What specific text should we use to implement the result of the previous RfC concerning description of the Southern strategy in the lead section? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is a follow-up to one that took place last year, which asked Should the lead include mention of the fact that the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and that the party appealed to racial conservatism after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The close to that RfC, by S Marshall, is the baseline point from which this one jumps off, so I am copying it in its entirety:

This intriguing RfC concerns whether to mention the Southern Strategy in the lead of our article about the US Republican party. The Southern Strategy carries overtones of racism, so the matter is rather fraught. Editors have found it difficult to agree.

The RfC is structured as a simple, yes/no question, but the discussion that follows reveals a lot complexity, nuance and thought. At first glance the debate looks like a "no consensus", but on closer reading editors have in fact reached a number of clear conclusions. They are:

Q: Did the Republican Party shift its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the party appeal to racial conservatives after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
A: Yes.

Q: Should we make an edit to the lead that reflects this fact?
A: That very much depends on the edit. Editors express very grave concerns about how we could make such an edit without giving the topic undue weight, and these concerns are fully backed by policy.

The proposer does not suggest a specific edit to this article, but in this discussion considerable progress has been made towards deciding what such an edit would look like. From the discussion below, it is possible to determine some of the characteristics that any such edit would need to have before it could gain consensus support at a future RfC. They are:

1: Obviously, an acceptable edit absolutely must not frame today's Republican Party as a racist party, or as a party that is in any way sympathetic to racism.

2: Any potentially acceptable edit would need to have very low prominence in the lead, perhaps being placed somewhere in the middle of the third paragraph.

3: It is likely that a potentially acceptable edit would use in-text attribution as well as an inline reference to a reliable source, because with an edit like this, it matters so very much who is saying it.

4: Any potentially acceptable edit would need to be as brief as possible, while remaining consistent with point #3.

In the light of these findings, I also find that I should not edit this article as a result of this RfC. I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that arguments that attempt to relitigate the conclusions of this close, or propose wordings that go against it, are firmly outside the scope of this RfC. Editors who make such arguments are likely to have their !votes discounted by the closer, and they may be deemed disruptive if they persist.

Following the close, edits attempting to implement potential specific wordings were reverted, and the matter was referred back to the talk page for discussion on the specific wording, where further discussion stalled. Since then, the status quo (see Option A) has been retained (the only modification being the correction of an MOS:EGG issue last month), and this RfC now seeks to resolve the specific wording question.

(Drawn from the prior discussion.)

• Option A (status quo): Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics.^[1]
• Option B: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics.^[1]
• Option C: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to anti-black racism, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.^[1]
• Option D: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to racially conservative Southern voters, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades.^[1]
• Option E: Starting in the 1960s the party's core base shifted towards southern states in presidential politics.
• Option F: Remove mention from the lead.

