southern strategy,” as it was understood at the time, was really a play for white blue-collar voters. Those voters went for John Kennedy in 1960 and Barry Goldwater in 1964, but they went for George Wallace in 1968 – a candidate who also won urban white voters in the North’s declining industrial bases as well as the rural south by appealing to notions of alienation.

After supporting Richard Nixon‘s reelection bid in 1972, those blue-collar voters flipped and cast their ballots for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Atwater stresses that blue-collar voters have always been attracted to “the most conservative guy on fiscal matters” or “the toughest son of a bitch on national defense and foreign policy.” Regional pride issues also attracted low-education white voters, Atwater said with yet another note of disdain.

He goes on to note that the VRA would have been a major issue in the South in 1968, but, by 1980, Reagan did not have to run a regional campaign. His national themes of a strong defense and a renewed focus on fiscal conservatism carried the South as it did the Midwest and the West.

At this point, Lamis interrupts Atwater. Lamis notes that the fiscal debates of the 1980 campaign – reforming welfare and the food stamp program, for example – have an undeniable racial element to them. Atwater answers his question “as a statistician.”

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, it backfires. So you say stuff like, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and the byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And, subconsciously, maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded then we’re doing away with the racial problem one way or the other, you follow me? “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

A report by The Nation’s Rick Perlstein, in which the audio of the interview is published, omits the portion in bold – a crucial bit of context. Bashir’s segment also omitted this exculpatory aside.

What Atwater is saying in the omitted portion of this interview is that, by 1980, overt appeals to racism had lost their efficacy. In the midst of a clinical evaluation of campaign strategy, Atwater digresses to contend that racism both exists and is no longer an effective tool for campaigners.

At the very least, an honest appraisal of what Atwater is saying is that a racial strategy is not a prudent course for campaigners in the South. And this was 30 years ago. To misquote him in order to attest that he was referring to circumstances relevant today is misleading at best.

Sorry to include so much of the article but the point is the context of the conversation doesn't really support the racist southern strategy claims and there is certainly no reason to reference Herbert in that paragraph at all. I would hope that at the least you agree that Herbert's name should be removed since it's not clear from the citation how he is involved. Getoverpops (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If Corey Robin is a reliable source is Anne Coulter also reliable?

I've noticed that many of the book references in this article come from Corey Robin. Robin makes a claim about Nixon but offers no reference and then goes on to quote the same Atwater quote that was discussed in previous Talk sections (one archived last year and mine). I have two issues with this reference. First, it seems rather circular. The sort of thing where lots of people say they heard something from many sources so it must be true but when you trace all the rumors back you find a common source. That appears to be what we have here. Anyway, if these sorts of political books are valid references would Ann Coulter's books be valid counter references?--Getoverpops (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comparison. Robin is a professor of political science with a PHD from yale. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not a Wiki-credible answer. Coulter has a JD from Michigan (a very good law program). Also the Coulter book that I've found which discusses the Southern Strategy (Mugged) includes footnotes and citations. Robin's book does not. Which should we consider to be more reputable, a book written by an author with more credentials but the book is lacking references or a book written by an acknowledged opinion writer but which contains references? This all leads back to my primary concern with the article and the point which either needs to go to moderation or needs to be agreed upon. That point is that there are sufficient references saying "no" to call the claim of a "racism based 'southern strategy'" debateable. Why is it not reasonable to start the article with "alleged" and also include a dissenting view section?--Getoverpops (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you can taken this question to the reliable sources discussion board and see if you can find anyone who thinks your argument is sound and consistent with wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Understand I would normally take Coulter an an opinion writer. That means she may put together a sound argument but she also might pick and choose her battles in such a way as to show only one side of an argument. Her biases are of course well known. However, do we know if some of the other sources people are using as "proof" of a racist "southern strategy" really are any better? Can we trust that, for example, when Robin says there was a "Southern Strategy" he knows this from some historical record or is he repeating something that has been said over and over again under the assumption it was fact (GM couldn't understand why the Nova didn't sell in Spanish speaking countries). A marketing Prof might use the story of GM's Latin American Nova sales as the lead in to a lecture on getting to know a local market before trying to sell there. In that context the story is catchy and possibly educational. However, since the story is actually not true, we shouldn't assume that just because a smart person says it, that the details of the story are true.

Going back to some of the articles which are used by this wiki to support the existence of a "southern strategy", many simply state it exist then go on to talk about something else. For example, both the Apple and Rondy links are held up in the intro as "proof" of a racist "southern strategy" simply because the authors say there was such a thing. They don't offer proof that such a thing existed. Hence I find those to be dubious references. They could be taken to mean the idea has been accepted as a backdrop for political conversations but it doesn't mean there is actual fact to the claim. Again, I intend to edit and if need be get moderation to push this point. The article is currently flawed because it accepts, based on poor evidence, that a racist "southern strategy" is a given yet a number of editors refused to allow equally strong (or weak) contradictory evidence to be posted. I'm posting here so my changes and their justifications can be well documented and we can avoid people wrongly claiming edit wars--Getoverpops (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm proposing the following changes to the article introduction.

1. Add alleged to the intro sentence.
2. Specifying that the Herbert articles used in the opening are opinion pieces.
3. Removing/edit the "proof" claims that do not directly support the existence of a specific strategy, started under Nixon of appealing to racism in southern voters. Several of the claims, including the one that says the GOP apologized for ignoring minority issues are taken by this article to be proof of guilt. Instead they should only be seen as a backdrop of ignoring some minority issues.
4. Articles where a reporter simply states that "the southern strategy" existed should not be taken as proof. They should be taken as repeating an often claimed story.

This last one is similar to the way some people will start off an article about car companies calculating the cost of fighting wrongful death claims vs fixing a problem with mention of the Ford Pinto. A review of the history of the Pinto case finds that Ford didn't do such a thing but the story told by Mother Jones has stuck regardless of the actual facts. People have generally accepted that Ford did a human life vs fire value calculation when designing the Ford Pinto. It has become so prevalent in urban mythology that people mention it all the time as given to be true. Several of the articles used to support the claim of a racist "southern strategy" simply mention it in passing but offer no proof that it was ever a thing. These should be seen as no more credible than a New York Times article that mentions the "Pinto Memo" before talking about a contemporary case of a company trading lives for profit as proof that Ford's "Pinto Memo" actually did the same.

Barring feedback these changes will be made in the next day or so.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I believe most of these have been objected to, although it's really hard to tell since you are constantly starting new sections (like this one) and filling them with more rhetoric than substance. Since your first proposal (i.e. "Add alleged to the into sentence") has been reverted by at least four editors and nobody has indicated that they've changed their minds, it appears that you're making a promise to resume edit warring. Not a good idea. Since your editing as an has resulted in the page being semi-protected and your IP being blocked, your best bet is to slow down on your proposals and wait until people actually agree with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

They have not been specifically objected to. In fact I had asked, before people falsely accused me of the edit war, that people who wanted to undo the edits do so here. This is the place to describe any objections to the above changes. If, the changes aren't objected to here but the article edits are simply reversed this will have to go to mediation. I hope that we won't have to do that. It is clear that looking at the talk history of this article others have objected to exactly the things I have mentioned. Those people also accused a few editors of, in effect, goal tending the article to maintain a given political view. So with that said, what are you objections to any of the 4 points?--Getoverpops (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with everything Tom has said here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tom as well and oppose adding "alleged" to the intro sentence. I don't think I understand what specific references Getoverpops is planning to remove with the third and fourth proposals, so can't really say I'd offer support. I do sort of agree that the Herbert articles aren't the best references (at least for the lede), but don't think we should remove them from the article entirely. My sense is that Herbert played a key role in informing the public about the southern strategy, especially in regards to bringing Atwater's interview to a larger audience. How about replacing the Herbert references in the lede with this and this? gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would not remove the Herbert articles at all. I think they are an excellent reference as to what is alleged to be the "southern strategy". Even if the facts are not clear we should say what both sides view the facts or the alleged strategy to be. However, what is your (and Tom, this question is for you too),reason for refusing to want to put "alleged" in the title given that we have sources that say there never was a plan to take the south by appealing to racism (ie "the southern strategy" as outlined in the opening sentence)? Certainly we have sources that meet a reasonable level of reliability according to Wikipedia that say there never was a racist southern plan. Conversely none of the opening sources should be taken as overly reliable (as I outlined above). Hence we have reasonable doubt and thus the article should discuss this as an alleged strategy. What level of confidence would you have to have in refuting evidence to accept an "alleged" intro? I wouldn't be opposed to using either of the Salon references but we need to remember that Salon, like the National Review would be an source with a somewhat biased POV. If we are willing to accept Salon as prof for then I think something from the National Review would be a reasonable counter article. This again gets back to we have evidence both for and against and thus we as editors shouldn't decide entirely in favor of one or the other. As I recall simple agreement is a first step but not the final mediator of an article. You need to explain why you think I'm wrong (Gamaliel & Tom). If you can't then this will certainly end up in mediation.

Before removing/editing any of the specific claims that I feel don't properly support the existence of a racist southern strategy I will post the changes here. Previously I had asked that people move the topic to talk before undoing my changes (something not mentioned in the "edit war" claim against me). Several of the examples are discussed in my previous talk posts but I think we need to work on the alleged part first.

I think it is critical to define, preferably in the intro or just after, what people claim the "racist southern strategy" really is. That is people have alleged there was a plan to appeal to southern voters who were allegedly mad at the democrats for passing civil rights laws. OK, so what appeals were made? If the GOP say decided to focus on say farm subsidies (and assume those were of great value to the south) would that be racist? On the other hand if they said school integration was a state's choice, well that would be racist. Thus two possible ways to appeal to southern voters but only one is racist. Without showing what the GOP offered as a carrot to "racist" southern voters how can one tell if the political offering was racist?--Getoverpops (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone add a paragraph describing exactly what is alleged to be "the southern strategy". This is important because it is safe to assume all politicians running on a national scale have some strategy for each region of the country. I'm sure our current president had one. That doesn't mean that those strategies are any more racist because they involve the south than a strategy to win western states (ie a "western strategy"). Thus what the objectionable strategy is needs to be defined so we can say if any supporting claims actually support the objectionable strategy vs just a plan to appeal to voters of a region (say religion in the relatively religious south). --Getoverpops (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In order to use qualifiers such as "alleged" we need to show that some sources challenge its accuracy. We cannot base this on our personal views on the sources provided in the article. TFD (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that's settled then. This was already done by myself and others and we can add some additional sources as well. You left out that we can also show that the sources provided do not support what the claims they are being used to support within the article. That by itself doesn't make it alleged but if it's shown that what appeared to be a large number of sources for is actually quite small and the number of sources against is larger than originally thought... well that would be "alleged".

I would like to ask how people feel about reducing the emphasis placed on sources that mention the southern strategy in passing or as a historical event without going into detail. For instance, Mike Allen's article (ref 12) starts with "it was called the southern strategy" but the article isn't about this alleged historic strategy but instead about the GOP ignoring the needs of black voters. That type of mention can not be seen as a strong proof that a racist southern strategy existed and more than a mention of the Ford Pinto memo in an article about drug companies trading lives for profits can be seen as proof that Ford did such a thing and documented it. The primary sources that should be used as proof of such a strategy must be ones that specifically discuss it and it's details, not ones that make mention in passing. The Allen article's use in the Wiki entry is particularly flawed because the editor used an apology for one thing as proof of another thing simply because Allen mentioned it as an opening line. That makes it a dubious reference. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Allen provides a pretty accurate description of the Southern strategy when he says, "It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."

As far as your claim that you've already provided adequate sources to support the issue you edit warred over, the fact is that you failed to address the problems raised above with the sources you produced. This is the problem when you keep starting new sections for discussion rather than finishing the old business.

Along with all the other problems with adding "alleged" to the first sentence of this article, you need to consider WP:ALLEGED from the MOS article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. This states, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Allen simply states that it existed then goes on to talk about a wide range of grievances. The only claim to the "racist southern strategy" is the opening paragraph which simply states what the supposed strategy was but doesn't provide any sort of proof. It, along with the entries by Herbert would be very good sources to justify what the alleged strategy was but not a good source to prove such a strategy ever actually existed.

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

It is not clear what issues you think I have failed to address. Please be specific.

If you think alleged is the wrong word, what word would you pick given the very existence of a "racist southern strategy" is in dispute. Here are sources that say it never happened.

http://www.claremont.org/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/#.VQ9uXIjnRak

http://www.claremont.org/article/southern-strategy/#.VQ9uPojnRak A reply to the above which suggests an alternative method for measuring the impact but does not disagree with the conclusion. Both articles are written by academics in the field.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390398/elbert-guillory-bear-killer-gadfly-statesman-joel-gehrke Elbert Guillroy denies such a policy existed (this would be similar to the Allen claim, mentioned in passing).

