Discussions on this pagehave often led toprevious arguments being restated, especially about the party's political position or ideology. Please read recent comments, look in thearchives, and review theFAQ before commenting on this topic.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
While thebiographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced orpoorly sourced contentious material about living personsmust be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please seethis noticeboard.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating toelections,electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visitour project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
The article doesn't really make that claim, though it seems like they want to reader to infer it. Is this not a classic inductive fallacy? Trump is criticizing Soros. Others (Greene, Orban) have criticized Soros andmay have been motivated by antisemitism. (I saymay as both the writer and the cited source are extremely hand wavy.) Therefore, Trump is motivated by antisemitism. It's pretty wild the Guardian is still an RS.Dr Fell (talk)21:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s a good way to incorporate the recent politico article that shows that among lawmakers their viewpoints also includeAntisemitism andNazism and favorable reception toslavery? (Despite how they’ll always be quick to point out that democratts were in favor of it 250 years ago, also Abe Lincoln denied to say at any time that the black man was on equal level as the white man.)Eg224 (talk)01:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per NOTNEWS this shouldn't be included until it's clear it has some sort of long term, lasting impact on the party. So far it looks like material with unknown context and no one claims it reflects policies etc of the party. This article is already long with many news cycle items.Springee (talk)22:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Springee that we need to zoom out, but I disagree with Springee about what that entails. Let's see the scholarly sourcing about white nationalism within the Republican Party, and use that to organize the "newsier" examples we include.Newimpartial (talk)23:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that we aren't totally on opposite ends here! Perhaps cutting this down to a single sentence? My concern is that this is a lot of text for something that is murky. Typically stuff that should be on this article is policy positions, historical actions/laws etc and major scandals/issues. At this point this is at best/worst a minor issue. The context of the messages aren't clear and it's possible (but not certain) that some of the messages are discussions that are taken way out of context. Alternatively, it's possible this represents a very small group of posters and when zoomed out we find that most are totally appalled by such behavior. This would be similar to finding a few examples of various young Democrats supporting some of the recent violence against people like Charlie Kirk. It would be bad to see but no reasonable person would presume that represents the views of even a significant minority of Democrats members (people in similar positions to the ones here). This very much comes off as muck raking journalism and isn't something that makes for generally encyclopedic content. Hence why I think the 10YEAR test is important here. Is this something that will still be a thing in 10 years? It might but we can't know that without a crystal ball.Springee (talk)23:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a section in political views to discuss long-term trends in Republican Party racial politics? So a brief summary of the Lincoln years, the southern strategy, and contemporary views? There's a lot of high-quality sources on this so a paragraph or two is probably in order.BootsED (talk)02:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it synth if I haven't even proposed anything yet? There's sections on the Democratic Party page about its racial policies, there probably should be one for Republicans.BootsED (talk)03:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little on the Democratic Party page about its racial policies. Jim Crow is unmentioned. Contemporary views or emerging trends of racial politics on the left are unmentioned. Identity politics is unmentioned. Antisemitism (historical or contemporary) is unmentioned.Dr Fell (talk)01:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parties exchanged positions a few decades ago, see the article on theSouthern strategy and its effects. While never leftists of any kind, the Republicans often held more liberal and/or progressive positions on a number of political topics for much of their early history. And while a few Republican legislators have made antisemitic comments for years, the party's legislation does not really reflect this.Dimadick (talk)09:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of information about racial component of 1960s southern realignment
Springee, you have repeatedlyremoved text added about the racial component of the Republican 1960 southern realignment via theSouthern strategy. 14 sources, news media, books, and journal articles were used that all described the racial component of the southern strategy as the primary driver of the realignment. You say it is "disputed", however, even the sources on the page for southern strategy that "dispute" the consensus do not dispute the fact that the racial appeals were the primary driver behind the strategy in the 1960s, they simply disagree on the extent of other factors playing a role in later years. The vast majority of academic research states that explicit racial appeals were the primary driver behind the strategy. I have also noticed you have sought to remove this information on the southern strategy page in years past inprior talk archives.BootsED (talk)02:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add, I noticed that youreverted my simple excerpt of the lead of the southern strategy page on theHistory of the Republican Party (United States) page to only quote critics of the racial component of the strategy. The main page for the southern strategy notes that the racial component is the majority scholarly view. Removing all mention of the majority scholarly view to only highlight critics of the view seems to be cherry-picking and a violation on several policies regardingWP:FALSEBALANCE.BootsED (talk)02:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BootsED, this is one of a long series of negative edits you have made to GOP related pages. These edits read as trying to pile in negative content rather than following NPOV. Critically, the aspects of the southern strategy are disputed by scholars, what "is the southern strategy" seems often to be the opinion of an author/reporter and finally, it is clear that historians don't agree on what caused the southern realignment. The excessive emphasis, violates NPOV. Consider that this isn't a new thing. Instead, this is part of the article that has been stable for a long time. Why the change now? What has changed that suggests we need more emphasis on this content now? I'll also note that one of the big issues with "dog whistles" is how does one decide what is a real dog whistle vs what isn't? As has been noted by several scholars, a problem with the dog whistle is, if it really has a legitimate, non-racist reason, how do we know the receiver of the message is responding to the superficial message vs the alleged racist one? How do we decide the source of the message is intending to appeal to racism vs to something else? If one honestly reads the Lee Atwater quote (not in this article) he isn't saying "appeal to racism". He instead is saying appeal to things that the former southern Democrats already had in common with the GOP. Regardless, if you think this is DUE in the general GOP history, especially since scholars have disputed it, I think you need to find a high level GOP history source, ie a general source on the history of the GOP, that shows its DUE.Springee (talk)02:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page for the southern strategy explicitly says in the first paragraph of the leadthe Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. This has been on the page for a very long time after multiple talk page discussions and much prior debate from other Wikipedians who decided to keep it. The page states:Most scholarship and analysts support this top-down viewpoint and state that the political shift was due primarily to racial issues. All my edits are based on what sources say, which I provided and are also included on the other page. I added this to describe the context behind the 60's southern realignment, not because I want to be negative. Frankly, I think the history section on this page is extremely sparse and should probably be merged with the factions section to be more in line with how the Democratic Party page is organized.
I'll ask again, how is the majority view of the southern strategy that describes the racial component as the key factor disputed? Again, even sources that dispute the consensus, which are a minority, simply dispute its influence in later years and do not dispute that racial components were one of, if notthe key factor in the 60s.
I included 14+ sources that said this, including high-quality academic journals and books. I'm also considering starting a discussion on the southern strategy page as several of the sources saying that this is disputed do not appear at first glance to actually "dispute" anything, but specifically refute the minority of sources that dispute it. From what I can gather from a quick check this viewpoint that the racial component was not a key factor seems like a fringe and minority view attributed to a few authors. Some conclusions seem to be misinterpreted as was discussed in prior talk page discussions on this.