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Added options E and F based on comments below Springee (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option C. It's unfortunate that prior attempts to agree on wording were blocked by editors who denied the existence of the Southern strategy, were unhappy with the close, and took advantage of its openness to try to inappropriately relitigate the issue. But here we are. I think the first clause in options B/C is superior to the one in option A, which is overly specific. Historians widely agree that the shift took place in response to the Civil Rights Movement in general, not those two laws in particular. Regarding the rest of the sentence, the fact that the party appealed to anti-black racism was established in the prior RfC via overwhelming scholarly evidence, as affirmed in the close, and is therefore not open to debate here. It is unquestionably due, and I support direct and non-euphemistic language that reflects the historical record (thus C over D). Merely juxtaposing the civil rights legislation with the shift and leaving readers to infer its cause, as in options A/B, is insufficient. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option E, second choice A or B It has not been shown that the GOP as a whole appealed to anti-black racism. That claim is very much in dispute with historians. A number of historians have argued that the shift from blue to red (that should link to the southern realignment not the Southern Strategy) was due to socially conservative suburban voters deciding the GOP was a better fit for them as the number of Dixicrats diminished over time. These voters were not motivated by a desire to hold back African Americans so much as just looking out for themselves. Hence voting against programs like school bussing etc. No one disputes that some politicians would use clearly racist appeals to win votes but it is disputed if there was ever a top down strategy who's objective was to appeal to racism vs appealing to things that voters unhappy with the Democrats might respond to. Note that appealing to racially conservative voters does not mean actually using racist appeals. Of A and B, B is better because it is less specific about a particular law causing the realignment. As a number of historians have pointed out, the timing of the realignment and the passage of the laws in question don't line up that well. The prior RfC doesn't support C and it would be disputed by historians. Springee (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: Having added two additional options I would favor a factual statement that the party center shifted south without stating how/why since that is a point that is debated by historians and per IMPARTIAL Wikipedia shouldn't pick sides. There is also a concern regarding imply racism in the lead related to events that happened half a century ago. Springee (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Option D was added after my comment above. It is also not acceptable because it implies the cause of the southern realignment was the top down narrative [[1]], ie these voters would have stayed with the Democrats were it not for the carefully crafted message of the GOP. Since a number of historians have noted issues with this idea, noting that the realignment started sooner and took much longer than the top down narrative would allow for, there is more in play. The bottom up narrative generally sees the south changing to red as it became more suburban (a demographic traditionally more GOP leaning). Since scholars do not agree on the cause we can not imply a cause which D does. Springee (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  You can assert as much as you want that some historians dissent from the view that the GOP appealed to anti-black racism. That doesn't change the fact that it is a minority viewpoint, and that the substantial majority of political historians believe otherwise. This is appropriately reflected, with in-text attribution, in options C/D. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, it's a gray area. Basically all historians will say you can find examples of appeals to racism. What is disputed is if there was a deliberate plan to use coded language to appeal to racists. The fact that even a minority of historians dispute means we can't treat it as a consensus view. We also don't currently know if the newer bottom up theory has since caught up or surpassed the top down narrative. We have source from perhaps 15 years back that says the bottom up narrative is newer yet gaining adherents. Finally, as Alexander notes, the problem with coded messages is how do you decide if the message is legitimate or actually intended to appeal to racism? This is why I bring up school bussing. It was clearly unpopular but is a promise to end it coded racism or addressing a problem that affected a lot of no-racist voters? Regardless, since scholars aren't in agreement as to why the south realigned we can't say it was because of appeals to racism. Springee (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  And here we go with the attempts to relitigate the history established in the prior RfC. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, my comments are consistent with the prior RfC closing. The closing established that the GOP sought the votes of racially conservative southern voters. It does not establish how this was done. Option C attempts to claim how it was done and is thus not compatible with the prior closing. Springee (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Close as malformed There is no reason for this RfC. It's frankly disruptive that it was proposed to begin with. The questions are skewed and one option directly violates previous consensus. This RfC should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C of those presented because IMO options A and B fail to give the topic due weight, but I'd like to suggest an Option D which hews as closely as possible to the close wording of the previous RfC: Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, most historians say the party appealed to racially conservative Southern voters, gradually shifting its core political base to the Southern states over the next four decades Loki (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Saying "racial conservatism" when what we really mean is (and what political historians directly characterize as) "anti-black racism" seems to me to go against MOS:EUPHEMISM. We should call a spade a spade. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Racially conservative/racial conservatism is a term from the scholarship on the subject.(See Aistrup, The southern strategy revisited and Valentino, Old Times There Are Not Forgotten). I suspect it's a term picked because it reflects not just outright racism but issues related to unintentional bias/indifference. These terms are specifically used in the scholarship discussions in the Southern Strategy articles. Springee (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Racial conservatism" is used far less often than "racism" in the scholarship. Two anecdotes do not show otherwise. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• None of the above. (A) and (B) are bad, "more reliably Republican" implies it was ever even slightly reliably Republican, which it never was until then. (C) is bad because it doesn't present any support for "most historians". All three of them imply the causality of the "successes" of the Civil Rights Movement, which also needs support. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Jpgordon: In the prior RfC, quite a few sources were provided for support. Copying the ones compiled by Snooganssnoogans:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]}