We also have the NY Times article which is every bit as reasonable as the Herbert references. The NY Times article reports on the contents of an academic paper. Herbert's work is Op-Ed and thus according to Wiki reliable source standards should only be taken as proof of his opinion. So when you combine the above sources which say it didn't happen with the weakness in the sources that try to show it did (as opposed to the ones that mention it as if it were proven fact) I think we have met the standard for an "alleged". However, a more neutral word would certainly be acceptable. Then again, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Isn't that the case we are dealing with here?--Getoverpops (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I check the very first link you provide and find the following (bold face added):

"Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context."

You didn't include the paragraph just before that one which puts things in context, hence you were trying to change the author's meaning.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.

The bold is my emphasis. It's very clear in that opening the author does not agree that a racist southern strategy exists. --Getoverpops (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There may be a legitimate debate to be had about the extent and the duration of the racism, but, as your source shows, racism was certainly a very important part of it. The way to address that IS NOT to throw in the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. You were pointed to WP:WEIGHT by another editor -- it states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Another editor referred to your POV as fringe. With these policies in mind, you need to make the case for ANY expansion of your POV beyond what is already in the article.

I checked your National Review article about Elbert Guillory. I find that he loved Nixon because of affirmative action but don't see that he has an opinion on the southern strategy. I assume the NYT article you refer to is the book review -- you never did respond to the info I provided on a very critical review of the same work by an academic. That review says that even Shafer and Johnston (the authors being reviewed) "stipulate that the demise of legal segregation largely drove the change in southern partisan loyalties from Democratic to Republican in presidential elections."

Your distortion of the MOS section I pasted is bizarre. You really think an exception for pending criminal cases has ANY RELEVANCE at all for this discussion? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First, a single random editor coming in here and claiming ANY thing I said to this end would be fringe is a worthless comment. The NY Times decided Shafer and Johnston were credible enough to report on their book. That doesn't make the hypothesis true but it moves it far from "fringe". That you found a critic of the book is great but that doesn't make it wrong. Both sources can be included in the Wiki article. What is important is that the book is yet more evidence that this "racist southern strategy" is a thing in dispute hence by your own admission "alleged" is appropriate.

Elbert Guillory: in the included article the author speaks of the "so-called southern strategy". That is the author's way of saying he doesn't buy into the common story line. It is every bit as credible (or more specifically not credible) as the Allen article. I would propose that both be used only as evidence that there is a popular conception about the "racist southern strategy" but that it's not an agreed upon thing.

The Claremont source does NOT support the idea that there was a "racist southern strategy". Remember, the article (and you) are claiming a specific racist plan was implemented (though you have not defined what that plan was). Both Dems and Repubs have engaged in dirty politics over the years and worked with dirty players to get votes. That is not proof that a "racist southern strategy" existed. Second, the claim is that the GOP appealed to racism to get votes. If the things they offered were not racist in nature how can this be an appeal to racism? More than one source has claimed the shift from Democrat to Republican in the south was more about religious views and before that financial views (the GOP was historically the party of the more affluent).

I have no idea what you are talking about with the "MOS section". Please make sure your arguments are clear.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← It's probably time to put a stop to this. I agree with everyone else here (except for Getoverpops) that the proposed changes aren't appropriate. It would be worth tightening up the sourcing—Herbert's New York Times article may be relevant but it is, after all, an opinion piece and is better replaced with more reliable/independent sources. But the effort to sow confusion or "allegedness" about the Southern strategy is a no-go, because it goes against the sources. There are plenty more, including this New York Times piece in which Kevin Phillips, one of the GOP strategists who pioneered the Southern strategy, described it thus:

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage... From now on, the Republicans are never going get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.

The last two sentences are as good a summary of the Southern strategy as any, and if you (Getoverpops) are interested in a well-sourced description of the strategy straight from the horse's mouth, then we should probably incorporate it. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to dismiss without cause not withstanding there is enough evidence here that the article should CLEARLY state that the claim that such a strategy exists is not an agreed fact among those studying the history. I've included several academic authors who do not agree. It appears that we will have to take this to mediation since the editors in this case are not open to including sources that dispute the claims.--Getoverpops (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to add some additional references.

The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism edited by Matthew D. Lassiter, Joseph Crespino This book takes direct aim at the notion of a racist southern strategy.

In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution, Joseph Crespino

In the Republican Party, conservative and moderate Republicans in both the state and national party were divided over the question of how vigorously the GOP should pursue southern Dixiecrat voters. To many national observers, President Nixon's election in 1968 and his administration's close attention to the concerns of segregationist leaders in a state like Mississippi led to charges that the administration was pursuing a "southern strategy". When asked about such a strategy, Richard Nixon readily admitted that he targeted white southern voters, but he distinguished between the Deep South states that Barry Goldwater won in 1964 and the border South states that helped put Nixon over the op four years later. Nixon argued that by going after "foam-at-the-mouth segregationishts," Goldwater weakened Republican appeals among moderates. For Nixon, at least in retrospect, the southern strategy meant targeting not the segregationist Dixiecrat followers of George Wallace but rather moderate suburban and upper South whites who readily identified with the fiscal and social conservatism of the Republican Party."

The above two and the other ones I've added are hardly in sum "Fringe" sources and make a strong case that the allegations should be qualified with "alleged". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're helping your cause by cherry-picking sources like this. First of all, your quote establishes that the "Southern strategy" is the mainstream historical understanding of the realignment of Southern party politics, but that Richard Nixon retrospectively distanced himself from the more racist elements of the strategy. Moreover, the very next sentence, which you chose to excerpt, reads: But the actual record of the Mississippi Republican Party was much more complicated than Nixon's post facto analysis allowed. It goes on to explain that Southern Republicans worked with the Nixon White House to undermine civil-rights programs in the South in order to win over white segregationist voters from the Democratic Party. So this source further supports our existing text on the Southern strategy, your borderline-dishonest misrepresentation of it nothwithstanding. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"First of all, your quote establishes that the "Southern strategy" is the mainstream historical understanding of the realignment of Southern party politics". OK, but that isn't what the wiki is claiming. The Wiki is claiming the strategy was a deliberately racist strategy. The articles do NOT support that claim. You are failing to understand that the critical point is NOT that people think the racist southern strategy existed (that much is clearly a fact). The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist. That puts the article in the area of alleged.

As a parallel example, take the Pinto: "history has said the Ford Pinto had a gas tank that was designed to a price. Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off the families of people who would die in rear impact fires rather than spend just a few dollars to fix the gas tank." That is a quick summary of the popular history of the Ford Pinto. I think few would argue that is the pop-history version of events. However, if you look into the mater you will find that the actual events and actual choices at Ford were far more complex and in general not nefarious. Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_controversy The same thing appears to be true here. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You state: "The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist." However what our article actually says is: "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans". Big difference. The policy may or may not have been racist (it could be purely pragmatic); what's not in doubt is that the policies were designed to attract folks holding racist views.

Historian Sean Wilentz in "The Age of Reagan" (p. 282) makes this exact distinction:"Likewise, whatever his personal views were about racial justice, Reagan's rhetoric as well as the policies of his Department of Justice greatly reassured the enemies of civil rights reforms, their politics forged in reaction to the advances of the 1960s, that he was on their side."

As far as your cherry-picking that MastCell identified, a review of Crespino's book in The Journal of American History (Vol. 95, No. 2 (Sep., 2008), pp. 607-608) notes that "Crespino contends that politicians such as Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan were archtypes of the racial backlash that fueled the conservative movement. Both Nixon and Reagan came to Mississippi to seek votes from disaffected whites, speaking in coded language about Communism and state's rights, respectively." I'll take the academic review over your opinion of what Crespino actually argued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

PS Bruce H. Kalk in The North Carolina Historical Review (Vol. 71, No. 1 (JANUARY 1994), pp. 85-105) describes one of the important steps Nixon took in implementing his southern strategy:

"On May 31, 1968, Nixon flew to Atlanta, Georgia, to meet with southern Republicans. At the Atlanta conference, he negotiated with senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and John Tower of Texas, Mississippi GOP chairman Clarke Reed, and other conservative leaders. The first day of the conference Nixon met with the Republican state chairmen. On June 1 he talked with Thurmond, Tower, and others. In return for their support, Nixon made several specific promises. He pledged to stop the accelerating federal commitment to racial integration by easing pressure on southern school boards and discouraging plans to bus students in order to achieve desegregation. He also promised his support for conservative, "strict-constructionist" Supreme Court nominees. If elected, Nixon said he would consult with southern GOP leaders regularly. He gave Thurmond the impression of a "southern veto" on White House policies that affected the South.8 He also promised Thurmond help for the struggling textile industry in the Carolinas and, of special interest to the South Carolinian, support for a more aggressive American military posture. The candidate's promises seemed earnest enough to win pledges from the "Dixiecrat-segregationists," most notably from Senator Thurmond himself."

Do you have sources that dispute this agenda of this meeting? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• No this is basically the same thing and more importantly there are only a limited number of sources that have offered any credible claims that the strategy was to appeal to racism. That is the critical thing here. No one disputes that there had to have been some plan to win votes in the south. What is in question, and the reason why I say we need to add "alleged" is because the claim of this wiki is that the plan was to appeal to racism.

• I don't recall Regan running with Nixon. Are we talking about Nixon or Regan? Are you even sure or is the idea to mention everyone?

• I don't think you are in a position to berate others for "cherry picking". It doesn't mater. The fact of the mater is there are credible sources that disagree with the narative of this article. They should be included and the opening should indicate that the facts/narrative is in dispute.

• Congratulations, you have found sources that say a southern plan was drawn up. That is not what the opening sentence of this Wiki says. The opening sentence says that the plan was to appeal to racism, not just to appeal to southern voters who were no longer happy with the Dixiecrats. Your above references DON'T say that an alleged southern strategy was planing to use racism to get votes. So which is it? This is exactly why I think we need a formal definition of what the "southern strategy" really was.
• Anyway, I have discussed the changes that should be made. I will go about making them in a way that tries to make sure your views are preserved. I hope that we can avoid taking this to mediation. Given the number of conservative critical articles you are involved with I don't have high hopes for that. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I put my posts where I did because they were replies to your lines. Unless you can point to a Wiki policy that says that is not OK it is not OK to edit what I said. I would undo your change but I do not wish to disturb the post after it. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Baloney. This is the type of rude behavior that got you blocked once. See WP:AVOIDABUSE for the common sense guideline -- "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." Now quit it and stop wasting my time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as you and the other editors should have justified the removal of my reasonable edits to the article in the Talk section (that is part of BOLD) you should have posted this the first time you moved my text.--Getoverpops (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I trust you will remove the edits that were added to the article around 9:30 today as quickly as you removed mine. After all the new edits clearly are not supported, are non-neutral POV and are possibly vandalism. --Getoverpops (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am troubled by the current POV of the article, particularly of the opening paragraph. No directive or plan from the Republican Party is cited, just anecdotal evidence. The assumption that the feelings of some political operative were universal and coordinated is then presented as fact.

That Nixon flipped Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee in 1968 is presented (without citation) as evidence of a premeditated, coordinated, racist Southern Strategy. That Nixon flipped Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Delaware, and New Jersey in the same election is naturally pure coincidence and not worth mentioning.

Competing explanations for the political realignment of 1968 must be mentioned and the first paragraph must be rewritten to note the contested nature of the theory. Juno (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I've been busy but I would like to add some new information. There is a neutrality dispute open regarding this page. To some extent the issue of the dispute was addressed by a change in the lead. However, several sources which dispute the telling of events as presented in this article were included in that discussion. I would like to make sure this article includes those sources. You are correct that currently the article is based largely on sources that are anecdotal. There is virtually no solid evidence of what happened. The results are being used as proof even though several scholars have said the results were due to other causes. In short, the article is just not very good.--Getoverpops (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources defining (not alleging) the southern strategy

William C. Binning, Larry E Esterly, Paul A Sracic. Encyclopedia of American parties, campaigns, and elections. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press 1999

p. 386: "The Southern strategy was a conscious effort by the Republican party to gain a foothold in what had been the solid Democratic South." Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this actually something the book proves or the book simply states as an assumed fact? Given the scope of what the book claims to cover (there is an issue of access here since this is not readily available on line) how can we know this is proof vs simply a statement of assumed fact such as a claiming the "Pinto Memo" was about gas tanks... or the Pinto. Basically as it stands this isn't any more of a source than some of the previous articles I've discussed.