The southern strategy page is a mess. Part of the issue is many people can't agree on what is and isn't "the southern strategy". Part of the problem is clearly Nixon did have a strategy to try to win votes in the south (as well as a strategy for other parts of the country). It is also clear when reading some of the reports from the time that he was trying to balance not alienating southerners while also trying to keep other parts of the country happy. The better historians on the Nixon era say his record was ultimately mixed on race. He did things that were both good in that area (he was an early advocate for affirmative action) but also upset people because he was against a lot of the forced bussing (something that would prove to be unpopular in the long term). Beyond that we have issues like what caused the southern realignment (top down or bottom up). Also, to what extent was the realignment an appeal to racism or to the pocketbook etc. While it makes for great political fodder to claim "the GOP only won via racism" and certainly for partisan politics it's great to say the other side is an "ism/ist". However, if you want to show this content is DUE here, that we are presenting the history of the party with NPOV, you are going to need to show history texts that cover this topic and show how much weight they give this subject. Given that scholars say this is a subject of debate, presenting it as a given as you are trying to do is a problem.Springee (talk)03:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some scholars dissent. I am not disputing that. I am disputing that it is somehow of "equal validity" to the majority view. Wikipedia policy specifically states we are to avoid false balance, and including roughly 4-6 sources that dispute the dozens of sources stating otherwise on the southern strategy page seems to be over-emphasizing this viewpoint. (Again, some sources don't even appear at first glance to even be disputing this point, and even the sources that dispute it still acknowledge the key factor of the racial component.) This is why the note of the dispute comes later in the lead, since it is not the majority view. If you want, I can make it more clear in the proposed edit that the "majority view" is so, rather than simply saying it is so. Many of these are "high-quality" sources, so I don't really know why they don't count here for some reason.
You are missing the issue here. What you need to do is show that within the context of the history of the GOP this should have the weight you are trying to give it. With a subject like this we can find general overview histories that can give us an idea how much weight should be given to various topics within the overall article. You are trying to give a lot more weight to something that happened six decades back. Why? What makes it DUE now?Springee (talk)10:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question. The entire south shifting to the Republican Party after decades of Democratic dominance that still lasts to this day is imminently notable. The sources I used literally say this. Why are you doubting the reliability of good sources? I am only adding less than a single sentence on this as part of a preexisting sentence. How is this "too much weight"?BootsED (talk)11:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not answering your question to your satisfaction isn't the same as not answering. I've told you the claims are disputed and you haven't shown sources that establish the weight you are trying to give this topic. If this thing that happened so long ago needs this much weight why now?Springee (talk)11:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what sources seem to say. Some scholars have "debated" whether racial conservatismalone played a central role, but you know this, as you've made this same exact argument countless times over many years.DN (talk)01:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are reading my comment that scholars don't agree to mean that there is a consensus against. I mean there is no consensus. You seem to be projecting something into my argument that isn't there.Springee (talk)01:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of reference, compare Wiki's entry to Britannica.[1] The Britannica article has far less recent content and doesn't mention the southern strategy while it does mention the southern realignment.Springee (talk)11:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that Britannica is outdated and unreliable (as usual), what else can we conclude by the omissions in their article?Dimadick (talk)13:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are taking about things that happened half a century back. This isn't late breaking news. That a professionally curated short history of the GOP didn't include this at all suggests we are giving it undue weight. Note that they do talk about the southern realignment which is what we should focus on. It's very significant that the bar changed but since the causes are disputed and the the extent to which the message was an appeal to racism vs other issues it's also disputed, we should be cautious in our coverage and follow the lead of other historians. That means find other summary sources about the history of the GOP and see what they say.Springee (talk)13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my questions. Please answer my questions. I've repeatedly asked for an answer above and you are refusing to answer it. I am not interested in your personal opinions on Nixon's presidency or what constitutes a "dog-whistle" (which I never even mentioned), or that you think it is disputed, despite the page for the topic sourced to the bone with sources explicitly saying that the dispute is a minority view. Any sources I provide you simply say "aren't any good". If you don't like Britannica, (which, by the way, is a no consensus source, and not prohibited), there's still 13 other sources that prove this point from books and academic journals.
I will also ask you again for the fifth time, why did you revert the entire southern strategy section on the History of the Republican Party page to only include criticism of the majority view?BootsED (talk)14:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted me twice, including after I mentioned the discussion here in the edit summary before self reverting. I want to know why you previously thought only including criticism of the majority view was appropriate before I confronted you about it here. If you now agree that only including criticism of a majority view is wrong, then I am glad you have changed your mind.BootsED (talk)15:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "professionally curated short history of the GOP didn't include this at all"? What are you even talking about? Literally every short history of the GOP has a mention of the southern realignment and strategy in the 1960s. There are over a dozen high-quality sources that say this, some of which are very high-quality summary sources. I provided sources for my edits. You are simply providing your personal opinions and original research. Start giving me sources that say the 1960s realignment "isn't important". Your argument seems to have evolved from saying that "the racial component is disputed" to now saying "the strategy isn't even important at all".BootsED (talk)14:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some examples of histories of the GOP that you used to establish weight. Not sources that are about the southern strategy or are narrow in scope. I'm talking about broad overview sources. I've provided Britannica as an example. I wouldn't want to cite an encyclopedia for specific claims but they are often good for balancing aspects with very large topics such as this. I'm not asking for sources for specific claims, rather I'm asking for broad overview sources, is sources that are meant to cover the same scope as this article.Springee (talk)14:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you are trying to establish a frame of discourse here which is not organic. We do not need to follow a tertiary source's weighting. That's just not part of how Wikipedia is required to work. Your argument against including this information basically boils down toWP:IDONTLIKEITSimonm223 (talk)15:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do we BALASP of a topic that has thousands of RSs? How do we decide if we are over or under emphasizing a topic area? This is a mature topic so why the sudden change? Per NPOV we follow external sources when establishing how much weight we give various topics. When there are only a few sources it's easy to just look at what is emphasized in those few sources. However, when we have thousands of sources we need to rely on external sources to help establish relative weight. So far that hasn't happened here.Springee (talk)15:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 is many? Undue is a reasonable reason for removal. I've shown that other sources do not give this the weight people here are trying to give it.Springee (talk)15:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. First you say Britannica isn't reliable and can't be used to discuss the southern strategy. Now you say that Britannica is reliable and can be used to show due weight because its article on the Republican Party uses the term "realignment" instead of "strategy". Which way is it?BootsED (talk)19:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I could see Britannica's usefulness being dependent on use, could you point to the negative comments you are thinking of? Also, please review WP:TERTIARY.Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias ... Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).Springee (talk)22:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see one of the editors of the Britannica entry is a biologist. The other editors seem to be all "content analysis's". Not sure I'd say professionally edited and I would never use it.Doug Wellertalk12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of the editors of the article is "a senior editor at Encyclopædia Britannica. His subject areas include philosophy, law, social science, politics, political theory, and religion." Yet another's blurb says, "is a regular freelance contributor as well as a former editor at Encyclopaedia Britannica. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University) and has written numerous articles on political science for Britannica." It seems like they have editors who are appropriate for the topic.[2] Presumably they also have some sort of overall editorial policies and reviewers.Springee (talk)13:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the image since there's no consensus for ist removal, and Springee has failed to bring up a policy-based argument for ist exclusion.Cortador (talk)13:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, the picture was rightly removed because it shows as a fact that the "southern strategy" caused the southern realignment. First, the image is user generated and in this case is OR. It has no sources. Second, the image makes a factual claim that is disputed by historians. Historians are not decided on what caused the southern realignment per historians who are studying the topic. This is why we violate NPOV when we present the effect (the southern realignment) as due to a cause (the "southern strategy"). This is before we consider any of the issues of the disputed facts of the "southern strategy" itself. TakeKUZIEMKO, I.; WASHINGTON, E. Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate. American Economic Review, [s. l.], v. 108, n. 10, p. 2830–2867, 2018.. While they argue that the top down narrative is supported by their data, they open with a clear statement that this is an area of active debate, not settled fact.
