Talk:Southern strategy

The Great Betrayal

In the "World War II and Population Changes" section, the sentence about "The Great Betrayal," for which is a "citation needed," appears to originate with an article on US politicain Allen Webb's blog at:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2013/02/11/angela-west-why-the-democrats-virtually-own-the-african-american-voting-block-and-how-deep-the-reasons-run/

The piece in the blog is actually by Angela West; the "betrayal" here is that supposedly felt by Republican politicians in response to black voters abandoning them despite Republican support fo the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. The sentence that uses the term is actually reproduced word-for-word (pretty much plagiarized), and the following sentences are very lightly modified.

Here's the Angela West paragraph:

"In some Republican circles, the election after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was termed, “The Great Betrayal”. Even though some Republicans paid a price with white voters — in some cases losing seats — black voters did not return to the Republican fold. Indeed, in some cases, notably the re-election of Senator Al Gore Sr., a majority of black voters cast their votes for a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act."

Compare the wikipedia paragraph:

"In some Republican circles, the election after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was termed, "The Great Betrayal".[citation needed] Although some Republicans were defeated in the election, national party support for this important law did not attract black voters to the Republican fold in the North. In the South, most black voters were still disenfranchised. When Democratic Senator Al Gore Sr. was re-elected from Middle Tennessee; a majority of the still limited number of black voters in the region cast their votes for him as a Democrat, although he personally had voted against the Civil Rights Act.[citation needed]"

Interestingly, the term "Great Betrayal" also shows up in Race and Redistricting in the 1990s, by Bernard Grofman (2003), p. 63 (footnote):

"The solid South was an historical anomaly; once the Democratic party began to change its stance on civil rights after WWII, and especially after Lyndon Johnson's "great betrayal" in supporting passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, no one would ever be able to put Humpty-Dumpty together again."

Here, the term refers to southern Democrats' feeling of betrayal elicited by L. Johnson's abandonment of the southern Democratic Party's segregationist traditions, pretty much the opposite of West's usage.

I haven't yet found a contemporary (1960's) usage. I believe that "The Great Betrayal" or "The Grand Betrayal" is long and well known as a reference to the presidential election compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction and African-Americans' opportunity to enter American society. The use of this term to refer to civil rights events of the 1960's is obviously an echo (ironic or not) of the earlier usage.

Until actual 1960's usage of the "Great Betrayal" can be found, I recommend either removing the sentences under question, or rewriting them to better avoid plagiarism and providing proper citation, thereby indicating that West's use of the term is just her own, or re-writing it in a way to avoid the term altogether - this would be the most informative thing to do, as it would be simply including a citable point of view about the Southern Strategy. The question would then be whether it is even a notable opinion.

43hellokitty21 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Took a sharp eye to spot that – good work, and I agree with you. Neither version ( betrayal of GOP or betrayal of LBJ) involves a scholarly analysis and I don't see any reason it should be included at all. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look to removing it. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue with Scholarly Debate

I think the inclusion of a "scholarly debate" sub-section is a good addition. However, I feel Lassiter is given too much weight. Lassiter recognizes that his view is a minority opinion and he's really listed as the only scholarly detractor from the historians that focus on the racial aspect of the Southern strategy in the section. Currently, the first paragraph in the section and the last paragraph in the section almost entirely consist of Lassiter's point of view. I think his point of view can be combined into one area and can be trimmed so it's not given too much weight. I don't mind including opinions from other peer reviewed works, but Lassiter is certainly given too much weight. He's basically getting an entire sub-section and Valentino and Sears are just commenting on the fact that Lassiter's opinion exist. I think there needs to be less focus on one scholar who holds a minority opinion, and more focus on multiple scholars.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As it happens are quite a few scholars who have been contributing to the debate on the southern strategy. I just now added summaries of the work of two of them: Glen Moore, "Richard M. Nixon and the 1970 Midterm Elections in the South." Southern Historian 12 (1991) pp: 60-71 and Bruce H. Kalk, "The Carswell Affair: The Politics of a Supreme Court Nomination in the Nixon Administration." American Journal of Legal History (1998): 261-287. in JSTOR. They deal with topics that had not previously been touched upon here, such as the 1970 elections in the South and the Supreme Court nomination issue. Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources you've added not only don't belong in the section, but attempt to give a position more weight than it actually has in scholarship. This area should strictly be about strong sources that speak to the disagreements held amongst scholars. The sources you added don't speak to the debate or conflict...at least not the text you actually wrote in the article. This section should be precise and accurate, and shouldn't be muddied by throwing in ancillary factors that might have been important during the 1970s. Just because some scholars think Supreme Court appointments have an impact, doesn't mean they are debating notions generally held regarding the Southern Strategy or speaking to a debate. To make this implication is a form of OR in violation of WP:Synth. Lassiter clearly says he disagree with the majority of his scholars and says race wasn't the biggest influencing factor. This is a clear example of what this section should consist of, not irrelevant red herring arguments about SC justices and byrd machines.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like a direct quote from Mayer please. Mayer doesn't mention the Southern Strategy at all in this source and actually admits the importance of race/civil rights in domestic politics which is what the Southern Strategy is. Mayer's comments about "American politics" does not serve to refute sentiments regarding the Southern Strategy because the SS was not a nationwide strategy, but one that focused on localized sentiments in the south. To this source of Mayer and try to apply it to debate/refutation of the Southern Strategy is another example of original research through synthesizing. I appreciate your moving the other sources out of the wrong section, but comments on the Bird Machine and SC justices aren't relevant to this article at all and certainly to speak to the "roots of the southern strategy". I ask that you please remove them and stick to sources that actually speak to the Southern Strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the content in question yet (although my gut instinct is that it's a combination of undue weight and original synthesis). But if these sections are kept, they need extensive copyediting. The section on Virginia and the Byrd, or "bird" [sic], machine is particularly mangled. I'm not investing the time yet since it's not clear that the content actually belongs, but if Rjensen feels strongly then perhaps he could copyedit it the next time he re-inserts it. It's hurting my eyes. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

He already reinserted it in another section. I think that shows some progress, but it's still irrelevant to the Southern Strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this a strategy irrelevant to Virginia???? that seems a very strange line of argument. The fact is Virginia had a strongly and attached conservative Byrd organization and the Republicans build up their own organization to displace it, and largely succeeded. To carry out a southern strategy, you have to handle every state in the South, and every state had a different structure in place. That's why historians study the states. Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, this article is about the Southern Strategy and not the individual state by state localized politics. That type of information might belong on articles directly relating to Virginia politics/history, but not in a general one about the Southern Strategy. Also, please address the issues expressed above.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Every politician knows that a national election is a combination of state elections. There's no such thing as a regional southern election, there are elections in southern states and each one has a different combination of demography, established politicians, and localized issues (like TVA) that they in fact address separately. When a candidate hopping from state to state accidentally praises the wrong governor, it's a serious mistake because it proves he's not paying attention to the voters and needs of the state that is actually in. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't about what "every politician knows", it's about the southern strategy and information about the southern strategy. Continuing to post information not relevant to or speaking to the Southern Strategy can be seen as POV pushing and OR. To claim or imply that these complete separate micro-issues are related to the southern strategy when the sources themselves don't analyze them in relation to the southern strategy is original research as well. They might be relevant to a topic about political realignment in the south, but they are not directly related to the southern strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk talks about "POV pushing"-- is he trying to say that he is innocent of that entity in fact has no appeal the agenda on this topic?? Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in accurately representing what reliable sources have to say about the Southern Strategy. Trying to include sources that don't speak to the Southern Strategy and asserting they do and refute what historians say about the southern strategy is a violation of multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There's been a request for a direct quotation from Mayer. OK here it is: Goldwater's staff also realized that his radical plan to sell the Tennessee Valley Authority was causing even racist whites to vote for Johnson. A Florida editorial urged Southern whites not to support Goldwater even if they agreed with his position on civil rights, because his other positions would have grave economic consequences for the region. Goldwater's opposition to most poverty programs, the TVA, aid to education, Social Security, the Rural Electrification Administration, and farm price supports surely cost him votes throughout the South and the nation. cite Jeremy D. Mayer, "LBJ Fights the White Backlash: The Racial Politics of the 1964 Presidential Campaign, Part 2 " Prologue 33#2 (2001) pp: 6-19. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As I thought, this quote says NOTHING about the southern strategy and Mayer only speaks to some of Goldwater's oppositions costing him votes. This is not representative of a debate nor does it speak to a debate regarding the importance/impact of the Southern Strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

wrong. the southern strategy = a) a technical term and b) a strategy to use race to win for GOP. Mayer says that in 1964 Goldwater brought up other issues (like TVA etc) that led southern racists to vote for LBJ. that is, the southern strategy did not work. The Southern Strategy TERM was invented later, but Mayer in fact uses the Southern Strategy term in his article and therefore he has it in mind. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote spoke to the southern strategy or to scholarly debate surrounding the southern strategy. Please supply a quote from Myer that talks about the southern strategy, so far, nothing you're supplied is relevant to this article. Your claim that Myers quote asserts "the southern strategy did not work" is entirely the manifest of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk should read this article. it's full of politicians and history, as well as scholars. The scholars are trying to figure out the strategy that politicians were using at different points of time in different states. In Wikipedia OR only means no footnote and everything is well footnoted here. Rjensen (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:OR is fallacious and I even specifically identified the parts of WP:OR that you've violated, which is WP:Synth. No, WP:verify speaks to things not being properly sourced/footnoted which is not the same thing that original research addresses. Nothing in your last response substantiated your mischaracterization of Myer. Also, your Shafer source is another example where the "southern strategy" isn't mentioned ONCE in either sources so to use it to try and make claims about the southern strategy is another example of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First things first--NPOV : does Scoobydunk claim that he is neutral on this topic and has no political agenda? Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you've attempted to comment about an editor instead of policies relevant to the discussion. This type of behavior can easily be seen as disruptive as it serves as a distraction from the actual discussion. My POV is irrelevant since I'm not trying to push information into the article that doesn't speak to the Southern Strategy, nor am I trying to misrepresent scholarly opinions about the southern strategy by inserting irrelevant information or making my own OR conclusions about that information.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk wrote at 21:16 today "Continuing to post information not relevant to or speaking to the Southern Strategy can be seen as POV pushing and OR." He introduced the issue and now refuses to answer about his private agenda. he says his POV is "irrelevant"--he means secret. I challenge that: his extremely narrow view of the topic is a personal POV that is hurting the editing process. If an article agrees with him he allows it otherwise he says it is OR or synthesis or something. That is not helpful. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is always good to present other ideas, but also that the section could better describe who holds dissenting views and how accepted they are. When mentioning Lassiter, it should point out his unique views on racism and the South, which probably influence his views on the Southern strategy. See his intro to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism.[1] TFD (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Lassiter is much of an issue with the exception of how much weight his opinion is given. He clearly disagrees with the conventional wisdom regarding the southern strategy and he admits that his opinions run contrary to the majority of scholarship. The problem is that a bunch of nonsense has been added to the "scholarly debate" section where the authors aren't contesting the importance of racism and/or don't even mention the southern strategy ONCE in their articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP policies explicitly and clearly describe what original research is and what editing synthesis is. Taking an article that says absolutely nothing about the Southern Strategy and attributing to a stance on the southern strategy is a violation of WP:Synthesis. Also, I've supported the inclusion of Lassiter on multiple occasions, which shows I adhere to WP policy and am willing to look at sources regardless of their positions. I've looked at your sources and most of the sources you've added don't speak to the southern strategy or they address issues not relevant to the southern strategy. When you're asked for a quote supporting the edits you've included, you provide nothing that speaks to the southern strategy or criticizes the scholarly view on the southern strategy. Now it seems you're more focused on making personal attacks, rather than addressing the issues identified above.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at Glenn Feldman's Painting Dixie Red. Early on he notes that the number of scholars who are agreeing with Lassiter and the "suburban strategy" is "rapidly growing". I think Scooydunk is correct, focusing on just one scholar doesn't show debate. Others who share that point of view need to be included. Springee (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite what I said, but I did welcome the topic being fleshed out with a bigger array of opinions contrary to the conventional view of the southern strategy. However, the majority of the sources added are either misrepresented and/or don't mention the southern strategy ONCE in the entire source.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This article defines the southern strategy as "a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for presidential candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation." That means a) Republican Party strategies for winning presidential elections in the South; and b) the SS is at work when that strategy focuses on appeals to racial tensions. A major question in the scholarly literature is whether the SS is actually at work in election X. scholar A says Yes because the racial appeal was important; scholar B says No because the racial appeal was not especially important & other appeals, like economics or foreign policy, were more important. I am arguing that coverage of both A and B fits the appropriate guidelines and should be included. Scoobydunk seems to be saying that he only wants to see coverage of scholar A. Evidence against the SS hypothesis somehow don't count. he seems to believe that A is absolutely true, and therefore B is outside the bounds of Wikipedia. That is his own personal POV-- he has prejudged the historical situation ow what actually happened based on his own personal private politics. Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is basically an admittance to adding in information not relevant to the Southern Strategy. On an article about "Granny Smith Apples" it would be defined as a "type of apple or fruit" but that doesn't open the door for the article to discuss golden delicious, red delicious, bananas, pears, and XYZ. You're admitting to adding information about the LARGER UMBRELLA of political elections with sources that don't discuss the Southern Strategy. You say "A major question in the scholarly literature is whether the SS is actually at work in election X" which is true, but is only accurate if the scholar is actually saying "No, the southern strategy wasn't at work, these were the things that were". If they aren't commenting directly on the SS, then they are simply talking about the larger umbrella of presidential elections or voter realignment and to assert that this is a stance/criticism about the southern strategy is a vioalation of WP:OR. The Southern Strategy is a SINGLE APPROACH to presidential elections and voter realignment, that doesn't mean every other example is relevant or disproves that the southern strategy existed and was used. They are different strategies. This article talks about southern strategy, not political realignment or presidential elections in general. Hence why many of the sources you've added have zero relevance to this article and should be added to articles with broader subject matter. This isn't a "narrow pov" this is how articles are written on WP. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The southern strategy is academic hypothesis about the motivation of the Republican political strategies. some scholars think the SS was very important, and other scholars think it was much less important than other factors like economics or the Vietnam war. A scholar who says "economics was the most important reason" is stating evidence downplaying the SS. That evidence should be included. Scoobydunk only wants to include evidence that supports this hypothesis. I suggest we can't write encyclopedia articles without giving both sides of a controversial issue. Somehow the text never mentions that Nixon explicitly rejected the idea that he ever used a "Southern strategy" see >Joan Hoff (1995). Nixon Reconsidered. BasicBooks. p. 79. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Southern strategy" is solely an academic hypothesis, nor do I think there is any serious doubt about its existence. After all, the strategy was expressed verbatim, and unapologetically, by some of its architects in the GOP, including Kevin Phillips and Lee Atwater. FFS, it was even acknowledged explicitly by the head of the Republican National Committee in 2005, in the course of an apology to the African-American community. I get the sense that a lot of effort is being expended here to pretend that the strategy didn't exist, or may not have existed, or is simply an academic conjecture, when in reality it was acknowledged both contemporaneously and in retrospect by the Republican Party. The fact that Richard Nixon—an individual not exactly renowned for his integrity or honesty—denied employing the strategy is perhaps worth mention, but does not falsify the underlying reality. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I just read over the Atwater links. I don't think they say the GOP used said strategy to run for the White House at any point in time. He certainly and strongly suggests that all more recent claims of the Southern Strategy are questionable. Even the stuff Phillips is saying can be read in more than just one way. If you look at what Atwater says, not just the short clip but the full interview, he is saying two things. First, he is saying that in the past some candidates (he didn't specify party or which election) did try to appeal via racial messages. However, the more important point he makes is that the moment you make the message indirect/coded/subliminal most voters are going to miss the code. Thus the coded message stuff is really so much hot air because the voters won't understand it to be racist and thus it doesn't appeal to their racism (for those who are racist). Rather than saying Reagan did use a message designed to appeal to racists (as the article suggests) Atwater is actually saying he didn't because even if he did such a message, by virtue of being coded, is lost on the reader. This fuller message is included in the Lamis interview but not in the Wiki entry. Lamis uses Atwater to show how things happened in the past, not prove that such a plan was still in use. The Atwater "coded message is a lost message" view supports the scholars who say that the south went to the GOP for reasons other than race politics. Those reasons do include "class" politics with suburban voters not wanting to pay higher taxes to support low income inner city residents regardless of race. A number of the critics of the Southerns Strategy theory (of the GOP rise in the south) note that the GOP did make class based appeals (protect your suburbia from paying for the issues of the inner city) but the appeals were not based on race. I think this article needs to decide if it is narrowly about a strategy that was used for some period of time (how long is not agreed) in which case much of the background needs to go. Or it's an article that discusses things in broader terms in which case what Rjensen is adding should stay because it's related to the elections and the validity of various claims presented by sources. Springee (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is pretty far off base. The whole point of using a coded message is that the code is clearly understood by its target audience, but provides plausible deniability and wiggle room to avoid accountability. Atwater is saying that public values had changed to the extent that it was no longer acceptable or politically profitable for Republicans to use explicitly racist language, and that they shifted to more abstract and coded language (e.g. "states' rights", "forced busing") to couch their continued appeal to white racism in politically tenable terms. Reagan, Bush I, and other Republicans used such coded language in their campaigns (the constant references to "welfare queens", the Willie Horton ad, pretty much anything from Jesse Helms, etc), and the code was not particularly subtle. Again, I'm not interested in debating whether the Southern strategy existed, when it was acknowledged both at the time and in retrospect, by its architects and employers. How can we pretend it didn't exist when the RNC has already apologized for it? MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The RNC did not apologize. Its chairman said: "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." SS means only presidential campaigns & he did not mention them. Rjensen (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? Look, when someone describes a reprehensible action and then says "we were wrong", they are apologizing. It's a waste of our time (and an insult to our intelligence) to pretend otherwise. Likewise, the RNC chairman blamed "some Republicans" (unnamed) for exploiting white racism. You claim that this has nothing to do with the Southern strategy because he didn't explicitly call out specific Presidential candidates, which I think is similarly a very weak and tortured argument. I'm past the stage in my Wikipedia career where I spend hours arguing with people who are intent on denying obvious realities, so if this is the level of discussion going on here, I'll leave you to it. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's made to sound like an apology but he carefully has no examples, names, dates, states or candidates. he does not call it "a reprehensible action". he does not use the word "racism." he does not say the RNC ever did any of it. he did say "we were wrong" -- we took a poor approach to winning the black vote. you wanted him to say much more but he carefully did not do so. Much of this debate is about code words & historians are trained to look very closely at the exact wording and at what is left unsaid. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the Atwater quote in Lamis (our current quote is cut down from the Lamis quote). He starts by saying that Reagan isn't using such a strategy. He then, in the text quoted in the Wiki page, explains why such a coded message doesn't work. The recipient of the message doesn't understand the code. This become even more obvious when you read the Nation's take on the interview but even Lamis's version makes it clear this isn't a Reagan thing. Springee (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Atwater interview is a primary source and primary sources don't take precedence over reliable secondary sources. So to make so much of an effort to try and interpret what Atwater said is ultimately fruitless in the face of reliable sources. Historians have thoroughly analyzed and discussed Atwater's interview and we highlight what those reliable sources say about the interview and the parts relevant to the southern strategy. Regardless, I'd like to bring the focus of this discussion back to the fact that the article has been littered with entries from sources that don't even discuss the southern strategy and that Rjensen is in clear violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The text of the Atwater interview is a primary source. You are correct about the order of precedence established by Wikipedia. The primary sources at to the interpretation of the interview are Lamis and Perlstein. Lamis only says that Atwater is explaining how such a process of coding worked. He doesn't make a claim about any particular election where it was used thus it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHISIS. Perlstein, writing from a clearly hostile POV on the subject also does not say that Atwater was saying the strategy is effective or currently in use (during Reagan's time). Rjensen's additions are relevant because they are in a section that discusses if the strategy had any impact. Thus it is reasonable to discuss the larger picture during the elections in question. Why are you so concerned about removing material that shows that appeals to racism were not the primary factors in the GOP shift but you aren't concerned about removing a long intro section that clearly predates the southern strategy? Rjensen seems to be adding real content to an article that looks like a place for people to dump all sorts of racist charges against the GOP. Most of the evolution and later material looks to be of poor quality at best. Springee (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about Lamis and Perlstein's interpretations, it was about your interpretation of the Atwater interview and how it's irrelevant in the face of what secondary sources say, and irrelevant to the article because of policies concerning OR. The section in this article isn't about "if the strategy had any impact", it's strictly about scholars who debate contemporary/historical understandings of the Southern Strategy. That's why Lassiter, Valentino, and Sears are perfect additions, because in their works they specifically talk about people who debate aspects of the Southern Strategy. Almost none of the information supplied by Rjensen speaks to the impact of the southern strategy or about debate concerning the southern strategy. "No", this article isn't about every"election ever held nor is about every time the Republican party realigned, it's specifically about a single strategy called the Southern Strategy. If the articles don't discuss the southern strategy, then it's a violation OR to takes excerpts from those articles and present them in away that refute the southern strategy and its impact. I only say "almost" because after checking the first 2-4 sources Rjensen added, it was clear those sources had no relevance to the Southern Strategy and I haven't checked the latest ones.