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a very skewed list and leaves out a number of the scholars who either dispute the SS version of the southern realignment. It also ignores that historians looking at the southern realignment or looking at the history of the various campaigns may have simply not mentioned the SS because they felt it wasn't worth discussing. This is one of the issues with the SS article. It's easy to find the historians to discuss the topic but much harder to find those who wrote about the subject but gave the SS no consideration. Certainly they are part of the consensus or lack their of regarding the merit of the SS-realignment narrative. Springee (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources (as far as I can tell) talk about what "most historians" think on this. As far as I know, there is a consensus among political scientists on this point. But not historians.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. I'd say Option C is a problem because first of all it ignores the debate on this issue (see the southern strategy article) and secondly, it's not so much historians who say this....it is in fact political scientists. Most of the heavyweight historians (and Presidential biographers) do not share this belief that this shift was solely due to racial politics. It (also) completely ignores the Democratic Party's shift on non-racial issues to the left. At the end of the day, if the GOP got their gains from the southern strategy, a lot of Democrats didn't buy it. (Starting with Bill Clinton who ran in 1992 as a "New Democrat".) And by the way, I agree with a poster above that could call this RFC malformed since it seeks to include material not part of the previous RFC. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D (this RfC is very new, so please add this to the top, Sdkb, even if you find it to be a euphemism it would be helpful to have as an option given the connection to the previous RfC closure) - We're talking about the southern strategy, so let's just use similar language to the first line of that article. Accordingly, I don't think we need "most historians say" here. "Racially conservative" is indeed a euphemism, yes, which is less prominent than racism in the sourcing but there are some who feel on principle that we shouldn't use the word racism. Personally, I don't have a big problem with it because they're both better than A or B, which aren't that different from one another. The issue with both A and B is that they omit the "why" or "how". In other words, they say [because civil rights] --> [???] --> [the south became more republican]. But how are those things related? Where in the subject of civil rights did republicans find alignment with the south? It's something we can take for granted in the US (or maybe not, based on some of the threads here and at the southern strategy talk page), but it's not sufficiently clear. D + C are the only ones that draw that connection. I'll also add that more than just the one source would need to be cited here, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Option D added. I hope we can limit it to four and not end up with options E/F/G/H/I/J because RfCs that do that almost always end in chaos, but your point about the connection warranting the listing is valid. On the sources to include, I used just the Zingher because it's the status quo and because MOS:LEADCITE discourages excessive citations in lead sections, but for something like this, I agree it would be fine to have more. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: Ah, I didn't realize it also had the "most historians" bit, which seems unnecessary (and potentially confusing). Similar to how southern strategy doesn't hedge the first sentence because of a minority perspective (which should be and is covered, but not in the basic summary because that would be profringe). BTW I partly rewrote my !vote above. As you were the only person who responded, and it doesn't affect your response, it seemed ok, but if there are objections I'll go back and do the striking, etc. business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A apart from removing the word "more" from "with Southern states becoming more reliably Republican" (per jpgordon), I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. Strong oppose Option D, "Racially conservative" seems like a bad attempt to both call people racist and to not call them racist at the same time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean, yeah, more or less, but although racist is more common in the sourcing, it seems there are some who oppose using the word racist on principle. It's just rather awkward to omit the connection between [civil rights] --> [???] --> [southern states turn republican]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Anything but option C. In my opinion, we cannot blue-link anti-black racism in the lead of the article about the US Republican Party and still claim to be a neutral encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: could you elaborate why, if "racially conservative" is less common in the sources, we should use that term instead? Does the first sentence of southern strategy also mean that we are not a neutral encyclopedia, given it makes the same claim? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  For three main reasons:-

  Firstly: The sources are, quite rightly, academic studies written by professionals and aimed at a professional audience that understands the context, while Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia read by an audience that doesn't understand the context. In other words, the intended audience of the source is well aware of all the nuances of the relationship between Republicanism and anti-black racism. Wikipedia's intended audience is not, and people reading the lead of an article may be brand new to the topic. This is why the source can appropriately say "anti-black racism", but if Wikipedia did it in the lead, then that would have an unintended framing effect.

  Secondly: Because our role as encyclopaedists is to tell our audience what the sources mean. As long as we do that, we don't have to copy exactly what they say. In fact, if we do copy the sources' exact word choices, then we're not writing an article, we're plagiarising (or, in much more extreme cases, violating copyright).