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 On one side are researchers who conclude that the party’s advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause.3 From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.4
On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights.5 These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party.6 Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern “dealignment” from the Democratic Party.
This is a 2018 paper saying the causes of the southern realignment are still debated. Other scholarship supports the view that the cause isn't clear. Given that voter motives are are very diverse there are likely voters who were motivated by either or both of the above and likely some who had yet different motives. Regardless, it's clear that the scholarship doesn't support the image. This is outside of any question of UNDUE weight recently given to the topic. That is where we need
WP:TERTIARY sources to help establish how much weight we should give various aspects of this topic. So far Britannica is the only tertiary source presented for this topic and it gives the "southern strategy" zero weight but it does give the southern realignment weight. Editors who wish to give it more weight need to present sources to establish why it is DUE weight even in the article lead.Springee (talk)13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will open up a talk page discussion on the southern strategy page about this, as several of the sources being used to describe the view as disputed do not have any page numbers and appear to say the exact opposite. I am not at my computer right now so will open this up once I get the chance and leave a message here. I think we need to get to the bottom of this because so many claims are being made on this topic.BootsED (talk)18:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also as an aside, "strategy" is often used interchangeably with the word "realignment". I used a source in the prior edit that also describe a backlash to feminism as also contributing/a part of the strategy/realignment, so some people who say that economic issues were also important are also probably correct, but even they do not dispute the primacy of the racial component of the view. But I will stop here for a more appropriate discussion on the other page.BootsED (talk)18:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strategy and realignment should not be used interchangeably and only a sloppy source would do so. The southern realignment is the factual change in voter behavior in the south. The "southern strategy" is with a definition that varies. Consider just the time frame. At one end the term refers to Nixon's strategy to win over southern voters. At the other extreme this is a continuous plan that started before Nixon and finished during GHBush. What is contained within the strategy and to what extent the strategy was deliberately trying to appeal to racism vs simply finding common ground between long time GOP/conservative interest and those of a large block of southern voters is debated. Additionally, it's debated how much the any national GOP message/policy was tailored specifically to southern voters vs voters in general. Perhaps one of the reasons why Britannica gave this topic no weight is because, unlike the realignment, what is fact vs politics is so hard to pin down. Nixon was against bussing. Was that because he wanted to appeal to racists or because he, and many voters felt it was a bad idea? Bussing has largely (completely?) disappeared from the US. Is that because the racists won or because it turned out to be a bad idea and the laws were repealed? Again, the realignment is fact even if the causes are debated.Springee (talk)18:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a lot of sources on this. Forgive me if some of this is from memory since I don't recall all the different sources at this moment. As for "not assign undue weight to a source you yourself said was not reliable". Can you point me to that comment since I would like to see the context. As I mentioned above, it doesn't appear to be part of this discussion.Springee (talk)19:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What source? The Britannica article on this subject? I provided that source already[3]. Are you referring to the part about the use of tertiary sources? That's [WP:TERTIARY]. It's clear that tertiary sources can be good for establishing weight when there are many primary and secondary sources on a topic (as is the case here).Springee (talk)19:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to get mixed up in this debate (yet again!), but recently(??) added info I think misrepresents the debate on the so called Southern Strategy. One of the notes says "and sources that debate its [i.e. Southern Strategy] importance in regards to other forces still acknowledge the primacy of racial appeals, especially during the 1960's". But on the Southern Strategy page (which has also been edited in recent days): it is noted that"Matthew Lassiter says: "A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South".[199] Lassiter argues that race-based appeals cannot explain the GOP shift in the South while also noting that the real situation is far more complex.[200][201][202][199]" Other scholars are also noted in rejecting this "primacy of racial appeals". More explicitly, the back cover of Shafer & Johnson's 'The End of Southern Exceptionalism' states: "The transformation of Southern politics after World War 2 changed the political life not just of this distinctive region, but of the entire nation. Until now, the critical shift in Southern political allegiance from Democrat to Republican has been explained by scholars and journalists, as a white backlash to the civil rights revolution. This book challenges that idea."Personally, I thought it was better as it was before all this was added over the last few days. We didn't go that deep into it and just left the debate to the Southern Strategy page. We had a RFC on this some years ago (see Archive 15), and these statements do not (I think) match the outcome of that.Rja13ww33 (talk)21:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to go deeper into this topic on the appropriate page. I'll also point out the fact that if one book challenges what it itself acknowledges is a majority view, it does not necessarily mean that somehow the majority view is no longer valid. There are lots of books that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, for instance, but that does not mean the consensus has shifted. The mere fact that this book states they are "challenging" the idea that the southern strategy was explained by white backlashitself serves as a tacit acknowledgement that the racial component is the dominant scholarly consensus.BootsED (talk)22:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said it isn't the consensus....just the way you have worded it suggests there is no legit challenge to this. The reception of such works as 'The End of Southern Exceptionalism' (which included awards from organizations such as theAmerican Political Science Association) shows we aren't talking FRINGE here. Climate deniers don't get awards from academics in the field.Rja13ww33 (talk)22:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springee has argued that there is no consensus, which is why I brought this up originally as he reverted additions mentioning the racial component both here and on another page.BootsED (talk)23:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look into the literature on the topic you will find that the top down narrative was first thus originally was considered correct. Not surprising that often the first viable theory is for a time the dominant one. However, by the time you get to the 2018 paper I quoted you find that the scholarship seems basically split,"...no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship".Springee (talk)22:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never denied there wasn't debate. Also Springee, the 2018 source you quoted specifically says in its conclusion that "Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats "lost" the South". The source's description of "no clear consensus" is one against many other sources which do describe the racial component as the consensus, and the source itself is not a review article which would put this in better context. As you noted, this debate has increased in recent years, but that doesn't mean the pre-existing consensus "doesn't matter" anymore.BootsED (talk)23:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perthis source which is already cited on the southern strategy page, some of the leading conservative scholars who created this idea that economic and demographic changes played a greater role in the 90s themselves "agree[d] on the centrality of a racial backlash." They're not saying that race played no or a minimal role, they're still acknowledging it played acentral role.BootsED (talk)00:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cited that book when you made this change[4] to the southern strategy page. Why are you claiming these are "leading conservative scholars"? Where do the source make that claim? You are correct that the paper I cited felt their data supported the top down narrative. However, what you need to understand is they are saying what the state of scholarship is (50 years, no consensus) and then throwing in their claim on the subject. Also note that, as I mentioned before, they found that this isn't a single issue event. The change was caused by a number of things and people are trying to fully understand it. To decide if their analysis is correct you really need to look at how other scholars have responded to their work. Also, you said I said Britannica wasn't a good source. I could see making that claim in context. Can you tell me where I made it so I can see the context? You've said this a few times and I've asked for the reference a few times.Springee (talk)00:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explained on the page I meant to say "scholars on conservatism" and conflated them as the source mentionedGeorge H. Nash (who is a self-described conservative) above them.