Again, this article isn't about "the GOP shift", it's specifically about "The Southern Strategy", hence why I don't support adding sources that don't even mention the Southern Strategy once in the entire work. The Southern Strategy was about appeals to racist sentiments in southern voters, hence why it's presented that way in sources that discuss the southern strategy. Even Lassiter, who disagrees with its impact, admits that the Southern Strategy was a tactic to appeal to racist attitudes. I'm not concerned with rewriting the entire article, so you're welcome to fix the long intro, but adding in OR and clear violations of NPOV are not how articles get fixed. Furthermore, why is it you require editors you disagree with to discuss on the talk page before making changes to the article, but here you commend Rjensen for adding in tons of OR, POV, irrelevant material without discussing it first?Scoobydunk (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of Atwater: The way the sources are currently used is OR. Lamis uses Atwater's quote to show how things worked in 1968 and their about. He does not mention Reagan at all. The Wiki article uses Atwater's comments as proof that the Southern Strategy had evolved. That clearly isn't what Atwater said (and we can use primary sources, they just aren't given as much weight). Lamis does not say the strategy evolved... at least not in the section that quotes Atwater. If he says it elsewhere then that, and not Atwater, should be quoted. The Nation is, according to Wikipedia, a magazine with an editorial bias. Thus we can view those comments as such. Even with that bias, Perlstein does not say Reagan continued to use the strategy. To that I would add two more references. Hinderacker discusses the topic here [[2]]. While The Powerline is a web blog, it should be given some level of credibility as Time Magazine named it blog of the year (according to Wikipedia). In terms of reliability it should be considered similar to the opinion article by Perlstein. Hinderacker supports the view that once the message is too coded then the voters are voting based on race but instead are voting based on other factors such as economics. Hence if a GOP candidate opposes welfare they aren't doing it to appeal to racism in voters but to appeal to the voter's wallet. I understand that guts most of the claims of "Southern Strategy" in the later parts of the Wiki article but that is what Atwater is saying according to Hinderacker. I would also add the view of Reva B. Siegel in an article in the Harvard Law Review. From her footnote: "Lee Atwater, a political strategist for President Reagan, gave an anonymous interview in 1981 to political scientist Alexander Lamis in which he discussed the evolving terms in which candidates could appeal to racial resentments. It is not entirely clear whether he thought that, in changing the code for racial issues, candidates were moving beyond race or simply finding new ways of talking about race that were more acceptable in the civil rights era." Thus she is saying it is NOT clear that Atwater was trying to appeal to racism vs other factors. The Atwater quote is clearly being misused in the wiki entry. I'm going to fix the citation so the quote comes from Lamis and is the full Lamis quote. I'm not going to move it because the article is just too big a mess to bother with.

On Rjensen's edits: You feel that if an article doesn't mention the Southern Strategy it can not be part of the debate section. That simply isn't true. We are discussing why the south moved to the GOP (in national elections). Some people claim it was because of the Southern Strategy. Articles that support that POV will have to either directly mention the Southern Strategy or talk about appeals to racism via coded language (though Atwater, someone on the inside, says that doesn't work). Authors who don't agree might mention the Southern Strategy to state it didn't mater but others will simply not mention it. Their failure to mention it while citing other factors is evidence that the strategy failed. Thus you are wrong when you make a blanket claim that any article that doesn't cite the Southern Strategy can not be evidence against the racism appeal theory. Sadly I think any attempt to do the wholesale fixes that this article needs would be just as ugly as the American's for Prosperity article. Springee (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

On Atwater - You're wrong. Most of what concerns Atwater is the quoted interview where he talks about the Southern Strategy. That is not original research in any way shape or form. Furthermore, Atwater does discuss Reagan in the interview and it's Lamis who includes the "[the new Southern strategy of Ronald Reagan]". So this portion of the article is not a violation of WP:OR and it directly relays what the source says. No where in the article do we claim that Lamis speaks to the evolution of the Southern Strategy due to this quote. This quote from his work is simply a characterization of the Southern Strategy, it's other historians who describe the evolution over time. However, this information is still relevant to the section since it's a point on the chronological evolutionary timeline of the southern strategy. Also, your Hindracker blog post is completely irrelevant when compared to peer reviewed scholarly works, so it doesn't "gut" anything. Lastly, you prove the inclusion of Lamis quoting Atwater with your source from Siegel, who explicitly said Atwater was explaining the "evolving terms". So the Atwater quote isn't being "misused" in any fashion. Furthermore, Siegel's quote confirms that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism, and he only expresses doubt in what Atwater thought. No where in this part of the article does it claim Atwater believed the party was moving beyond racial coding or finding new ways to do it.

On RJensen - No, we are discussing the scholarly debate surrounding the importance/impact of the Southern Strategy. This isn't a section to include every single election in the history of the united states, or discuss the importance of other factors UNLESS the source explicitly relates it to the Southern Strategy. If the source isn't talking about the southern strategy, then it's a violation of WP:OR to try and use those sources to debate the importance of the Southern Strategy. That's what WP:OR explicitly prohibits. If an author talks about the importance of Baseball in american history, it's a violation of WP:OR to cite authors talking about basketball, hockey, or football to try and debate the importance of Baseball. The only time you would be able to include those arguments, is if the author/source explicitly said something along the lines of "Baseball wasn't as important as XYZ" or "Baseball had little affect on the world of sports, Foorball is what radically changed blah blah blah". This is what Rjensen did and you're clearly supporting this violation of WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On Atwater: No, actually it is you who is incorrect. Do a quick Google search for where Atwater and Reagan's names appear in Lamis's book. Aside from where Atwater mentions Reagan's name, the two don't appear together in the text. If Lamis says Reagan used the Southern Strategy then that should be quoted. As is Lamis only uses Atwater to say how the strategy came about in the Harry Dent period. Implying that Atwater's statements is proof that the Southern Strategy was continued during Reagan and later is WP:OR because Lamis does not say it when he quotes Atwater and Atwater specifically says it isn't true. You are wrong that the article doesn't "claim that Lamis speaks to the evolution..." etc. Sorry, if you want to find where Lamis says Reagan was using the Southern Strategy quote that section of his work, not an interview with Reagan's political strategist where Atwater says it doesn't work and why it doesn't work. By placing that Atwater quote in the evolution section that talks (makes claims) about Reagan there is a clear implication that the Atwater quote supports the claims that Reagan used the strategy. That is not supported by Atwater quote nor the Lamis material around the quote and thus is OR even if you are unwilling to see it. I would suggest you read Lamis, around page 400-403. It's clear he is saying the Reagan and Bush era politics were not focused on race as the key factor.

You are somewhat correct about the Hindracker blog. You are correct in that it isn't as reliable a source as Lamis. However, since the Lamis text doesn't say what you claim we have to fall back on other sources. Hindracker specifically says Atwater's quote refutes claims that Reagan was using the Southern Strategy. You are wrong about Siegel as well. Siegel states that we can not decide if politicians are trying to appeal to racism by using coded language or if in fact they are actually appealing to exactly what they claim. If they are then the whole idea that this "coded language" is to appeal to racism is wrong and its actually an appeal to the voter's self interest. Either way, the quote does not support that Reagan used the Southern Strategy. If you want Lamis to support that claim, please find the actual supporting quotes. The Atwater quote would be better placed in one of the earlier parts of the text.

On Rjensen: You are simply trying to justify excluding sources that don't support what you want the article to say. The problem with trying to attribute the success of the GOP to an appeal to racism is that anyone who researches the topic and finds reasons other than racism and thus doesn't mention racism is, according to you, not a valid source. It's a common issue with disproving fringe theories. You can't actually prove a negative. I support Rjensen's additions to the topic. They speak to the actions of politicians who were accused on using the Southern Strategy and to other (and honestly more credible) reasons why the South turned to the GOP. I've been looking for additional sources we might cite. Specifically, I'm looking for sources that talk about the rise of the GOP in the South even if they never mention the Southern Strategy. Those sources are just as relevant as ones that claim the GOP wouldn't have won the South without appealing to racist voters. Springee (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On Atwater: Where does the article say that Lamis is commenting on Reagan with the Atwater quote? You used the word "implying" which leads me to believe that the article doesn't actually express this, and this is just a strawman argument of your own making. So this is not a violation of OR, the article simply uses Lamis to include a quote from Atwater, and makes no relationship between Reagan and the Southern Strategy in WP's voice. However, Wikipedia could express this relationship because Lamis is the one who wrote "[the new Southern strategy of Ronald Reagan]". Furthermore, "No" just because a person is mentioned in a section, doesn't mean that entire section is about that person. This section is about the evolution of the Southern Strategy. Atwater's quote speaks to this evolution and deserves to be in the section. That's not OR in any way, shape, or form and your Seigal quote further proves that its inclusion is appropriate. The evolution follows a pretty clear, logical timeline and there are no statements about Lamis making claims about Reagan. It's a completely separate paragraph and you're welcome to take it to the OR message board.

I've made no wrong assertion about Lamis. So your attempt to give relevance to Hindracker is fruitless. I'm also not wrong about Seigel. Seigel says the uncertainty is whether Atwater thought the candidates were moving on from race, or had to create new racial coding. This copy and pasted from your post "It is not entirely clear whether he thought that, in changing the code for racial issues, candidates were moving beyond race or simply finding new ways of talking about race that were more acceptable in the civil rights era." He is "Atwater" so in this part of this quote of yours, Seigel is only speaking to Atwater's position and is not explaining his own. Also, I didn't say Seigel's quote had anything to do with Reagan, only that it had everything to to with evolution of the Southern Strategy. Therefore, the Seigel quote proves that Lamis's mentioning of the Atwater quote belongs in a section titled "Evolution". You keep trying to bring Reagan into this, and it's not relevant.

On Rjensen: You're just plain wrong and you refuse to address the very clear logical examples I give that prove how your position is erroneous. This is a violation of WP:OR, you are supporting taking comments made about other reasons for transitions in southern political alignment and use them as a way to refute the effectiveness of the Southern Strategy, even though the sources don't present that argument. That's exactly what the WP:OR policy speaks to. Do you need me to quote it? From WP:Syn, the first line, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If the sources don't explicitly refute the effectiveness of the Southern Strategy, then you can not include them into the article in a way that implies that that they do refute its effectiveness. This is a clear policy violation. Also from WP:Syn "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The topic of this article is the "Southern Strategy" not "Political Realignment in the South". So if the source doesn't even mention the Southern Strategy, you can not take arguments from it and present in the article to refute the academically held view of the Southern Strategy. Your assertion that I want to exclude information I don't agree with is absurd. I've already supported the inclusion of Lassiter, Valentino, and Sears which have differing opinions. I'm interested in following WP policy, not in supporting editing that's a clear violation of it.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

When leading scholars say that racial issues played a smaller role than economics, religion and foreign policy, that speaks directly to the question. The topic of the article is the Validity of the Southern Strategy. is Southern Strategy a valid historical statement of what happened? we need to include eminent scholars who provide negative evidence by Wiki's NPOV rule. Ian Haney-Lopez for example, emphasizes their importance for studying the SS. She says, "Just as some scholars doubt the significance of the Southern strategy by noting the election of Democrats, others dismiss its power by pointing out the class dimensions of the political realignment in the South. See, for instance, Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston, The end of Southern Exceptionalism." [Ian Haney-Lopez. Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Wrecked the Middle Class (2014) p 239] Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the topic of this article isn't about "the validity of the Southern Strategy", it's just about the "Southern Strategy". It's not a battleground for you to try and discredit its existence. The Southern Strategy was an appeal to racist sentiments held by southern voters. Its effectiveness is only a very small portion of what the overall topic is about and the sources you've added give way too much weight to that specific issue. Also, funny how you left out the part where Lopez says that the viewpoint "race didn't play a substantial role" is "ultimately untenable" because it supposes that there is a neat division between race and class. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's POV to ASSUME all that. Did the strategy exist--was it important? When did it start/end? These are basic questions in the RS you do not want asked. Why is that? Perhaps you think it's an evil that has to be exposed?? The job of the editors is to summarize what the scholars have to say about it. How important it was in deciding presidential elections is one major aspect (low/medium/high? Which years? why?) Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Assume all of what? You're clearly giving a very small aspect of the Southern strategy undue weight, especially when it's regarded as the minority viewpoint. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The impact of the strategy is clearly a very important part of the overall story and thus should be front and center in the article. Claims that it was a major factor in the GOP's success in the south seem to be welcome in the article. Scoobydunk's view that scholarly work that doesn't mention the Southern Strategy should not be included in the article is simply wrong. If a researcher is looking at the topic of why the GOP gained a foothold in the South and doesn't mention the Southern Strategy then that can be taken as a clear indication that the strategy had little to no impact. Springee (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the parts of WP:OR that prove you wrong. Do you not know what "explicit" means?Scoobydunk (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong in your reading of WP:OR. I see nothing that excludes what Rjensen is including but you are welcome to provide the exact quote again so we can read the paragraph that you feel is related. As far as I can tell it says we can't included unrelated material but we are allowed to include clearly related sources. For instance if we were discussing a conspiracy theory regarding the cause of Chicago Fire it would be very reasonable to include historical sources that say it was a cow that kicked over a lantern even if they didn't mention the conspiracy theory. The reason is the both directly relate to the cause of the fire. Articles that discuss the causes of the GOP conversion of the South are relevant even if they don't mention the Southern Strategy. This is because this article has some references/comments which state the Southern Strategy was critical to/cause of/etc the shift of the South to the GOP. Failure to mention the Southern Strategy shows that said author didn't think it was important. Thus if this article is going to have some sources that claim the strategy had a large impact it is reasonable to include other sources that didn't consider the impact significant enough to even merit discussion. That is not the synthesis you are concerned about. If you have a particular passage you disagree with then perhaps you can work to edit that passage.Springee (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, From WP:Syn, the first line, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If the sources don't explicitly refute the effectiveness of the Southern Strategy, then you can not include them into the article in a way that implies that that they do refute its effectiveness. This is a clear policy violation. Your perception that these authors "didn't consider the impact significant" is not explicitly stated by the sources. You are drawing a conclusion from what you feel is implied, and this is not permitted by Wikipedia policies regarding original research. So if you still don't understand this, I suggest you research the difference between "explicit" and "implicit".Scoobydunk (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that what you are concerned about is happening here. You are welcome to open up a RfC or similar to get additional opinions. Springee (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It clearly does. Please give me a quote where Shafer explicitly discusses the Southern strategy and its effectiveness.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a misreading by Scoobydunk. The rule says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." He misreads that as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by ALL of the sources." Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Never have I required that it be a position held by "all" sources. The amount of sources is irrelevant in regards to OR. What matters is that the source that you're using as a reference has to explicitly say what you're trying to include into the article. If the source explicitly says what you're trying to add, then you can use that source as a reference. Shafer doesn't say anything about the Southern Strategy and so it's a violation of WP:OR to say that he refutes the effectiveness of the Southern Strategy or a to present the information in that way.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If the SS says "A and B and C happened" and if source X says "A and B did not happen" then source X is appropriate for citation. no Wikipedia rule requires source X use the words SS Does Shafer in fact confront the SS? Scooby says no. But the RS say yes, and we go by them: "The 2006 publication of Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston’s The End of Southern Exceptionalism was met with critical acclaim, even winning the coveted V. O. Key Award for the best book in southern politics. Their premise was that the realignment of the South with the Republican Party was a function of the economic and class changes that transformed the region in post–World War II America. The thesis challenges the widely held belief that the “reddening” of the South was based solely on the Southern Strategy initiated by Richard Nixon’s 1968 and 1972 campaigns. " [in Angie Maxwell, " The Duality of the Southern Thing: A Snapshot of Southern Politics in the Twenty-First Century." Southern Cultures 20.4 (2014): pp 89-105]. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can use what Lopez and Maxwell said because they are the ones likening Shafer's work to "challenging" a widely held belief about the Southern strategy. However, this doesn't mean you can cite Shafer for those positions because those are other peoples' interpretations of his work and must be properly accredited to them. This doesn't mean you can take Shafer's work and directly quote the parts you want to refute the widely held view/conventional wisdom of the Southern strategy because Shafer makes no such explicit criticism and to do so is a violation of WP:Syn. In essence, Lopez and Maxwell are the secondary sources and they are referencing Shafer as a primary source exemplifying authors who challenge the conventional wisdom of the Southern strategy. Though Shafer's work is a secondary source in some context, in examining the scholarly understandings of the effectiveness of the Southern strategy, his work is being used as a primary source. From WP:Primary "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Also from WP:Secondary "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."

So, again, Lopez and Maxwell are perfectly fine to include because their work explicitly talks about the Southern strategy and different scholarly viewpoints about the Southern strategy. Shafer does not. This has nothing to do with a personal POV position on my part, but about being consistent with WP policy. If your accusations of pov pushing were true, then I would be rejecting all of these sources and I'm clearly not. You don't even have to quote Maxwell or Lopez, you can simply say in the article "Some scholars challenge the view that the political realignment in the south was solely based on the Southern Strategy. Authors like Shafer argued that the "reddening" of South was a function of economic and class changes." Then you would obviously list Maxwell and Lopez as the references. Shafer could be added to the article in the "Further Reading" section. Glad we cleared that up.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

goodness you're busy making up new rules. You misread the written Wiki rules and have not found a Wiki rule to support your policy of telling editors what RS they cannot cite. That's nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You should try actually reading WP policies because I linked the rules that explain how what you're doing is wrong. So again, do you have a quote from Shafer where he explicitly discusses the Southern Strategy's effectiveness?Scoobydunk (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

please quote that Wiki rule again. Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From WP:Syn, the first line, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Also WP:Primary "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You're interpreting Shafer to be refuting the effectiveness of the Southern strategy, yet you've yet to provide a quote from Shafer that actually explicitly expresses his position about the Southern strategy. So where's that quote?Scoobydunk (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on that reasoning we would not be able to use the MANY official tellings of the moon landings to dispute the claim that the moon is made from green cheese. Since NASA said the moon is made of (NASA's claims here) but didn't mention dairy products you would have us believe that we can't use NASA's reports to dispute claims that the moon is made from dairy products. Sorry, the passage doesn't work that way. What it says is if one source says "The South turned red because of X,Y and Z, and not the Southern Strategy" then we can include other sources that say "The South turned red because of X/Y/Z" even if they don't mention the Southern Strategy. The other sources support the one that explicitly says X,Y,Z not Southern Strategy. If you still disagree I would suggest setting up a question on perhaps the RS noticeboard. Springee (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your moon example is fallacious because, with caution, you an use primary sources as long as they explicitly say what you're trying to say. To your second point, the source has to explicitly discuss the topic of the article which is the Southern Strategy. Shafer does not discuss the Southern Strategy and including tangential sources is a against WP:Coatrack. This article/topic is about the Southern Strategy, not about all forms of political alignment. So, if you include Shafer under the premise that he talks about something "related" to the Southern Strategy, then it's a violation of WP:Coatrack. If you include Shafer under the premise that he is talking about the Southern Strategy, then it's a violation of policies concerning WP:Syn and WP:Primary. Either way you want to look at it, it's a violation of WP policy unless you can provide a quote where Shafer actually discuss the Southern Strategy in his source.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph edits

Scoobydunk, you have twice reverted my edits to the opening paragraph without justifications in the talk section. Based on your edit comment please explain the following

1. How is noting the time of publication of various scholarly claims OR so long as the time of publication is not in disupute?
2. How can Frymer be considered a RS for the relative scholarly acceptance of the top down vs bottom up theory when it was published 8 years before the bottom up theory?
3. The Frymer quote you have included says that scholars agree that the GOP turned away from the political needs/wants of African Americans around the time of Nixon. How does that support the view that new GOP voters were motivated by racial backlash/a top down motivation? Springee (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. You didn't note the time, you tried to make a claim based on the time period which is not supported or made by any reliable source. That is called original research. You even admit on this talk page that a consensus made 20 years ago is less reliable than a consensus today. That is your own opinion and CAN NOT be included in the article as if it's a matter of fact or as if a reliable source explicitly made that claim about the sources you're so intent on trying to discredit.
2. This is called a red herring argument in the form of a strawman argument. I didn't say he mentioned the bottom-down view at all. So this question of yours demonstrates a gross dishonesty, especially since I've already refuted it.[3] Frymer and Skrentny do make a claim of what most analysts of the period think, and that supports the top-down view that the partisan shift was around racial issues. That substantiates a claim that the majority viewpoint is that the political realignment in the south during this period was due to the racial aspects of the Southern Strategy.
3. The frymer quote actually has 2 claims in it, and you've repeatedly ignored the second claim, even though I've previously bolded it for you. Frymer says "most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign"