John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie. The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, 1993 ISBN-13: 9780195142730

"Republicans adopted a “Southern strategy”—running candidates and making appointments that would appeal to the region's conservative sentiments. The strategy encouraged many Democrats to register or vote as Republicans. The “solid South” made way for a two-party South as Southern voters began electing Republicans as well as Democrats to Congress." Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A Google search of the text (admittedly not a perfect method) doesn't show your paragraph. The only mention of a "southern strategy" (my search term) as a mention of Zachery Taylor.

--Getoverpops (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• What is meant by "conservative"? We have seen that the GOP has made strong inroads with religious conservatives, especially in the south. Are you saying that appealing to religious conservatives is appealing to racism? Remember the opening line of the wiki says it was an appeal to racist instincts. Your links above do not show that. I have links that dispute a racist plan that are from several academics at more than one university. That should be plenty to meet a standard that says the "racism" part is in dispute. That is all I need to show to justify adding text to the article that shows the facts are in dispute. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Mace Barbee, Race and Masculinity in Southern Memory, Lexington Books, 2013

P124: "These shifts had to occur without resort to racist language or direct reference of racial fears...Unable to directly and overtly tap white fear, conservatives deployed a highly abstract platform that spoke to those fears without engaging in weighted, offensive language. Often called the "Southern Strategy," this technique has proven influential for national candidates from Nixon through George W. Bush" Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a credible source or simply one that is stating a known legend as fact? Regardless, this is simply more evidence that the facts of the "southern strategy" are in dispute and thus the article should have a section addressing the dispute and the intro should not lead off with a statement implying fact. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a book by a university professor from an academic publisher stating it as fact and not legend, which is evidence for exactly the opposite of your assertion here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I have posted links to books by university professors from academic publishers stating the opposite. What that means is we have two or more credible sources saying different things. How does Wiki suggest we address that issue? Based on an earlier post by Tom it would appear that putting "alleged" is an option. However, he is right, that can be a word that suggests the "alleged" is actually false. We could call it disputed which would be more neutral as to the actual facts. In that case what do we do with the lead in? It is not acceptable to have an opening that suggests the "racist southern strategy" is a thing if we have credible (according to Wiki standards) sources that say it is not.

How do you propose to address the issue of conflicting sources?Getoverpops (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alleged would unduly emphasize your favored sources and violate NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't fully agree but you have a point. How would you suggest the information be included? The intro should not, as it current does, indicate that we are dealing with established fact. Perhaps we could say that the "SS" is a term referring to, according to various sources, a policty to win over southern voters. Notable authors (saying notable avoids making it sound like only fringe authors are claiming it) have said it involved appealing to racist motives while others have said they GOP targeted non-racist (a better phrase would be good here) concerns such as economic considerations. I'm sure we can come up with something better as a group. Simply refusing to add any of the credible sources that say it wasn't racist isn't acceptable since they meet the wiki standards for reliable sources. It should be a question of how, not if. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have provided reliable sources that justify changing the introduction, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you aren't looking. The book mentioned by the NY Times was written by a pair of academics. The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism edited by Matthew D. Lassiter, Joseph Crespino is edited by two academics and published by Oxford University Press. The Myth of the Racist Republicans By: Gerard Alexander is an article written by an academic in the field. How many do we need to have before we can say the facts are in dispute at the academic level?Getoverpops (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the facts are in dispute at the academic level? Or are you pointing to some outliers and making that claim yourself? Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I just showed two text and an article written by academics. What are you looking for? BTW, your above sources appear to be questionable. See my recent edit/reply.--Getoverpops (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Myth of the Racist Republicans", which was published in the Claremont Review of Books, says there was a Southern Strategy.[5] The dispute over the Southern Strategy is not whether it occurred but whether or not the Republican Party/Conservatives/the South are inherently racist. There is no dispute that the Republican Party appealed to racism to gain support in the South. TFD (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Problems with this source have pointed out to Getover before and he has failed to provide any adequate rebuttal. The other source has also been effectively contested (see [6] for example) -- again no effective rebuttal. At this point, we have to assume that this latest response by Getover represents his best effort (he has made about 37 edits of significant length on these topics) at locating sources. IMO he has failed and it is time for him to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed] Getoverpops (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to personal attacks? Nowhere in the article does the phrase "racist southern strategy" appear, does it? This was explained to you before. Perhaps you should check out Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, especially WP:REHASH. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans." The first sentence says it was a plan to use racism. How is that NOT racist?--Getoverpops (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I explained that to you before, didn't I? Let me repeat it:

You state: "The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist." However what our article actually says is: "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans". Big difference. The policy may or may not have been racist (it could be purely pragmatic); what's not in doubt is that the policies were designed to attract folks holding racist views.

Historian Sean Wilentz in "The Age of Reagan" (p. 282) makes this exact distinction: "Likewise, whatever his personal views were about racial justice, Reagan's rhetoric as well as the policies of his Department of Justice greatly reassured the enemies of civil rights reforms, their politics forged in reaction to the advances of the 1960s, that he was on their side."

Look familiar? Are you serious when you argue that Nixon, Reagan, and other users of the southern strategy were not fully aware that their policies on desegregation would appeal to racists? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I've already replied to this. Sorry, the simple fact is there are sources that are both credible and do not agree with this article. How do you propose they are added? Additionally, a number of references are misused in the article. For example the claim that the GOP apologized to black voters (how can that not be seen as an attempt to say anything to get votes) was held up in a single sentence "paragraph" as proof that a "racist southern strategy" existed. That is not a credible citation. The Wiki editor is assigning meaning to the quote which it can not logically have.--Getoverpops (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited intro

I added sources to the intro, avoided claims of "alleged" to avoid biasing the reader but did add sources that disagree with the original into. This is a reasonable and balanced change. If you disagree clearly state why. Please do not start an edit war.--Getoverpops (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Every source you added and most of the material you added has been disputed in the seven or so sections above -- most of which you started. I don't believe any further elaboration on the UNANIMOUS disagreement with your proposals is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not applying the same level of scrutiny to sources that support the claims as you are to ones that dispute the claims. Furthermore those sources meet the Wiki standards for reliable sources and they are topical. Given that, under what grounds would you have them removed? Why are you willing to tolerate questionable sources that support the racist strategy hypothesis but unwilling to consider ones that dispute it? Given the history of the talk section it is clear that many other editors are unhappy with this article but they have lost patience with trying to change it. This may be an example of article ownership. I have requested Dispute resolution because you are unwilling to accept alternative points of view in this article.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not applying the same level of scrutiny to sources that support the claims as you are to ones that dispute the claims. Furthermore those sources meet the Wiki standards for reliable sources and they are topical. Given that, under what grounds would you have them removed? Why are you willing to tolerate questionable sources that support the racist strategy hypothesis but unwilling to consider ones that dispute it? Given the history of the talk section it is clear that many other editors are unhappy with this article but they have lost patience with trying to change it. This may be an example of article ownership. I have requested Dispute resolution because you are unwilling to accept alternative points of view in this article.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

−

I hope Getoverpops reads the James Boyd article thoroughly on Kevin Phillips, who was with the Nixon administration. He had been analyzing the continuing shifts of ethnic politics for some time and realized there were Democratic voters in the North and South who would be willing to shift into the Republican Party because of the Democrats' national "identification with the newcomers" in their party, that is, the African Americans and Hispanics. Phillips thought the people in the Upper South's suburbs were a good target for Republican appeals, as they were more moderate than voters in the Deep South. But in Virginia, those suburbs had already been part of the Massive Resistance to integration of schools, for example, and had been committed to segregation.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for dealing with this article is to cite who referred to Nixon and Reagan's having a Southern strategy, describe the results of the elections (their goal was to capture the presidency and they did). Add the later "conservative response," denials, and proposals of economics as the "true" alternatives as to why people went to the Republican Party can be described; but these are the results of later studies, not the contemporary analysis. They responded to the controversy generated by naming this strategy. But I suggest any such "Controversy" section should be treated separately, with a clear indication as to who is speaking/writing. Identify the academics who disagree, not as a list, but by name and affiliation, rather than "some", etc. Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that the term "Southern strategy" entered the political lexicon to characterize such actions as Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as the site of the murders of the civil rights workers, where he defended states rights. Everyone was alert to the symbolism of that gesture. So cite a source saying the Republicans have denied that was the intended symbolism; the results were in the votes. People can have more than one opinion as to what happened as political realignments continued, and people vote for more than one reason - but often first out of emotion. Kevin Phillips, the Nixon strategist, said in his own words and work that there was an opportunity to capture shifting votes based on ethnic/racial appeals, and was part of the campaign and administration that achieved this. He was speaking from inside the Republican Party, not as an outside observer. It is going against the sources to try to contend that the Republican spokesman's 2005 apology for using racial polarization has no relation to the Southern strategy as described in this article or by Phillips in the Boyd article. I agree with Tom (NorthShoreman).Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I take the above as good faith vs partisan defense of a topic that seems to only attack the GOP (note the large number of accusations of bias in the talk history). The entry of the term into the lexicon is generally in agreement. The dispute is over the nature of the actual plan (or even if a singular plan existed). Incidentally, given the number of times the motives of authors who dispute the racist hypothesis have been posted why shouldn't the motivations of those who support the claims also be presented?--Getoverpops (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If I called George Wallace a racist, would that be an attack, or a sober description? In this article we are trying to neutrally describe, with reference to the most authoritative sources, a strategy that was undeniably used by the Republican Party. This is a fact of history and political science. It is unsurprising that Republicans want to deny it, but it happened, per the vast consensus of professional historians. You can wok with us to improve the article, but this topic is not alleged to exist; it is an established historical fact, and it is not going away. — goethean 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Substituted alternative language about the Republican Party's "appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation" in the Lead. No one has to prove to you as an editor that "a singular plan" existed; political campaigns are running games. Sure, ID who wrote about the Southern Strategy - and include Kevin Phillips' detailed discussion and assessment of his studies as quoted in the NY Times Boyd article.Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a false argument. What you are attempting to do is setup up a test where any thing that could be seen as possibly detrimental to a particular race would be prof of a racist strategy. That is beside the point. We have sources that pass wiki muster that say the racist narrative is false. Those should be included in the article. You make the article better by being more inclusive of information, not suppressing it. --Getoverpops (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed the second paragraph to improve description of changing politics in the South after Civil War; it had previously started with the Solid South, but that term developed in the 20th century after the South disenfranchised its large African-American population and many poor whites, and was sending white-only Democratic delegations to Congress.Parkwells (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When you claim there is a "southern strategy" you are referring to a single plan (long term or not). The problem is if you open up the definition we get into a game of wak-a-mole. All we have to do to "prove" this racism is prove that someone somewhere was racist while running for office in the south. If that is the standard then it would likely apply to all parties for all national elections. If the idea is to discuss this general nebulous concept then again articles which dispute this nebulous concept or say it is different than often described are still valid additions. What is troubling here is the degree to which people will refuse to include some sources yet defend other questionable sources and/or citations. Note, due to concurrent edits I've had to place texts next to the paragraphs they would have followed had the other edits not occurred.--Getoverpops (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one setting up a test - equating a strategy with "a single plan". No one has to find language about a "single plan" to satisfy your contention that this is what it means. The word "strategy" is not synonymous with a single plan. You have not referred to any sources saying there was no strategy; you have said other academics or commentators believe there were reasons other than racial appeals that Democrats shifted into the Republican Party. No one suggests there is only one reason. But, the sources, including Kevin Phillips from inside the administration, show that Nixon and Reagan played on racial issues in their strategy for their campaigns.Parkwells (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If editors do not like my suggested changes about "appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation" in the Lead, then change the first paragraph back. I don't think it's "opening it up" - it is following the same kind of thinking about context as shown in the sources.Parkwells (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source, Gerard Alexander in The Claremont Review article, says, "Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context." - See more at: http://www.claremont.org/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/#.VRIBz-G8rSp That's what the editors here said. Parkwells (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As TFD said above re: Alexander's article, the "dispute over the Southern Strategy is not whether it occurred but whether or not the Republican Party/Conservatives/the South are inherently racist." Editors here are not claiming here that the party is inherently racist, but worked "with the grain of Southern opinion", as Alexander said. That sums it up well. Alexander goes on in his article to argue against later interpretations of Republican thought and practice, some specific ideas by Carter, Aistrup, and the Black brothers that are not at issue here. Parkwells (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe another solution, although unusual, is to use a quote from a source in the lead. The WA Post 2005 article by Mike Allen says about the "southern strategy", that it "described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."[7] I think this is what Tom (NorthShoreman) was referring to in his version of the Lead (or whoever wrote the last one before mine). It's straightforward.Parkwells (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Parkwells, thank you for at least trying to work on this. There are other people who were inside the Nixon admin who say the there was no southern strategy. Presumably they are speaking in reaction to people who are trying to claim a racist southern strategy. I do think, for the purpose of a balanced article, that the racism part is given fair treatment. We have several articles that say the plan to win southern votes was not based on appealing to racism. Those voices should be given weight comencerate with their sources. Really, much of the article is acceptable but the lead is the real issue because the lead currently states the plan was to use racism. I don't think running with a quote is that good a plan. Often you will see newspaper articles that start with such a quote ("Congress to sell Florida!"... according to sources). It's a great way to run a flashy headline without running a "dishonest" headline. In this case if there is clear debate weather or not this nebulous thing called "the southern strategy" is an appeal to racism that debate should be included in the lead, not near the bottom of the article. The fact that people don't want to nail down what "the southern strategy" even is makes defining it as racist or not even more problematic. What if a lower ranking Regan adviser says it was. Well was that the same "southern strategy" as Nixon used? Was it used in the '76 elections? Some of the editors have said these past activities should not be used to indite the party as a whole (or something to that affect). Should that go in the lead? The problem with the current lead is it really reads as "GOP=racist". For this reason I think sources of similar weight to those in the lead should be included to balance that section. It should also be noted that many of the lead sources are not strong as the article stands. --Getoverpops (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We have several articles that say the plan to win southern votes was not based on appealing to racism. Those voices should be given weight comencerate with their sources.