Dimadick stated thatOther than the fact that Britannica is outdated and unreliable (as usual), what else can we conclude by the omissions in their article?, you then responded below to Britannica's use that I shouldn't usesources that are about the southern strategy or are narrow in scope. I'm talking about broad overview sources. I've provided Britannica as an example. I wouldn't want to cite an encyclopedia for specific claims. So yes, you did say that Britannica wasn't a good source to cite things, specifically things about the Southern strategy, but that it was okay to cite its article about the Republican Party because it didn't specifically mention the southern strategy which you said proved it didn't have due weight. I thought this was confusing, as if you think a source can't be used to make specific claims, why would you use it to assign due weight if its claims are unreliable?BootsED (talk)00:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, "scholars on conservatism" still isn't supported by the source. You also seem to be misunderstanding my reply to Dimadick. My feeling on Britannica is aligned withWP:TERTIARY. They generally aren't the best sources for facts. Ideally we should be citing more direct sources for claims of fact. However, they are a good source to help establish weigh when dealing with a large topic such as this. Basically I wouldn't expect this article to cite Britannica for any specific fact. Instead we should use Britannica and other "zoomed out" sources to help figure out what should have weight for inclusion or not.Springee (talk)01:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the last one we had (that I am aware of; see Archive 15).....the result didn't call for the language that is currently in the LEAD. (I.e. a mention of the Southern Strategy.) But this is one of those deals where every few years we will vote until someone gets what they want. (lol No offense intended to anyone.)Rja13ww33 (talk)01:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned previously that I'd be okay with modifying the sentence. I'd also be willing to add in "economic concerns" or something like that in addition if that would appease Springee. I'm not okay, however, with saying we can't mention the racial component on this page but can on the southern strategy page.
So I'm not sure an RfC is even required, as the sourcing is fairly clear on the racial component as mentioned prior. Even the RNC chairapologized themselves for the strategy's racial components in 2005.BootsED (talk)01:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you look at what the RNC said, the actual words, it didn't admit to any racial strategies. It's a political reply to be sure but it doesn't say they used racial appeals. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. "I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." The first part says they ignored African American voters. He does say they tried to benefit from the racial polarization but not that they engaged in it or caused it. As for not wanting to mention it at all, well we have the previous RfC. Why do you think it should be overturned? Why do you think it needs more weight than tertiary sources give the topic?Springee (talk)01:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on the southern strategy page in the 1964 election specifically say that:
In the early 1960s, leading Republicans including Goldwater began advocating for a plan they called the 'Southern Strategy', an effort to make Republican gains in theSolid South, which had been pro-Democratic since the aftermath of theAmerican Civil War.[1][2] Under the Southern Strategy, Republicans would continue an earlier effort to make inroads in the South, Operation Dixie, by ending attempts to appeal toAfrican American voters in the Northern states, and instead appeal to white conservative voters in the South.[3] As documented by reporters and columnists, includingJoseph Alsop andArthur Krock, on the surface the Southern Strategy would appeal to white voters in the South by advocating against theNew Frontier programs of PresidentJohn F. Kennedy and in favor of a smaller federal government andstates' rights, while less publicly arguing against theCivil Rights movement and in favor of continuedracial segregation.[2][4][5][6] Congressman and Republican National Committee chairmanWilliam E. Miller concurred with Goldwater and backed the Southern Strategy, including holding private meetings of the RNC and other key Republican leaders in late 1962 and early 1963 so they could decide whether to implement it.[7] Overruling the moderate and liberal wings of the party, its leadership decided to pursue the Southern Strategy for the 1964 elections and beyond.[8]
To be clear, OR is allowed in talk page discussions. Your sources highlight one of the problems with this content. We have some very early sources (early 1960s) that do say the candidates had a named strategy to try to win the south. Note that these are pre-1964 Civil Rights Act. What isn't clear in the early sources is if they actually are appeals to racism or something else. What isn't in that mess of quoted content are the source that dispute the claims. There are sources that dispute a lot of the specific claims, especially the Nixon era claims. A big problem with the southern strategy article is it became a dumping ground for any and all such claims and it was treated as fact regardless of the evidence to the contrary.Springee (talk)12:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear,WP:TERTIARY does not at all mean that an articlecan't mention something if they don't. It's simply said they can be used tohelp determine due weight. There are many other ways to determine due weight. PerWP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." PerWP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." There are lots of secondary sources and primary sources being provided here, and I believe due weight is met. Most tertiary sources and encyclopedias, are, unfortunately, locked behind paywalls.
Also, as an aside, tertiary sources may be cited perWP:RSPRIMARY:Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. Your claim that Britannica's page about the southern strategy can't be used to cite anything isn't necessarily true, asWP:BRITANNICA states it is a "no consensus" source and says thatSome online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis..WP:RSCONTEXT states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The Britannica source says it is fact-checked by subject-matter experts, so it's more reliable than a Britannica source that is not.BootsED (talk)02:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just want to briefly leave a message and say I know discussions can get emotional and I don't mean to be coming off as rude! I know text has a habit of coming off harsher than the spoken word. I will step away from making as many comments here. I think I've made my point and explained my position fairly clearly on why the sourcing supports this mention and I don't want toWP:BLUDGEON this conversation.BootsED (talk)02:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Tertiary doesn't say you can't mention anything not in the tertiary source. However it does help establish weight. That is the difference between a typical reliable source and tertiary. We should, ideally be using scholarship to establish facts in the article. However, scholars can go down rabbit holes. How do we decide what facts are due for inclusion when we have so many sources to pick from? How do we summarize? That is where tertiary sources should be our guide. You want to add a lot of weight to these claims to the point of explicitly putting it in the article lead. If a tertiary source doesn't even mention the topic when they discuss the southern realignment it means you are giving it way to much weight. Mentioning it in the section where this article talks about the southern realignment would be reasonable. Putting it in the section paragraph of the lead is UNDUE. I that might also have violated the prior RfC but I would have to check.Springee (talk)12:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But itis heavily sourced to a wide variety of other sources. The standard forWP:DUE isn't "every single source that possibly exists focuses on this"; and the wide array of in-depth coverage from high-quality sources means it clearly deserves to be mentioned. If you think it's disputed, you can propose wording to characterize that dispute, but the argument that it is somehow so marginal thatWP:BALANCE allows it to be excluded entirely is not reasonable given the extended in-depth coverage across a wide range of high-quality sources. This is a major aspect of the topic, not a minor one; finding one source that doesn't mention it obviously doesn't change that. If you want to exclude it, your task isn't just to find one source that doesn't mention it; your task is to demonstrate that theoverwhelming majority of sources covering that era of the party's political evolution do not mention it at all. And they do mention it! That's why we have so many sources. (And, of course, I don't even really agree that Brittanica supports omission. They structure and scale their articles differently than ours - but theydo prominently link to the Southern Strategy as a related topic, whose first sentence directly saysSouthern strategy, in the political history of the United States, a campaign strategy of the Republican Party, actively pursued from the 1960s, that initially sought to increase and preserve support from white voters in the South by subtly endorsing racial segregation, racial discrimination, and the disenfranchisement of Black voters. If it were minor to the point where we could omit it, they wouldn't link that article so prominently, or describe it in those terms in its first sentence.) --Aquillion (talk)14:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable to omit the Southern Strategy entirely given the heavy coverage it has; and mentioning it without saying what itis is unreasonable - it's hard to argue that a few sentences summarizing it in a neutral fashion areWP:UNDUE. So what we need to do is just collect sources to determine how it's generally described. I think the current proposal more or less captures that, but some additional sources:
Their opposition forced Nixon, who was a moderate at heart, to embrace what came to be known as the “southern strategy” of race baiting and to let himself be packaged for television by new media strategists, including one named Roger Ailes, who understood how to convey the simple themes of Movement Conservatism in apparently spontaneous town hall TV specials.[1]