A. "as marking the end of the Republican party's century-old alliance with African-American voters"

B. "as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues."

It's claim B that substantiates the top-down viewpoint, known as political realignment due to the racial issues of the southern strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I did note the time period, "At the time the bottom up narrative was put forth, primarily by Lassiter but also by Shafer and Johnston most scholars supported the top-down viewpoint" Would you be happier if I changed the quote to include the year 2006? Both Lassiter's assesment of the relative acceptance of the views and his work were published at the same time. Sorry, there is no OR in that statement.
2. It is not at all a straw man. You claim that Frymer's opinion of scholarly consensus can relate to consensus even though it was expressed almost a decade before the new theory we are talking about. So if you wanted to say "prior to the introduction of the bottom up theory" then you might have a claim (were it not for point #3. Since you are trying to have readers believe this speaks to the current consensus you are wrong.
3. The Frymer quote lacks any claim that you need to support how you want to use it. Claim B does not support the top down view. The question is why did voters decide to vote GOP vs Democrat. Frymer's quote says there is consensus the GOP changed their focus. It doesn't say voters responded by changing to the GOP because of that shift. Lassiter and Feldman do talk about that, they speak to the motivation of the voters, not the actions of the GOP. Were voters motivated by a top down GOP message or a suburban self interested POV? Both of those speak to the voter. You can't say the appeals to racism work if you can't speak to why the voters voted the way they did. Hence Frymer doesn't support the claim you are trying to make with his quote. That is why I removed it. Springee (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. You don't understand. Noting the time period would simply be "in 2006 Lassiter published XYZ". What you did was make an OR analysis of the time period, which is against WP policy. The way you commented on it was an attempt to discredit its relevance today, which is strictly your own OR opinion.
2. It is a strawman argument. To prove a majority viewpoint, I just have to quote what reliable sources have to say about "most analysts" or something of the sort. I don't have to include anything about voter motivations or what Lassiter said. It's irrelevant.
3. Frymer clearly says that most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as solidifying a shift in the party system around racial issues. A "shift in the party system" is the same thing as "political realignment", and it's centered "around racial issues", which is the top-down viewpoint. So, you're wrong.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Stating "at the time of publication" is not OR.
2. To prove a majority viewpoint you must first show that your supporting evidence relates to the question at hand. Yours does not but that is point #3. Point #2 is that you can't claim a historic position represents the contemporary position unless if a new thing comes about after the claims are made that would upset the status quo.
3. A "shift in the party system" is not the same thing as a "political realignment". One speaks to the party, the other to the actions of the voters. Springee (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, in your edits to the opening paragraph you accused me of adding OR. Please justify your claim that Feldman is "Another supporter of the "suburban strategy" ". That is your POV, not one that Feldman makes. It is hypocritical to accuse me of adding OR while doing so yourself. Springee (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. "at the time of publication" combined with whatever you have coming after it, is OR. It's also a violation of WP:Editorial which says that this language must be verifiable. It also clearly expresses your pov that they are not currently accurate, which you've admitted to having that pov on multiple pages now.
2. No, I don't have to play around your questions. The only question I have to speak to is what is asked by WP:NPOV about majority viewpoints, and the source/quote meets that requirement.
3. They are the same thing. Even the book that Frymer and Skrentny cite says the same thing. In "Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics" Carmines and Stimson say "Accounting for realignment on race following the 1964 Senate elections is an easier task" and "The 1964 Senate elections contributed to further issue realignment on race in two ways." Of course, there is also the publisher's summary which says "This book will be a major contribution to the study of realignment and political change, and will be as important as the works of Sundquist, Clubb, and even Key. The authors' interpretation of realignment marks a distinct advance, resolving significant theoretical muddles in the study of American politics." Political realignment encompasses all of the factors, both from the party and from the voters. This quote is sufficient in describing that the majority viewpoint is that political realignment was mainly due to racial issues.

It's only hypocritical if I say it's okay for me to do it and not for you to do it, which I haven't done. However, are you saying that your entire entry into the Scholary Debate section regarding Feldman is OR? Would you be satisfied if we removed "another supporter" and just write what Feldman says? While we're at it, the search tool yields 0 results on Amazon for Feldman's book saying "non factor" or "non-factor". Do you have an actual quote of Feldman saying that the southern strategy was a "non-factor", or is this another example of OR?Scoobydunk (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. 1. That is your opinion. How is that any more or less a POV vs your phrasing of Feldman's view and using words like "admits" when describing Lassiter's statements?
2. 2 NPOV only applies if the RS supports your claim. In this case it does not. That is why it was removed.
3. 3 They are not the same thing. You are the only person who has made that claim. Your new quote again doesn't speak to the motives of the voters and certainly can't weigh in on the POV of scholars. It's a bad joke that you think that a source that is 8 years older than the alternative theory can support the view that the alternative theory currently deserves less weight than a theory that Frymer doesn't even address. Now you are stretching to claim the publisher is a RS for the book's content. Why not just provide a better quote?
4. 4 Yes, it is hypocritical because you are doing it. You added a POV to Feldman that you assume he has but where is your evidence? Your last question is a nice red herring of your own making. Where did I say Feldman weighs in on which theory he things is right or their relative impact?

1. It's not an opinion, it's wikipedia policy and you were clearly attempting to use WP's voice to make a claim not presented in reliable sources that was full of OR and your personal POV. We can change "admits" to "recognizes", but this is a different discussion from what your original objection was and what you tried to change in the passage.
2. Uh, the quote most certainly does meet a claim about what most analysts view. So, again, you're incorrect.
3. They are the same thing and multiple sources speak to Frymer's book discussing the realignment of the political south. Sorry you don't like what reliable sources have to say. I'm also not "stretching", I'm showing you that my understanding of the passage is not OR, it mirrors what other sources say and, of course, demonstrates a competent understanding of the English language.

No, that's not how hypocrisy works. If I'm mistaken about something, I'm happy to change it. That does not make me a hypocrite. I already made a suggestion to address this issue, and you've completely ignored it. Again, you're showing that you don't bother to read what others write, which is very disruptive to the discussion. Also, my last question isn't a red herring argument. Red herring arguments ignore what the actual argument is to distract to an irrelevant topic. I did address your concerns about Feldman and his support or lack thereof, and I made a suggestion to fix the issue. Now, after researching Feldman's book and comparing them to how you originally inserted that information into the article, I decided to ask a follow-up question. A question that went unanswered. So again, please provide a quote from Feldman where he says that the Southern Strategy was a "non-factor"Scoobydunk (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wash, rinse, repeat. You have not shown that my phrasing was OR. You fail to even understand the difference between a source that says what the GOP did vs a source that says why voters picked a party. You fail to address how a source that is 8 years older than the alternative POV can provide a reference for the current balance between the two views. You fail to justify claiming Feldman had picked any side. As to your question, show where I said Feldman said the Southern Strategy was or was not a non-factor. We are clearly at the point of pointlessness. We will have to address these content disputes via 3rd party means. Springee (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So no quote then to support feldman claiming that the southern strategy was a "non-factor". That's very telling since you're the one who added it, yet can supply a quote to support that statement. FYI, I can't physically show you that the book doesn't use the word "non-facotr" once in the entire publication, but you've provided nothing to refute this very simple matter. Also, multiple editors have now told you that your position is an example of original research and have disagreed with you. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your gross mischaracterization of the whole discussion makes discussing the topic with you pointless. You have dishonestly framed my POV and continue to try to insert Frymer's POV on the Lassiter POV even though the quotes you provide predate the top-down vs bottom-up discussion by almost a decade and don't speak to the motives of voters. Springee (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been able to supply numerous examples to prove that you're the one mischaracterizing things. Whether it's from scholarly sources, to things I've said, to things you've said, you constantly attempt to change your tune and deny things that can be easily verified through keyword searches or diffs. Your red herring and OR arguments aren't going to change what reliable sources actually say on the matter.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Supporting the restoration of a passage in the scholarship section

A passage was removed from the scholarship section a few days back [4] The reason for removal was that the source didn't support the passage. That was actually true due to an error on my part. When adding the passage I flipped my authors. The passage was stating Fledman's view when in fact it was meant to be Lassiter's view according to Fledman. The restored material is supported by page 16 of Feldman's Painting Dixie Red. [the suburban school] insists that post-World War II white southern suburbanites were relatively "color blind" in their approach to politics. The argument goes on to reject the notion of a distinctive South as well as to downplay - and even at times dismiss - the role of race in motivating white southerners to leave the Democrative Party for the GOP. Race was just not something they cared a whole lot about' Springee (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And where do you explain why Lassiter's minority viewpoint needs to be included a 5th time in the article?Scoobydunk (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you removed was probably at this point a bit redundant. Note that when it was first added the intro to the section was different.

You have my permission to edit the Ferymer citation without seeing that as any kind of revert. It really should be removed as WP:OVERCITE but I assume you wish to keep it. Anyway, I'm guessing you aren't familiar with citing journal papers. I didn't remove the specific reference page number with the intent of listing all the pages. Instead, the correct way to cite any journal paper is to include the page numbers of the article because the article appeals as part of a bound volume (or e-volume anymore). Thus the page numbers are to help people actually find the article in a physical book. The Journal Cite template does have a separate field for "page" vs "pages". Page is for the location of the information. Typically not critical in the case of a paper vs a book or thesis. Anyway, I won't fuss if you add the material back.

One other thing, I had rewritten this sentence, "Matthew Lassiter is one historian who supports the "suburban strategy"". I did so because it seems odd to say one of the three scholars most credited with proposing the "suburban strategy" and the one who coined the term would be referred to as "one historian who supports it". Since that was your phrasing did you really mean it that way? Cheers! Springee (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a quote crediting Lassiter as the one who coined the term. If that's the case, then I think it's fine to phrase it has him being the originator.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lassiter, The Silent Majority, intro page 5.
• [5], " he supplants the familiar "southern strategy" interpretation with one of a "suburban strategy" driven by color-blind arguments, individualism, and free-market consumerism at the grassroots. "
• Tim Boyd's essay, writing in Feldman's Painting Dixie Red, page 80, "...meant adopting what the historian Matthew Lassiter has called "suburban strategies" that stressed economic prosperity and racial moderation, rather than the "southern strategy" of appealing to white backlash." Springee (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Those quotes certainly substantiate a claim that Lassiter called it a suburban strategy, but not that he was the creator/originator of the idea. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is totally possible many other people used the term first but Boyd decided to phrase his sentence, "adopting what the historian Matthew Lassiter has called "suburban strategies", to sound like Lassiter, a guy who's book features the phrase in several locations including as a section title, while promoting a new theory on the subject, was actually using a phrase someone else coined. I mean, we can't PROVE it can we. So I guess you are right. Perhaps you should just change it to "co-author" or "originator" of the theory rather than the term. Either way, phrasing it to sound like he wasn't an originator can create a false impression. It's a bit like deliberately cutting someone's quote. Yes, it might be literally what they said or what he supports, but it also leaves out critical context. Springee (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. Phrasing it to make it sound like we was an originator, can create a false impression since you've yet to supply a source that claims he's the originator. That's called original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be grasping at my claim that he coined the term as justification to retain a sentence that says he is just a supporter. There is not question in the literature (my references above) that Lassiter, along with S&J are credited with originating the theory known as the "suburban strategy". A sentence that implies otherwise is OR. Previous versions of this sentence were more true to the references. I'm not sure why it was changed to this less accurate version. Also, when the Feldman reference to the paragraph it was added with phrasing and presentation order based on the original source. It is also not clear why it was changed to a sentence that could be read as dismissing the importance Feldman placed on the suburban strategy narrative. Was the original phrasing less true to the source? I'm the editor who added the mutually agreed RS (Feldman) and when I added the text regarding the relative acceptance of the two narratives I used phrasing that followed Feldman's own text. [6] Since you are, at a later date, both changing my addition and changing it in a way can be seen as altering Feldman's own emphasis (note in his text "rapidly" is used in italics) I think you should justify why your revision is better than my original addition. Here [7] you followed my lead by including Feldman but you did it in a way that was less true to both my original addition and what his text actually says. In fact you did it in a way that contained an outright error (claiming Feldman was a supporter of the theory). Your revisions to the way I added the reference can be seen as attempts to downplay or cast doubt the significances of the dissenting view. That is adding OR in the voice of WP. Here[8] I corrected the incorrect information as well as adding a publication time frame. You objected to the time frame though I would challenge you to find any Wikipedia guideline on which to base that objection. But in the process of stripping out the publication dates you also removed the more neutral phrasing that both matched my addition of Feldman and better followed what Feldman says in his text (this claim is supported by the section of Feldman text I quoted on the talk page). Since you are changing original additions from RSs, please justify why you feel your versions are better than mine. Springee (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To claim he's an originator without a source that explicitly makes that claim is OR. Feel free to take it to the NORN if you disagree. The arrangement of Feldman's view more accurately fits how the suburban strategy is received in scholarship. It's the dissenting and minority viewpoint, which by Wikipedia policy, gets less emphasis and maybe only a brief mention, like Blueboar explained to you.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We have several RS which state that Lassiter + J&S are the originators of the theory. If you claim otherwise please find a RS that refutes Feldman, Boyd, etc.

• [ By focusing on the complex interactions of race, class, consumerism, and the politics of metropolitan space, he supplants the familiar "southern strategy" interpretation with one of a "suburban strategy" driven by color-blind arguments, individualism, and free-market consumerism at the grassroots. ] Scholarly review of Lassiter's book, " By focusing on the complex interactions of race, class, consumerism, and the politics of metropolitan space, he supplants the familiar "southern strategy" interpretation with one of a "suburban strategy" driven by color-blind arguments, individualism, and free-market consumerism at the grassroots. "
• Feldman, Painting Dixie, page 16,

All of this leads us, finally, to the dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative on the topic of the southern partisan realignment as represented in this book most clearly in the Time Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W White essays. All - to greater and lesser extents - follow the lead of the historian Matthew D Lassiter in The Silent Majority (2006) as well as that of the politcal scientists Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism (2006). Lassiter, and others since, have argued strongly against what they term the "white backlash" narrative of the South becoming Republican in reaction to national Democratic identification with civil rights and racial liberalism. The "Suburban school," as it may now be called, stresses a "suburban strategy" versus what it deems a "southern strategy" - and insists that post-World War II white southern suburbanites were relatively "color-blind" in their approach to politics. The argument goes on to reject the notion of a distinctive South as well as to downplay - and even at times dismiss - the role of race in motivating white southerners to leave the Democratic Party for the GOP. Race was just not something they cared a while lot about - this better-educated, upwardly mobile, suburban elite. In this volume, the suburban school approach is probably most clearly exemplified in the essays authored by Tim Boyd on Georgia and John W White on South Carolina, though it pops up in Dan William's and Leah Wright's essays, as well as elsewhere.

The brewing debate between the "backlash" theorists and the "suburban school" is so important that I have chosen to include as many sides as possible in this volume.

• Tim Boyd's essay, writing in Feldman's Painting Dixie Red, page 80, "...meant adopting what the historian Matthew Lassiter has called "suburban strategies" that stressed economic prosperity and racial moderation, rather than the "southern strategy" of appealing to white backlash."
• The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Clay Risen, [9] "Lassiter... persuasively argues in "The Silent Majority" that Republicans gained in the South not because of regional racism but because of the meteoric growth of the Sun Belt suburbs"

I really hate to take this to a 3rd party because you are refusing to follow WP best practice with regard to citing reliable sources etc. You are the ONLY one who has claimed the Suburban Strategy didn't originate between Lassiter and S&J. Stating he is just a supporter deliberately understates his position as one of the originators of the theory. I can only take this as an attempt to obstruct.

When citing reliable sources we should first, use the most reliable phrasing of the source. You are justifying a less reliable phrasing on the grounds that it fits with your perception of the status of the minority view. That is OR. You are taking Blueboar's comments out of context because he was replying to a strawman argument of your creation. He was not stating that you should provide a less accurate summary of Fledman's statement. Springee (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a single one of those said he was an originator.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Then how about Lassiter. In "The Bulldozer Revolution" Lassiter and Kruse state (bottom of p 699), "As we have argued elsewhere..." That section describes the suburban strategy argument and then cites the Silent Majority. It doesn't cite some other author's work. It cites Lassiter's work.

Given the lack of defense for your rephrasing of Feldman's passage, a rephrasing to something that is less like the original than what I originally added when I added the reference, I take it then that you agree that we should represent the comments of sources in a way that most closely follows that of the source.

Were you planning on quoting something that says that Lassiter is the "creator" or "originator"? Lassiter citing himself, does not support a claim that he's the originator and that's a completely OR conclusion. I recommend you take a look at these sources that discuss the suburban strategy in relation to politics in the early 1990s, way before Lassiter published "The Silent Majority".

• "The Electoral College—Not Just Every Four Years: Some Exercises in Political Geography" written by Kendyl Depoali, from the Journal of Geography published in 1993, and
• "A Historic Moment: Black Voters and the 1992 Presidential Race" writtin by C. Lusane and published by the Trotter Review in 1992.
• "The Suburban Century Begins" by William Schneider, published by The Atlantic in July 1992.

The way Feldman is presented in the sentence in question is fine as is, and correctly reflects the scholarly consensus regarding the top-down viewpoint being the majority viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Those sources do not speak to the bottom up theory that has been called the "suburban stragey" in this discussion. You are attempting to show that someone in the past talked of a suburban strategy of some time and thus Lassiter, S&J aren't the originators of the theory in question here. These are very flaky arguments. As for the Feldman sentence, please explain why my original addition shouldn't be retained. Mine was a reliable reporting of the source material. Your view that your rephrasing of my original addition better fits what ever is OR since it applies your opinion to the presentation of the source. Springee (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added a compromise solution. Lassiter, I hope even you would agree, is more than just a supporter of what the article is calling the "suburban strategy". I used the phrasing of Feldman "leading" to indicate he is a significant contributer and others are following in his work. That should in all reasonableness address your concerns about the lack of an exact phrase stating the origin of the theory. I also used a compromise Feldman quote solution. I simply quoted his exact text. That is as close as we can get to what he said, not your or my interpretation of his statements. If you are willing to accept these changes I think we can call this dispute closed. Springee (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, they aren't "flaky" arguments, even Lassiter in his book The Silent Majority, says that there have been recent authors discussing the "sunbelt warriors", which means people were talking about it before he was. Regardless, I think your edits are a fair compromise. Feldmen does refer to Lassiter as a leader when it comes to supporting the strategy. Also, I support a direct quote for Feldman.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Herbert

Bob Herbert writes interesting commentary but he is not an expert RS on the 1960s and cites no scholarship in any discipline to support his opinions. Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Though as a columnist for a major national newspaper, Herbert can generally be regarded as a reliable source. Are you proposing replacement text for the passages you removed? gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

he is a commentator on 21st century events but he never covered the 1960s and has never written more than a few sentences about that entire. He cites no RS for his opinions. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I have no interest in taking part in an edit war, so would you please observe WP:BRD and self-revert your edit here? This edit is problematic in several ways. It narrows the definition of Southern Strategy to only apply to presidential candidates, which is demonstrably wrong. It also introduces content to the lede that doesn't exist in the body of the article, which doesn't follow our manual of style which says the lede needs to summarize the body. These and the removal of sourced content that has existed in the article for a long time are bold changes and should be discussed on the talk page where we can hopefully reach a consensus on how to proceed. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the reliable sources (regardless of their position on the debate) have stressed the presidential role. For example one of the first major books was Southern Strategy: Race, Region and Republican Presidential Politics, 1964 and 1968 by Donald T. Wolfe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). The Origins of the Southern Strategy By Bruce Kalk p 117 is explicit about Goldwater and Nixon as central. In 1972, Nixon distanced himself from the Republican Party, carried 49 states, and carried very few southern Republicans on his coattails. Evan Spencer Jones The Politics that makes Presidents (2008) says "The Southern Strategy was Nixon's effort to lure socially conservative southern whites away from the Democratic Party" p 120. And indeed if you look back to the late 19th and early 20th century, it's always presidential politics that are covered. Notice that the Republicans At the state and local level were weakly represented in the South before the 1990s. As for Bob Herbert, he is not a reliable secondary source when he talks about the 1960s. He's a good commentator on daily events in the 21st century. As for items in the lead that are not based upon the text itself, that is a problem we can fix: which are the sentences you would specify? Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Already fixed.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Stressing" the presidential role is different than defining the term as applying only to presidential campaigns. I also have concerns that "appealing to racism against African Americans" is being watered down to the rather vague "appealing to racial tensions". Why remove African Americans from the lede? Also "Some writers allege" is weasel-y worded. Unless you want to deny the existence of dog-whistle politics, multiple sources and examples in the body of text affirm that coded language was used as part of the southern strategy. To say that "some" people "allege" the fact is inserting bias. And the opinion of Joan Hoff that is being added to the lede doesn't even exist in the body of the article. Further, the strategy extended well beyond the 60s, and the Bob Herbert references are reliable sources for the passages that they support, namely his own take on the phenomenon. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

For just one example of non-presidential races where the strategy existed, see Aistrup, pp. 26–27: "Southern Republicans such as Martin and Workman were attempting to take advantage of the Northern Democrats' movement toward the pro-civil rights side of the debate..." "these GOP candidates were trying to 'out-nigger' their Democratic opposition." gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you make a good point but keep in mind that the part you quoted is not really "proof" of the application of the coded words etc that are how the Southern Strategy is supposed to be implemented. That said, I've seen several references to the 1970 elections which clearly aren't presidential. Would "national" elections work better? Springee (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the use of coded rhetoric was in dispute. 'National' might be an improvement on 'presidential', but the strategy was also employed in state-wide races and at the state level (like in 1992 when Rod Shealy recruited an unemployed black felon to run for office in order to drive up white voter turnout). I'm not at all attached to the vaguery of 'certain elections', by the way, and am open to other formulations. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that part is in dispute. I think that is at the core of the claims. I was actually going in the other direction, saying that even if a campaign is racist, it isn't "the Southern Strategy" unless it has coded language etc. If the politician is opening hostile to blacks then it lacks that sort of two faced aspect that seems to be at the heard of (what I think of as) the Southern Strategy. I mentioned your quote because I recall reading, I think it was about Wallace, that before this politician decided to be anti-civil rights and the like he was going to show that he was all for it. Only when he felt that hurt his election chances did he reverse. He said something like what you quoted but when you read what he meant it wasn't about the Southern Strategy. Basically, your quote didn't show that someone was employing "the Southern Strategy". The full passage might have but the quoted part didn't.

