Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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. [1] 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. [2]

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?"[3] 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 [4] 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", [[5]], was a mistake on my part. I was searching a paper with the same name by different authors. I said as much here [6]. If you are going to quote a statement such as that, please also note the correction I offered. We both have made mistakes [[7]]. 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"[8], 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.[9]. 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". [10] 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 [11]? 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)