Comparing these few sources that you have been able to muster to the overwhelmingly vast weight of scholarship which agrees that the Southern Strategy existed and was used to manipulate Southern "Negrophobe" voters into the Republican Party, your carefully selected sources merit no weight in the article at all. Do a quick search on Google Books and Google Scholar.[8] [9] — goethean 16:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. The section proposed below can be used to address such claims. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the dispute tag

This article is currently the subject of dispute resolution. Why was the POV tag removed?--Getoverpops (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How should articles that dispute the racist nature of the "southern strategy" be added to the body of the article

How would people suggest adding articles that dispute the racist nature of the "southern strategy" be added to the article? Would a general controversy section be appropriate? In a controversy section opinion articles such as Herbert's could be cited as well as other opinion writers with clear indication that they are opinions. This would also allow the inclusion of sources, those I have listed previously, that dispute the understanding that this was a racist policy. Since racism is the public perception associated with the policy (see the Herbert references) then balanced sources should be included. Please suggest how they should be incorporated.--Getoverpops (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add a new section about the contrary, conservative viewpoints. They are notable, and you have RSs to support you. Then a light mention in the lede would be appropriate. It sure looks to me as though the southern strategy was racist, but WP isn't about what editors think. It's about what the RSs say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As the above sections of discussion clearly show, there has been universal disagreement against the reliability of the sources proposed by GetOver. In many cases it has been shown that language is cherry picked from the sources by GetOver, ignoring contrary language from the same sources. The sources are all up there -- perhaps you could go through them and show where Getover is right and whichever editor opposes him is wrong. I don't disagree with such a section -- what I vehemently disagree with is that GetOver has made a case for how he intends to use the sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, there has been disagreement regarding the reliability of the sources proposed by me (who is GetOver?). The claims of cherry picking are claims, not shown. You will of course have a chance to provide input to the section if you disagree with how a source is used. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually my comments were directed at Mr. Tweet. I'm encouraging him to elaborate on his apparent endorsement; it would be interesting to see if he has anything specific to add to the discussions on each individual source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep straight what is being discussed - as Tom (NorthShoreman) has repeatedly said and what the Lead summarized, is the issue is the "southern strategy" that appealed to people based on racial polarization (as the Republican Party apologized for in 2005.) Maybe we should use their language in the Lead, so we can get over this argument. This article did not say the Republican Party was inherently racist, but that it used racial issues to achieve electoral success. One could argue that it was pragmatic, as some of the quotes seem to support. The Party was going for the main chance in order to get candidates elected. Sources agree on this. The Allen article in The Claremont explicitly agreed there was a southern strategy, as I quoted above. He disagreed with later conclusions by scholars about Republican Party motivations, and appeared to exaggerate later opinions for effect and to argue with.Parkwells (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the argument regarding the first sentence is resolved. Getover's proposals have been rejected and your change apparently accepted -- it's fine with me and nobody else has objected. It seems that "racism" had been part of the sentence for years but I don't know why it was added. The distinction between a "policy INITIATED by racists" as opposed to a "policy TARGETED to appeal to racists" is an important one -- a concept that Getover rejects. I think attempting to find language that Getover will agree to is a waste of time, but, if you have the patience, go for it.

This edit [10] reverted an ill advised addition to the lead, both in timing and ignoring the context of the purpose of the sentence edited. It remains to be seen whether this is going to generate another section on the discussion page. I have repeatedly advised Getover to slow down, but it's not happening.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

On further thought, the first sentence might be better if you changed "history of segregation" to "white opposition to desegregation. This article [11] seems to be on point; the following is an excerpt from the complete JSTOR article:

On black Americans, Nixon's views were unambiguous. On April 28,1969, discussing welfare, Haldeman recorded: "P emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to. Problem with overall welfare plan is that it forces poor whites into same position as blacks (p. 53)." Nixon pointed out that "there has never in history been an adequate black nation, and they are the only race of which this is true." In February 1970, discussing southern school desegregation: Nixon "feels we have to take some leadership to try to reverse Court decisions that have forced integration too far, too fast. Has told [Attorney General] Mitchell to file another case, and keep filing until we get a reversal (p. 126)." Nixon told Ehrlichman to move fast on developing a constitutional amendment banning school busing for racial balance. "Feels we should bite bullet now and hard, if its called racism, so be it! Feels we have to take a black or white position (didn't even notice the pun), can't be on both sides because we just get hit from both and please no one. ...

By the summer of 1970, Nixon was concentrating almost exclusively on the politics of domestic issues and policy. "P has changed his mind," Haldeman wrote, "has reached new conclusion. Is convinced policy of sucking after left won't work, not only can't win them, can't even defuse them (p. 187)." Nixon insisted that "all scheduling and other decisions [be based] on political grounds. Especially emphasize Italians, Poles, Elks and Rotarians, eliminate Jews, blacks, youth," Haldeman wrote. "About Family Assistance Plan, wants to be sure it's killed by Democrats and that we make big play for it, but don't let it pass, can't afford it (p. 181)." Nixon was "very upset that he had been led to approve the 1RS ruling about no tax exemption for segregated private schools." Nixon read Dent's memo analyzing problems with the South and issued a "whole series of orders about no more catering to liberals and integrationists to our political disadvantage...Wants me to tell all staff P is conservative, does not believe in integration, will carry out the law, nothing more (p. 184)."23 On federal enforcement of school desegregation: "Had me tell Mitchell not to open Southern offices and not to send his men down en masse, only when needed on a spot basis. Also set policy that we'll use no federal troops or marshals to enforce, must be done by locals (p. 185)." "We take a very conservative civil rights line," Nixon instructed (p. 208).
 Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to start by requesting that North Shoreman refer to me by my user name. I tried to indicate this before, now I am stating it. Second, I hope that all sources will be scrutinized as carefully as the ones I have mentioned. If the standard is to be one "credible" negative review and you are out then we will remove quite a few sources. I think it's important to note that this is a political wedge topic so it's no surprise that an author critical of Nixon (or the GOP in general) would highlight it as proof of racism. At the same time the GOP does have an interest in downplaying any sin. Hopefully with this round of edits we can present a more comprehensive picture of both sides. I believe the new introduction is an improvement. I'm still not 100% OK with the statement/assertion that the "policy TARGETED to appeal to racists". We have several sources that indicate that it was instead a policy that was targeted at avoiding alienating. Also, is racist the correct term? Some I'm sure were racist. However, you also had a large group who, if nothing else, were tired of being accused of being racist even if they personally didn't support many of the racist policies. As a southern soldier asked answered a northern soldier when captured, "You own no slaves, why would are you fighting us?" His reply, "Because you are here" (my recollection of a story told by Shelby Foote in a Ken Burns documentary). When you think about how people in the south would feel when DC just pasted a huge "South you suck" act (and DC was 100% right and just to pass it), it's understandable that some people were probably not inclined to take it well. What one person might call a policy to appeal to racists, another would reasonably argue was a policy intended to avoid antagonizing those who, right or wrong, felt they had been antagonized. That, is not a plan to appeal to racism but to avoid antagonizing. If the article is now to talk only of presidential elections and ignore local/state elections then references that are general to the GOP should carry less weight. For example, the apology to the NAACP is not an admission that any president used a souther strategy (as described in the lead). It could be as much for a GOP congress ignoring inner city needs etc. Anyway, I'm glad to see progress on this article. It seemed it needed a bit of a kick start ;) --Getoverpops (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

d== Why is this section in the article: "19th century disfranchisement and rise of the Solid South" ==

What purpose does this section server in the article? How does it support any particular narrative of a "southern strategy"? If the objective is to attempt to show that Republican messages were failing in the south prior to the 1960s then there are scholarly works that specifically address the changing voting patterns in the south. Many suggest that as early as the 1930s or 40s the GOP and most southern voters were more philosophically aligned with one another on all issues other than race where the GOP was a proponent of civil rights. If the section is just background then it really doesn't do anything to support the "southern strategy" for or against. We would need to start no earlier than the 1950s for the history of a post civil rights election strategy. I would move to remove this section. If not then please explain how it fits within the article. If it is retained I suggest we expand it to look at the more views on the reasons why the GOP did and didn't have success in the south. --Getoverpops (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Background. TFD (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the short answer. Why should we stop the history there? Why not extend it back to 1776 or earlier? Can you justify that the current level of background is warranted given the scope and time line of the "southern strategy". If yes, then justify it. This article is rather long and contains quite a bit that is off subject. This whole section should be removed since it is goes to far back to provide useful insight into the actual topic of the article.--Getoverpops (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire introductory part should probably just link to the Solid South or perhaps a similar article. This would greatly compact the article without removing any of the salient points regarding the political strategies of the GOP in the south just before and post civil rights legislation.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Background sections are useful -- this one particularly so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and prior to your post above the consensus was the section was overly broad given the topic of the article. Would you suggest that we include pre-Civil War material as well? Really, why have history dating so far back? Unlike some of the other changes that need to be made to the article this one isn't critical but so much information does reduce the quality of the article. Regardless, I guess we should concentrate on getting more of the recent information integrated into the article instead of fighting over a needlessly long background section. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It probably could be shortened somewhat. The background section should explain the problem the Southern Strategy was undertaken to address, and does not need the level of detail. TFD (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that. What material do we think is needed to explain the background. I think a single section vs two sections would be sufficient. It could probably be about half the current length. Since two editors were unhappy with my previous changes I figure we could hash this out a bit first. --Getoverpops (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Which material do you think needs to be excluded and explain why it doesn't assist in better understanding the dynamics behind the Southern Strategy. Generally, most of the information in this section has already been discussed by various sources, so its importance partially hinges on those sources' mentioning of the material.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unable to see the issue here. Then again, you also have accused me of "Undid edit consisting of unsourced info and a violation WP:OR" which is interesting given that edit was the removal rather than adding of any information. We have two editors (my self and TFD) who agree that the background section is needlessly long. I have already said I feel that any material prior to the WW2 section is unneeded and covered in the solid south article (linked in both my edited version and the version you restored without proper justification (edit war on your part?). I feel the material prior to WW2 is not needed because other articles explain why the south was strongly Democratic prior to that time. The topic of the article only relates to the political make up of the area just before, during and after the passage of national civil rights laws. I'm would have thought that someone who had such strong opinions on this subject's neutrality dispute thread (but not here.... odd that) would understand such things. --Getoverpops (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The background section needs to go back to Reconstruction and demonstrate how the Democratic Solid South evolved. It also needs to show that blacks were deliberately targeted and disenfranchised by the racist white majority. One of the remarkable things about the Southern Strategy is that it was able to totally change generations of political dominance by one party in such a relatively short time. I can see sentences that can be changed or eliminated, but in the main the events covered are relevant. A reader unfamiliar with the subject, especially non-USA readers, need the type of background that the article currently provides. The Civil War, Reconstruction, southern white restoration, and the final transitions in the 1890s are all stages that need to be described in general. The seven paragraphs in "19th century disfranchisement and rise of the Solid South" can probably be reduced to four or five with careful editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs to go that far back but I appreciate that you are the first to actually justify the length. I still disagree but I've also said that it's not worth fighting over. It hurts the readability while adding little value to the article but that's not the worst of sins. Your comment about how the "southern strategy" totally changed generations of political dominance (and claim of a cause and effect) is very questionable. I hope that is not the thesis you strive for while editing the article! Any way you look at it the statement is wrong. If we assume southern voters were motivated by race above all else then the passage of civil-rights by the Democrats would result in a large number of dissatisfied voters who would likely turn to any other party. Thus it would be the civil-rights push, not the "southern strategy" that was most responsible. But of course there are two flaws with this thinking. First, is the flawed idea that southern voters were really that racist. That they would put racism above all other considerations. Second, it ignores the research I'm trying to add to this article and that you should now be familiar with. That research suggests that the Democrats on the whole were, ignoring the issue of civil-rights, moving away from issues that the average southern voter agreed with. At the same time that research suggests that southern voters, on most issues, were better aligned with the GOP on issues that the Democrats. Rather it was the entrenched strength of the Dixicrats that held off a shift to the GOP until the rise of civil-rights broke the bond between the Dixiecrats and the larger Democratic party. In that sense the southern voter resisted the GOP because they didn't want to be with the side that was initially pushing for civil rights even though in most ways their views better aligned with the GOP vs the national Democrats. With the breaking of the Dixiecrats by the civil-rights issue the GOP didn't have to actively court many southern voters so much as not offend them. This BTW, is all basically covered in the sources I have presented. Those sources, rightly, question the notion of some grand, racist southern strategy. They point out that the change from blue to red is hardly proof. The Use of "code words" as proof is questionable (but convenient "proof" for political opponents) because it ignores real issues associated with the programs in question. As an example, being against affirmative action in school admissions could be seen as a modern "code word" for racism. But that would ignore the real complaint an applicant might feel if a student with a lesser academic record is placed at the head of the line due only to race. Often the claim of "code-word" is a way to dismiss legitimate concerns through an implied accusation of racism. There is very limited evidence that any "racist strategy" was actually enacted and certainly not over a period of nearly two decades. Heck, at least one of the sources I found suggested as much as anything the GOP stumbled and bumbled their way into the south by not recognizing that the region was culturally well aligned with the GOP (excluding support for racism). This is why the article needs a section that discusses what was actually done and how there is strong evidence that the political shift was not due to a GOP plan. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your reasoning, examining and understanding of evidence, and conclusions are not relevant when other peer reviewed authors have identified and defined the Southern Strategy as racist. So your focus on what you consider "proof" ultimately does nothing to counter what reliable sources say and is really not constructive to improving the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly an opinion you like --Getoverpops (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I do not think it has to explain how the South got that way, merely explain the way it was. Notably the section does not mention slavery, which of course is key to understanding how the South got that way. Had not millions of Africans been captured and forced into servitude, the South would have been no more racist than the Northern States. TFD (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is important to show how the Democratic Solid South developed, because it was based on the disfranchisement of millions of people, with a concomitant aggregation of power by the Democrats out of proportion to the people among the voters who agree with them. For that all to change is a major change. Democrats could not have run unopposed if they had not destroyed the Republican Party in the South by excluding African-American voters from the political system.Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I have reopened the dispute discussion on the dispute forum THUS the dispute tag on the article is current and valid. Do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Southern strategy and Southernization