Also I think at the local level most of the work I've read said that both sides were bad about using racist appeals, even the southern Democrats after 1968. My understanding is that when people talk about "the Southern Strategy" they are really thinking about federal level elections. It does seem problematic that we have such a nebulous term. Do you have a suggestion for figuring out how to do a better job defining it? That way we would have some way to say what should and should not be included in the article. I'm sure some who are going to say X was southern strategy are doing so because accusing of racism is such an easy way to apply an ugly label (one that no one thinks is a good thing) yet is hard to defend since it basically forces the accused into proving a negative. Anyway, that's a bit of an aside. Do you think it would be helpful if we could define what behaviors are and are not?

Finally, what is your take on the dissenting POV in the lead? I feel like there is a very strong body of literature that says the strategy was not a significant factor in the change of the South from blue to red. Thoughts? So far this discussion page has been rather rancorous. Perhaps it's time we all step back, understand that we are all acting in good faith and discuss these changes. Thanks and I look forward to your answers. Springee (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Gobonobo, would you mind sharing your thoughts on my questions above? As I said, I see three issues. The first is that we as a group can't seem to decide what is and isn't the Southern Strategy. Second, we disagree that Herbert is an opinion. Rjensen and I see it as an opinion article and thus it can't be used as it is being used in the lead. Finally, we have the question of the alternative POV. It is very clear that there are quite a few reliable sources that don't agree that the Southern Strategy had a significant impact. That certainly is important enough to be in the lead. Perhaps, in a nod to Scoobydunk's concerns we should keep the lead limited to reference that specifically mention the Southern Strategy (I mentioned one previously in the talk section). Would that address your concerns as well? Springee (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that not every racist campaign in the South is using some sort of southern strategy. A key element is trying to get the white vote by invoking or alluding to racial problems. As Atwater noted, the codified language became more abstract over time to the point that, in my opinion, the strategy was superseded by those abstractions. I've been refamiliarizing myself with the topic and picked up a copy of Aistrup's book. He notes that David Duke's campaign, which displayed a more overtly racist southern strategy, was disowned by some of his Republican contemporaries. The gradual change in language over time should be summarized in the lead, but stated as a fact, not as "some people allege". It is also important that alternative viewpoints are given due weight, however the claim that the strategy never existed in any form is really fringe. Due to the difficulty in reliably determining the extent that a single issue has on people's motivations for voting, a degree of skepticism should be given to claims of whether the strategy worked or not. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

the "claim that the strategy never existed" is indeed fringe. But that is not what the critics are saying. The critics say that the importance of SS was much smaller--that is, Southern conservatives became Republicans for the same reasons that northern conservatives were Republican: economic issues like taxation, spending, & national debt; foreign policy (esp Vietnam War, amnesty); & social issues (abortion, school prayer, acid (drugs), youth rebellion, abortion, gay rights, ERA). In addition Joan Hoff & others argue that the SS was operational only briefly during Nixon's term. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

gobonobo, I agree the "didn't happen" when used to say the appeals were never used is fringe. However, we must be careful not to credit every claim of the use as valid. While it is somewhat hard to say why people voted some way, enough academics have attacked the problem to give us a good idea. We should not discount their POV and I think it is significant enough to warrant placement in the lead. I mean we have speculative claims in the lead, discussion of the impact of the strategy seems far more significant. Also, you didn't answer my question about the restoration of the Herbert citation to the lead. Herbert is clearly an opinion article and thus should be used as proof as in the lead. Perhaps we should use a WP:RS to make the same claim? Springee (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee, I've removed the Herbert references from the lede. With regards to discussion of the impact and strategy, I'm open to discussion on how to word that. I prefer to work on the entire article first though, as it may become more obvious what should be summarized there. To start with, the background information on the Reconstruction Era and the Solid South seems excessive for this article so I'd like to provide a briefer summary, retaining key points. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Gobonoboo, thanks for removing those from the lead. I like the work you have done to stream line the article. I think holding off on lead changes until the body is cleaned up makes sense. Please let me know if I can help with the effort. Springee (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

gobonobo, any thoughts on when you would like to make the other article updates? I was thinking about adding to the academic debate section as well as working on the lead but I wanted to hold off for your changes. The changes to the debate section would be a few more authors who support the view that the strategy was a non-issue in terms of overall impact. That isn't to say they think it didn't happen but they back the view that the voters moved to the GOP for other reasons. In the lead I would like to add back the comments about the limited impact of the strategy and remove the comments about claims that the strategy is on going. The "on going" section seems to be far more about the claims of political pundits trying to influence the views of their contemporary readers (stain the present with the ink of the past). I don't think their views are supported well enough to have a place in the lead. However, that may be a controversial change so I wanted to see how more recent edits panned out before making it. Thanks Springee (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The scholarly debate section actually needs to be trimmed, not added to. The majority opinion of racial importance in the realignment of southern voters is already declared in the opening sentence, but then the vast majority of the section reflects minority opinions and opinions not relevant to the Southern Strategy. Also, the section should discuss the debate, and shouldn't just be a plastering of quotes of people that disagree. This is a violation of WP:Weight. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you think peer reviewed source's views "are supported well enough" to merit inclusion in the article, or the lead. The fact that they are published in the most reliable sources available and that there is no equally reliable source contesting the information, means it deserves inclusion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that people agree with you. I was planning on added additional scholarly works that disagree with your claim that these are insignificant minority views. It actually looks like of those who have seriously studied the work they are even perhaps a majority view. These views are very relevant to the article because some suggest the strategy is not as wide spread as other sources have claimed and they also suggest the strategy was not responsible for the realignment of southern voters. Are you going to suggest that we shouldn't talk about the impact of this strategy? The parts I was going to propose removing from the lead are not discussed in academic sources. Interesting that you are against including academic sources that say the impact was negligible in the lead but you demand we include other sources in the lead for the same reason. Since I haven't actually proposed the changes yet but just asked if gobonobo was done making changes before I made any change proposals it's odd that you are objecting so vigorously. Perhaps it would be best to take a wait and see approach? Of course you could always file an ANI attacking me to keep me from making changes you disagree with... oh wait, you did. Springee (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources DO agree with me, namely Lassiter, who admits that his emphasis on issues other than race in the realignment of southern voters is against the widely held view of other scholars. Lassiter says: "This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and the popular strain in the scholarly literature". That right there is an admission and is evidence that the majority viewpoint on political realignment in the South differs from Lassiter's dissenting opinion. As per [WP:NPOV], to assert that there is a majority or minority opinion in an article, it has to directly expressed by a reliable source first. This is further reinforce by Valentino and Sears who also state that the conventional wisdom of southern political realignment during the civil rights era is that it was racially motivated. These are statements addressing the majority viewpoint and they render your personal speculation of majority vs. minority irrelevant. The fact that sources define the Southern Strategy and its importance to southern realignment as the "conventional wisdom", means there shouldn't be nearly as many dissenting/minority viewpoints that are currently in the article. This is a clear violation WP:NPOV per wp:weight. The rest of your accusations are blatantly false. I'm not against the strongest academic sources and have refuted this assertion multiple times. None of my comments had to do with RS issues and had to do with WEIGHT issues. I've even made recent reversions to this article respecting the removal of material that wasn't equivalent in reliability.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And other historians since Lassiter have also picked up and agreed that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Furthermore you are taking that quote out of context. Conventional wisdom said the Earth was flat even though many scholars had long disagreed well before conventional wisdom had caught up. You make the same "conventional wisdom" argument twice but the whole reason to state "conventional wisdom" is to distinguish it from scholarly agreement. Rjensen explained this to you already but it seems you were unwilling to listen to him either. Perhaps we need an RfC to address this issue. Would you like to propose wording? Springee (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether those other historians say the conventional wisdom is "wrong", it's still the conventional wisdom and is the majority opinion. You've yet to submit any reliable source that states the majority opinion as any other position. Hence, those dissenters remain as the minority viewpoint and get less coverage in the article as per wikipedia policy. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are not the minority viewpoint, and you do this through citing a reliable source that explicitly substantiates that claim. It's not based on your own OR analysis of the number of sources supplied. How about, instead, we go to dispute resolution third opinion and get an uninvolved editor to examine the evidence we have on what the majority viewpoint is. This way your argument can be addressed on it's empirical merit, instead of having a bunch of biased editors jump in levying red herring arguments and ignoring policies. I'd also support raising the issue on the OR message boards, since your assertion is a violation of original research. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my POV. I'm saying a significant, scholarly view point backed by a large number of historians and researchers is worthy of inclusion in the lead. I'm not claiming it is the majority POV among... well you didn't say who you think the POV is among. For example, I previously quoted Glenn Feldman's Painting Dixie Red. Early on he notes that the number of scholars who are agreeing with Lassiter and the "suburban strategy" is "rapidly growing". This makes it not just a one off minority POV but a significant POV. The fact that researchers don't agree on this point is very significant. It is certainly, in my opinion, more significant than the POV of the unwashed masses ("conventional wisdom") as well as some political pundits who make all sorts of claims about things the GOP does today as proof they never let go of the Southern Strategy (and instead applied it nationwide which would make it less "southern"). But don't fret, I won't make any edits until we have some additional voices and until I actually propose the changes here. Springee (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that reliable sources admit that the majority viewpoint places emphasis on the role of race in southern realignment. Therefore, any opinion that dissents from this majority viewpoint is a minority opinion and by WP policy does not deserve as much attention or weight as the majority viewpoint. Almost all of the scholarly debate section are quotes from this minority viewpoint and it has far too much weight. This is the problem with attempting to add more, which is what you said you wanted to do, and I've accurately addressed. It doesn't need more, it actually needs less. Now, I'm pretty sure you were just arguing that it wasn't a minority viewpoint and even entertained an RFC about it. However, if I am misrepresenting your POV, then you're admitting that it actually is the minority viewpoint and there is no more need for discussion about it. It's hard to honestly argue that a minority viewpoint needs more representation, especially when it greatly outweighs the majority viewpoint in the scholarly debate section. No where did I raise objections to this part of the lead. The only objection about the lead I did mention was your desire to remove reliably sourced information about the contemporary state of the Southern Strategy. There is plenty of peer reviewed scholarly sources that speak to the modern day Southern Strategy and there is no reason to suppress that information from the lead or the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, you are ignoring what you don't want to address. I and Rjensen didn't argue that race played no roll in the realignment. Many of the authors we cite say race did play a roll, though not to the extent that some would claim. What these scholars have claimed, and it's a claim backed by MANY scholars, especially more recent ones, is that the Southern Strategy was a non-factor in the realignment. Rjensen backed that claim with a number of articles that talked about why the south changed that didn't mention the southern strategy as well as other scholars who specifically stated the Southern Strategy was a not a significant factor. It is a significant POV that the Southern Strategy was not significant in the realignment of the south because it gets to one of the important questions about the subject of the article. The GOP did this thing, did it work? You seem to want to downplay that answer because the historians that really studied that question, not the ones who just mention the Southern Strategy as a given, but the ones who didn't assume largely agree it was NOT a significant factor. That is why Rjensen and I have mentioned many scholars who support that view. Since you claim there is plenty of modern peer reviewed scholarship that points to a modern southern strategy please show it. Not writers who claim happens but ones that really prove it. We can replace the weak citations at the end of the article with your stronger sources. Springee (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything and have addressed practically everything. You're the one ignoring Lassiter's statement. He was speaking to his views about the importance of race and the Southern Strategy in realignment of the south and admitted that his views goes against the conventional wisdom and popular strain in scholarly literature. You're arguing that the "many" scholars you've listed claim that the SS was a non-factor in the realignment of the south, is the same position that Lassiter held and admitted was not the majority viewpoint. This means it's the minority viewpoint and nothing you, nor Rjensen have supplied refutes that fact. So I haven't ignored anything and it's actually you thinking that the more scholars you find will somehow change what's considered the majority/minority viewpoint that's ignoring how majority viewpoint is actually established on Wikipedia. You'd have to find an author that specifically says that the dissenting viewpoint is now the majority viewpoint. Remember, there are already 2-3 separate sources that say otherwise, so even if you find one that examines the majority viewpoint differently, it still wouldn't overrule the other sources already provided that state otherwise. So until you can find evidence to the contrary, you're attempting to add undue weight to a minority viewpoint which is already over represented in the article. This is the contention I've raised about your proposed changes and you've yet to refute it. You say I'm downplaying historians that studied the question of "did it work" and I'm not. The majority viewpoint says it did work and cherry picking a few elections where it might not have been a factor doesn't change that. Valetino and Sears actually address the majority viewpoint and the minority viewpoint while conducting their own studies to affirm that race was central factor in the realignment of the South and that it's still integral to contemporary conservatism because it's ingrained in the issues of economics, policies, and class that dissenting historians typically use as scapegoats.

Finally, peer reviewed published sources don't have to meet your approval to merit inclusion into an article. Sorry, but you don't get to judge their arguments and decide what's valid or invalid. That's called OR. Their assertion is more than enough and is all that's necessary for inclusion, regardless of the reasoning behind it. These sources include the one from Valentino and Sears and from Thomas Edge. Both are peer reviewed sources and both speak to race being a key issue in contemporary conservatism, with Edge discussing a new Southern Strategy 2.0. That's more than sufficient and you're not going to find a more reliable source than a peer reviewed scholarly article. Of course, there's also the source quoting the RNC chairman who admits to Republicans playing on racial tensions throughout the decade and that comes from multiple reliable sources as well, though not as strong as the two previously mentioned.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And you again confirm that you aren't interested in listening to views you disagree with (it reminds me of the RfC that didn't go your way). For example, Rjensen already explained why the "apology" you are clinging to isn't what you claim it to be. It seems you are happy to ignore the scholars who explain why the POV was not the first and why it is growing in popularity. It is CLEARLY a significant POV and worthy of mention in the lead. Really, just after the description of what it is, the fact that is wasn't effective seems like a very important point to make. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you about it since you are just going round and round and ignoring the substantial work which says the strategy was ineffective. Incidentally, you should try to understand the difference between "race is an key issue" and how the way the southern strategy worked. It seems you are confusing the two. Springee (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your hyperbole isn't going to score you any points. I mentioned the "apology" once and even admitted that it wasn't nearly as important as the other two peer reviewed works that speak to the modern nature of race related conservatism. So trying to claim that I'm "clinging" to it is a gross misrepresentation and is a strawman argument. This is an example of you not being interested in listening. I've yet to ignore any scholars and you've yet to prove any of them claim their position is representative of the majority viewpoint. Sorry, but "rapidly growing" is not the same thing as majority viewpoint and you seem keen on ignoring the fact that minority viewpoints should be given significantly less weight. You also demonstrate your lack of interest in listening to others because you repeat arguments about the lead, when I've already said I don't object to including a mention of the minority viewpoint in the lead. You're the one going "round and round" and if you would have just read my responses and actually advanced a relevant rebuttal that progressed the discussion, then we would have been done a long time ago. Instead, you clearly ignore what I've been saying, and simply refuse to address WP policy regarding minority/majority viewpoints in scholarship. That's what my contention was and you've yet to address it. Instead you want make up a term called "significant POV" and pretend that has any sort of value. It doesn't. Either it's majority or minority/fringe and gets treated that way. I've already shown it's the minority and you've failed at proving otherwise.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't care about mentioning the view that the Southern Strategy didn't have a significant impact on the realignment of the south then why did we even waste our time arguing? Oh wait... "Either it's majority or minority/fringe and gets treated that way." That is not true. You are now trying to equate minority with fringe. That is not correct at all. A view held by 49% can be a minority view but that hardly makes it fringe. Regardless, if you agree that the lead can contain mention of the view that the Southern Strategy wasn't responsible for realignment why are we having this discussion at all? It really seems like you are the one not listening to others, not me (and round and round we go). Perhaps it would be best if we started a new section to discuss this topic and you CLEARLY state your POV. Not what you THINK I'm arguing because you haven't always got that right. State what YOUR POV is on how we should cover both scholarly debate and the related discussion in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again you demonstrate your refusal to listen. I've already explained above that my objection pertained to your wanting to add more of the minority opinion to the scholarly debate section and your expressing a willingness to remove peer reviewed material about contemporary Southern Strategy. Not only were these the two things I discussed in my first response, but I also reiterated that these were my only concerns. At this point, your accusing me of not listening is projection. Also, i didn't equate minority viewpoint and fringe, I simply mentioned fringe because it's defined in WP policy. "Significant POV" is not defined when relating to majority, minority, or fringe viewpoints. So, again, this is another strawman argument. I already have clearly expressed my POV on the changes you've expressed wanting to make. You asking me to repeat them is direct evidence that you want to go "round and round" with this discussion instead of addressing the concerns I've expressed multiple time already. Go back up and read them if you're so concerned. If you actually suggest a proposal for the lead, then I'll be happy to share my thoughts. Until then, I've already expressed everything I felt needed to be addressed, and so far you've clearly ignored it.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If that is what you think I have proposed then you aren't reading what I'm writing. I think it is clear that we will need input from others to resolve this. Springee (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"I was thinking about adding to the academic debate section" and " The changes to the debate section would be a few more authors who support the view that the strategy was a non-issue in terms of overall impact." [10] Then, " In the lead I would like to...remove the comments about claims that the strategy is on going."[11] This is exactly what you proposed that I addressed. This clearly shows that I am reading what you're writing and you're now just being blatantly dishonest.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The accusation of "blatantly dishonest" is uncalled for and a clear violation of WP:FOC and general civility guidelines. How can editors assume you are acting in good faith or feel that you will assume good faith when you make statements like that? "Adding to the" doesn't have to mean making it longer. It can mean adding a wider range of references. You are still free to remove content you don't like (assuming consensus) but it's hard to understand why you would refuse other academic sources that specifically mention the Southern Strategy. The contents in the lead such as the "apology" are not backed by academic sources. Since you have claimed academic sources view the issue as on going then those would be reasonable items for the lead. Perhaps if, instead of accusing me of lying you tried to be a bit more civil we could work out these small differences more readily. I am done with this until other, less hostile editors join in the discussion. Springee (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is clear evidence of your dishonesty and I've proven it in the form of diffs and quoting exactly what you've previously said in this conversation. It's only against guidelines if there isn't serious evidence to support the claim. This is how my claim differs from the numerous accusations you've made throughout this conversation which have been based purely on speculation and your refusal to read my responses for understanding. Example, you calling me "hostile" simply because I've mentioned and proved your dishonesty, is an example of an unsubstantiated accusation. I've also already explained how the section is already a violation of WP:Weight since it's a minority viewpoint in scholarship. The fact that you still don't understand why I'm against adding more minority viewpoint sources, again, proves you haven't been following the conversation. This is also the second time you've said you're done with this conversation. I think most people would see that you weren't being honest the first time you said that and would be surprised if you meant it this time.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you want people to assume you are acting in good faith do not accuse other editors of lying. Springee (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I never accused you of lying, I proved you were being dishonest and your repeated misrepresentation of what I've said further proves it.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Historians have long memories, and the role of blacks and whites in the South and the Republican Party has been a central theme since the 1860s in the history of the GOP . Notice that several major scholarly books dealing with the early period emphasize in their titles that this was the origins of the Southern Strategy. So let's keep the background in. In the 1960s, furthermore, Southerners talked great deal about Reconstruction & how it bears on current issues. Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Herbert article is clearly an opinion article (Herbert's opinion on something political). Per WP:RS it can only be used to show Herbert's POV. It should not be used in the lead as proof of anything other than that. The removal of the alternative POV from the lead is also questionable. Clearly there is a large volume of scholarship which is stating the Southern Strategy had little impact on the political shift of the south. That doesn't mean the scholars who say that are disavowing the impact of racism or claiming that appeals to racism didn't happen. What it does mean is that the impact of the strategy is low to zero according to many scholars. That is something that should be noted (and is in the debate section) and should also be in the lead. Springee (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

Gobonob, as I mentioned earlier I know you have been working on this article and discussed making changes to the lead. I'm thinking about taking a crack at it myself but I don't want to duplicate efforts. Do you have any current plans to make changes to the body or lead of the article any time soon? Springee (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not Gobonobo's usernameScoobydunk (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, cut and paste error. Thanks Springee (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oct 2015 edits to lead

I made two edits to the lead of this article. I would like to use this section to explain my changes and as a place for people to voice their views on those changes. The changes are first, a summary of the scholarly debate on the impact of the strategy on the voting patterns of the South and second, the removal of a GOP apology for ignoring the black vote.