  Thirdly: Because there's no duty on sources to be NPOV. Wikipedians sometimes have to construct a NPOV article from POV sources, and in this particular case, I would contend that all US sources are POV. That certainly includes the University of Chicago. I feel that a scrupulous application of the NPOV filter should raise alarm bells about bluelinking anti-black racism in the lead of this article.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  aimed at a professional audience that understands the context, while Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia - so Wikipedia should use the more confusing, less clear term "racially conservative" that scarcely exists in the mainstream publications rather than "appeals to racism" which is an extremely well known concept?
  to tell our audience what the sources mean - as you've supported A and B, too (implicitly), this means that what the "sources mean" is not about racism, which does not seem consistent with your previous close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  My previous close was my assessment of the community consensus. In this RfC, I'm choosing to participate rather than close, so my view isn't necessarily what the community thinks and isn't required to be consistent. I don't necessarily advocate using the words "racially conservative". All I said is that we should avoid using the words "anti-black racism" in the lead of our article on the US Republican party. It's quite a simple, specific objection to a word choice.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  We could and would still claim it. Whether it would further reduce the number of people who believe us is another matter. A lot of people think that ship has already sailed. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option A or B While the Southern strategy and its racial implications are obviously real, options C and D use quite strong language that should only be used when there is total consensus among experts and historians. Since there is no such consensus, less categorical and more neutral language should be used. I could be convinced on D, but definitely not C. Eccekevin (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Request closure of this non-neutral RFC- The editor who started the RFC gave the impression that the previous RFC concluded that "southern strategy" was to be added to the lead and now we only had to decide how to word it. That is not true. There was no clear consensus to add it to the lead in the RFC and I still oppose it for reasons stated previously.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Option A was already present in the article prior to the previous RfC. Stop trying to shift the status quo by saying "added" when what you mean is "retained". ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option C though I can't say I'm really satisfied by the choices. GordonGlottal (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option A as the least WP:TENDENTIOUS option. KidAd • SPEAK 08:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option F Options A through E all have problems with WP:V -- see 1976 United States presidential election. C and D go against the conclusion of the previous RfC as they suggest that the Republican Party is sympathetic to racism. Options A and B make the probably not WP:V and definitely WP:UNDUE assertion that the Republican-supported Civil Rights Act was responsible for the shift. Option E at least avoids all of those pitfalls. Option E avoids several of those pitfalls, but there is still the minor detail of WP:V. Option F is therefore the best, with Option E a distant second choice. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C This seems like the logical choice.Sea Ane (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• These all seem ludicrous. With respect, none of these options seem viable. it is not the southern states that shifted their party loyalty. and it is not the Republican Party that shifted its political or regional strategy in any way. rather it was the Southern Democrats who had somehow preserved their party allegiances to Democrats based on no logic whatsoever;. their link with the Democrats made no sense at all. once the Civil Rights Act was passed, this became obvious to everyone, even if political beginners, and even the southern US Senators, and Representatives, and voters; so that was why the Southern Democrats all shifted over to the Republican Party, which was all too glad to welcome them. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D in that order, which most accurately reflect the mainstream historical consensus. Strenuously oppose all other versions because they fail to mention race at all, which is unacceptable in that it fails to accurately summarize the historical consensus on a core part of the party's history. --Aquillion (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) The previous RfC did not recommend addition of such text in the lead, so it is misleading framing to say this RfC is to "implement the result" of the previous RfC, and some of the options presented seem to wish to sidestep the result of the previous RfC. But of the available choices, option E or B are the best, per Springee. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, or alternatively Option A. Really, anything but Option C is probably fine. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Status Quo is fine. Probably not perfect but none of the listed alternatives are obviously superior, and there are neutrality concerns for some of them. Point is, it implements the results of the last rfc well enough, and is reasonably good at satisfying MOS:LEAD's guidance that the lead proportionally summarize the body. At this point energy is being spent here that would be better expended on the article body. If there are concerns at some point in the future that it fails to adequately summarize the body due to content shifts then start another rfc. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, then A I'm not too concerned with the current state of the lead, although Option B looks slightly better than what we have currently. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What is prompting this new RfC? Has there been some recent discussion that suggests the prior RfC should be discounted? If we have no new sources or new arguments then this looks like an attempt to relitigate in hopes that the mix of responding editors will have changed. That seems like a poor reason to open the question up again. Springee (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, please see the #Background section, where I thoroughly explained the context (with which you are very familiar). The prior RfC is being explicitly drawn upon, not in any way discounted. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But option C isn't supported by the closing of the prior RfC so why would it be an option? Springee (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

