Talk:Southern strategy

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia states: "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship. Crucially, this means that Wikipedia content is not based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is." Rjensen (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree entirely. But the judgment of what constitutes mainstream can be... contentious. Ask anyone who has edited articles on alt med. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In terms of bibliometrics in the study of economics, the American Economic Review (AER) is part of an the top 5 elite scholarly journals including Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the and the Review of Economic Studies. That mean s AER decisions are among of the most reliable independent sources Wikipedia depends on because it reflects the consensus of the national economics academic experts--they are the ones who pay for this journal (along with the university libraries). Erasing a summary of one of its leading articles was a bad mistake. The editor who got erased was citing the most reliable source that exists. You can ask anyone who has edited a Wiki article on economics. Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

When a paper says something is debated in scholarship I think we would need sources that specifically state either the source is bad or the claim is wrong before we could conclude this is a settled discussion. Springee (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The source says, "no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats "lost" white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship." That is a clear statement of fact, rather than opinion. Therefore we have to accept there is no consensus unless some other source says there is. TFD (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The proposed text needs work, I agree with the objection. DN (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What work does it need? Isn't this a source you originally added a while back? Springee (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

For example, the addition omits context in regard to the "no consensus". One of the first lines in the paper is...

"A long-standing debate in political economy is whether voters are driven primarily by economic self-interest or by less pecuniary motives like ethnocentrism."

Instead of clarifying that it is referring to an economic debate, the statement is ambiguous and easily open to any number of misinterpretations.

"no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats "lost" white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship"

It also ignores WP:OFCOURSE, which gives the impression that it is WP:UNDUE

"...explaining why Democrats lost the South, although its own research found that "defection among racially conservative whites just after Democrats introduce sweeping Civil Rights legislation...

Clearly JxG made the right call. DN (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

IOW, there is evidence to support both interpretations. But isn't that why "no clear consensus has emerged?" TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Not according to the source in question. DN (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Joseph A. Aistrup, whose book The Southern Strategy Revisited is used as a source in this article, outlines the controversy in the section "Explanations for Republican Party Advancement" in the 2021 version of his book. Sundquist for example says that FDR began political realignment along class lines in the 1930s and it finally reached the South in the 1960s. Philipps and Black and Black attribute the rise of individualism over traditionalism. Another possibility is the doubling of the middle class, much of which came from outside the South, who were more likely to vote Republican. It is not a fringe view to say that there is controversy. TFD (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Using different sources to come to one's own conclusion is a bit too SYNTHy for my taste. The new data and the evidence by the source in question lead the authors to conclude that...

"Using newly available data, we conclude that defection among racially conservative whites just after Democrats introduce sweeping Civil Rights legislation explains virtually all of the party’s losses in the region. We find essentially no role for either income growth in the region or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost” the South. "

That much might be considered WP:DUE with proper attribution, as it aligns with current sources and does not make ambiguous claims or statements. DN (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

TFD, please discuss the issue instead of starting an edit-war (link corrected). DN (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

DN, the source is good for the claim in question. Your argument against is trying to take sentences from different parts of the introduction and present them as if they were meant to be connected. You start by noting this is a paper looking at economics associated with politics but then you presume that when the authors are talking about scholarly debate related to the southern realignment they still only are talking about the "political economy" part. That isn't the plain meaning of their sentences nor does the footnote support your read. They very clearly are talking about the complete topic. Put simply, we have a good paper that says this is not settled scholarship. That aligns with what Aistrup is saying as well which was TFD's very reasonable point. I don't see TFD's restoration of material that was both stable in the article and appears to have had consensus both last year and now as edit warring. It certainly is no more editor warring that removing the material yet again. Springee (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean this footnote..?

"As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship.(2)"

(2) "We only briefly review the literature in this version of the paper. For a more detailed review, please see the longer, working paper version of our paper (Kuziemko and Washington 2015)"

(3) "See Carmines and Stimson (1989) and Kousser (2010) for work that makes both a qualitative and quantitative (where data permit) case for the primacy of race in explaining why the Democrats lost white Southerners. The party’s shift on Civil Rights triggered the permanent defection of many white racially conservative Southerners, argue those researchers who posit Civil Rights as cause. Fryer and Levitt (2012) find a positive correlation between membership in the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party among whites in the South in the 1920s. Pre-CivilRights-era scholarship also emphasized the primacy of race in Southern politics. “Whatever phase of the southern political process one seeks to understand, sooner or later the trail of inquiry leads to the Negro,” Key Jr. (1949, p. 5) memorably wrote, though he was careful to emphasize how race interacted with other institutions. Similarly, Myrdal (1944, p. 430) writes: “[A]s a political issue, [the Negro people] have been an important factor in the very region where they have been disenfranchised, the South…The issue of ‘white supremacy versus Negro domination,’ as it is called in the South, has for more than a hundred years stifled freedom of thought and speech and affected all other civic rights and liberties of both Negroes and whites in the South. On this point there is virtual agreement among all competent observers.”