I think the lead should include a summary of the discussion of the impact of the Southern Strategy. Clearly when describing a political event the long term impact of that event is a significant part of the story. In this case I think the long term impact can be seen in two areas, its political impact (how people view the GOP) and its impact on voting patterns. The articles in the scholarly debate section show that the impact is up for debate but a number, certainly a significant number, of scholars feel the strategy did not ultimately change voting patterns or CAUSE the change of voters from Democrat to GOP. If one reads Feldman and the authors he cites it's clear they are not claiming the GOP didn't try to appeal to racism nor are they claiming the voters didn't vote in part based on race. What they are saying is that the voters were often voting based on self interest, not because of a message from the GOP. Thus the impact of the strategy, how much it changed how people would vote was low according to those scholars. Regardless, we are now talking about significant scholarly opinion regarding the impact of the strategy. I can't see how that wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in the lead.

Conversely, the part about the GOP apologizing does seem questionable for the lead. In the history of this article it is clear there has been denial. I don't think that is what we have here. Instead what we have is an example of the GOP saying they have ignored the interest of black voters and they are trying to recover from that. That would support the view that the political legacy of the strategy still haunts the party. However the quote in question seems like just supporting evidence rather than something that should be in the article lead. It's not based on scholarship and, like many political statements, it may be carefully targeted at the audience to allow them to hear what they want to hear without actually admitting to anything in particular. At this time I don't see an issue with including that statement in the body of the article but it seems out of place in the lead. Do we have a scholarly opinion that says something similar? Springee (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a serious 50/50 split in scholarship between those who think the Southern strategy was "real" (i.e. that the GOP intentionally capitalized on Southern white racial resentment during the civil-rights era and, arguably, into more recent times) vs. those who think the South turned Republican for other reasons. I think it's pretty obvious that any consideration of due weight would favor the first interpretation. That said, I understand that there is a heavy push among editors here to downplay the mainstream historical view (which is certainly politically inconvenient) and play up alternative or minoritarian views, and I don't have the energy or interest in fighting it.

However... I do draw the line at outright revisionism and rewriting of history. The head of the RNC acknowledged in 2005 that the Southern strategy was real, and that the GOP exploited white racism to win votes in the South. Let me say that again: the head of the RNC acknowledged it. Numerous reliable sources attest to this. It is noteworthy, accurate, and relevant, and no matter how many partisan editors show up, I am not OK with removing such material. Just to be clear, here is what our source 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. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was 'wrong'." It doesn't get any clearer than that, and I'm not OK with a small group of partisan editors rewriting history here. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are still misreading what the scholars are saying. They aren't claiming the GOP didn't try an appeal to racism (the extent is up for debate). However, those who are seriously studying why voters changed to the GOP are saying that coded racist messages from the GOP didn't cause the shift. The shift, in their view, was due to self interested voting. Given the weight of recent scholarship on the subject that does not support the "racist backlash" version of events I would argue that this is a very significant POV and likely the majority POV in recent times. Given the size of the scholarship section and WP:CREATELEAD, I think it absolutely belongs in the lead.

At the same time, given WP:CREATELEAD, I think the apology should not be in the lead on two grounds. First, it is not significant in terms of helping a reader understand the historical event. Second, it is a lower quality source. You claim it was a specific apology for the Southern Strategy but the text of the apology doesn't specifically support that claim. If we step back then one needs to ask under aspect of WP:CREATELEAD should we include that text in the lead (remember it was not removed from the article, just the lead). As a final note, I think the accusations of bias are unfair and don't assume good faith. Accusations of the reverse could also be made based on the same information here. Springee (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misreading the scholarly sources. Instead, I'm arguing that the scholarly sources cited here on the talkpage are cherry-picked to over-represent a minoritarian view. The mainstream view is still very clearly that the Southern strategy existed and was central to the modern Republican dominance of the South. Numerous reliable sources attest to this (besides those already in the article, see Bloomberg 12/2014, The Week 6/2015, etc). It is, quite simply, the mainstream view. It is fine to mention dissenting, minority, or fringe viewpoints, but as a matter of fundamental site policy we cannot give them undue weight, which is exactly what I see happening here. I don't think the scholarly viewpoint is actually changing on this topic; instead, I think a small group of editors here, led by Rjensen, has assembled all of the minoritarian sources and presented them without the context of mainstream scholarship on the subject.

As for the lead, I'm sort of mind-boggled. The acknowledgement of and apology for the Southern strategy by the head of the Republican National Committee is so self-evidently a notable and relevant aspect of this topic that I cannot understand the effort to find rationales to exclude it from the lead. (Recall that the lead must summarize all relevant and noteworthy aspects of the topic). Moreover, you seem to be arguing that the sources don't support the apology, which is just plain silly. The sources couldn't be clearer about the apology, specifically tying it to the "Southern strategy" by name. If you feel that the Washington Post (among others) are "lower quality sources", then I don't think you understand this site's sourcing guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources you listed are not scholarly works. The "mainstream" can often be what the casual reader/observer thinks rather than what the critical scholar thinks. In this case the critical scholar's view should be given more weight than the political reporter (as an example). I think your claim that Rjensen, myself and others are trying to assemble just miniroty views is again unfair. I would suggest if you disagree you find the majority scholarly work that has both studied the issue and then concluded that the Southern Strategy message had a notable impact on the realignment. Note, that these should be scholarly works that specifically look at the subject, not ones that either just cite previous work or cite the event as background. As for the apology, I don't think you are really reading what I'm writing. The apology, ie what the politician said, is general. If the source that provided the apology claims it was specifically in reference to the Southern Strategy then the RS guidelines would say accept it as such. However, the context of that apology seems to pale compared to scholarly work on the subject. We would be better served with a scholarly work claiming the same thing. In any case, I think you have an inherent bias that likely comes from having battled on this topic to keep whitewashing at bay. I think that makes you, understandably, predisposed to view anything edit that downplays the impact or the duration of the Southern Strategy as whitewashing vs simply offering a more encyclopedic article. Springee (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Lassiter already defines the scholarly viewpoint and admits that his dissenting view goes against the "conventional wisdom" and "popular strain" of "scholarly literature".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

First, "conventional wisdom" was not the total quote to which you are referring. Lassiter notes that this was an important dissenting POV. Feldman noted that Lassiter was one of the first to publish this POV but others scholars since have produced more evidence that supports the POV. Thus it's not clear that it is still a minority POV in contemporary scholarship. It is clearly a significant POV in contemporary scholarship. Furthermore, When discussing "conventional wisdom" Lassiter was not referring to the views of scholars. I don't recall the exact sentence at this time but it was clearly describing the views of scholars with one phrase and the views of the general public or those other than scholars of the subject as "conventional wisdom". You are simply misunderstanding the meaning of the statement. Springee (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Lassiter was referencing the conventional wisdom and popular strain found in scholarly literature. Sorry, but this directly confirms that his dissenting viewpoint is the minority opinion and you've provided nothing to refute this. You're the one trying to insert "the general public" when this quote made no mention of the general public and only referenced "scholarly literaure". So you're the one with the misunderstanding. He also explains this in other works as well. In his "The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South" he says "...most of the scholarship on modern conservatism remains wedded to a top-down viewpoint..." the top-down approach being previously defined as "many scholars and pundits have embraced a top-down thesis of electoral realignment that credits the regional base of the Republican party to a race-driven Southern Strategy..." This is the majority opinion and statements like "it's not clear that it is still a minority" are irrelevant. On Wikipedia we go by what the most reliable sources say on the matter, so expressions of ignorance don't override what has been proven by reliable sources. Of course, this is expressed elsewhere as well. Frymer and Skerentny's "Coalition-building and the Politics of Electoral Capture During the Nixon Administration: African Americans, Labor, Latinos" also confirms the majority opinion by saying "...most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as marking the end of the Republican party's century-old alliance with African-American voters, as well as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues."(emphasis mine).Scoobydunk (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No actually you are the one who is not understanding what Lassiter has said and you are also ignoring the scholars who came after Lassiter and have backed his POV with additional work. I see no reason to debate the topic with you since this will just become a WP:BLUDGEON session. Rjenson, myself and others have presented a clear body of work that shows that this is a significant POV on the subject. Springee (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly ignoring what sources say. Lassiter has admitted his viewpoint runs contrary to the mainstream/majority viewpoint in scholarship in multiple works. None of the scholars you've presented have offered anything to refute the weight of their opinion within the context of academia, as defined by Lassiter and others. Sorry, but "significant pov" doesn't stop it from being a "minority pov", which has already been proven by multiple reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I cut the quote off earlier than you did because I was afraid you would disagree with the length. I'm OK with the full length of the quote, it shows what I've been saying, "conventional wisdom and a popular strain..." Note the "and a" which means these are two different things. He is saying in scholarship this is a popular strain, not that it is conventional wisdom among scholars. Anyway, I'm glad you are OK with the extended quote. Springee (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote does not show what you've been saying and only adds context. The sentence can be rewritten as "contrary to the conventional wisdom in the scholarly literature and contrary to a popular strain in the scholarly literature. " For instance, I can say "Lord of the Rings describes the adventures of hobbits, dwarfs, and elves in Middle-Earth" and here the "Middle-Earth" applies to all three, that is to say, all three are found in Middle-Earth. It's the same with Lassiter's quote. Of course, it would be dishonest to say "there's no ambiguity" when working with conjunctions but the other quotes from Lassiter I've supplied puts this to rest. It's clearly the majority viewpoint. Even the quote you added from Feldman further proves it's the majority viewpoint because he directly uses the word "dissenting" which means "to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority". Just like when Supreme Court Justices write a dissenting opinion, it's the opinion that was in the minority. Adding the full quote actually further proves my point. It's ridiculous to think that the conventional wisdom among the general public is 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 Depp South and the countryside." Sorry, but most people don't know who George Wallace is and this description is entirely too detailed and academic to be regarded as simply "conventional wisdom". Instead of just saying "conventional wisdom", Lassiter says "the conventional wisdom" which implies that he's referencing a particular "conventional wisdom" which he explains is found in "scholarly literature." The description that follows is the viewpoint held by scholarly literature and is certainly not conventional wisdom as it pertains to the general population, it's only the conventional wisdom as it pertains to scholars on the subject.

Regardless, I have no problem having the full quote in there. I don't think anyone, save for those who ignore information, would think that the suburban strategy is anything but a minority viewpoint and that most of scholarship acknowledges the realignment of southern politics is due to race-driven factors. Thus, the paragraph accurately assigns weight on the subject. Now we need to start trimming some of this minority opinion from the article, because it's clearly given too much weight. It currently takes up most of the "scholarly debate" section which is one of the largest sections on the article, when they are expressing a minority viewpoint. We can start by deleting non peer reviewed works and then consolidating some of the scholars into a few sentences. We don't need entire paragraphs from each scholar that holds a minority viewpoint, and this has clearly created too much weight in the section.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

First, let me ask you to please assume a more WP:CIVIL tone. Second, your attempt to rephrase the quote doesn't make it right. If you assume "conventional" and "strain" both apply to the object scholars then the adjectives become repetitive. Basically it doesn't make sense vs reading "conventional wisdom" as applying to those who are not scholars of the subject and "popular strain" applying to a subset of scholarship on the subject. Anyway, rather than tag it in the article, I wanted to ask how the following sentence came from Lassiter's "The Silent Majority" pages 5-7; "Most scholarship on modern conservatism supports this top-down viewpoint in the realignment of southern politics." I see no place in the intro where he says "most" or even "modern conservatism". However, in the intro he did specifically state:

At the grassroots level, the Southern Strategy conspicuously backfired in each of the four genuine incarnations: the Dixiecrat revolt of 1948, the Goldwater debacle in 1964, the third-party Wallace movement in 1968, and the Nixon administration's disastrous experiment with race-baiting politics in the pivotal 1970 midterm elections. Lassiter, The Silent Majority page 6 of the intro.

What I see there is scholarly support for the idea that later claims of "Southern Strategy" are false. It would seem reasonable to include that as part of the evolution section since it directly disputes the idea that the GOP continued to use the strategy after 1970. Springee (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

My tone is more than civil and I suggest you focus on the discussion, rather than editors. The quote is not redundant, since "conventional wisdom" and "popular strain" refer to two different things. Conventional wisdom speaks to the body of ideas that are generally and commonly held by scholarly literature, while the popular strain indicates that it is also a recently prevailing viewpoint or focus with figurative roots/history in scholarly literature. What doesn't make sense is to try and insert "general population" in a secondary source that presents its own point of view while analyzing traditional scholarship. All of his evaluations of the subject have to do with previous scholarship regarding the topic and other scholars, never does he talk about the "general public", referencing some local dry cleaners. His sourcing for the book rely on other scholarly publications, not interviews with random people on the street, so there is no reason to believe he'd suddenly refer to the general public, unless he explicitly states as much.

The source is properly cited and on page 7, towards the bottom, it says "most of the scholarship on modern conservatism remains wedded to a top-down viewpoint". The link I supplied for the source takes you directly to the the GoogleBooks page where the very first entry is page 7 and "most" is highlighted. This is another example that his point of view differs from "most of the scholarship" which is an expression of the majority viewpoint in scholarship. Lassiter's views are already discussed at length in the article, to the point where it violates WP:Weight policies. Furthermore, what you quoted says nothing about modern day Southern Strategy, nor does it refute other scholars who recognize the GOP's use of the southern strategy persists later than 1970. So, "No" it doesn't "directly dispute" anything, he's just claiming it backfired in specific examples which is not a commentary about its use after 1970. That would be original research to make such a claim in the article, or to present it in such a way. Do you care to make a suggestion on how we can consolidate this minority opinion and make sure it doesn't violate weight issues?Scoobydunk (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, do you really think when "common knowledge" would only refer to the absolute masses who have never heard of the Southern Strategy vs say the political reporters who take it as a given but haven't studied the topic? It was illogical of you to take that comment to an illogical extreme. Your dismissal of Lassiter's statement that there have only been 4 genuine examples of implementation of the Southern Strategy is just plain wrong. He isn't just claiming it backfired in those instances. He is saying it was only truly used 4 times and the most recent was 1970. Given the book was written in 2006 it does say that, in his view, the Southern Strategy was not used between 1970 and 2005. Earlier on the same page 6 as the quote in question, Lassiter specifically noted that people try to link the top down schematic formulations to Reagan's "state's rights", Bush's "Willie Horton" ad and Gingrich's "welfare mothers". He very clearly intends that statement to extend at least into the 1990s. So that brings us to your quote... again context was removed. You left out the context around the quote and even parts of the sentence.

Scholars have only begun to examine the political culture of white-collar neighborhoods and the social movements of middle-class families in the sprawling suburbs of postwar America. Although most of the scholarship on modern conservatism remains wedded to a top-down viewpoint, recent books about the "suburban warriors" of the Sunbelt West have significantly expanded the grassroots narrative, from the Goldwater troops in the 1960s, to the tax revolts of the 1970s, to the evangelical mobilization of the 1980s and 1990s.

Thus what he is saying is that this is a new area of focus. However, as Feldman noted, it is growing rapidly. Thus this is a very significant POV that should not be downplayed just because it doesn't support the view that the Southern Strategy is on going etc. His arguments, backed by many other scholars are clearly significant. But I understand you will want to put all the arguments on a scale and say that wins the day. When surgeons first started performing minimally invasive surgery "most" surgeons practiced open surgery. I guess you would say that minimally invasive surgery wasn't worth discussing since only the "new" literature was talking about it. Anyway, I'm writing this not to convince you but to put the record out for others. It certainly is clear that at least one noted scholar on the subject has said that the "evolution" claims are wrong. Currently I don't think our article has much in the way of scholarship in the later sections. I would suggest we add additional sources both for and against. Springee (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you write about what Lassiter "intends" is known as original research. Sources must explicitly say what you're presenting them as saying, so your extrapolations are meaningless. Furthermore, Lassiter says "genuine incarnations" which is a reference to the original or, in his opinion, the genuine implementations of the traditional Southern Strategy. This does not mean that the Southern Strategy wasn't implemented at any other time in whole or in part. As a matter of fact, many sources acknowledge the transformation of the Southern Strategy to move from focusing on strictly racial language, to promoting policies that inherently infused racial sentiments. So Lassiter is only describing what he considers to be genuine uses of the Southern Strategy, and this doesn't refute the fact that other scholars have different opinions and believe the Southern Strategy persists to this day in an evolved form. No where in your quote does Lassiter speak to the evolving nature of the Southern Strategy, so it certainly doesn't belong in the evolution section and presenting it as if Lassiter is speaking to the evolution of the Southern Strategy violates WP:OR. Also, extreme examples are not illogical and are actually logically valid ways to test if an argument upholds validity. Though I disagree I took it to an extreme, the fact of the matter is that the only thing Lassiter references is scholars and scholarship, he never references the "general population". Thus your attempt to claim that "conventional wisdom" applies to the general masses is unmerited. It's ultimately irrelevant since multiple other sources confirm the majority viewpoint in scholarship is the top-down approach,centered on racist sentiment, was the major cause of the southern realignment and the GOP's dominance in the south.

Also, Wikipedia does not recognize "significant POV" as a relevant factor when it comes to determining weight in a n article. What is relevant is what's considered the majority viewpoint and what is considered the minority viewpoint. This is not left up to our interpretations and WP policy explicitly says that if a viewpoint is a majority viewpoint, then there should be a reliable source that identifies it as such. I've presented numerous sources that speak to the majority viewpoint and also recognize that the suburban strategy held by Lassiter and others is the minority viewpoint. That's it. At no point did I say this minority viewpoint was "not worth discussing" but I have said multiple times that the amount of representation you and others are putting in the article is a violation of WP weight policies. Even after unambiguously establishing that Lassiter's opinion is the minority viewpoint, your proposed solution is to "add additional sources both for and against". Sorry, but this suggestion doesn't address the undue weight issues that have recently been created in the article and only attempt to exacerbate the problem. Repeatedly trying to give a minority viewpoint undue weight can also be considered tendentious editing as explained by WP:BALASPS. So, again, please consider ways to improve this article that reduces the amount of undue weight given to this minority viewpoint. Adding more of this minority viewpoint is not a solution and is a violation of WP:NPOV policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it a minority view?

Just a note about "minority view" here, when Lassiter's book was released in 2006 it was likely to be a minority POV since it was published 10 years after Carter and Airstups primary works in this article (both 1996). The number of times cited appears in Google Scholar for these works.