Beginning with Barry Goldwater's Operation Dixie in 1964, the Republican Party targeted disaffected white voters in the Democratic stronghold of the American South. To realign these voters with the GOP, the party capitalized on white racial angst that threatened southern white control.[2]
As a consequence, it is the way the Southern Strategy is able to reframe historic understandings of racism from the overt white supremacy of previous eras to a ‘softer’ form of racism that is no less destructive.[3]
One thing that I'd point out is that these sources don't really support the assertion that it's heavily disputed. I'm simply not seeing any evidence that that disagreement issignificant; most scholars broadly agree on what the Southern Strategy was and its centrality to late 20th-century Republican politics. It's not just that these sources are clear-eyed about describing the Southern Strategy; they broadly describe it as uncontested fact and do not acknowledge any sort of serious disagreement over it at all. And these aren't minor sources, they're massively-cited scholarly works by experts in the field. It's a basic part of the history of what brought the party to the present day, with relatively little disagreement given the generally controversial nature of both race and politics. --Aquillion (talk)15:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know aboutheavily disputed....but as far as I am aware, there is some disagreement as to whether racial animus (via the so-called Southern Strategy) is 100% the reason. Beyond the sources given above....some more:
"However, scholars have disagreed on the effects of racial attitudes on partisan change in subsequent decades. Several studies in the mid-1970s argued that racial attitudes were not the primary explanation for the increase in Republican party identifications (see, for example, Beck 1977; Campbell 1977a, b; Ladd and Hadley 1978; Wolfinger and Arseneau 1978). Still others, while placing greater emphasis on racial attitudes, argue that they were but part of a whole array of issues that produced Republican gains throughout the 1980s (Petrocik 1987; Stanley 1988; Black and Black 1987, 1992, 2002; Lamis 1990, 1999; Watson 1996)"
'Explaining Recent Changes in the Partisan Identifications of Southern Whites'
"The partisan realignment of the White South, which transformed this region from being solidly Democratic to being the base of the Republican Party, has been the focus of much scholarship. Exactly how it occurred is unclear....[later] One version focuses on the South' s long history of racial antagonism (e.g., Valentino & Sears, 2005). As already indicated, Carmines and Stimson (1989) argue that the national realignment was triggered by controversies in the early 1960s in the South over civil rights. George Wallace's third-party presidential candidacy in 1968 is widely believed to have embodied a strongly racially conservative appeal. He drew an unusually high percent (14%) of the national popular vote. More significant was his strong support in the South- he won five states from the old "Solid South" and ran ahead of the Democratic contender in three others. Richard Nixon's camp responded with their heralded
"Southern strategy," often described as intending to raid wavering Southern Whites for the Republican Party and prevent their fleeing to another racially conservative insurgency like Wallace's. A different version of continuing Southern exceptionalism points to the legacy of the "Bible Belt," with its especially strong adherence to evangelical Protestantism, which yields to social conservatism on issues such as family values, gay rights, and the boundaries between church and state (Bullock & Rozell, 2003; Woodard, 2006). Yet a third variant notes distinctively high levels of support in the South for strong national defense policies (e.g., Petrocik, 1987).
These views of Southern exceptionalism are not mutually exclusive. Miller and Petrocik (1987), for example, argue that "racial conflict precipitated Southern white flight from the Democratic Party. But the transformation has been sustained by other issues..." (p. 49). In this view, White Southerners have long been more conservative than Whites elsewhere in the nation, and they finally came to see that the Republican Party better represents their distinctive preferences."
'The End of the Solidly Democratic South: The Impressionable-Years Hypothesis'
Danny Osborne, David O. Sears, Nicholas A. Valentino
Political Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (February 2011), pp. 81-107 (27 pages)
"Throughout this work there is a susceptibility to simplism. What explains the rise of Republicanism in the South, according to Roemer et al? White flight induced "through racially conservative appeals...and cultural flash points that incorporate, in part, implicit racial appeals" (p. 65). Contrast this account with Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston's prize-winning analysis (The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South, 2006) of the interplay of class, race, and political institutions. They show, among other things, that the change was as much bottom-up as top-down; that class was no less (and possibly more) important than race; that Republicans made their advance in the South among high-income whites, not working-class ones as the authors assert; that the politics of race and class played out at different rates at different levels of government for a host of reasons-among them, localism in candidate orientations, coupled with incumbency."
'Reviewed Work: Racism, Xenophobia, and Distribution: Multi-Issue Politics in Advanced Democracies', by John E. Roemer, Woojin Lee, Karine Van Der Straeten
Review by: Henry E. Brady, Paul M. Sniderman
Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 409-411 (3 pages)
"The “Southern Strategy” coalition, solidified under Ronald Reagan and passed on to both presidents named George Bush, consisted of three interlocking parts: disenchanted white southerners who switched to the Republican Party as the Democratic Party advocated for Civil Rights, an energized cohort of conservative Christians, and in-migrants from other states, attracted by southern job expansion, who brought their Republican allegiance with them."
"For a variety of reasons—the rise of an urbanized middle class, the growth of the civil rights movement and federal intervention in civil rights during the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the activation of conservative white religious groups, and increased campaigning by Republican candidates in the South—the size of the Democratic majority among southern voters contracted enormously during the next three decades...."
'The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party'
Merle Black
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Nov., 2004), pp. 1001-1017 (17 pages)
"Religion is the last issue of fundamental importance to the southern electorate, and it was essentially a nonfactor until the mid-1970s, when the Supreme Court issued its controversial abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973). Before the 1970s, white Christian conservatives in the South were primarily disengaged from electoral politics, and, like most white southerners, they identified with the Democratic Party.....[later] But the southern Democracy could not withstand the structural changes brought about by the landmark legislation of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts and the shifting positions of the major parties on this issue and others (economics and religion)."
'The Past, Present, and Future of Southern Politics'
"Evangelical discontent with Carter's policies created an opening for the GOP, and some conservative leaders successfully reached out to Falwell and other faith leaders to help mobilize evangelicals into the Republican Party. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan campaigned for evangelical votes in the South, even commencing his national campaign in Mississippi. Positions he staked out favor pro-life school prayer and tax benefits for private religious schools. The shifting of evangelical vote in the South to become over time the foundation of Republican Party support has consequences on the partisan equation in the region and nationally as well."
'The South and the Transformation of U.S. Politics'
By Charles S. Bullock III, Susan A. MacManus, Jeremy D. Mayer, Mark J. Rozell · 2019, p.18
This last one, I think is a very underrated point: the Cold War. Many historians and scholars have noted the fact the Democratic Party fractured in the 1960's both over the Civil Rights issuesand Vietnam/Cold War/foreign policy issues. White southerners were filtering out of the Democratic Party at the same time Northeastern Catholics were. Michael Lind makes the case, that wasn't a coincidence. Among the points he makes is this one:
"Southern whites who favored higher defense spending were 52 percent Democratic to 34 percent Republican in 1980; just four years later, they were 49 percent Republican to 38 percent Democratic. Seventy-nine percent of southern whites who voted for Reagan believed that defense spending should be increased beyond Reagan's buildup-the largest peacetime buildup in U.S. history."
'Vietnam, The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict'
So there is some disagreement that the race issue was the only one (by a variety of high quality RS). But I'll make the point again (since it has been ignored so far):the current text in the LEAD goes against the last RFC we had on this point. (Again: see Archive 15.). There was no consensus for a mention of the "Southern Strategy". And I really don't see a basis for a new RFC (other than some people didn't get what they want), but that's how it goes around here sometimes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Rja13ww33 (talk)20:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:BRD &WP:ONUS, the page needs to be restored to its status quo. That'sbefore this content dispute began. The page falls under CTOP & continued edit-warring to add material without a consensus, might lead to blocks.GoodDay (talk)15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think the new material is worthy of inclusion but there needs to be consensus on which context and where it goes in order to improve the article. Cheers.DN (talk)22:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Knuckey, Jonathan (2006). "Explaining Recent Changes in the Partisan Identifications of Southern Whites".Political Research Quarterly.59 (1):57–70.
