Talk:Southern strategy

Possibly UNDUE recent addition without consensus

Regarding this newly added Source.

There is currently no consensus for the adding this exact context in this part of the article [1]

Even though I raised DUE/NPOV concerns, Rja13ww33 has decided to ignore me and reinsert their preferred wording [2], despite my objection and prior to a consensus or discussion.

If I recall policy correctly, the ONUS is on them to explain why this is DUE in it's current form and location before it is added.

Part of the issue is they chose to place the new material..."In 2018, a paper in the American Economic Review said that "no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship" at the top of the addition, giving it prominence over the source's main conclusion, (SEE BELOW).

See V. Conclusion, at the end..."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." [3]

The "lack of consensus" statement seems to purvey ambiguity that may mislead readers into believing this source reinforces the idea that racial conservatism did not play a central role in the Southern Strategy.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very reasonable addition. The paper is trying to use a new data set to make a claim but we don't know if that claim has been acknowledged as correct by other scholars. What that paper does state, and I think some of the papers it cites do the same (I think I followed some of the citations a while back). Basically the paper says that at the time of publishing their is no consensus. They are offering their view with some evidence but we don't have evidence that it's moved the scholarship needle. Springee (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are understanding what is going on with that. They are commenting on the results of other scholars....then presenting their own. It makes total sense to include it, as we include what other scholars think the consensus is on this subject as well.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct with this, DN. When I added the source, I made sure to summarize the source's findings first, then I mentioned its comments on no "clear consensus" as being expected as the source described a lack of data. I also think there's a distinction between "no clear consensus" and "no consensus". If people are debating the cause, that may make the consensus less "clear", but it does not say there is "no consensus". If we have many reliable sources on the page that do describe a consensus, one source saying the opposite does not mean the other sources must have less weight attached to them. BootsED (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a direct quote from a source you added. If the issue is: where it falls in the paragraph....I don't know that I'd have much opposition to moving it around. But the edit I reverted deleted the quote all together. That is where I take issue. It isn't often that we get the opportunity to get a overall "take" on where the scholarship stands on this subject. We include it in other instances....we should do so here. Especially considering this is a highly regarded economics journal. And the economics of this have come into play as part of the "dissenting" theory on this issue.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't describe it necessarily as "dissenting". Historians and experts in this debate often describe it as an additional aspect to racial conservatism, not "instead of". In fact, the source responsible for this discussion reinforces this. DN (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no independent source establishing the significance of this assessment. I know we often have statements on WP of the form "A paper by X states Y, source, paper by X stating Y", but this is placing Wikipedia editors in the position of SMEs judging the significance of specific claims. In this case, we know that there is a lot of ideologically-motivated verbiage seeking to advance partisan narratives, so we cannot assume that any paper is an unambiguous and dispassionate review unless other sources analyse it and tell us. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the major scholarly societies have a very strong process to make sure that articles in its top journal are studied before publication by the leading specialists in the topic and a strong consensus of experts state the proposed article is significant--over 90% of submissions are rejected. The referees are anonymous and so it's impossible to pressure them. They are always chosen as independent of the author of proposed paper. The process is called peer review. I have been on a dozen editorial boards including Journal of Political Economy and have seen it at work. Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about RS. It's about whether this is a fringe view. There is a lot of "scholarship" out there pushing a POV, especially seeking to whitewash the basis of the Civil War, and we can't know, from the primary source, which ones are good and which aren't. Especially in economics, which is notoriously prone to promoting truthiness over fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Part of what the source is being used for is a summary of other research, so for that it's acting as a secondary source. It's just the "although its own research" part that appears to be primary. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not primary / secondary. I just want to see some other commentary noting that this is what we, as Wikipedia editors, say it is, because we're not experts. Maybe I'm just being fussy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: The problem is that there is no independent source establishing the significance of this assessment. The paper's been cited 247 times. Often by other papers that have themselves been cited 100s of times. Reading the paper, it is a very reasonable and well-argued paper, which acklowledge the limits of the data it is based upon. There is nothing fringe or fringe-like about this decidingly mainstream and well-cited paper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Add a couple of them and we're good. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although the first citing source I looked at, this one, casts doubt on the argument made by the AER paper, so we perhaps need to cite a few things to give more of a sense of the disagreements that exist in the scholarship. I've not had time to read either paper in depth, but wanted to flag this up. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question reinforces the comments by an earlier source, Feldman, Glenn (2011), which stated the economic (bottom up model) was at the time of his paper a "dissenting—yet rapidly growing—narrative" on the topic. As I mentioned above, chasing some of the cited sources also supported the no academic consensus view. The source should be restored as it both offers evidence for the top down narrative but also makes it clear this is an area of debate rather than a settled view. Springee (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popping into this discussion. I am fine with the text being added. The claims made in this source are utterly incorrect, but it is in the "Scholarly debates" where it belongs. Jon698 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines reliability

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The proposed text needs work, I agree with the objection. DN (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What work does it need? Isn't this a source you originally added a while back? Springee (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not according to the source in question. DN (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.[4] It is not a fringe view to say that there is controversy. TFD (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
TFD, please discuss the issue instead of starting an edit-war [5] (link corrected). DN (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. Good points. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ignore the concerns of JzG and myself and pretend there is a consensus. It's not productive. [6] DN (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus. We aren't required to be unanimous. Springee (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If JzG concedes your points I might agree. DN (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It seems like a tangential claim. Both can be true. Springee (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would prefer to stay on topic if you don't mind. DN (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What topic do you think we are discussing? TFD (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ Kuziemko, Ilyana; Washington, Ebonya (October 2018). "Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate". American Economic Review. doi:10.1257/aer.20161413. ISSN 0002-8282.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.