• Carter, Wallance to Gingrich: 165 times since 1996 (122 after 2006)
• Aistrup, Southern Strategy Revisited: 125 times since 1996 (79 after 2006)
• Lassiter, Silent Majority: 354 (published in 2006)
• Shafer and Johnson, End of Southern Exceptionalism: 138 (published in 2006)

Even allowing for a decade long head start, Lassiter and Shafter and Johnson have 492 citations to 290 (201 from 2006 and later). That suggests that the bottom up explanation is likely the majority, not minority view among contemporary scholarship and likely gained that position in the last half decade or so. I am not proposing that it be treated as a majority view but this should be sufficient to handle it as a view that scholars place on equal footing with the top down theory. Springee (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional Information: Feldman noted in his 2011 book, Painting Dixie Red, that the bottom up view was, at the time of his writing, likely no earlier than 2010, the "dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative..." He was correct. Of the 354 citations Lassiter's book received, 251 are from 2010 and later. He wasn't kidding about rapidly growing. Again, this should be more than enough to put the ground up vs top down arguments on at least equal footing with respect to WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your original research isn't going to have more weight than what multiple reliable sources say. Multiple reliable sources say it's a minority view in some way, shape, or form and you've presented nothing to refute this.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are making excuses. You have long argued that scholarly works are the highest standard of RS. The number of citations a work gets is a clear indication of how the field views that work. WP has a [WP:USEBYOTHERS] guideline that addresses that point. So, using Google Scholar I just showed that these more recent works have been embraced by the scholars. While they might have been a minority view a decade back when they were first published (and thus cited by no one), they clearly are being cited more frequently by scholars vs the older works. Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind but if you argue that the views of Lassiter are minority then you need to explain why scholars embrace his work. Springee (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS only has to do with reliability concerns, which are already well established because it's a peer reviewed work. It has absolutely nothing to do with weight or NPOV concerns, and your use of the word "indication" only further proves that this is a violation of WP:OR. I don't have to explain why scholars embrace his work, all I have to do is provide a reliable source that claims what the majority/minority viewpoint is and I've already provided multiple sources. FYI, Lassiter references and cites many sources that hold a contrary view to his. So not only is your analysis irrelevant and a violation of WP:OR, but it's also logically feeble and fallacious since many sources get cited by authors who hold differing opinions.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are making a ridiculous excuses. Lassiter's work was pioneering in the field when released so of course it was a minority view AT THE TIME. The statements saying it was a minority view date to that time. It is clear that in the decade after Lassiter and S&J published their respective works they have gained scholarly recognition. You are now claiming that the number of citations don't indicate how widely accepted the work is. Yes, some Lassiter citations will be works that don't agree with him. That same excuse applies to Arstrup and Carter. If Lassiter's work was unsound it wouldn't be cited because scholars don't bother citing bad work. Rather than arguing perhaps you could put some effort into finding scholarship that discredits Lassiter and S&J... or better yet, try working on the parts that we both agree need help. Alternatively, you are welcome to open a RS discussion on the topic to try to back your views. Springee (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a RS issue, it's a WEIGHT issue. I suggest you try reading what others write because I've already made this distinction clear.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a weight issue you have decided regardless of fact. Springee (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's decided by WP policy and my arguments are entirely based on fact. I'm sorry, do you have a peer reviewed source that claims the majority/minority opinion is different from those established by numerous before mentioned sources?Scoobydunk (talk)

Well show us the scholarly work that shows I'm wrong. Remember, anything prior to 2006 is automatically excluded because it predates Lassiter, S&J. The most recent reference I've seen is Feldman, published in 2011 stating that the dissenting view was rapidly growing. That leaves the door open to show the growth. How about this question. Regardless of WP guidelines, would you agree that Lassiter, S&J are favored in the scholarly literature? In your opinion has the scholarship shifted (yes/no and explain why)? What is your opinion? Springee (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already shown at length the sources that clearly indicate that the top-down view is the majority viewpoint and that Lassiter's view is the minority viewpoint. Also, "No" sources are not excluded based on your arbitrary time frame. We have multiple sources that clearly express the majority viewpoint and the minority viewpoint. Do you have a peer reviewed source that contradicts the multiple sources I've already provided? It's a simple yes or no question.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you? Where did you show this? Which scholarly sources did you cite? You also didn't actually answer my question. I'm not even sure I would call your reply a nice evasion. To answer your question, yes, the latest scholarly work says the bottom up approach was gaining acceptance as of 2010. The number of citations shows that as of 2015 the sources that put forth that theory are now more common in the literature. That is not 100% proof but it is sufficient to treat the theories as equal. So what scholarly sources did you show? Springee (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not evidence to treat it as "equal" because that's called original research and is a claims not supported by any reliable source. Furthermore, the same source you quote for "rapidly growing" is also the most recent source we've examined that admits it's a "dissenting" viewpoint. This on top of 2 Lassiter sources that state the top-down view is the majority viewpoint and that the suburban strategy is differs from the majority viewpoint. Then, there's also the Frymer and Skrentny source that also says most analysts view a clear shift in the party system around racial issues. All of these speak to the majority viewpoint and/or show that Lassiter's opinion is in the minority. You've presented nothing but your own OR arguments to try and refute what multiple reliable sources have said. Sorry, but "growing rapidly" is not a statement that a claim represents the majority of scholarship. Referring to it as a "dissenting" viewpoint explicitly means that it's not.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you now admit that your sources are too old to be reliable in judging the bottom up claims. It is totally illogical to say that Lassiter's statements, statements that represented not current thinking but the thinking BEFORE he published work that Feldman says is changing how people view the subject, would be the "state of the art". You are all but admitting you have NO current sources to back your claims. Certainly none that refute the Google Scholar data which supports Feldman. As of 2010 when he was writing the bottom up view was growing rapidly. Based on number of citations it passed the top up view around the time Feldman went to press. You are trying to claim OR because you don't have the scholarship you claimed to have. Springee (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I just listed the multiple scholarly sources that directly define what the majority viewpoint is. You're the one here with nothing but original research in an attempt to discredit what reliable sources say. This is also an example of tendentious behavior. From WP:TEND: "You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources." I never said anything about sources "being too old". That's called projection, you're the one arguing the reliability of perfectly good sources and are even using the very same source that explicitly says the suburban strategy is a minority viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is this list of multiple scholarly sources? You just listed Lassiter and Feldman. Did you have more that you are hiding? Can you actually SHOW these other scholarly sources? Springee (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Again you prove that you don't bother to read what others actually say. I've mentioned the Frymer and Skrentny source twice now, quoting it the first time, yet you can't seem to recall something that's literally only a few responses above your last reply. That's pretty telling, espcially since I bolded parts of the quote and I pretty rarely bold things. So we have 2 sources from Lassiter, 1 source from Feldman, 1 source from Frymer and Skrentny, and here's another one from Bedolla and Haynie, published by Routledge in 2013, called "The Obama coalition and the future of American politics". In it, they say "By many accounts, the southern strategy, for decades, has been a successful tool for increasing white support and turnout for Republican candidates throughout the South. It is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed the once overwhelmingly Democratic South into a reliable GOP stronghold in presidential elections." The cool thing is, I only need 1 source that speaks to the view being the most widely or generally held, and here I have 4-5 source. I say 4-5 because one of the sources actually identifies the suburban viewpoint as a minority/dissenting viewpoint instead of articulating the majority viewpoint, but they are both different sides of the same coin as far as this discussion is concerned. And what's even cooler is that any single one of these sources takes precedence in establishing a viewpoint's weight on WP over your OR argument of your observed google citations. Again, I'm going to direct you to WP:TEND because demanding others to come up with sources to disprove your unsourced claim is an example of tendentious editing. It says "or you challenge them to find a source that disproves your unsourced claim." FYI, your unsourced claim is that the suburban strategy and the generally held viewpoint of the Southern strategy have "equal" support in scholarship. Not only is this claim of yours unsourced, but it's also already been debunked by any of the authors I've just listed in this comment and previous comments, yet you still refuse to accept it.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit added later to address comment above) I just reviewed the Bedola and Haynie paper that you claim supports the top down vs bottom up argument. The paper contains no mention of the word "southern, south (other than "South America") Lassiter or Schafer. How can you justify that paper supports the top down vs bottom up consensus? Springee (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's funny because they have a whole section called "Death of the Southern Strategy". This is the third time you've failed to successfully execute a simple keyword search, yet you want people to take your citation search results seriously.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I just did a keyword search of this page. Neither time that you mentioned Frymer and Skrentny included a title or a publication date. The word Frymer doesn't exist in the article nor in the archive. The same is true of Skrentny. So how can anyone verify your claim? In other words, no you didn't provide the information.

Now you have at least added a new author. At least with the new author you have added you gave the name of the article. That's something. So you searched and found a paper that has been cited 3 times that has a vague statement that you now claims applies specifically to the views of academics. Your cited passage does not specifically weigh the academic acceptance of the top down vs bottom up theory. You are adamant that we not accept Lassiter's claim that there have only been 4 genuine uses of the Southern Strategy but you think that quote proves your claim? Sorry, that is a weak attempt. Your WP:TEND claim is false because my claim isn't unsourced. You simply WP:DONTLIKE it.

That's funny because I just did a crtl-F search and found Frymer right away with the title of the article. It's right here in this diff [12]. Also, the latest source clearly speaks to the majority viewpoint. No, it doesn't specifically mention academia, but it still proves what the generally held viewpoint is. Also, where is this source of yours that says the bottom up strategy is equally held by scholarship? Talk about missing sources, you've yet to provide a source to substantiate that claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct, I was searching while still in the showing change mode. I stand corrected in that regard. But now that I have the title I was able to do a quick search and see that your source is meaningless in this discussion. It predates Lassiter and S&J. I'm not sure what specific quote you think they put forth that backs your claim but it seems a bit intellectually questionable to compare the relative acceptance of the top down theory to Lassiter's bottom up theory 8 years before it was published. The latest source doesn't speak to the views of scholars and doesn't speak to the two positions we are comparing thus it's OR on your part to claim it does. Springee (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I just reread the Frymer quote you said proves your claim. Even if it weren't for the fact that it predates Lassiter's bottom up narrative, I can't believe that you would object to some of my quotes yet try to pass that one off as proving the top down POV (even in absence of a competing theory). You quoted, "...most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as marking the end of the Republican party's century-old alliance with African-American voters, as well as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues." OK... so? That speaks to what the GOP did. It doesn't speak to why voters moved to the GOP. It doesn't tell us if voters bought into the appeals to racism or if voters were concerned about property rights, taxes, school busing etc (ie the issues that have been put forth in the bottom up narrative). So really you have nothing. In truth the only sources that you have speaking to the relative acceptance of the two narratives are Lassiter and Feldman! Springee (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.". How do we determine prevalence in reliable sources? Well in scholarship we look at the number of other sources citing the source of the theory. I did that above and it shows that the bottom up sources are cited almost twice as much despite being around less than half as long. Seems like giving them equal weight is quite reasonable and within wiki guidelines. Springee (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Frymer reinforces the fact that most analysts of the time period view the shift in the party system around racial issues. It doesn't have to explain anything else, because that is more than sufficient to merit claims about what the majority of analysts consider about the time period. You have nothing to refute this interpretation of the majority viewpoint that is substantiated by reliable sources and is not the result of your own original research. Also, "No" you didn't prove the weight of your point of view. You have not demonstrated the viewpoint that the bottom-up theory is equally prevalent in reliable sources. Your Google Scholar search is not a "reliable source", nor are your assumptions that just because something is referenced, means that the article referencing shares its opinions. This is called original research. WP:Weight also clearly says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" The "commonly accepted reference texts" are reliable sources that can be quoted or referenced to support an idea. Multiple reliable sources support the fact that the top-down view is the prevailing view and that the bottom up view is the dissenting/minority view. The claims about the majority viewpoint are shared by all of the sources. You're the one who has nothing, which is why you had to resort to OR arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what Frymer said. Furthermore, Frymer's do not speak of the motivations of the voters, only the actions of the GOP. Claiming otherwise is OR. Springee (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Frymer speaks directly to what "most analysts of the period view" and he says they view "a clear shift in the party system around racial issues". I haven't said anything about voter motivations, so there is no OR here. I'm simply using this quote from a reliable source to show the majority viewpoint held by "most analysts".Scoobydunk (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make sure we are clear on this. You are saying that Frymer was comparing the scholarly acceptance of the top down theory to the bottom up theory 8 years before Lassiter published his bottom up theory? I mean that sounds kind of crazy so I just want to make sure we are on the same page here. Springee (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Where in my comment explaining Frymer did I say anything about the bottom up theory? Please quote it.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

On Aug 11 you complained that Rjensen's additions to the scholarship section, additions that offered explanations as to why voters turned to the GOP, didn't specifically mention the Southern Strategy and thus couldn't be seen as ruling out the top down approach. Now you are claiming that a passage that doesn't mention the bottom up approach is proof that the bottom up approach is the minority view. In addition to the double standard that you just created there are still two other issues. Your passage doesn't say ANYTHING about the motivation of voters, it speaks to the actions of the GOP. Thus the passage is worthless with regards to the claim you want it to support. And that is before we include the critical fact that you seem to want to avoid discussing... it was written 8 years before Lassiter and J&S published their work which kicked off the bottom up narrative. Perhaps you are suggesting that Frymer owns a Delorean? Springee (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, once again, you have difficulty understanding what I said. Please quote where I claimed that Frymer said anything about the bottom up theory. It also seems you have difficulty understanding what Frymer said. Frymer was talking about what "most analysts" view, and that substantiates a claim about the majority viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Show where Frymer says WHY voters voted for the GOP. Your quote relates to what the GOP did to try to win over voters. The top down vs bottom up narratives relate to the motivations of the voters, not the message delivered by the GOP. I hope you understand this critical detail. Oh... um what about the part that Frymer's view was published 8 years before Lassiter's work was published? I guess we should just ignore that detail? Springee (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're making multiple red herring arguments that are completely irrelevant. Frymer talks about the view of most analysts. This, therefore, supports claims of what most of those analysts view. According to Frymer most analysts view "...a clear shift in the party system around racial issues". That's it. This pertains to a statement about most analysts views, which is representative of what we call the majority viewpoint here on Wikipedia. Lassiter is irrelevant to this statement about what most analysts view. Not only is Lassiter irrelevant, but Lassiter doesn't contradict Frymer's interpretation of "most analysts" and actually agrees that most scholarship supports the view of realignment based on racial issues. Why voters voted for the GOP is irrelevant to claims about what scholars or "most analysts" say what the reason is. So, "Yes", we can ignore those details because they are logically fallacious when establishing majority/minority viewpoint when examining what Frymer said. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes I see my mistake, I found a paper of the same name but different authors (Smith and King). The article you are asking for is behind a paywall. Perhaps it would be helpful if you actually provided links to the papers you want to cite. Given your false claims that Frymer supports the top down vs bottom up discussion we need quotes from you. I've requested an inner library loan to get a copy of the article but it would be best for all if you provided what you think is the relevant quote. It is also notable that you have avoided justifying reverting my edits as well as answering my simple questions regarding that revert. Springee (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's funny because most of those questions were already answered in the comment you've just responded to. Also, I've already provided the quote as well as the source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were answered after I posted the above question. Perhaps you were in the process of editing when I asked the above but they were not answered at the time the above was posted. See how time of publication can be contextually important?Springee (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand. Yes, you preemptively commented while I was responding to other questions, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that those questions have already been addressed multiple times in our discussion, one of them being my November 2nd, 6:14 edit, which is literally found in this comment chain like 3 responses up. That's what I was commenting on, not conflicting edit times.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, just as you did in many of our other interactions, you are just repeating yourself without actually addressing the concerns of other editors while bludgeoning the process. Springee (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your relevant concerns have been addressed, you just refuse to read what others say and have demonstrated this multiple times.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't explained why you think a statement, made 8 years before Lassiter released his text can reasonably judge the contemporary balance between the two views. It is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Furthermore, you have more than once tried to falsely attribute POVs to my statements. In the cases where you were confused or felt the phrasing was unclear you could have asked for clarification or read the other statements that made my intent clear. Thankfully we now have other eyes on the article. Springee (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed that claim and have explained that it's a red herring argument to establishing a majority viewpoint as defined by WP:Weight. I haven't stated otherwise, simply that your framing questions around your own POV is irrelevant to what's required by wikipedia. You've yet to refute this, yet keep regurgitating this silly argument. Also, just about every POV I've attributed to you is directly supported by quotes of things you've said and diffs. So none of them were "false". The only one being dishonest here is you, when you pretend that you didn't say the things you very clearly did. It is good that we have new eyes on the article, because those new eyes also recognize your OR arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Round and round you go... kind of like you did with this one [13]... or this one [14]. Sorry, you didn't understand my statements but you were willing to falsely attribute points of view to me based on your incorrect reading of my statements. Any ambiguity could be cleared up if you bothered to read a bit more. Anyway, this is getting pointless and I'm not interested in engaging in an edit war with you. It's ironic that you didn't protest when I moved your source from describing the scholarly balance of views to simply an earlier point in the paragraph. You protest when I take it out but you don't care when I move it. Interesting. Anyway, I'm done with you.Springee (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no ambiguity, you clearly argued that scholars view the two strategies as equal, and now you're trying to backtrack from that statement. No one is fooled by your intent here, and that's why multiple editors have commented on your OR arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The number of times a book or article is cited has nothing to do with the degree of acceptance of the opinions expressed in it. TFD (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That isn't true. You would be right if you said absent other information it doesn't but we aren't working absent other information. In some cases a well known work might be referenced by many as they tear it apart. However, a theory that gains wide spread support is going to be cited by those who use that theory as a foundation of or part of their work. Additionally, in terms of weight we need to ask if other scholars reference the work frequently? In this case Lassiter's work is referenced more often than Carter's. Are you saying we can take nothing away from that? The scholars clearly see his work as important to cite even if only because they disagree with it. If the work is simply not compelling then it would be cited rarely and carry no weight. If this were the only evidence I would agree with you. However, in this case we one scholar who commented on Lassiter's work several years after it was published. He noted it was rapidly gaining acceptance. The citation count supports this POV. How do you explain that the primary proponents of the top down theory were cited half as often as the proponents of the bottom up theory? Perhaps we should ask Rjensen this question since we know he is a historian and would be able to offer the POV of a scholar. Springee (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Feldman offers another reason to give equal weight to the bottom up theory:

THe brewing debate between the "backlash" theorists and the "suburban school" is so important that I have chosen to include as many sides as possible in this volume.

Feldman, though saying it was a dissenting view at the time, also says it is a critically important view. In addition to all the other reasons why it should be given equal weight, we have recent scholarship stating the contrasting theories are both important and devoting equal weight to each. Springee (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Springee, yeah I am saying that. For example, the first publication listing in Google scholar as having cited the book says, "Others have told similar stories about southern resistance to school desegregation and busing (Lassiter 2006)...." [The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became, p. 36][15] Because of this one reference, one cannot assume that the author necessarily accepts Lassiter's view of the Southern strategy. Usually citations mean other authors rely on the facts presented in the source, and that tends to favor more recent sources and ones that have a lot of facts. TFD (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with TFD here. I'm an academic, and what you describe in the opening paragraph is not how citations work. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My name has been in the academic literature since 2002. I would agree that absent other information citation count alone is not a guaranteed marker. TFD makes a good point that not all citations are endorsements. However, that same argument against Lassiter's citation count would apply to Carter's and Arstup's citation count. Also, I've presented 5 sources that note that while citation counts are not a perfect indicator they are an indicator [[16]]. If you disagree with those sources please explain why. Finally, absent other information about the scholarly view of the two theories I would again agree. But that is not the case here as we try to establish weight. First, the claims that these are minority does not mean that scholars consider the views unimportant. Feldman indicates that the top down vs bottom up debate is very important with respect to this topic. Second, Feldman's POV is the only one from a reasonable period of time after the bottom up narrative was presented. I think we can all agree that a POV from 8 years before the bottom up narrative was presented can not be considered representative of today. The same is true of Lassiter's comments made at the time his theory was being presented. Springee (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite often the reason for a new book or article on any topic is to present a new perspective. In order to have a shot at an audience, the writers need to ensure that their facts are correct and often present details not previously published. That makes their books excellent sources for facts whether or not one accepts their views. I would say that Lassiter's book is probably more reliable than those of earlier writers, since he has had the benefit of subsequent research. That does not mean his conclusions are better. And the way to determine which views are most accepted is to see what current textbooks and scholarly papers say. Their authors will say such things as "Lassiter's views on the Southern Strategy have now become accepted, while those of Carter have lost support." We know for example that Charles A. Beard's progressive view of history, while once the orthodoxy, has been superseded because historians say so. They do not just say, "I disagree with Beard," they say that historians no longer agree with him.

Now it could be that scholars conduct the same type of research you describe to draw those conclusions. But that is original research and cannot be carried out by Wikipedia editors. TFD (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That is fair but I think we need to include a few more points. First, when discussing the weight an article should devote to a topic/theory/etc we are allowed to make arguments of this type. I'm not claiming that 50.1% or more of the scholars now see the bottom up theory as correct. What I am saying is that other scholars are discussing the theory and thus we should as well. The near 2x citation count has to mean the bottom up books had impact even if it was just to get people talking. So long as the article doesn't claim the bottom up theory has majority acceptance I see no OR in saying it is an important POV on the subject (Feldman makes that claim for me). I also think including the time frame for when a claim can be important and is not OR when the source publication dates are known.