^Osborne, Danny; Sears, David O. (February 2011). "The End of the Solidly Democratic South: The Impressionable-Years Hypothesis".Political Psychology.32 (1):81–107.
^Brady, Henry E.; Sniderman, Paul M. (June 2008). "Reviewed Work: Racism, Xenophobia, and Distribution: Multi-Issue Politics in Advanced Democracies by John E. Roemer, Woojin Lee, Karine Van Der Straeten".Perspectives on Politics.6 (2):409–411.
^Guillory, Ferrel (2012). "The South in Red and Purple".Southern Cultures.18 (3). University of North Carolina Press:6–24.
^Black, Merle (2004). "The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party".The Journal of Politics.66 (4). University of Chicago Press:1001–1017.
^McKee, Seth C. (2012). "The Past, Present, and Future of Southern Politics".Southern Cultures.18 (3). University of North Carolina Press:95–117.
^Bullock III, Charles S.; MacManus, Susan A.; Mayer, Jeremy D.; Rozell, Mark J. (2019).The South and the Transformation of U.S. Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 18.ISBN978-0190065911.
^Lind, Michael (1999).Vietnam, The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict. Free Press. p. 119.ISBN0-684-84254-8.
Considering Donald Trump and many other members hardline views, as well as the party’s current policies, changing the political position to "Right-wing to Far-right" seems more accurateCG7000 (talk)17:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But so is labeling the Democrats "center to center-left" while compressing the Republicans to simply "right-wing." Edits, suggested or successful, are not necessarily made to improve the quality and veracity of an article.Dr Fell (talk)20:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Republican Party today is an example of a party that can no longer be meaningfully placed anywhere on a simple linear left/right scale. The Greens are another example. I'd be surprised if no responsible commenter has ever written on that matter, but I know of no such sources myself. My view is that we should drop simplistic labels for the party, and simply describe its policies and actions. If this means no simple label in the Infobox, so be it.HiLo48 (talk)22:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues: 1) Which scale should be used for a party's political position? The simple linear scale you mentioned or one with an added dimension? 2) Should that scale be centered for each polity or be global? [NB, I don't agree that by global standards, the Democrats are right-wing. The global right is Iran, Saudi Arabia, the bulk of sub-Saharan African, etc.] 3) Party labeling is often performative or used as a tool by political opponents, including those in the media. How do we get an accurate, balanced and current assessment of a party's position? I think solving this is preferable to removing the party political position.Dr Fell (talk)21:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest removing the party political position. There is no Wikipedia rule that requires us to place a party on a scale of political positions. As I said above, we simply need to describe the party's policies and actions in the body of the article, and perhaps in the lead if it can be summarised well enough to do so.HiLo48 (talk)00:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've said for years that the position tag in the infobox in this article was just "let's slap a label on it because all these other parties have one" silliness. Heck, I'd be in favor of a wholesale deprecation of these labels entirely. A prose section describing the party's positions tells me much more than these labels. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)17:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, please be more careful when posting sources. For example, the PBS news source is a rerun of the AP source thus they say the same thing. Neither source would support changing from right-wing to far right given the text that contained "far-right". Most of those sources talk about a far-right wing of the GOP. The problem with such comment is when are they talking about true "far-right" policies (and do we have a clear definition of "far-right") vs when are we talking about the far-right of a group? Regardless, we have had a number of similar discussions and it is probably time for a moratorium on the topic for at least 6 months.Springee (talk)12:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never proposed to replace "right-wing" with "far-right". Policies aren't important here - what's important is that RS describe the party or parts of it as far right. Making this contingent of what you believe to far-right politics is original research.
I do not believe the prior discussions being referenced exist in the way they think they do. Basically every prior discussion was full of misrepresented prior discussions, which came out at ArbCom and the user pushing that narrative was TBANned. Springee here repeats a tactic, perhaps unintentionally, that ignores the ArbCom findings on past discussions.
Any discussion on keeping out a well cited addition cannot just gesture to prior discussions where we’re have found to be influenced by a CPUSHing editor misrepresenting prior discussions.~2025-34841-09 (talk)06:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you don't believe it shouldn't be added? An RFC that was found to have been partially CPUSHed ten months ago is a pretty awful basis to exclude information that clearly passes a standard for inclusion. I've been asking for three days if you, @Springee, or anyone involved in this could explain without pointing at prior discussions why it should be excludedright now. There hasn't even been any edit warring over this in the past months; it's a perfectly reasonable time to revisit it when there aren't any actual objections being put forward against including it.~2025-34825-61 (talk)06:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know why people object, read the previous discussions, the reasons are there. It doesn't appear that anything has significantly changed since then so status quo looks reasonable.Springee (talk)11:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review ONUS. Others have told you that you need to establish a new consensus to make the change given the recent RfC. Also, please create an account.Springee (talk)13:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll do what you asked.
Let's look at your arguments from old RfCs and conversations on this topic:
a current, academically published summary of the GOP written by esteemed historians and political scientists would probably be sufficient to revisit the question.
This sourcing standard isn't Wikipedia's.WP:RS applies here, as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please link to the consensus establishing this if I've misunderstood it.
Also April: you said that any change should require that previous participants be notified:
Was there a talk page consensus for adding this to the page? It was added just 10 days ago and I don't see that it had a clear consensus for inclusion. Why isn't this part of the Democrat page is a good question. Additionally, why make the change now and why ignore/fail to notify participants in past discussions.
You told @MilesVorkosigan that a change stating "far right" required a "summary source". They repeatedly asked you what a summary source is and you didn't respond, which is the same behaviour you did here in objecting without giving anyone any way to actually address your objections.
There are many sources that talk about this topic (ie the GOP). Picking just a few isn't a strong basis for such a claim. This is especially true in cases like the WashPo and NYT where the bias of the authors may be a concern. Even in academic papers we need to ask if this represents a consensus among academics or just a new paper
You're calling for original research here.
It seems like your real objection is the one you raised
Right wing is sufficient. Leave the details to the article text where these things can be given context. This is especially true since Wikipedia's far-right article quickly associates "far-right" with neo-nazi's etc.
If a reader accidentally thinks "far right" means "Nazi", that's on them. So, having done what you asked me to do, I'm going to call shenanigans and ping a recently active admin for advice (@HJ Mitchell), because this doesn't look above the board. When I went through old discussions, I saw the same thing as here: you making statements you won't explain when asked to, which prevent consensus, and so it remains "controversial".
Can you explain this "found to have been partially CPUSHed" stuff you keep talking about? And I agree with Springee: you should probably create a new account. I am seeing a lot a lot of brand new Temp accounts appearing on this talk page....and they are largely pushing the same thing.Rja13ww33 (talk)04:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is spectrum is all relative. I am in favor of proscribing the use of far left and far right on WP as it is all subjective really and leads to absurd contentious discussions. American parties are broad coalitions of generally the left and generally the right. And the conflation of Democrats being centrist by European standards is kindof absurd when Democrats pioneered a lot of left-wing policy in the early 20th century. Our political system which makes third party involvement difficult is the real issue. People say Labour UK and SDP in Germany are centrist sometimes, and they are comparable to the Democrats. The one real difference is Democrats havent gone all in on single payer.