The source does not claim that there is no consensus on the role of racial conservatism. It's possible this material could be represented accurately and without all the added undue weight and editorialized cherry picking. The other sources mentioned by TFD, like Joseph A. Aistrup do not deny the role of racial conservatism. Hence, the opinion by the authors about "lack of consensus" should either be omitted or clarified.

This was originally added back in October I reverted it, and the editor added it back in without discussion. Much like what is happening again now. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. DN (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

You are correct, it doesn't say "racial conservatism". Instead, it more broadly says there is no consensus. Why would we try to drill down on something the source didn't say? You are arguing that we need to synthesize a narrower assessment vs what the authors are actually saying. What was added to the article is verifiable to the source. The narrowing that you are suggesting is not. The consensus of the discussion is for inclusion even if you didn't like it. Again, if I'm not mistaken, you introduced this source a while back (I see you referencing it in April 2022). Springee (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Good points. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the concerns of JzG and myself and pretend there is a consensus. It's not productive. DN (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus. We aren't required to be unanimous. Springee (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If JzG concedes your points I might agree. DN (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It may help if you explain how "virtual agreement among all competent observers" language from the source you just finished pointing out reconciles with the "no consensus" claim. DN (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems like a tangential claim. Both can be true. Springee (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If both are true, clarification of which consensus the claim refers to (is needed). Either way, accuracy improves the addition, not ambiguity. DN (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Well Myrdal is a 1944 paper. At the time the claim may have been true. However, if people are going to claim the various things labeled as the Southern Strategy are going to be the thing that caused the southern realignment, well I think we need a source that would be retrospective rather than 20-40 years prospective. Springee (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, citing a footnote from a paper that explicitly says "there is no consensus" to show there actually is a consensus isn't a very good argument. Springee (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

DN, if you can't come up with a sound reason to keep this content out, please stop reverting and allow it to stand. We have 6 editors who support it and 2-3 who oppose. Springee (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I eliminated the UNDUE context and WEASEL wording...

In 2018, a paper in the American Economic Review described the emergence of a "younger, qualitative scholarship" that had increasingly emphasized economic and demographic factors rather than Civil Rights as explaining why Democrats lost the South. Their research found that "defection among racially conservative whites just after Democrats introduce sweeping Civil Rights legislation explains virtually all of the party's losses in the region" from 1958 to 1980 and could find "essentially no role for either income growth in the region or (non-race related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats "lost" the South." It described the lack of "clear consensus" as unsurprising, noting significant data limitations on the topic.^[1]

It could stand to be trimmed further IMO, but in the interest of consensus I think this is a good step. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is it undue? Why do you think it was WEASEL? You seem to be leaving out the critical factor, the justification for conducting the study, that scholars don't agree on the cause per the authors themselves. This further supports and summarizes statements made by other scholars. Your reasons, in my view, are not adequately supported. Springee (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

They aren't "my reasons" Springee. Those are the rules and guidelines for writing good articles. Use of the term ALTHOUGH in the original proposal is clearly WP:OFCOURSE and repetitiously inserting the unnecessarily ambiguous "NO CONSENSUS" claim at both the beginning and end is WP:UNDUE. Shall we have an RfC? DN (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is no consensus in reliable sources, why do you think the article should ignore it? TFD (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus in regard to racial conservatism and the Southern Strategy. Why do you think the article should ignore that? DN (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That is your conclusion based on your original research. You have not supplied one reliable source that reflects your opinion. A reliable source has been provided which says there is no consensus. Why should we accept your personal opinion over a reliable source? TFD (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

DN, you are stating your reason for removing the content in question, content that has a clear majority of support here, is because it was UNDUE and WEASEL. I'm asking that you provide some level of support for those claims. Otherwise, it appears we are at least 2:1 in favor of inclusion. Springee (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I clearly stated at the beginning of this that the proposed text needed work, not that it should be excluded altogether. I even offered a proposed version without WEASEL wording and UNDUE weight. How is 2:1 indicative of "consensus"? I have already suggested an WP:RfC to test your theory. If the community prefers the original version over mine, I will happily concede and get off this silly merry-go-round. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Your efforts suggest you are only going to be happy if the specific claim that their isn't an academic consensus is removed altogether. Is there a way in which you would agree to include the claim based on the current sources? You are welcome to leave the "merry-go-round" given editors favor inclusion by 2:1. Springee (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

DN, indeed showing different opinions exists in reliable sources to prove that different opinions exist in reliable sources is synthesis.

WP:SYN says, "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply something not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Note the probition is on synthesis by editors, not synthesis in sources. How else could an expert conclude there was a lack of consensus without comparing the literature?

In fact, the concept of the Southern Strategy is itself synthesis, since it draws together evidence to form a conclusion. Why isn't that "too SYNTHy" for you? TFD (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer to stay on topic if you don't mind. DN (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

What topic do you think we are discussing? TFD (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Myrdal said there was virtual agreement that the Negro people were a political issue in the South, at least when he wrote in 1944. But he doesn't say that racial politics was the reason for Republicans making a comeback in the South decades later. TFD (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)