I would also like to note my two objections to Scoobydunk's justifications for reverting my edits. First, was the claim that mentioning when a claim was made was OR. I totally disagree so long as the time frame is clear. A view on scholarly consensus that is 20 years old is likely less telling of today's consensus vs one that is 5 years old. Second, the Frymer citation simply does not speak to the issue. The issue of why southern voters started voting GOP speaks to the motives of the voters. Was the voter motivated by a message of white backlash or by suburban self interests? In either case the motives of the voter is the question. Frymer is speaking to the actions of the GOP. Now the message delivered by the GOP might motivate voters to racial backlash (the top down theory) but it can't be used to support the bottom up theory. So in addition to the fact that we are presenting a false comparison when we quote Frymer because his comment predates the bottom up theory, even if it didn't, it doesn't actually speak to the question of voter motives. These issues are independent of the question regarding citation count. Springee (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Understanding the significance of citation counts

For those who haven't worked in the area of scholarship citation count might be an unfamiliar thing. Citation count can't be considered an absolute metric but it is a good relative gauge when comparing works in the same area of study. A pioneering work will receive a high count as subsequent works that build on the information are published. This system rewards those who get there first. There is of course a Wikipedia article on the subject [[17]]. Here a are a few additional articles discussing the topic.

• [[18]] In your scholarly research, you may need to gauge the importance of a publication by counting the number of times it has been cited by other scholars. When you count the number of times an article has been cited in published research, you gain information about that article's impact on its discipline.
• [[19]] Citation analysis invovles counting the number of times an article is cited by other works to measure the impact of a publicaton or author.
• [[20]] General information about citation counts and the various systems that tally counts.
• [[21]] In general, the use of citations for evaluating research is based on the assumption that citation counts are an objective measure that credits and recognizes the value, impact, quality, or significance of an author’s work (Borgman & Furner, 2002; Cronin, 1984; Holden, Rosenberg, & Barker, 2005; Moed, 2005; vanRaan, 1996, 2005; Wallin, 2005).
• [[22]] One approach for measuring the impact and diffusion of academic research is by studying the quantity and pattern of citations to published research findings.

Yes, a pure Google Scholar citation count comparison is not a perfect way to measure impact. It would be a very flawed way when reviewed across multiple disciplines. However, as a relative metric when comparing works in the same area and on similar topics it is a very well established method. Springee (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doing more original research isn't going to change the fact that you're doing original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dishonesty on your part isn't going to make your case either. I've now linked to several academic libraries and related sources that back my claim that citation counts are a valid way to gauge academic impact. You asked the NOR noticeboard and appear to have received an answer you don't like. "Decisions about due weight can be based on editors' own arguments, but should bear some relation to weight in the sources. Rhoark (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)" The above clearly shows that citation count is a measure of weight. Springee (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Rhoark didn't comment on the fact that they are an attempt to discredit what reliable sources say. Yes, weight arguments can be OR, but WP policy automatically has weight guidelines for majority vs. minority viewpoints, and the sources clearly show that the bottom up strategy is the minority viewpoint. Sorry, but you can't use your own OR arguments to discredit what all those sources say. None of your sources claim the contrary to the majority viewpoint already established. So you're the one being dishonest here, and your arguments still violate WP:OR.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to just be coming up with excuses at this point. Feldman disagrees with you on the importance of the bottom up theory. He states, "The brewing debate between the "backlash" theorists and the "suburban school" is so important that I have chosen to include as many sides as possible in this volume." So the most recent scholarly author we have on this subject, and basically the only one who was commenting after Lassiter et al's work had been out for some time, says the debate between the two is highly important with regards to this subject. Sorry, we do have a source that says the bottom up theory deserves equal weight. It's the only source that was published after Lassiter et al to offer an opinion one way or the other. Are you going to still suggest we should accept a view published 8 years before the suburban school was articulated? Springee (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No where in that quote does it say it has equal weight in scholarship. So your conclusion is an example of original research. That's not an excuse, that's a fact. Also, Feldman is not the most recent source, Bedolla and Haynie is the most recent source and they also claim that the general belief is due to a top-down strategy. So again, you have nothing to refute what the most reliable sources say, and instead only continue to post OR arguments and blatantly inaccurate misinterpretations of what others say.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have run out of any reasonable argument and have moved to [WP:DONTLIKE]. Discussions with you are clearly unproductive. Springee (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is called "projection". You're the one who doesn't like the fact that the suburban strategy is a minority point of view, and therefore have tried to put forward OR arguments to dispute what scholarly sources say. It seems you're the one who moved to [WP:DONTLIKE] a long time ago. No one has to accept your OR arguments over what multiple reliable sources say.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Frymer does not say what you claim. He only speaks to the actions of the GOP, not the reasons why voters cast their ballots. Furthermore, even if he was, his comparative claim was made before Lassiter et al published their work. It's OR to assume that the views of scholars have remained static in the interim. Springee (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, I have posted this to the [Dispute_resolution_noticeboard] as I feel we will not be able to resolve it without third party mediation. Springee (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Springee, We're already in a dispute resolution noticeboard, so I'd be careful about forumshopping, especially considering your previous canvassing.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

NORN Discussion

As a group FYI, the relative weight discussion is being discussed here: [[23]] Springee (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about Lassiter

{u|Fyddlestix}, my reading of Lassiter's POV is somewhat different that what you added to the text. My read is that his general view is that race was an issue but not as central as I think you make it sound. Take the case of Brattain's easy where she talks about the suburban resistance to school busing. My read is the motivation for the suburban home owner was not racism but self interest. They moved to the suburbs for lower taxes, better schools etc. There motives aren't racist even if the result is a defact segregation. My reading of Lassiter is he does not forgive these people for in effect looking out for their self interest at the expense of minority interests. However, the critical difference is the top down case assumes it was anger about integration etc and a desire maintain race segregation that motivated the voters. The bottom up strategy suggest it was a class division and wanting to maintain the comfortable suburban lifestyle without having to pay for the inner cities that was the motivation. I would be interested in discussing this further because I think your edits make it sound like the two sides are nearly identical in view. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding opening paragraphs to Evolutions and Shift sections

The Evolution and Shift sections are currently quite messy. Gobonobo started to work to clean up this article and I think adding clear opening paragraphs to these sections would be a big help. Currently they read like [WP:COATRACK]s. For example the evolution section starts with a weak opening paragraph that suggests some would see state's rights as a way to block civil rights. Well that doesn't really lay out what is going to follow in the section. The section largely follows with examples of various sources claiming things but lacks an over arching narrative. What we are lacking is any voice saying if the accusations are reasonable, if other sources have disputed the claims etc. Without a clear opening paragraph how can we even know if a chunk of information should or should not be in the section?

The Shift section both lacks a strong opening paragraph and seems out of place in this article. If the strategy has shifted so far away from the origin is it the same thing? Shouldn't it be in some other article? As an example, an article about Mr Bugatti's car company should discuss his prewar cars etc as well as the company's collapse. While such an article might link to the current VW Bugatti brand, it would hardly be appropriate to include a large section on what is a brand that VW created from scratch and to which VW applied an old name, a company with only marketing tie to Mr Bugatti's company, in an article about Mr Bugatti's company. The sins in that section may be real but they don't fit the description of the Southern Strategy and thus it seems odd to include them in this article.

Anyway, I might be wrong about the above but clear opening paragraphs would make it clear what information should and should not be in each section. This would do a lot to help clean up what is really a very messy article. Springee (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They could both benefit from introduction paragraphs that better outline the intent of the section. Some things to note: trying to trivialize what sources say as "accusations" isn't going to get anywhere, nor is it necessary to have a tangential source commenting on how "reasonable" other sources are. Also, regarding the "shift" section, if scholars still identify practices as being part of the Southern Strategy or a new Southern Strategy, then they belong in the article. I will say that I don't see a clear difference between the goals of the evolution section and the shift section, but better defining opening paragraphs could help with the distinction. Though both of these sections could benefit from revision, I think the glaring undue weight given to the minority viewpoint of the "suburban strategy" in the Scholarly Debate section needs to be fixed first. The undue weight in that section is a direct violation of WP:NPOV policies which would logically require attention before tidying up other sections. Of course, editors can work on both at the same time, I just want to make sure that it's not forgotten.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome it if you would take a first crack at the opening paragraphs. I also suggest that we replace some of the journalistic sources with scholarly sources. I would also suggest that the Scholarly Debate section is lacking a clear opening paragraph. Some of that information might work better in other parts of the article. Please note that "accusations" is exactly how some of the reliable sources describe what is in the article. We should probably have a separate discussion about including "New Southern Strategy". That seems like a way to WP:COATRACK via association with something negative. Either it fits the mold of the original strategy or it is a new strategy. Since we disagree on the suburban strategy weight I would suggest putting that topic aside or getting outside views to deal with that topic. We both agree that the sections in question could be cleaned up. Let's start where we have agreement vs disagreement. Finally, please do not be so quick to, in effect, accuse me of whitewashing. The "accusation" word is appropriate for some of the references and the way the text is phrased. Springee (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't limited to what you consider to be the "original strategy". It includes all information about the Southern Strategy in all of its forms and progressions as described by reliable sources. If sources claim something is an "accusation" then it can be directly attributed to the source that makes the claim and quoted. Also, it's not that we disagree about the weight of the suburban strategy, it's that you're repeatedly ignoring what reliable sources are saying in lieu of your own original research, which you've again demonstrated above. This is not something that requires editors to come to an agreement with using their own personal views. It is explicitly stated in multiple sources, yet you feel you have the right to refute what those sources are saying or ignore them outright. It is not the responsibility of wikipedia editors to propose original research arguments like your google hits above to refute what reliable sources say. I suggest, again, that you familiarize yourself with WP policies regarding NPOV and tendentious editing. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You have long said that scholars are the best sources (most reliable). Well Lassiter, a source that I have shown has been embraced by scholars, [WP:USEBYOTHERS], says that their are only four genuine implementations of the Southern Strategy. You have attempted your own for of OR by attempting to interpret his meaning to only include a narrow definition of "Southern Strategy". Sorry, Lassiter makes it clear that he disagrees with the tail that wagged the dog theories, "Southernization of American politics" and those who try to attach incidents such as Reagan's "state's rights" comments etc to the "Southern Strategy". Yes, we have reporters who make such claims but we have a noted scholar on the subject who dismisses those claims. I understand you [WP:DONTLIKE] this but it comes from a RS with [WP:WEIGHT] and thus can not be dismissed as readily as you wish. I would ask that you try to be constructive in this process and stop [WP:BLUDGEON]ing the subject. Let us instead focus on opening paragraphs for the other sections (or even the scholarship section). Springee (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine for Lassiter to disagree, but it does not serve as a rebuttal to debunk other scholarship, which is how you implied you wanted to apply it. It is simply a different opinion on the subject and the part that you specifically quoted, only speaks to what Lassiter considers "genuine" implementations of the SS, it doesn't speak to later/evolved implementations, which there is plenty of scholarly support. What would actually be constructive is if you'd stop ignoring what multiple reliable sources have said about Lassiter's viewpoint being a minority viewpoint. You also claim you want to focus on opening paragraphs, yet keep bringing up this Lassiter quote, which isn't constructive to revising opening paragraphs. So before accusing others, you might what to reflect on your behavior first.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you are able to read my mind and tell me how I am going to use information before I have actually decided that myself. Since you claim there is plenty of scholarly support for the evolution part, please add it to those sections. They are largely based on non-scholarly work. Springee (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, don't be too impressed because you explicitly stated your intent and I didn't have to "read your mind". You said: "What I see there is scholarly support for the idea that later claims of "Southern Strategy" are false. It would seem reasonable to include that as part of the evolution section since it directly disputes the idea that the GOP continued to use the strategy after 1970." So there was no mind reading involved and I probably shouldn't have said "implied" since you explicitly stated how you'd like to include this information into the article. No where in your quote does Lassiter say later claims of the Southern Strategy are false, nor does this statement dispute that the GOP used the strategy later than 1970. Multiple scholars have spoken to the Southern Strategy's continued use as it has involved. I'll be more than happy to review the section and add scholarly sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah... I see. So you can take a speculative statement of mine and it becomes what you know is going to happen even before I do it... yet you will only allow the most narrow reading of a reliable source if any other reading disagrees with your own POV. Good to know. Again, I'm not worried about convincing you. It's other editors who will help decide these things. Springee (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you admit your statement was "speculative", which means the source didn't explicitly say what you claimed it did. That resolves the issue right there.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather dishonest or foolish way to read what I just said. What I said was speculation on how we might use the source. You would have to be very dishonest in your interpretation of my statement to say I called Lassiter's statement speculative or to call what I said about his statements "speculative". Anyway, it's clear that talking with you is not productive. I guess I shouldn't expect more from one who has accused me of lying in the past. Springee (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You admitted your statement was speculative and now you're saying I'm the one being dishonest. That's funny.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you totally unable to understand common language? I was speculating on how we might use some of the Lassiter information. That is not saying Lassiter's information is speculative. Again, you prove that it is pointless to try to discuss things with you. Springee (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You admitted that the statement that I quoted was speculative. Only after I pointed that out, you tried to change your story that only part of it was speculative. That seems pretty dishonest to me. FYI, your interpretation of Lassiter is speculative, since it doesn't explicitly say what you're claiming it did. I already knew this, you admitted to it, and now you're trying to change your story.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are confused by the difference between speculating regarding how an editor might use information vs the information itself. Springee (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not confused in the slightest. All the evidence clearly shows you admitted your statement was speculative and also shows that it's speculative even without your admission.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Group question regarding the use of Frymer quote in scholarship section

I'm soliciting feedback on the use of a Frymer reference to indicate the relative scholarly views on the question of the top-down vs suburban strategy narratives to explain the Southern realignment. Both of the narratives address the motives of voters in deciding which party to vote for.

• The top down narrative suggests that Southern voters voted based on a "white backlash" which was fermented by coded racial messages from the GOP.
• The bottom up narrative suggests that suburban voters were motivated by preserving a socially isolated suburban lifestyle even if that came at the expense of urban centers.

A Frymer reference has been used to support the view that the majority of scholars subscribe to the top down narrative. The passage quoted to support it's use is as follows:

...most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as marking the end of the Republican party's century-old alliance with African-American voters, as well as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues.

Here is a more complete quote of that section of the paper:

Nixon courted these disaffected Democrats in the 1968 campaign through both the “Southern Strategy” and appeals to the so-called “Silent Majority,” a symbolic reference meant to contrast his supporters from the civil rights activists “blamed” for disrupting more traditional ways of life.

As a result of this appeal, most analysts of the period view Nixon’s campaign as marking the end of the Republican party’s century-old alliance with African-American voters, as well as solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues.

Does the Frymer reference support a claim of relative scholarly support regarding the top down vs suburban strategy narratives? Please note, this question does not ask which narrative is more widely accepted by scholars, only if the passage can be used to support a claim of scholarly position at all.

References

Please place comments below

Does not support I argue that the Frymer passage, though clearly a reliable, scholarly source, does not address the question of scholarly support with regards to the top-down vs suburban strategy debate. First, the quoted passage says that scholars agree that the GOP actions around the time of Nixon changed the relationship with African American voters and changed the GOP's message to one that put more focus on race. That passage does not address what motivated Southern voters to change from voting Democrat to Republican. It simply doesn't ask/say what voters were thinking, only what the GOP did, thus it does not inform with regards to scholarly consensus. Additionally, the article was published in 1998 while the suburban strategy narrative was published in 2006 so even if the passage addressed the motives of voters, it can't provide a reasonable opinion of the scholarly support of the top down or suburban narratives because it predates the debate. Springee (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

comment This is a red herring argument. The text from the article says "Most scholarship and analysts support this top-down viewpoint and claim that the political shift was due primarily to racial issues." That's, more or less, is exactly what the source says "most analysts of the period view Nixon's campaign as...solidifying a clear shift in the party system around racial issues." No where does the line in the article this quote is being used for, say anything about the suburban strategy. Springee has tried to argue that "political realignment" is not the same thing as a "political shift", however, I and other sources disagree with him. The sources that Frymer and Skrentny cite for this entry in their book are about political realignment and discuss the political realignment during the time period of Nixon's campaign. The publisher of the book also commented, saying "This book will be a major contribution to the study of realignment and political change, and will be as important as the works of Sundquist, Clubb, and even Key. The authors' interpretation of realignment marks a distinct advance, resolving significant theoretical muddles in the study of American politics." This is pretty straightforward and Frymer's assessment of what "most analysts" view of the time period does support a claim about the majority point of view.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reference Frymer reference above (copied from the article page) is incorrectly cited. The work is a journal paper, not a book, published in Studies in American Political Developement Vol 12 Spring 1998, pages 131-161. [24] The "publisher quote" does not refer to Frymer's paper at all. It refers to a 1989 book by Carmines and Stimson of a different name. [25]

The Fymer paper is over 15 years old now (published in 1998) - there have got to be better sources we can use here, and I'm not sure that this is current enough to use it as a source for what "most scholars" think (implying that most scholars today think that). Fyddlestix (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think by "better" you mean "more recent", and we are using a more recent source in conjunction with Frymer and Skrentny. The point is that multiple sources claim the majority view among scholars and analysts support a political shift in southern politics around race and race issues. Nothing contradicts Frymer's source, it's just there to show the strength of that analysis as supported in scholarship. It shows sources have traditionally supported this viewpoint, and still support this understanding of scholarly viewpoint. This is commonly done in WP, where multiple sources are given to support a claim. There's no reason not to do that here.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more recent is what I meant - and better sources do exist (see my post just below, got an edit conflict). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's something similar, but more recent: In Tim Boyd's 2009 article "The 1966 Election in Georgia and the Ambiguity of the White Backlash," he describes the "southern strategy" as the view that "the Republic Party had achieved its reemergence in the South and return to majority status in the nation by exploiting the white backlash against the civil rights movement. According to the dominant popular and scholarly opinions, this backlash turned the South into a bastion of conservative Republicanism..." He also notes that in "several of the best and most recent works on the postwar South, the continuing centrality of this interpretation is clearly evident." He points specifically at Kevin Kruse there, quoting his assertion (in White Flight) that "the rise of southern Republicanism... was largely due to the white backlash against the Civil Rights Act." He also quotes Jason Sokol, from There Goes My Everything, in which he (Sokol) says that "As much as anything else" the rise of southern Republicanism was "the legacy of the Civil Rights Act." So I think there's definitely still strong sources out there that we could use to support the same (or a similar) statement. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem listing more sources to further demonstrate the support of this viewpoint in scholarship. However, do you agree that this source isn't being misrepresented in the article? If you don't agree, what's being misrepresented about it?Scoobydunk (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with above] I certainly wouldn't object to strong, recent sources being used. I do not agree that Frymer actually addresses the motives of the voters which I think is the critical point in the top down vs suburban strategy argument and one that I think any recent reference should address. Thus I would dump it based on age and not actually addressing the topic (though clearly being closely related). Boyd clearly addresses Lassiter's views. His 2009 publication date would make his views stronger than Lassiters. His description of the work on pages 306 and 307 strongly suggests he sees it as a valuable dissenting view. Regardless, I would not object to stronger recent sources replacing Frymer. Boyd would make sense to me. Sckol (2006) seems like it would be redundant given Lassiter's 2006 statements but if it speaks to Lassiter's work then I'm OK with inclusion. Feldman is the strongest I see thus far because it speaks directly to the debate and is the most recent. Springee (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Frymer and Skrentny support the statement that "Most scholarship and analysts support this top-down viewpoint and claim that the political shift was due primarily to racial issues" just fine - they note the Nixon campaign's use of the Southern Strategy as it's normally understood, and then they say that as a result of that, most scholars think this is where the southern realignment happened. I'm paraphrasing there, but the meaning is pretty clear in my opinion. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I going to ask for some additional clarification. Do you agree that a key distinction between the two theories is what motivated voters to vote GOP? This "against them" vs "what's in it for me" distinction seems to be in much of the literature that mentions Lassiter as well as Shafer and Johnson. Do you agree with this line of demarcation between the two narratives? Currently, the text that Scoobydunk used only speaks to the actions of the GOP, not the motives of voters. If you feel there is more in the journal paper to support the voter motive view then that is different. Alternatively, are you saying that it was implied in the statement, even though not explicitly stated, that the message of the GOP + the outcome implicitly supports the idea that voters were motivated by white backlash? Springee (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It says that the Republicans targeted southern democrats, and that as a result of that targeting, this is where most historians agree that the realignment happened. It supports the text, full stop. 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that reading but I don't see that in the quotes provided by Scoobydunk in support of the source. However, that doesn't mean the source lacked other quotes that would have supported that claim. Springee (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment As a take away from the above I think we can agree that the Frymer quote supported the claim in the past but given it's age newer sources should be used in it's place. Scoobydunk has added the additional sources. Springee (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It can be used along side newer sources because the majority viewpoint has remained consistent.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not be for two reasons. First, you are trying to use it to support an implied contemporary view. Fyddlestix noted that it should not be used and more recent sources should be used instead. I agree. At nearly 20 years old the citation is too old to reliably support the statement (true or false). Furthermore, given the number of contemporary sources that have now been added to the article WP:CITECLUTTER comes into play. The weakest citations should be dropped. More than two strong sources is questionable. Trying to overcite when editors object is a type of edit warring (see WP:CITECLUTTER). I suggest we limit the number of citations used to establish the majority view to no more than 3 and 2 would be preferred. Springee (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

3 Sources for the material isn't cite clutter, especially when the example listed on WP:cieclutter has 5 sources. Also, the source directly supports the claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have no problem keeping the source, I just thought it was too old to be the only source for that claim. Since we have others, that's not really an issue. Kind of puzzled why were arguing about this though, it seems to be a minor point. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is an extension of Scoobydunk's previous disagreements with me, hence a refusal to accept even small changes that I've added. Scoobydunk can accuse me of trying to spin things one way but I would say the same thing about his edits in the other way. However, we now have four citations (74-77) stating the same thing. The sentence prior to 77, "The Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed the "Democratic South into a reliable GOP stronghold in presidential elections." is redundant because the same information is stated two sentences back. The Feldman phrasing does not follow his phrasing in the source. Finally, the sentence that Scoobydunk removed, "He doesn't discount race as part of the motivation of these suburban voters who were fleeing urban crime and school busing. However, Feldman argues that the Southern Strategy of the GOP was a non-factor in the realignment." I believe was previous a close paraphrasing. I would be happy to restore a source for that phrase. I would ask that Scoobydunk offer some constructive talk page interaction to address the above so we can stop what is turning into an rather petty edit war. (I don't claim to be blame free but I do feel that I'm trying to make positive changes vs just reverting the other guy's work) Springee (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Then it's agreed, we'll keep the source. In the comment above, Springee claims the Haynie and Bodella source is "redundant" and states the same information. However, when I previously mentioned the source on this talk page, he questioned it saying "how can you justify that paper supports the top down vs bottom up consensus?"[26] So it now only serves as "redundant" when he wants to try and remove it from the article. That doesn't seem to be in keeping good faith. Also, I did ask him to quote the parts of Feldman that supported the information I removed from the article, and he refused to do it. I searched the provided source for both "non-factor" and "minor" and the sources didn't support either point of view. Feldman doesn't say "non-factor" once in the entire book and the only time he says "minor" is when he's speaking about a person named "John Minor". Instead of talking about this earlier, Springee said "We are clearly at the point of pointlessness" and refused to address my concerns [27] It seems strange that he suddenly wants to discuss it now.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently I do not agree with keeping Frymer as it puts us into cite overkill. I'm OK with keeping Haynie but the extra sentence is redundant. Both the first and third sentence (the one you restored) say the same thing. Why have both? I will be happy to offer sources that support the sentence that was removed. I would ask that you restore the sentence with a {citation} tag as a show of good faith. It will be a few hours before I can get to the sources.