Meanwhile, Trump Republicans are a weird mix of right and left views, in some cases to the left of Democrats. Not to mention the numerous political inversions of the past 20 years to the point that people who formerlyprotested corporations andglobalization now appear to support corporations. It might also be worth mentioning that many current Republican policies and proposals were normal among Democrats a decade ago and both parties 50 to 60 years ago. For example, Eisenhowerdeported numerous Mexican nationals in a way that would make Trump look kind to almost no domestic fuss.Metallurgist (talk)16:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely that far left and far right should be proscribed. Also agree completely that when a political position is applied to a party, the scale needs to reflect the country in question, not some mythical global center. And yet again agree completely that Trump's views are a weird mix of right, left, pragmatic and quixotic. Given the two-party nature of the US politics, both parties will always be big tents that span diverse constituencies, ideologies and political positions, awkwardly and temporarily alloyed. Neither this article nor theDemocratic Party is NPOV.Dr Fell (talk)21:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a global encyclopaedia. What use is a scale that reflects only the country in question? We should obviously use global standards.HiLo48 (talk)02:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, most sources are using left-right in context, in this case, context of American politics. It also might be helpful to think of many of these things not in absolute terms (do they support universal healthcare for example) but in terms of compared to the status quo. A "right" politician in a country with a 100% public healthcare system may push for additional private options. Conversely, a US politician is pushing to the left by demanding more government running/funding of healthcare. In both cases it's possible the politicians are only arguing for the incremental steps they hope to get vs where they would ideally like to be. They are left/right in context of their current situation. Anyway, this seems like a repeat of the previous discussions just like this one. For the US political duopoly I think a simple GOP is the right wing, Democrats are the left wing of the US system is simple and works. I don't think claims of far-anything are helpful since they don't explain why and the definition of "far-" is very much in the eye of the beholder.Springee (talk)01:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relative terms only make sense in context. How tall is tall? How dark is dark? How long is long? When we use these words in conversation they make sense because the context is implicit or provided. Without that,the terms are meaningless.TFD (talk)04:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both parties in the US are centrist and liberal, but disagree over to the extent the state should use coercive vs. redistributive policies. The Republicans are the Right, the Democrats are the Left. The Republicans worked with the UK Conservatives and other center-right parties. Trump has transformed the Republicans into a far right party.
All these statements are true, can be reliably sourced and could be said by the same person. But they only make sense if the terms are explicitly or implicitly communicated first.TFD (talk)20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside economic policies, the Republican party is inclined towards racist, misogynistic and anti- LGBTQ+ ideals and policies. It's use of the military, esp. the National Guard, have precedents but not for the scale of its use. ICE as it is now and funded is unprecedented as are, I believe, masked government law enforcement. There's more but I think I've made my point.Doug Wellertalk12:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary Clinton opposed same sex marriage until 2013. Joe Biden opposed busing because he did not think white children should sit beside black children. Most Democratic senators supported the war in Iraq despite seeing the government's intelligence. Eisenhower carried out Operation Wetback. Until Truman,the US military was segregated. Nixon's National Guard killed students and he supported the Hardhat Riot. George W. supported the Brooks Brothers Riot.TFD (talk)00:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a compromise solution here is to say they are far-right relative to world politics and right-wing relative to American politics? (If the sources support all that.)Rja13ww33 (talk)16:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous discussion I think the agreement was to just say right wing since that covers the whole range from just right of center to falling off the right side of the dais.Springee (talk)17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can the people opposed to the inclusion of "far right" field any actual objections? Because the sourcing standards for inclusion have been well met, repeatedly. @Springee removing it citing "prior discussion" doesn't really make sense when the prior discussions all routinely demonstrate that "far-right" can be easily stated per reliable sources. If people want to RFC removing the ideology section that's an option too, but it's pretty clear that the change is warranted.
How many of the reverts of the inclusion of "far-right" have been from the same small pool of editors? I know there were arbcom sanctions handed out over one "side" making up a consensus to exclude far-right.~2025-32994-24 (talk)08:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the prior discussions. I'm not seeing anything that causesWP:ONUS issues as the sourcing standards have been repeatedly met. Springee, as the person who objected to the inclusion here recently, and without nebulously pointing at prior discussions, what specifically is your policy-based objection to including far-right? Because prior discussions are a lot less clear than you seem to make them out to be.~2025-34825-61 (talk)11:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reviewed the prior discussions you should have seen that none had consensus to add far-right to the info box. This is a case where consensus to add is required.Springee (talk)12:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What specific objections are there in this case? Because "There was no consensus before" isn't a reason not to change somethingnow, when the primary sourcing objections have been overcome. The old discussions were rife with an editor pointing to previous consensus, as you are here, that didn't actually exist in the way it was claimed.
WP:CCC. A lot has changed, including what reliable sources say, since January. What are your specific objections to the inclusion of “far right” given that WP:RS has been metright now?~2025-34841-09 (talk)13:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus can change", sure, but if and only when you gain the support of your fellow editors. By the way, it is not necessary, but please consider signing in to edit and further join the conversation.Iljhgtn (talk)13:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But what existed before was a lack of consensus, not a consensus for the status quo. The “far-right” statement is easily cited with WP:RS, which addresses the most common concern from the historical RfCs. That doesn’t mean there’s a new consensus, but I think that’s shaky ground to remove a well-cited addition.~2025-34841-09 (talk)14:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the last 1000 edits, there have been ten edits where "far right" in some form has been added or removed from the infobox.
1. An attempt to redefine the entire party as far right plus some other editorialized content. This was correctly reverteddiff
3. Well cited entry removed without a stated reason by a new editordiff
4. Inappropriate invocation ofWP:REDFLAG by Springee in reverting the additiondiff
5. Most recent revert citing "prior discussion"diff
The entry in 3. by @TimmyBlu absolutely meets WP:ONUS and is well cited. WP:REDFLAG absolutely is not appropriate to invoke here given there are reliable sources that make the claim that the party contains significant far right elements. Springee, your objections are noted, but prior discussions only really highlight that there isn't agreement with the kind of editors sayingNot as long as the Democratic party is listed as centre. There doesn't appear to be any sustained disagreement that claims that the party has significant far-right factions is backed up by reliable sources, something you yourself acknowledge above ("Most of those sources talk about a far-right wing of the GOP").
So if someone wants to explain why it shouldn't be included given the sources that exist, I'm all ears. Insisting on a status quo independent of the strength of the argument because people talked about it before runs againstWP:CCC andWP:TALKDONTREVERT, though.~2025-34825-61 (talk)12:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The #4 edit in your list was absolutely correctly reverted as Redflag since it said Zionism and White Nationalism are GOP ideologies. Are you suggesting those were appropriate additions?Springee (talk)12:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially all prior discussions on this topic were colored by one editor pointing at prior consensus on these topics. At ArbCom it came out that the prior consensus was being misrepresented by editors opposed to “far right” being included, which resulted in a TBAN for that editor. Given that, it feels reasonable to ask what the specific objections right now are that don’t involve “see older discussions”~2025-34841-09 (talk)13:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe calling the Republican Party as "right-wing to far-right" is due at this point. I also think having the proposers highlight the sources here that they believe support this designation would be helpful to the conversation rather than insinuating about the motivations of other editors. I know prior conversations have included sources when proposing this, so if the consensus among sources have changed I think discussing them here would be helpful first.BootsED (talk)13:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm blind. I see some sources were proposed above in the middle of the conversation. I think these are good, I was a bit confused though as they aren't formatted in a way that made it clear which was a web source and a scholarly source. I'd personally like to see a review article that describes the consensus among scholars, however.