This section is questionable as supporting the major topic of the article. While the references may be sound the theme of the article is a strategy of appealing to racism in the south to win southern voters. However, at the same time, and especially in the 90s the GOP also was appealing to the religious conservative voters in the south. So do the articles in this section actually show that it was any "racist" appeal that was the issue or simply that in over emphasizing religious conservative interests the GOP lost many of the voters who might vote GOP for support of business or fiscal conservationism? If the article is going to be about racist strategy then the reference in this section should address a specific move away from that strategy. If they don't do that then they are not appropriate references. The primary source for the section appears to be an op-ed article that makes some interesting claims. First, it claims the democrats also had their own southern strategy along the lines of the one Nixon is alleged to have used. However, the article provides no proof that either "southern strategy" (GOP or Dem) was effective. This is an important point given that I have cited several scholars who claim that the shift to the GOP in the south was not due to racism but due to the GOP's values better fitting the values of the voters in question. The article was released a few days after the 2008 Obama election so it isn't surprising that people would want to attribute things to race but was that really the case or were people talking about race because the media was talking about it? Regardless, if this is an op-ed article then it should be treated as such. As used in the Wiki article it boarders on original research since it ascribes a cause to a result without offering other views on the subject.Getoverpops (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The section is fully sourced and you have offered no sources that say something different. Your recent edit of the section misapplied a quote -- ignoring that three different sources are quoted by the NY Times article, thus supporting "some". The opinions are attributed in the text as they should be. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

PS I see you reverted me, but the new text you added works. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What about breaking out a section on Nixon era and post Nixon "ss"

I would like to break some of the later information up into both Nixon era and post Nixon are discussions. In all the evidence presented it seems there is no evidence of "the southern strategy" being used for a GOP presidential campaign post Nixon. The Atwater quoted (taken from the Atwater page) shows that he said Regan didn't use such a strategy and the "code words" were already things that Regan had campaigned on during his time in CA. The Nixon section can talk about the evidence that a SS was discussed during his campaign as well as the extent to which people feel it impacted the campaign. Several of the sources I have found suggest that there is little evidence that Nixon actually tried to stop or slow reforms. Several of the sources also claim that the transition of the south was actually primed long before Nixon but that the southern politicians had a strangle hold on southern politics at the local level. Thus the south was reliably blue until the civil rights movement shook things up. After that the southern voters turned to the GOP which was in many ways that weren't race related, better aligned with the views of southern voters (this will be supported by peer reviewed references). Anyway, this can be added as a theory but I think it does the article a disservice to leave it out. I also think that if there is no evidence that the "SS" was used post Nixon for presidential elections the article should point that out. Many accuse the GOP of using such a strategy but I think we can see how someone opposed to the GOP would like such a claim to be made since it implies a GOP candidate is racist. Thoughts?Getoverpops (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, sourced content was removed that introduced the concept of state's rights as dog whistle politics, which is necessary to understand why Reagan's speech was controversial. The same edit added a new section, 'Researchers Debate the Scope and Impact of the Southern Strategy', that is a WP:QUOTEFARM and seems to cherry pick sources to give a one-sided picture of the research. I think it's reasonable to present some of these views, as long as we aren't giving undue weight to marginal viewpoints. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the information I added was biased in favor of the articles that discount the Southern Strategy orthodoxy. However, I disagree that the information is cherry picked or is not relevant to the article. First, since the Atwater quote is being used by one author to claim Reagan did use the southern strategy, it is reasonable to include a more complete quote which discounts this claim. Can we agree on that end? I think that is a separate issue from the academic views on the subject.

I also agree that I used a lot of quotes. However, I think I am justified in using lots of quotes if only because I have been accused of not supporting my claims. Thus I have posted a long list of quotes which do support the claims. Either we accept my claims at face value, include the quotes or you tell us what you think the articles claim. I don't think simply leaving them out is a valid option given they are from reliable sources and they add new information and balance to the article. I do think that we need counter weight quotes from others to balance the claims of the authors I have added.

I am going to re-add the extended Atwater quote but will leave the academic view material out for further discussion. Getoverpops (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reagan/Neshoba nonsense

This part doesn't read like an encyclopedia. It reads like an opinion piece, is full of weasel words, and intentionally distorts the facts. Reagan did not "launch" his campaign with this speech, but it makes the propaganda sound more damning. It's also stated that civil rights workers were slain in the same county 14 years earlier as a potential motivation for location choice, yet leads out the ACTUAL reason for the location...it was a long standing tradition for politicians to give speeches at the Neshoba County Fair. So again, this reads like propaganda. Furthermore, the very phrase "His dog-whistle politics" is pretty much solid proof that whoever wrote this passage is a biased hack trying to force an opinion in spite of the facts. Clean this crap up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.184.85.85 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources so support your claims. I count zero sources in your comment, while there are 6-8 sources for the material you've discussed in the article. I'm not saying that all of those sources in the article are the most reliable/strongest of sources, but until a source of equal/greater reliability directly contends with the material in the article, I see no reason to change it. Also, the dog-whistle phrase you referenced is directly quoted and attributed to the author that wrote it and it is not in WP's voice. After that comment, the article talks about how others contend that position. So both sides are represented in regards to that statement.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with the IP poster. That section of the article is very questionable. I've added a few citation needed tags but really that section needs to be cleaned up. Far too many statements from things like opinion articles are taken as fact. Other claims are simply unsupported. However, I it would be best to focus on the Nixon era part of the article first in order to get more scholarship into the article. Getoverpops (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we add some source balance to this article?

When reviewing the references in this article it becomes clear that there is very little of actual substance behind many of the claims. First, I will start with an admission that having done more research on the topic it is clear that at least at some level some national GOP politicians tried to at some level appeal to southern voters based on the issue of race. They saw the cracks in the Democratic strangle hold of the south and wanted to appeal to those voters. That said, the extend and impact of these appeals and even the notion to which we should call them racists is questionable.

There are of course many, many sources that talk about the SS as a given. Melvin Small suggests this is because the first tellings of the events was the "Southern Strategy/ racial retreat" versions as described by Evens and Novak in 1971 . As is often the case the first telling is the one that sticks. Once it sticks you have many people who see anti-civil rights reform in many of his actions and future GOP actions. So with that backdrop it's understandable that many sources will mention the SS but most mention it as a given or as some recent edits, mention it in context of "the GOP is falling back on the SS again".

However, looking at the current list of references for this wiki page there are actually very few original sources discussing the scope and impact of the Southern Strategy other than stating it happened. To present a balanced view of the subject the Wiki should present sources that discuss the origin, scope and impact. I have found several peer reviewed sources that suggest the scope of the strategy was small and was rather innocuous. More importantly, a number of them state the transformation of the south from blue to red was not due to any appeals to inherent racism (regardless of scope or extent) but started with the civil rights movement breaking the long strangle hold the Democrats had on the south. Once that was cracked it is claimed many southerners voted GOP for reasons other than racism. Given the extensive background lead in that is part of this article it is reasonable to add a section that reviews various views on the impact and scope of the southern strategy. In addition to the references I added in May (which were quickly removed) I have several others below. Unless noted otherwise, all of these sources are from either peer reviewed journals or books published by academic publishers. I understand that some feel the views I'm attempting to get out are a minority view. That is fine. I'm not trying to prove these are the only valid articles, only that there is enough weight of research suggesting that the SS, as it is popularly understood, is incorrect at least in impact, that we should include these as a balance in the article.

While I understand that some found my eagerness to edit off putting, I was trying to adhere to Wikipedia's BOLD editing policy. Let's get this sorted out in talk and go from there.

From my previous entry Several political researchers have make the argument that Southern whites' move to the Republican Party had more to do with economic interests than racism. In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer argued that Republican dominance in the South was driven by increasing numbers of wealthy suburbanites.

Gerard Alexander, a University of Virginia Professor of Politics, argues that a southern voters turned to the GOP's national platform more than the GOP moved to support the views of the south.

Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Alexander, also argues that the GOP's primary strategy in the South was to work with rather than against the "grain of Southern opinion". However, he argues against claims that the GOP crafted its core message to accommodate Southern racists and that GOP gains in the Souther were not due to such a strategy:

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.

Matthew Lassiter also argues that the Southern move to the GOP was not about race but other factors of common interest:

The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South.

In Reviews in American History David Chappell reviews Matthew Lassiter's book mentioned above.

In an original analysis of national politics, Lassiter carefully rejects “racereductionist narratives” (pp. 4, 303). Cliches like “white backlash” and “southern strategy” are inadequate to explain the conservative turn in post-l960s

politics.5 ... Lassiter scrupulously denies suburbanites their racial innocence. The suburbs are disproportionately white and the poor are disproportionately black. But he rejects “white backlash” partly because the term exempts from responsibility those voters, North and South, who have racially liberal roots. Their egalitarianism may be genuine. But unless liberals are lucky enough to live in secession-proof metro areas, whose judges have a strong commitment to comprehensive integration, they behave the same way as people who act frankly on their fear of large concentrations of black people. ... Racism has not been overcome. One might say rather that it has become redundant. One of Lassiter’s many fascinating demonstrations of racism’s superfluousness is his recounting of the actual use of the “southern strategy.” The strategy obviously failed the Dixiecrats in l948 and the GOP in l964. The only time Nixon seriously tried to appeal to southern racism, in the l970 midterm elections, the South rejected his party and elected Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Dale Bumpers instead (pp. 264–74). To win a nationwide majority, Republicans and Democrats alike had to appeal to the broad middle-class privileges that most people believed they had earned. Lassiter suggests that the first step on the way out of hypersegregation and resegregation is to stop indulging in comforting narratives. The most comforting narratives attribute the whole problem to racists and the Republicans who appease them. {Footnote 5:These clichés come in for further, long-overdue scrutiny in Byron Shafer and Richard

Johnston, The End of Southern Exceptionalism (2006).}

Thus we have a university published review of Lassitter's book (also university published) backing the idea that the SS was a non-issue in terms of impact but has proven to be a comfortable way to accuse one party of being racist.