Your quote of mine, "how can you justify", [[28]], was a mistake on my part. I was searching a paper with the same name by different authors. I said as much here [29]. If you are going to quote a statement such as that, please also note the correction I offered. We both have made mistakes [[30]]. Now can we move forward with these edits? Springee (talk)

So when you think another editor agrees with you, you say a viewpoint is "established" and claim "consensus"[31], but whenever I show that multiple editors disagree with you, you say a decision hasn't been reached, or at least, claiming a decision has been reached can not be seen in good faith.[32]. This is a very clear example of a double standard. Also, the 1st and the 3rd sentence do not say the same thing. The first speaks to a scholarly viewpoint, the second just speaks to the general viewpoint. You made it clear before that you didn't think the Haynie source supported the claim I was making and that using it was a "weak attempt". [33] So I see no problem with inserting a direct quote, so people don't attempt to remove it due to their own misinterpretations of the passage over semantics. It removes ambiguity with the source and the viewpoint. Again, now you're claiming it says the same thing, when before you were attempting to discredit it for not saying the same thing. Also, no where in your "mistake" comment did you retract your rejection or misunderstanding of the Haynie source. The only thing you speak to being a mistake, was not being able to find the correct source in your own research. So I think it's dishonest to attempt to change your story now. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you've claimed Feldman is the most recent source, even after Haynie was presented as the most recent source.

Also, anytime you add material to WP, it should be verifiable. I see no reason in restoring information that isn't verifiable, especially when you repeatedly refused to verify it. Just to give you some perspective Springee, look at all the nonsense I have to go through to get something explicitly stated by multiple peer reviewed reliable sources to appear in an article, yet you're asking for unverifiable information to appear in the article as a show of "good faith". FYI, because of "good faith" I didn't scrutinize the accuracy of your inclusion when you originally made it over a week ago. I assumed good faith in believing you'd correctly include new information into the article. Because of "good faith", I asked you about it on the talk page first, instead of instantly removing it or adding a "citation needed" tag. Your response to this was to refuse verifying the parts in question, which is actually evidence of bad faith as described by WP:TEND. So let's see some good faith on your part first, before asking others to extend you more.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My disagreement regarding consensus on the citation count has not impacted the edits to this article. The citation count was one of a number of pieces of evidence I used to suggest the Lassiter et al view should be given considerable weight in this article. Others have agreed. They don't agree that it should get equal weight but that is OK with me. I have argued for up to equal.

I'm going to correct an earlier statement of mine. Please accept this as correction, please disregard where I said 1st and 3rd. It should be 2nd and 4th, (note it should be clear from my 20:02 time stamp edit). Perhaps more accurately, the second sentence of the paragraph says what the top down view is and specifically calls it the "Southern Strategy". The next sentence says most scholarship supports this top down view point. The next sentence says the same thing. Why do you think it isn't redundant?

The last one I see was a typo. You actually removed properly sourced material along with the one sentence typo. When I wrote it I put the name of the source author, Feldman, instead of Lassiter. Of course Feldman doesn't support that view, Lassiter does and Feldman is that claim, page 16. Sorry about that! I should know better since I corrected you when you said Feldman was a bottom up supporter. Springee (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation count has been irrelevant in this section of the talk page. I'm strictly criticizing your dishonesty in determining what counts as "consensus". You allow yourself one set of rules to claim "consensus" that you don't apply equally to others.

I also don't see this as a correction as much as it's changing your argument...once again. Notice the correction doesn't come until I specifically refute your previous assertions. Then, all of a sudden, you meant something else the entire time. You also reasserted this position after I refuted it the first time, claiming that I should recognize your corrections on the talk page. Now, suddenly, it's a completely different argument? It makes no sense to claim that as a "mistake". Regardless, this makes no change in the argument for its inclusion, since the preceding sentence talks about scholars and analysts specifically, and the one you want removed speaks to the general viewpoint. Also, the Haynie sentence directly ties the majority viewpoint to the Southern Strategy, instead of tying the majority view indirectly to the Southern Strategy through the term "top-down thesis". So it allows clarification and let's the reader have a better understanding. It also prevents people from trying to remove that point of view from the article by arguing semantics. So, like I said, the reason for including it doesn't change.

Lastly, your claimed Lassiter "mistake" also doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that you establish Feldman as the noun for the pronoun "He" earlier in the text, then try to change that noun to Lassiter with your next reference to "He" in the first sentence I removed. This is strengthened by the fact that you claimed Feldman held that viewpoint in the last sentence, which is the original noun for the pronoun "He". It doesn't make sense that the "He" I removed was suddenly referring to Lassiter, when this entry has been about Feldman. It also doesn't make sense that in a text inclusion of Feldman's view, that it would suddenly end abruptly with Lassiter's view. But, let's just say it was an "honest" mistake. Then it still makes no sense that you would argue for its inclusion because Lassiter's view is already given multiple times throughout the article. Even more specifically, 4 other times Lassiter's view is stated as focusing on the suburban-strategy or other factors, over racial issues. So you want a single sentence removed for redundancy, yet request that Lassiter's viewpoint gets repeated for a 5th time? That only makes sense if there is a double standard. I'm fine with mentioning Lassiter's dissenting viewpoint in the lead, the opening paragraph of the Scholarly Debate section, and then maybe another paragraph giving it a little more explanation which fleshes it out a bit. But, having 2 additional paragraphs repeating this view, not only becomes redundant, but also gives way too much weight to a single author. At least my inclusions are all supported by different authors which actually establishes weight within the field. Scoobydunk (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You felt the need to start a NORN discussion regarding the citation count issue. Hence I mentioned it. Where I retracted my quote by saying I was looking at the wrong article (same name, different authors) should be more than sufficient. Have you retracted your false claim here [34]? I don't think you have even admitted you tried to pass off the back cover comments of an entirely different book to support your journal article (not a book as you claimed). Look, I understand that typos can be made. That is why I am willing to over look yours and expect you to do the same. In the cases where you picked a single sentence as "proof" of my intent you didn't bother too look at, consider etc the rest of the thousands of related words that I have typed in reply to your comments. That is not a sign of good faith, especially when I clarify the meaning when you not points of confusion. That should be sufficient. Do I need to go back and get the earlier statements to back my claims? That seems like something you would ask in bad faith. You can argue the scholarly section is redundant and can be cleaned up. I wouldn't totally argue but I would want Rjensen to give his input since he put in most of the work. Since I'm not responsible for all of the Lassiter mentions I apologize if there are too many for your liking. Do keep in mind that he along with Shafer and Johnson are very notable voices in the field. Given the length of the article and that most of it is supporting the top down narrative I don't see a problem giving the top up space in the scholarship section. However, if the information is redundant then we probably should discuss trimming. Do you have any you would like to propose in the talk section? Anyway, please restore it so I can correct the small mistake. That would be an act of good faith on your part. Springee (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, your mentioning of citations does nothing to address my criticism of your clear double standard. You still fail to address this. Also, your mistake simply references you referring to the wrong article/book, and it was not a retraction of your criticism of the source in question. Only now, that this criticism can be used to refute your argument of "saying the same thing", that you're trying to retroactively dismiss your previous argument as merely a mistake.

Also, I didn't misspeak or misrepresent the publisher. In both instances where I provided the quote, it directly spoke to the SOURCE that Frymer and Skrentny references for that part of their article. I gave explicit quotes from that source, which is the book, as well as the publisher's POV assessing that the source that Frymer used for his article was about political realignment. There was no mistake here, except on your part in misunderstanding my attribution of what the publisher was saying. I clearly reference the "book" in my comment, not the "article". You're the one who's trying to pretend I said something I didn't say. The only "mistake" I made was calling Frymer's article a book, but this doesn't change my underlying argument. The argument that the source for Fymer's text was about political realignment, and that's not just my interpretation of the source, it's also clearly stated by the publisher. So that's no need for a retraction here.

Lastly, I see no reason to restore something that's repeated 4 times in the article that also happens to be a minority POV. The real problem is that you think it does need to be included for the 5th time, while requesting the removal of something else that you think is repeated once. Also, repeatedly asking others to show good faith is another example of tendentious editing.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So when you use ambiguous language we are expected to understand what you mean and it's my fault if I don't. When you feel I did the same it's my fault. That is an interesting double standard you have. Springee (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The instances I've pointed out of your doublespeak and double standards are not "ambiguous" and that's why you suddenly feel the need to characterize them as mistakes. So this is an attempt to create a false equivalency, which is simply not true.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of material added to 1970-1990 section

I have restored material that was recently added and subsequently removed from the 1970-1990 section of the article. It was removed under a claim of wp:coatrack. The content removed came from two sources, Lou Cannon's President Reagan: The role of a Lifetime and Jeremy D Mayer's Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campagins, 1960-2000. The material was contained in sections of the respective books which were specifically discussing Reagan's "young buck" comment. Given those RS authors felt the material was relevent and important in context I think that is sufficient to say the material is relevent to the article. Note that other material from the Mayer book added at the same time was not considered coatrack. Springee (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I identify three problems with the information you've added.

1. The added information surrounding his Neshoba speech is WP:Coatrack. This article is about the Southern Strategy. Anything relating to Reagan needs to be almost directly in terms of the Southern Strategy. So mentioning that the Neshoba County speech was an essential part of his Southern Strategy or the starting point of his Southern Strategy, is clearly relating to the article. However, all this additional material about speaking at the urban league, or who told him to cancel or not, has no relevance to the Southern Strategy itself and the Post article doesn't make any connection between what you've included and the Southern Strategy. The article only mentions the SS once, as if in passing, towards the end of the article.
2. The second problem arises with your description of the DNC polling by CRG. First, the source doesn't claim it was "race neutral" and that's a misrepresentation of the source. It said "seemingly race neutral" which means it may appear race neutral but it's not. The author then references the study to show how white people resonated with it because of its coded language. The whole paragraph is about the subtle and suggestive nature of Reagan's rhetoric. It certainly isn't about Reagan being race neutral. So I've fixed this for you and edited this information to accurately reflect the source.
3. The information you've added reflecting on his "strapping young-buck" comment, is WP:Coatrack. It's one thing for third parties to analyze the statement in relation to dog-whistle politics and Reagan's Southern Strategy. However, how Reagan felt about the term or his denying racism on his part, is not related to the Southern Strategy itself and doesn't refute how historians view his implementation of the SS years later. Even further removed from the subject is a comment by a former football player that Reagan housed once. This article isn't about Reagan or whether he's racist, it's about the Southern Strategy. So we have: The Southern Strategy > Reagan using dog-whistle politics and coded language > The "young buck" comment as an example of coded language > How Reagan felt about about "young buck" and explaining it wasn't racist > Some random former college football player who claims Reagan was unaware of race. Those last two iterations have no relevance to the Southern Strategy and are examples of coatracking information about a simple example used by multiple sources to represent his coded language and dog-whistle politics. Even in the source of the football player quote, the quote appears in an entirely separate paragraph about the authors personal opinions about whether Reagan was racist. In no way does the author connect this football player quote to Reagan's use of coded language or the Southern Strategy. As a matter of fact, the author's reference to the "young buck" comment, concludes the paragraph about racial appeals. This is exactly how the paragraph was structured on WP before your additions.

Lastly, I'm concerned about this most recent edit. You previously expressed wanting to rewrite the intros to a couple of sections, yet these additions have nothing to do with the intros. On top of that, there has been a long running sentiment of trimming the article because it was poorly written and had way to much fluff. Fyddlestix just went through and extensively streamlined the article, so it doesn't make sense why you're trying to add more tangentially related, coatrack material. Scoobydunk (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• On Reagan's comments explaining his "young buck" statement and how he stopped using it <-- That is relevant to his use of coded language in implementing the Southern Strategy. However, I believe one of the sources explained how he started to use "young fellow" instead of "young buck" because it was less overt. So having a brief mention about that is perfectly fine, but the football player commentary serves no purpose relevant to the Southern Strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The common theme in the above rejections is that information that tends to cast doubt on a claim of coded racism is removed even if it was contained in reliable sources which were specifically discussing the incidents in question.

1. The Neshoba speech is claimed to be a deliberate nod to white southern voters. The circumstances around it (first stop, etc) are seen as part of the proof. So the fact that there was internal disagreement in the campaign regarding giving it, there was fear of potential backlash and that Reagan understood the concerns but gave the reason for doing the speech anyway. As you have been informed in the past, a source does not have to mention the southern strategy to support the discussion. Some sources claim this speech was evidence for so sources which offer other motivating information are also relevant to the discussion.
2. Effectively what you are saying is you added one word to the quote.
3. The "young buck" information was part of a section of a book discussing the incident. If a RS felt it was related your claim that it wasn't becomes OR.

The general "not southern strategy" argument could be used to remove the whole section. Lassiter has said none of this later stuff is true Southern Strategy. You are right that I would like to fix the lead paragraphs cleaned up. I have also learned that without support from other editors this won't happen because you will revert whole edits if they attempt to discount claims of Southern Strategy even in the face of RSs. Springee (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem here, you just admitted to adding information that you think casts doubts on what other reliable sources say, when they actually don't. That's called original research.

1. The 1980 article you use to "cast doubt" on Reagan's Neshoba county speech, doesn't support the argument you just made. Nowhere does the article even suggest that "internal disagreement" casts doubts on what reliable sources claim was a "deliberate nod to white southern voters." Furthermore, if you're trying to prove something "casts doubt" or goes against what peer reviewed reliable sources say, then the source needs to be of equal strength. Hence, you can't use a news paper OP Ed to contradict peer reviewed reliable sources. It's fine to use lesser sources if they support the majority viewpoint as supplemental material, but when sources conflict, the most reliable source gets used. Regardless, none of your response refutes the fact that the information you added has no relationship to the Southern Strategy and to use it the way you intend is an example of original research.
2. Well if you actually read my edits, I added more than one word. However, that one word is monumentally important in accurately presenting the source. It's the difference between "does" and "does not", adding one word completely changes the meaning of what was said and removing one word completely changes the meaning.
3. The "young buck" was listed as an example of Reagan's dog whistle politics and I'm not refuting that. However, the parts you added about the football player were not related to the "young buck" comment, and has no relationship to the Southern Strategy. Again, the author doesn't use the football example to "casts doubt" on the fact that Reagan attempted to use coded language to persuade southern voters. He only uses it to support his opinion that Reagan wasn't racist, which is completely irrelevant to the Southern Strategy itself and appears at the end of a completely different paragraph. So to claim that it has any relation to his "young buck" comment is WP:SYNTH and it's still an example of coatracking. Also, Lassiter's opinion doesn't dictate how the article is written, since he's clearly in the minority viewpoint. There are other scholars who discuss and consider the Southern Strategy differently than Lassiter, and their views get included into the article just the same. <--Actually, they get included more-so because they aren't minority opinions.

It's more prudent to construct the article by including what sources actually say, rather than trying to "cast doubt" on what peer reviewed source say by including a bunch of coatrack material. I ask that you be mindful of this with your future edits. I hope that we can continue to compromise and yield a better article.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Show that you are making a good faith effort to compromise by proposing ways to reincorporate the RS'ed material that you removed from my edits. The large scale reverts with a claim of coatrack certainly appears to be uncivil. These are reliable sources that address the specific instances mentioned in the article. If the sources think the information is relevant then it is OR on your part to claim otherwise. Springee (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already shown good faith by reading and researching the material you've added and finding ways to include it that doesn't violate WP policies concerning OR and NPOV. I've compromised on Aistrup and the CRG and I've compromised on the additional "young buck" material. Also, you haven't shown that those sources connect the football player quote to the Southern Strategy, or that Reagan planning on speaking at the Urban League "casts doubts" on his use of dog whistle politics and coded language. Those are entirely OR arguments that you're just demanding that I accept as true, though the sources clearly don't substantiate it. If you're genuinely interested in developing the discussion, I suggest finding sources that explicitly support your position, instead of just asking others to accept it as true. Just like when you attempted to find sources to substantiate calling Lassiter the "originator", it quickly and efficiently yielded a consensus that there were no strong reliable sources calling him the "originator" and we compromised on "leading proponent". It's not different here and that's how WP policy should always be applied as per WP:Verifiable. Also, remember that we have peer reviewed sources stating the use of "strapping young buck" as racially coded language, so to "cast doubts" on that we'd need equally reliable sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't shown that any of my edits violated OR or NPOV. You have claimed coatrack but fail to cite specific guidelines. I'm also certain that correcting bad citations doesn't count as coatrack but you reverted at least one example of such.

The Neshoba material you removed was from a RS. It is relevent because the coded racism narrative provided in the WP article and some of the associated sources makes several claims to build the coded racism argument (intentionally starting campaign at the fair, a plan to appeal etc). If the campaign wasn't even sure about making that stop then it is a relevant claim. This is not my opinion but the opinion of reporters discussing the subject.[35], [36]. These are in addition to Cannon work. The RS's are connecting the dots for us. I have added the additional sources that make it clear that history does not have a common voice on the racial intent of this speech.

I changed the Airstrup welfare queen comment just to indicate that Aistrup doesn't explain why people make the connection, he simply states that they do. The other change is I have made it a stand alone paragraph. As more details have been added to both it and the previous subject it makes sense to make these individual paragraphs.

I made several changes to the young buck section. First, was to break the combined Aistrup-Lopez citation. Airstrup does not talk about the young buck comment in his book and thus should not be cited here. This was a change I had previously made but it was reverted (twice I believe). Since we have RSs that don't agree I haven changed the paragraph to make it clear this is an claim made by some, not a fact historians agree upon. I have used Mayer's exact quote (which more closely mirrored my original addition vs the later revision). I have included the Burghardt quote because Cannon explicitly links the claims of campaign racism to Burghardt's quote. I have rephrased the entry to make this connection more apparent in the text. Springee (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)