If someone can break these down and point out the parts of them that support this I think that would be helpful to the conversation rather than just citing the entire article. Policy would prefer that specific page numbers are highlighted in citations so doing this now would help this position in the long run.BootsED (talk)13:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make an edit. I'm trying to discuss a revert of another editor I disagree with following BRD. The editor who reverted the addition citing prior consensus isn't willing to talk about the sources they reverted, instead pointing to prior consensus from the better part of a year ago. If objecting editors would be clear with what sourcing standards they would accept, then we could get somewhere, but
I'd personally like to see a review article that describes the consensus among scholars
While this'd be nice to have,WP:LOCALCON doesn't override Wikipedia's inclusion policies and there's clearly RS stating far-right and its clearly an unrealistic/unreasonable standard. The idea that not much has changed since January is frankly not a real argument.~2025-34825-61 (talk)09:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this section title is misleading. When I read it I thought the section would be about voting laws targeted to specific demographics, like the women's sufferage laws. Instead this section is solely about modern ID requirements to vote. Could this section be titled something a little more specific? Something like: "Political positions: Voting ID laws."
I created and added a FAQ and the{{Round in circles}} template, which will hopefully reduce the number of unproductive discussions about political position/ideology. Feedback on the wording of the FAQ would be much appreciated.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk)19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is an accurate reflection of the consensus, and going through the last few discussions on the topic there was an explicit non-consensus in them, so saying that there is a consensus to do X seems to reflect only the personal opinion of a few editors, rather than any kind of consensus.~2025-34825-61 (talk)12:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize there was one in January but there are good reasons for one now.
1. We’ve seen how the GOP governs since gaining the presidency and both chambers of congress. They’ve aligned with far-right parties and individuals across the globe. They’ve pushed policies that are far-right by both US and international definitions.
2. TheFreedom Caucus and Boebert/MTG types. They’re in the news right now being pretty frustrated with Trump for not being MAGA enough across multiple policy areas. If Trump isat least right-wing (which is the consensus), factions to his right by a significant degree should be classified as far-right. Given that these factions hold a major amount of sway over the party and aren’t minor, you can argue that the GOP’s ideology ranges from right wing Reaganism to far-right MTG/Boebert level MAGA.Retr0r0cket (talk)20:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would also need to include discussion about the use of far-right more broadly (i.e. "Should the Republican party be described as containing far-right elements" as opposed to just the infobox) since it seems that when the discussion swings towards including it as an ideology discussions about removing the ideology section crop up, and this becomes whack-a-mole.~2025-34825-61 (talk)13:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to mention now that if we have an RfC, I'm going to propose a moratorium on discussions about political position in the infobox and lead paragraph. So much time is spent on this, often without anyone spending the time to gather the high-quality reliable sources that comment on the matter. Obviously the position of parties shifts over time, but I think that we'd be better off waiting a year before opening yet another section on the same topic.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support this, because it incentivizes one "side" to win the next RfC too much independent of reliable sources or the reality on the ground. I agree it's an annoying argument to have repeatedly, but there's probably a good reason it keeps coming up: reliable sources have described far-right elements for a long time, people find it odd that an encyclopaedia skips mentioning it. Also, I don't think thisoften without anyone spending the time to gather the high-quality reliable sources that comment on the matter is true.~2025-34825-61 (talk)15:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, if it keeps getting rejected it's a big sign that it's time to have a cool-off period so that, when we come back to it, the sources might be more abundant and advocates of the change will have constructed more convincing arguments. —Czello(music)15:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, if it keeps getting rejected
Having just spent far too long digging through old discussions on this, I'd encourage you to go look at the reasons given. I think even a whiff of a moratorium will make it worse.
The "No" camp cited WP:POV and WP:NEWSORG to opine that this can only be added with solid, academic sourcing, not merely media reports. Simonm223 responded by citing three journal articles [...] In surrebuttal, the "Yes" camp said even more sources were needed.
The burden being placed on the pro-inclusion "side" feels much higher than Wikipedia's sourcing standards would normally call for, well beyond what is reasonable. At the last RfC a sourcing standard was asked for, then met, then still rejected. The debate around inclusion seems to be a proxy for a battleground argument on whether or not the GOP is far right, which seems to reflect some editors' concern of how "far right" is perceived, and since when did Wikipedia care about that?~2025-34825-61 (talk)15:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like an issue for aWP:CLOSECHALLENGE than a strong argument against a moratorium, the lack of which means this debate will continue endlessly. Ultimately, either the inclusionary side will win the argument and it's hopefully over, or, if you are correct in your assessment, the closer will come down on the side of the exclusionary editors unfairly, at which point it could be challenged. If it's determined to not be unfair, the justification for a moratorium is reinforced. Repeating the debate in the hopes that it'll get a fairer close isn't an efficient or productive solution. —Czello(music)16:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that close should have been challenged. It actually looks incoherent to me. Part of the reason we're in a situation of looking at another RfC now is a smattering of editors opposed to a statement of far-right elements aren't engaging in discussion, but rather pointing to the last RfC and saying we need a new one before edits can be made, and thus making it so. Or arguing that readers may be confused by what "far right" means and think it means neo-Nazis. We can't have an article that can only be edited via RfC, contentious topic or not.
Let's be real, there's no need for an RfC to figure out if reliable sources say "far right" (elements). They obviously do, and a loud chorus of them, at that. The question really becomes "should this article reflect reliable sources" and I don't know why "no" is being taken seriously as an answer. The RfC process shouldn't be used as a justification to exclude well-cited statements from reliable sources.~2025-34825-61 (talk)16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a RFC is to help establish consensus as a means of dispute resolution. We can't overturn it because you don't like the outcome. And by the way, if you are thinking about voting in the next RFC with a number of Temp accounts...you will be called on it. I saw this coming a mile away.[17]Rja13ww33 (talk)17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pace that political developments can occur at in the US, a hard moratorium is probably not great. Maybe a moratorium unless it’s widely agreed upon that there is some development large enough to warrant discussion but the bar would have to be pretty high (albeit this isn’t exactly easy to implement).Retr0r0cket (talk)20:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling comments: First, was it really all the way back in Jan we had the last RfC on this? I felt like there was one more recently... I suppose time flies when you're having fun (editing Wikipedia).
Secondly – and I'll start out by stating that what I'm about to say obviously shouldn't impact whether we should have an RfC – with the launch of Grokipedia, the return of Larry Singer, and growing cynicism toward Wikipedia's neutrality, I do wonder what impact changing this article to say 'far-right' will have. It will certainly vindicate those who now stand in opposition to us, but I wonder how much further it would harm our reputation and turn more neutral people away from us and toward Grokipedia. If we did make this change, it would certainly go viral on Twitter and elsewhere, and we'd take a beating for a few weeks.
That said, that's obviouslynot a reason to not make the change if that's what's properly represented by the sources. Just food for thought, however. —Czello(music)14:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The optics of this aren’t great for Wikipedia at large if this picks up in the news or on social media with right to far right figures, but I’d argue it’s better to have Wikipedia be factually correct than not include information due to fear of media backlash.Retr0r0cket (talk)20:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