I've found a few other book reviews that I think add weight to the SS was a minor/non-factor POV. Daniel Aldridge reviews Kotlowski's book Nixon's Civil Rights: Politics, Principle and Policy.

Kotlowski argues that Richard Nixon was, on the whole, a responsible leader who did not simply jettison civil rights in order to court a white backlash and pursue a southern strategy. In general, Nixon sought a middle ground by moving very slowly on matters that would have compelled racial integration in public schools and housing while being more willing to support initiatives that would enhance individual black's ability to enter the middle class

... Kotlowski believes historians have also been somewhat misled by Nixon's rhetorical and symbolic "southern strategy," which he maintains had a relatively limited influence on Nixon's civil rights policies. ... Nixon's Civil Rights is a solid and well-researched effort that succeeds in creating a more nuanced appraisal of Nixon-era civil rights.

Lassiter and Kruse coauthored a journal article that touched on the subject as well

A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic changes played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-pary system in the American South. This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and the popular strain in the scholarly literature: the claim that the GOP came to dominate the new Solid South by repackaging the segregationist platform of George C. Wallace and capitalizing on a racial backlash that originated in the Deep South and the countryside. According to Whistling Past Dixie (2006), a widely cited book by political scientist Thomas F. Schaller, Republican presidential candidates from Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan implemented a "southern strategy" with "initial appeal to rural southerners [that] has expanded to the suburbs and exurbs, and to states outside the South." This interpretation [Schaller's] essentially reverses the actual process of realignment in the South and misleadingly attributes racial backlash nationwide to the effects of "sothernization" rather than to the dynamics of suburbanization itself.

There certainly are authors who are dismissive of some of the sources above. Dan Carter, already cited in the article, reviews a few books in Dissent. He is quite critical of Lassiter, Shafer & Johnston and others. The fact that Carter felt the need to review those works at all should be proof that the dissenting view I am advocating for the article is valid and that academia has not settled on a single narrative.

I think it is clear that there is a significant volume of work suggesting or even stating that any appeals to latent racism were non-issues for Nixon's elections and even after that. Several of the sources also state that the "racist" things done as part of the southern strategy were not as extensive or egregious as often claimed. With that said I would like suggestions for ways to integrate this material into the article. Clearly there is enough here to warrant inclusion.

I have no problem with the article mentioning Lassiter's viewpoint as a contradictory and minority point of view. My concerns arise when you talk about "balancing the article" because the work you've referenced above does not supercede the widely held view of scholars, historians, and academics and only acts as a breif mention of dissent. When you make claims like "academia has not settled on a single narrative." I believe this is disingenuous and ignores the fact that even your dissenting sources admit to an academic consensus held by most historians. Nothing is ever "settled" in Science and History, but that doesn't mean we can write the article portraying some huge hotly contested debate among historians and scholars. Similar to the last time we addressed this, it's not any others' responsibility to include information you want into the article. I recommend that you suggest a specific change and then we can address whether that change merits inclusion. Something along the lines of "Contrary to the view held by most historians, Matthew Lassiter believes the Southern Strategy had little to do with the changing political landscape of the South and that its transformation was mostly due to changing economic needs." <--Something along those lines would be a perfectly acceptable addition in my opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you recall I previously did exactly that and included much of what I posted here in the article. You didn't comment on it in this talk page the day I added it but I'm encouraged to see that you are admitting that there are academic sources that don't agree with what Melvin Small considered the first telling of the events. I mentioned that in the opening of this section with the needed reference. Anyway, the problem with what you are saying is there actually isn't that much real evidence that there was a wide spread SS. If you look at original sources they are few. Many cite it as something that happened or, in the case of the Reagan references, cast actions or policies that may be perfectly rational as SS. One of the big issues with the later part of the article is the use of accusations as proof of a long term strategy without taking the time to ask if the accusations are reasonable nor if an alternative explanation is reasonable. Basically, as the later part of the article presents the SS it might as well be describing a conspiracy theory.

Incidentally, I would hope, given the way you are a stickler for academic references, that you would support fixing many of the issues in the article where low quality sources are used to support a view. That is largely the post Nixon era section.Getoverpops (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What's relevant is what scholars say, not what we consider to be "much real evidence". Again, it is not our privilege to interpret evidence ourselves and write the article to reflect our interpretations. This is precisely why WP policy shies away from the use of primary sources and why secondary sources take priority. Unfortunately, I do not recall you suggesting a specific part of the article that you wanted to change like I just did in my previous comment. I'd like to stay away from long drawn out replies in this regard, and just stick to one change at a time. Suffice to say, it's not a requirement that I or others approve of the changes you want to make, but if you want to avoid conflict and work together on improving the article, then it's easiest to address one claim/change at a time. I'm not going to rewrite the entire article, but if there are any specific sentences from the article that you have an issue with, then I'll see if I can discover where the claims originated. I'll start with the citation's you've requested in the article, and I'm happy to help you with these. Regarding academic sources, I'm only a stickler about it when non-academic sources, like opinion articles, are used to try and counter scholarly sources. So, I don't have a problem using less reliable sources, so long as they aren't in contention with scholarly consensus. However, I do try and stick to using scholarly articles on WP so we can avoid slinging biased political articles at each other for months at a time, and can just immediately filter out all of the rift raft. So, let's go ahead and start with the post Nixon era section, if that's okay with you? I'll be out running errands today, so I won't have much time to look into the requested citations today, but I'll get started on it as soon as I can.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well a significant number of scholars say the SS was not a factor in the shift of the south to the GOP vote. We have no scholarly work claiming the SS was extended into the time of Reagan and beyond. So if you think we should only accept scholarly work then it's time to cut some sections from the article. Again, I did make a change to the article and you quickly referenced it on a report page. Regardless, I agree that we should be careful about using politically motivated or biased articles. That again is a big issue in the later sections of the article. The primary sources are people who are building a case for "continuation of SS" based on flaky evidence. If Reagan wanted busing reform (something that has since come to pass and is generally thought to be a good thing) then why was it "SS" vs simply a desire to fix a broken system? A very big part of the problem with this article is the conspiracy theory like nature of the claims. As soon as you accept that there is a conspiracy then even truly innocent events/actions can be seen as proof of the conspiracy.

Anyway, with your help I will point out other parts of the article I found troubling and then we can discuss changes. I'm wary of using the BOLD tactic that is promoted here since a number of people took my BOLD edits the wrong way.Getoverpops (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see any specific suggestions in this most recent response of yours. Also, you clearly didn't read my previous comment because I said less reliable sources are okay, so long as they're not in contention with stronger academic consensus. Also, please refrain from trying to present your own OR arguments, because I'm not going to respond to them. I'm not concerned with your rational about how SS should be defined and what counts as evidence for it. I'm all concerned with is what reliable sources say. So, make a specific suggestion backed with a reliable source, and then we can get started.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, like you I had a busy weekend that kept me from editing. Given that this is a talk page I think it is perfectly reasonable to present my own arguments. The biggest is how can you decide if an action is really "southern strategy" or not. First, we have to assume there is some over arching coordination here. Second you have to be able to reasonably tell if an action that could be motivated by race really is. Take affirmative action in college admission. One might be against it because they are racist but they also could reasonably be against it because it means an applicant from a non-protected group with better marks gets passed over in favor of a lesser applicant. If you are the applicant who was passed over by someone with a lesser record it would be reasonable to be anti-affirmative action without being racist. Many of the sources DON'T address that critical issue.

Anyway, I will have to take a look at your sources and see how well they support the claims in question.

I think the two sections should be combined and it should be more clear that some pundits (and presumably academics) see evidence that some GOP actions after the Nixon era were attempts to appeal to racism. I think the Atwater statements should actually be removed from the section because they don't support the claims that Reagan was trying to appeal to racism. In fact they do the opposite. They could be used to support the idea that some GOP candidates did appeal to racism in the past. I think it would be good if you included specific quotes from your sources. In my previously reversed edit I did just that because I didn't want people to accuse me of spinning the contents of the articles. Beyond the above change I think it should be clear what the sources credentials are and what they are claiming. Some of the quotes seem to meld into their associated paragraphs. I will see if I can make small changes to the sections but really I feel like they need a total rewrite. I did that last time and my troubles were far from rewarded. Getoverpops (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The way we decide if an action is really southern strategy is we report what sources say. It is not up to us to re-invent the wheel. TFD (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Then we should be highly suspect of any opinion articles and we should provide exact quotes for other articles that are "reliable". Seriously, what you are talking about is yes, I guess Wiki but let's use our heads here. If a Dem political pundit says an appeal to end say affirmative action is "southern strategy" are we going to just blindly say yes? Do you actually believe that? Do you personally think that if say the gov of GA says he is against affirmative action he is doing it because he is racist? Isn't it at least reasonable that he feels it isn't fair to non-minority students who get passed over by minority students with lesser records? Sure we can view affirmative action as a net public good but that doesn't mean those who are against it are racist. That is the BIG problem with the claims here. The article really gives a lot of weight to those who see things that COULD be racist but very reasonably COULD be for no-racist reasons and assigns them to the racist camp.

(SD) Your second edit is stronger but the source, in the section from pg 47-48 doesn't support it's claims. Both Dems and GOPs (noted as white in the text) liked the idea of moving control back to the states. Perhaps it was racist thinking but perhaps it was part of Reagan's larger "smaller federal gov" promise. Again, we should make it clear that this was an opinion of events, not a proven fact.

The paragraph started "In 1980" seems to be supported almost entirely with opinion articles. Look at the last sentence that claims to be supported by Aistrup's book. The claim is that Reagan's calls for welfare reform used racist "welfare queen" examples. He did state that opinion poling at the time said that southern whites (no mention if northern whites thought the same or even if blacks thought the same) mentally pictured blacks when their was talk of welfare queens. However, and I would have to re-find my source for this, Reagan's welfare and other messages were largely unchanged from his California days. So either he was looking to appeal to racist in California - in which case this wasn't a "southern strategy" or he was really worried about welfare reform and wanted a motivating example ie the welfare queen.

It is interesting to note that page 44 of Aistrup actually supports the view that southern white voters were motivated by economics. According to text quoted by Aistrup [italics is paraphrased by me] the southern white working class saw they weren't moving up and the government wasn't helping them. The saw the government helping others (blacks). They were against things like affirmative action because it meant they might lose a job to someone who wasn't better qualified but instead was black. Well that might be appealing to race but it's also could be just people looking out for their own. That was the point of one of the authors I mentioned who was talking about Nixon era "racism". Some of Nixon's "anti-civil rights" such as being anti-busing was not based on racism but on a sense that it was unfair. Here too we have an example were the "proof of racism" could reasonably be an sense that affirmative action was unfair to those that weren't black.

Really I think that section would be best if it were shortened, change the title and then simply say that some writers have seen things they view as continued racism. At the same time those accusations should include examples (such as the welfare reform/queen examples). I also think the next section should get the same treatment. I also think the counter views, the authors I have previously quoted should be given more space in the article. This is especially true when we are talking about claims that the south went to the GOP "because of" racist appeals but we should also not give quite so much "benefit of the doubt" to sources that say something is racist when it is very reasonable to see it as non-racist (hence the comments above). If we want to use things like Reagan and the welfare queen as proof then the supporting source text should be quoted so readers can decide if the source makes it's case.Getoverpops (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

SD-

Take a look at these two articles in context of the claims that the Reagan era campaign was based on racism. I think both have some weight since they are in response to the claims of racism by some of the authors cited in the Wiki article. Perhaps we can start with just looking at the claims that revolve around the Reagan era. We can state something like "Accusations of 'Southern Strategy' during the Reagan years. That would allow us to clearly state the views of those who say "yes" and "no" without making the section too long or making it read like the Wiki editors view this as a proven fact/all but given theory.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/222886/reagan-no-racist-deroy-murdock http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071110/news_lz1e10brooks.html

The more I write about this the more I think, would it be better to simply have a single "opposing view" type section? It could talk about the views that say the Nixon era "ss" was limited in size and impact. It could also provide views that say the GOP has not had a "ss" since. That would be a point to talk about the Reagan and later elections and offer articles which refute later claims. It seems that might be cleaner and I have to admit I fear that if I try to make any larger changes they will be just undone. Look at how quickly my addition to the Atwater quote was removed (later added back by an third editor).

Getoverpops (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The first problem I see with your proposal is the title. This is called "editorializing" because you use the word "accusations" to trivialize what academia recognizes as an historical occurrence. The next issue I have is with the idea behind the section. This suggestion would be making a false equivalency by presenting the article as a matter of opinion by having X number of "yes" and X number of "no" responses. The strongest sources recognize Reagan's Southern Strategy as racist and the 2 articles you've listed above don't meet equivalent reliability standards. That being said, the strongest sources also recognize that Reagan appealed to religion and other topics that were important to different segmented groups in the south. So, I don't mind including information about Reagan's transformation of the Southern Strategy to address more than simply racism, but that doesn't mean the importance of race gets marginalized. Lastly, every section in the article presents or should present the mainstream viewpoint on the Southern Strategy, its components, and its evolution. There is no reason to have an entire section devoted to an "opposition view" because that, in essence, would be giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Minority viewpoints can be represented, but they can't be represented with the same importance/weight that the mainstream viewpoint is given. In every article about "Earth" we don't carve out a section for people who think it's flat.

The way you identified areas that needed citations was a good step in addressing issues with the article. With you identifying those areas, we were able to quickly find sources that supported the material and now we have a better article for it. I'd like to continue with this type of approach since it seems to yield relatively quick results and fixes. I'm not saying we can't discuss more intricate problems here, I'm just saying that identifying specific sentences and statement within the article that need to be examined/reviewed is much more productive, and I'd like to continue that. Scoobydunk (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the title is any more editorializing that the current method of presentation. The word "accusations" is correct given that these are claims made by sources but not proven as fact. I don't think you can rightly say academia recognizes this as "fact". They certainly don't agree that the south was won by the GOP using such a method. There is a strong body of evidence that says otherwise. Also, do accusations of racism, true or not, actually constitute a "southern" strategy or a national strategy? Given how quickly and easily many sources cry racism over things that are quite rationally explained as something else we should be careful about just accepting one source over the other. A better way to present this would be to offer the counter arguments and let the reader decide.

What if on the section on Reagan we change it to say what his message was (he appealed to points X,Y and Z). Then we can offer sources that say those appeals were coded racism and sources that say otherwise. What's important in that method is the reader can see not just that people claimed this was racism but what constituted "racism" and then they can decide if, say welfare reform, was actually a racist appeal or simply a small government appeal. This way we can still have the stronger sources make their case but the other sources can offer their view as well.

Note, I think it's a bit of a goose chase to find sources that will refute the racism claims. If you don't think the appeals were racist why would you even mention it other than to refute charges you think are false. It again is the conspiracy theory charge. If we talk about people faking the moon landing and say "NASA doesn't address the issue but this academic paper does" we wouldn't logically conclude that NASA faked it because no papers came out refuting the faking claims.

Also, every section should not present the "main stream" view. First, it is not clear that we have a main stream view. WE have a number of academics who say that the Southern Strategy was a non-issue and short term. They are the ones who would agree with Atwater that Reagan (and later Republicans) weren't appealing to racism even if some people feel their policies would disproportionately impact black people. Second, what about cases where the mainstream view is wrong? Take the Ford Pinto case where the mainstream view is Ford wrote a memo that it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits vs fix the car. Academics have shown that view of events is not true. Anyway, I think each section should have a clear theme and narrative (the later sections fail in this regard) and it should be very clear where things are opinions or interpretations of things vs proven fact. I think a very good way of doing this is presenting the evidence used to make a claim of racism and allow the reader to decide if that evidence is sufficient as well as offering opposing views. Getoverpops (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Academic consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, and there is academic consensus. Of the sources you've listed previously, you only have 2 peer reviewed published viewpoints that I'd consider strong reliable sources. One is the viewpoint of Lassiter and the other is Kotlowski and both of them recognize the mainstream viewpoint held by historians and academia and that their viewpoints differ. So there is consensus. 2 of your sources were magazines that didn't go through an apparent peer review process, 1 of them was a book that wasn't published through peer review, 2 of them were reviews on Lassiter's work and aren't independent works which means they don't add any weight, and another one was just another work by Lassiter, who's viewpoint we already know and, again, this doesn't add more weight to a minority viewpoint.

It's clear you're seeking to try and rewrite the article to show a "debate" and this is the same type of rhetoric that climate deniers use to try and argue climate change or creationists use to argue against evolution. Wikipedia presents what the strongest and most reliable sources say on the matter. Trying to trivialize those sources by labeling them as simply "opinions" or "accusations" is an example of editorializing. Also, it's not our responsibility to try and determine "interpretations" from "fact". We let strong secondary sources do that for us, and that's how Wikipedia functions.

Instead of trying to rewrite the article to take on an apologist's point of view, I suggest we continue to work on what we have. If there is something that's obviously wrong or unsupported, we can address it, just like I did with your 2 previous examples. This is what's working. Sitting here and trying to argue about the veracity of academia, or facts vs. opinions didn't get us anywhere last time, nor will it this time. Instead of saying generalized things like "each section should have a clear theme and narrative (the later sections fail in this regard)", how about you actually express a specific section title you take issue with, why it's a problem, and a proposed change to it. Please also refrain from editorializing titles.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Academic consensus simply hasn't been reached here. How many strong academic articles support the claim that the south switched to the GOP based on appealing to racism vs other causes? Carter and Airstrup? We have at least three that say the "SS" was a non-issue in the conversion (Lassiter, Kotlowski, Johnston-Shafer). If you look at Black and Black they aren't really strongly supporting the idea that Nixon was trying to appeal to racism. Starting around page 210 of The Rise of Southern Republicans they talk about Nixon not going after the hard core racists but instead going after voters who were upset by some of the integration rules. Note that bussing in particular was opposed by many not for racist reasons but for other reasons.

When Black and Black talk about Reagan later in the above section it's talking about appealing to the economic and religious interests of white southern voters. Some claim that is an appeal to racism. However, the Wiki article should make it clear on what those who claim racism base their charges. That allows counter views to be included. If one says Reagan's campaign was racist how can we come up with a counter point. If we say Reagan's campaign was racist because... then we can see if other writers mention the same thing but don't see it as racist. I would also note that Black and Black cite other authors (Carter?) when specifically stating the SS was an appeal to racism etc. So I guess we can say they buy the claim but they aren't the source. Conversely then, academics who cite Lassiter and kotlowski are buying their view that the SS was largely a non-issue.

One more thing, I think the term apologist is unfair and suggests a bias on the part of the user. If we have good sources that say the SS wasn't the reason the South went to the GOP then it's not apologizing to want to give those sources proper weight. The same is true if we have sources that question the idea that Reagan's message was racist vs simply based on conservative principles he had already used in CA (even Carter says Reagan's message was carried over from his CA days. If so how does that make it a southern strategy, vs one that was already national?Getoverpops (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus in academia and the 2 strong reliable sources that you have both speak to this viewpoint and recognize its existence. One of them says "This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and the popular strain in the scholarly literature" and another one says "Kotlowski believes historians have also been somewhat misled by Nixon's rhetorical and symbolic 'southern strategy'". Both of these admit that their views are contrary to the views held by scholarly literature and held by historians. That means there is consensus, and they diverge from it as minority opinions in scholarship. Johnston-Shafer is not a peer-reviewed publication and doesn't have equal weight. Furthermore, neither of these sources say that race was a "non-issue", they merely say that racial backlash wasn't "simply" the cause and discuss other causes as well.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It seems like all that has been accomplished is that the same arguments are being made by Getoverpops that failed to achieve consensus (or even agreement by another editor) before. The fact that his first entry in this thread (after a voluntary absence in lieu of a block) was 14,000 bytes indicates to me that this style of discussion will not be productive. I now noticed that he has tried to take this POV and add it to two related articles -- this is extremely bad form. Aim for small changes with short, concise proposals -- if your arguments are unreadable because of their size and digressions you are not going to get anyone to agree with you about changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a very rude thing to say and claim. First, though SD and I aren't seeing eye to eye we are having a reasonably productive discussion. Second, as you can see I've provided at least two academic sources that SD feels are up to his standards. I also have several other references that are stronger than many of the references in this Wiki. As for the first entry, part of why I put so much into the entries was because it's too easy for people to claim the sources don't claim what I say they do. The easy way around that is to quote the text so people can read it themselves.

The short, concise proposal is we should add a section that offers the academic disenting view on the impact of the SS on shift of the south to the GOP. We have three strong sources that say it was NOT because of appeals to racism. The second proposal is any time we have a post Nixon claim of GOP racism, the basis for that claim should be included so readers can know what was considered to be racism (ie if a GOP position is anti-affirmative action the reader can decide if that really is racism or some other motivation.Getoverpops (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, it should be understood that these are small minority views. If they can be supported by high-quality academic sources, they still stand against a much greater number of high-quality academic sources which take the position currently represented in the article. Because of this, it's inappropriate to place these views in the lede section of this article or Southernization. They belong in a more marginal position if they are to be included at all. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, it is not true that these views are small/minority views. Furthermore, once you start looking into most of the academic sources you find that many are simply citing Carter. The comments about the Southernization article are not directly related to this topic and should be covered in that article's talk page. I strongly disagree that they are a marginal position. If you think so please show the evidence. So far I count as many strong sources claiming the SS was not the reason for GOP success in the South as not.Getoverpops (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As a small minority view, there is no demonstrated need or appropriateness for a separate section on these views. This article is about a specific political program of the GOP and this should remain the focus of the article. This article is NOT about the total political history of the South during this era -- for that we have another article with a broader scope. As far as writing about "post Nixon claims", we follow the reliable sources and give proper weight to the information the sources provide. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On what grounds do you base the claim that it is a "small minority view"? If you want the article to be ONLY about the GOP "SS" then the sections talking about things prior to the 1960s need to be removed. It also makes the later sections questionable given the evidence presented in the supporting sources. Conversely, if this article is going to claim the GOP and Nixon won the south BECAUSE of this strategy then it makes total sense to bring in sources that say otherwise GIVEN then are from reputable academic sources. Which do you want? Do you want the narrow scope in which case we remove information from the article or do you want the broad scope in which case the article should be open for more information.Getoverpops (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Pieces

@Getoverpops: You added two fairly weak sources to the Evolution section. There is an argument for including something from the peer-reviewed academic sources you provided, but not from these, because they are grossly outweighed by the numerous sources that say the exact opposite. There is someone with every opinion - it doesn't mean these opinions belong in the article; for the same reason we don't include creationist opinions in biology articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. It would be one thing if he were "balancing" Mother Jones or MSNBC or ThinkProgress articles with National Review opinions, but he's "balancing" NYT pieces with the National Review, which is going to tilt the article. — goethean 20:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which ones are the low quality articles? The Brooks article was in the NYTs. Drum is hardly a GOP apologist and has a number of articles in Mother Jones. Herbert is an opinion article that ran in the NYTs. Well why shouldn't both be included? At the same time you say the articles I include are grossly outweighed but is that really true? Look at the other sources in that section? IN the paragraph that starts "In 1980" we have Herbert (op-ed), Jack White (also an op-ed article), Cannon is simply stating that the speech was seen by some after the fact as racist. In that regard he is restating the obvious. What he isn't doing is making a case that Reagan was trying to appeal to race. I can't access the Goldfield book so we can't tell if he is reporting the reactions (like Cannon) or making the claims (like Herbert). The same is true of the Walton book. Basically we have strong proof that some saw this as racism but that is a far cry from proof that Reagan intended it to be as much. If nothing else, if you look at Cannon's book it would suggest that Reagan was blind to the potential racial uproar his comments would cause since his advisors were suggesting he take the non-racial path. It also undercuts some of the "Reagan's campaign was planning to appeal to racism" claims when we have at least two sources that say his campaign advisors recommended against this speech. Getoverpops (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the text that was added without any other editor agreeing to it. You need to cut out the edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more reasonable if you would actually engage in conversation about the contents of the article rather than just revert my changes. Please justify the exclusion of the changes I've made based on their content. Getoverpops (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have commented in the numerous threads you started before your hiatus. My comments there stand. Just because you want to start completely over doesn't mean everybody else has to follow. The bottom line -- you continue to add material before you obtain any agreement, let alone consensus. Then when you're reverted, you simply revert back. You've made your case, such as it is -- now is the time for you to sit back and wait to see if anyone will agree with you. It should be clear to you that your current tactics are not working.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually what you have previously commented on and the changes you just reverted aren't at all the same thing. I would ask that you actually read the changes I made and the comments in THIS section in good faith. Getoverpops (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the conversation has gone on long enough, and it is time to move on. TFD (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean move on to neutrality resolution? Really, where are the posts that actually address the concerns here? At least SD and Sammy are addressing the content of my changes. NS is engaging in edit warring by simply reverting without justification. Getoverpops (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And what are the results of "SD and Sammy" addressing your proposals? You go ahead and make them without any agreement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy is raising specific objections which is a good place to start a conversation. SD suggested working on the article in chunks based on the suggestions I had made so we would have a starting point for discussion. I would like you to join in that discussion rather than just revert and claim edit war. Remember, part of the cycle is discuss. If you are going to revert changes you should be willing to discuss why. Also, at the beginning of this talk section I admitted I was wrong with some of my original edits. By your own admission you are confusing the edits I previously made with the current edits. That is why I would ask that you read what changes I've made, review the sources I've used and discuss the changes. Getoverpops (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I was made aware of this editing issue by Getoverpops on my talk page. The evolution section suffers from two things, when I first arrived: WP:QUOTEFARM & WP:BOMBARD. Therefore, I have tagged the section appropriately, and have bundled the references per WP:CITEBUNDLE.
Everyone please see WP:AVOIDYOU.
IMHO the long quotes do not help the topic. While the section does utilize WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, whether certain things should be given the weight that they are given in this section appears to be a matter of debate; hopefully one that we can discuss civilly and reach a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is weight. Five sources, three of which are books reviewed positively (with criticisms) by scholarly journals, that support the statement "The "I believe in states' rights" speech he gave there was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Getoverpops wants to balance this with two political commentators, one of which (Drum) does not really support his position. If there is a counterbalance to be added, it has to be better sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PS There is an interesting and effective rebuttal to the other article (Brooks) by historian Joseph Crespino at [12]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed those sources in this section. Per what I said before, we have Herbert (op-ed), Jack White (also an op-ed article), Cannon is simply stating that the speech was seen by some after the fact as racist. In that regard he is restating the obvious. What he isn't doing is making a case that Reagan was trying to appeal to race. I can't access the Goldfield book so we can't tell if he is reporting the reactions (like Cannon) or making the claims (like Herbert). The same is true of the Walton book. One of the books, Cannon, doesn't say the speech was racist. It says some accuse the speech of being racist. I can not readily search the Goldfield book but it is not from a university press but the author is an academic in the field. But we don't know if that book says "some saw the speech as racist" or says the speech "was racist". See the issue? The sources I was trying to add don't claim no one felt the speech was racist. Instead they offer an the view that Reagan's intent was not racist and the mention of states rights was consistent with his conservative message, not a racist code word. This is why I feel this is a balanced entry. Getoverpops (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with RCLC in that the section in question is long and rambling with out a coherent theme. I think it and the sections afterwards should probably be condensed down two about 3-4 paragraphs. What about something like:

• Intro paragraph similar to the current section intro.
• Description of the charges against the Reagan and Bush campaigns. Footnotes could be used for the longer quotes and to clean up the whole section.
• Description of Clinton era stuff
• GOP apologies and current issues.

This would largely remove the content I've been trying to add about Reagan and the fair speech. It would also clean up a section that largely reads like a dumping ground for various articles people found that talk about more recent events. Getoverpops (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the Roots of the Southern strategy section

Scoobydunk, I wanted to address your reason for editing the intro to the last sentence. You are correct that Lassiter describes the view as not with, "conventional wisdom" and "scholarly literature". However, the complete sentence is, "A suburban-centerd vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South. This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom an a popular strain in the scholarly literature: the claim that the GOP came to dominate a new Solid South by repackaging the segregationist platform of George C. Wallace and capitalizing on a racial backlash that originated in the Dee South and the countryside." Note that the sentence does not claim the scholarly liturature was previously in agreement on this point. It only acknowledges that some scholars agree on the point. Thus it is better to leave the opening sentence so that it doesn't imply a weight to either POV. As a separate mater, I have added the Alexander references back to the section. While the sources are not as strong as the ones you left in, his articles support the other authors who don't see the SS as a critical factor. Alexander is also a scholar in the field and thus should be seen as more credible than someone like Herbert who is quoted widely in the Wiki article. Getoverpops (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Addressing the recent changes. Scoobydunk justified the change as: "The source says "capitalized on racial backlash", this proves scholarly consensus and that Lassiter's view diverge from that consensus. Stop trying to introduce doubt/debate, which isn't supported by the source." Again, Lassiter doesn't say his view diverges from an agreed scholarly view point. He only says it diverges from a popular strain in the scholarly literature. Thus I would like the more neutral intro stating that scholars don't agree on the impact. Saying "some scholars" disagree can be seen as using weasel words to add or diminish weight. Getoverpops (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, both of your reliable sources admit to there being a consensus generally held by academia. I know exactly what the full quote says and it explicitly explains that the conventional wisdom/popular strain in scholarly literature attribute GOP dominance in the South due to capitalizing on racial backlash by repackaging a segregationist narrative. That means there is a scholarly consensus or majority viewpoint and Lassiter's opinion is a minority viewpoint, and the article should represent that.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Scoobydunk. If there is a large body of scholarly work dissenting from this view, where is it? Why do we only have a couple of sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

First, SD, why would you open an edit warring notice based on this?

Second, the source SD uses to justify a "some" claim does not say "some". "Some" can be taken as a weasel word to downplay the significance of a counter view. What Lassiter says is "a popular strain in the scholarly literature". It does not say it is the majority view or that those who have really researched the subject largely agree. This is why I think the more neutral version we refined is better. Sammy, I would take your question and turn it around, where is the scholarly work, work that actually looked to address that topic, that says the GOP turn in the south was because of appeals to racism? Most of the work that mentions it (as I showed above) mentions it as a given, as popular understanding. Previously I mentioned the work of Melvin Small. His book makes it clear that at least when we talk about the impact of the SS (and even it's make up), the record does not show clear agreement among scholars. This is why the more neutral sentence is in orderGetoverpops (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have on line access to Small's book and it's citations. The below is from chapter 12 of the previously cited book. The chapter is by Dean Kotlowski (an author we have agreed is produced at least two reliable works on the subject).

This “Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat” thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained, in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ...

There also was a connect-the-dots tone to the orthodox accounts that wrapped individual events – the 1968 election, Phillips’ book (which actually opposed an “abandonment” of civil rights as “self-defeating”), and delays in desegregation for Mississippi's schools – into a tidy, all-policy-is-politics thesis (Phillips 1969: 464). Evans and Novak, who began their study by proclaiming the president inscrutable, had, by the time they discussed the issue of race, made him one-dimensional. ...

Several writers challenged the orthodox interpretation, starting with Nixon himself. .... Whatever their weaknesses, the Nixonian accounts presaged a scholarly revision of the president's civil-rights record that began with A. James Reichley's Conservatives in an Age of Change. ...

Melvin Small's The Presidency of Richard Nixon (1999) was a case in point. Small, not unlike his subject, cast himself as middle-of-the-road, between “the legion of unreconstructed Nixon haters” and “the growing number of Nixon revisionists who view Watergate and other dark deeds as aberrations” – a reference to Parmet, Wicker, and Hoff. ...

Scholars wishing to write on Nixon and civil rights would be wise to keep two realities in mind. First, this topic, by its nature, has been one of the most debated, and contentious, aspects of Nixon's domestic policies. As such, it demands equanimity rather than polemics – by authors and by reviewers of their books. Second, whatever aspect of Nixon's policy is studied, this president's own complexity ought to be recognized. William Safire, a sympathetic but not uncritical observer, once compared Nixon to a cake, that is, consisting of a variety of layers – “progressive politician,” “self-made” man, “realist,” “hater,” “loner” – and covered by a “conservative” icing. “When you take a bite of the cake that is Nixon,” he warned readers, “you must get a mouthful of all the layers; nibbling along one level is not permitted”

The entire chapter continues much like that and covers different views and interpretations of Nixon, his actions and related outcomes. That should clearly show that there is not a single school of thought on the subject as viewed by scholars. Getoverpops (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep trying to present a scholarly consensus as a debate, and that is directly contrary to what we've been discussing. You also need an equivalently strong reliable source to assert that there is disagreement among the academic field or is a debate, for that language to remain in the article. The Lassiter quote directly contradicts this and admits that there is a conventional knowledge held by scholarly sources and that his views are contrary to that conventional viewpoint. This is how we define majority vs. minority opinion. My use of "Some" is generous and actually gives the minority viewpoint of Lassiter more weight than it deserves. Though it can be considered a weasel word, it's not when I have sources that speak to the majority viewpoint conventionally held by scholarship. I'm happy to remove a statement speaking to "some" but it can not be replaced with an affirmative statement pertaining to debate/disagreement among scholars. Lastly, the quote from Wiley & Sons is not a peer reviewed work and is not of equivalent reliability. So it's irrelevant when being used to contradict the narrative held by stronger sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Scoobydunk and Sammy. I do not see that there is an active, academic debate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I have shown that scholars disagree doesn't prove the point? What about the fact that a peer reviewed author says there is disagreement? What more needs to be shown? Getoverpops (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

But you have not shown there is a consensus among scholars. I would like to see the sources you claim show the GOP's success in the south was due to the racist message. So far there aren't actually that many and it's far from a consensus. I agree with the "conventional wisdom" claim but Lassiter does not support your claim that there is a whole sale agreement among scholars. What he and Small argue is that the view point wasn't the first thus it is not conventional wisdom. Your use of "some" makes for a weasel word suggesting the view is insignificant or dismissed by most researchers. You haven't shown that to be the case. You are claiming a majority vs minority opinion but have not shown it. As for your claim that the Small edited book is not peer reviewed, I would suggest you look at Wiley-Blackwell's business. It is a publisher of peer reviewed, academic books and journals. It should be seen as at least as reliable as the U Kentucky press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley-Blackwell So how should we show that there was not a consensus view (at any point according the Kotlowski). How do we make the entry not read as if the view that appeals to racism were the key to GOP success in the South?Getoverpops (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus, majority opinion, conventional wisdom, and popular viewpoint of scholarly literature are synonymous. Furthermore, Wiley-Blackwell is a separate parent company of Wiley & Sons publishing. Wiley-Blackwell is known for its peer reviewed publications, but this language isn't used for Wiley & Sons which is also known as the publisher of the "for Dummies" series of books. Just like Gap Inc. owns Banana Republic, Gap, and Old Navy, doesn't mean that something you buy from Old Navy is equivalent to something bought at Banana Republic. Your link suggests a false equivalency and Wiley & Sons is not equivalent to the University Press of Kentucky which belongs to the Association of American University Presses. It's just an academic book, which is certainly stronger than most non-academic sources, but not stronger than peer reviewed sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BALANCE, Wikipedia should neutrally present the subject, and should not favor a POV that a Southern Strategy was driven by racism within GOP voters, at the same time presenting that certain reliable sources have written that it has. Wikipedia should not favor the POV that the Southern Strategy was not driven by racism, at the same time present that certain reliable sources have written as such.
Present both POVs, let the reader sort out which is the truth.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, no, they are not synonymous. Note that Lassiter clearly states them as two separate things. Conventional wisdom does not imply the consensus view among scholars and that is where your argument falls apart. The fact that scholars like Carter feel the need to mention and write dissent articles in reply to Shafer and Johnson or Alexander at all is a strong indication that there is debate. You are really working hard to discredit the Small compilation book. Sorry, just look at the contributing authors. The quotes that I posted were from the section contributed by Kotlowski whom we have already agreed produced a reputable work on the subject. I think you are working really hard to dismiss this source for an unjust cause. It is clearly a compilation work by noted scholars in the field. If you still disagree perhaps we should take this to the reputable source noticeboard.

I agree with RightCowLeftCoast that we should simply state that there is a debate among scholars and present both sides of the debate without a subject sentence that favors one or the other. I don't believe we have that now.Getoverpops (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: There is no debate about whether "a Southern Strategy was driven by racism." Reliable sources all agree on that, and it's a fact. The objections here have more to do with nuances about the scope of the appeals to racism.

@Getoverpops: Putting aside the issue that this book is not peer-reviewed, the quote you provided does not even seem to offer a clear alternative to the orthodox view. It says that the interpretation of Nixon's civil rights record is contested by a minority of scholars - that's not directly pertinent to understanding the scope of the Southern strategy. It's not clear to me that the book makes the claims you claim it makes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE DOES NOT require that all views be given equal play. What it says is "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." In this case, the reliable sources ARE NOT "relatively equal in prominence". If a small minority present one view and the majority largely ignore it, there is no debate. What reliable sources speak of this raging debate that you claim exists? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

NS, in that case I think it is up to you to prove that such a balance doesn't exist. The default assumption when prominent sources on both sides have been presented would be to give balanced weight. How many sources do we have that say the SS is why the GOP was able to turn the south into a reliable voter base? I've given at least four that argue against (Scoobydunk will argue about Alexander but he is a published academic). I can also add Michelle Brattain (academic but in a lesser journal). So that is 5 in favor. We also have Dan Carter, one of the key advocates of the SS being significant writing in Dissent in reply to the idea. I believe you have cited that one in the past. So if we have Carter discussing the works of Schafer and Johnson, Alexander and Lassiter all in a single article are you going to claim there is no debate?Getoverpops (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)