How is option C inconsistent with the close? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple, the prior closing said there was consensus that, "Did the party appeal to racial conservatives after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? A: Yes." That doesn't say what the appeals were or that the appeals were specifically racist. Another issue with option C is that the prior RfC didn't conclude what "most historians think". In effect you are trying to legitimize an option that you prefer but is not supported by the prior closing. Springee (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example of an appeal to racial conservatism that is itself unrelated to racism? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Easy, opposition to school bussing. Many people were opposed to school bussing and not all the reasons were related to racism. A racist person may be unhappy that bussing is bringing minority students into their schools but other were concerned about the impact to their local schools[[2]]. Expansion of Medicaid and other social safety nets are another example. A person may oppose those programs because they disproportionately help minorities. However, a person also may oppose expansion based on the cost of the program and fear of running up the deficit. Get tough on crime/drugs bills are yet another example (though my feeling is more people see them as ineffective now). People see a wave of crime (as the US had in the 1980s) and they want harsh punishments feeling that will reduce crime. Some may want this because they think it will keep minority populations in check. Others are simply scared of crime and think this will help. This group may not even realize how negatively such a law will impact certain portions of the population. I wish I could fine the article I'm thinking of at this moment. I think it was something by Gerard Alexander. Anyway, the article notes the problem with any dog whistle is that, by definition, it must have an ostensibly non-racist explanation else it's an overt appeal to racism rather than a hidden appeal. This presented a problem, how do you decide if a person who is swayed by the "dog whistle" argument is acting on the racist aspect or the non-racist part? Going a step further, how do you decide motives of the person making the argument? This is why a number of scholars have said the southern strategy narrative doesn't fit the southern realignment. They note the blue to red transition started before the 1960s civil rights laws and completed well after. Anyway, this is also why I see C as problematic. Some of the scholars who are big on the bottom up transition narrative still note that racial issues were involved but they don't agree it was as simple as one side decides to win votes by changing their message to discuss specifically southern, racial issues. Springee (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note, my above examples all assume something that could be a dog whistle. You might also see things like appeal to strictly religious values (conservative views on things like smut/porn, abortion, protection of religion in school), business friendly regulations, funding for programs that largely benefit rural/suburban populations like infrastructure enhancements etc. These are messages that, presumably, would appeal to some of these racially conservative voters but have very little to do with race. Springee (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying that the GOP appealed only to anti-black racism. Of course they made other sorts of appeals during this period. But unless you have sourcing that establishes that those appeals were as salient to the political realignment as the appeals to racism, the racism is what warrants mention in the lead. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But now you are claiming a causal relationship as justification for inclusion. You are claiming the cause of the realignment was appeals to racism but that is very much disputed. Again, not all sources say the actual appeals were meant to be appeals to racism even if they are race related. Bussing was a product of race related issues but, as my PF article noted, many who opposed it weren't concerned with black vs white, they were concerned with how bussing was negatively impacting their own schools. But even if we assume all the GOP messages were really intended to be racist, that wouldn't address the view that many historians have that the transition was from the bottom up, not top down. You again are trying to push something that does not reflect a consensus view among historians. Springee (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're appealing to people concerned about the impact to their local schools, you are not "appealing to racial conservatives". It may be an issue that happens to align with racial conservatism, but that isn't an action that appeals directly to that crowd. By the same logic, you could argue "appeals to racial conservatives could just be saying 'I like ice cream' because racial conservatives probably like ice cream, too." This is obviously not what anyone is talking about when they talk about "appealing to racial conservatives" -- the "racial" is there for a reason. That people who like ice cream (or who have concerns about busing unrelated to race) are not mutually exclusive of "racial conservatives" doesn't change the meaning of "appealing to racial conservatives" being directly connected to race except through rhetorical gymnastics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But ending school bussing was one of the specific issues that Nixon et al focused on and a message that was viewed as a dog whistle by some commentators. Bussing was seen by at least some as forced school integration. If you were opposed to integration on purely racial grounds then you would be opposed to bussing. Hence why it was considered to be a coded appeal to racists. A racist against school integration would support the policy as well as a non-racist who was unhappy about the impact to the negative impact to the local schools. So how do we tell if the politician specifically meant to appeal to racism or if the person hearing/supporting the message did so because they were against integration or because they were unhappy with the negative impact to their own school? Hence we say a message that targeted racially conservative voters but wasn't necessarily racist. Again again, that ignores areas where the recipients of a policy are say rural vs urban (with an assumption that rural is largely white and urban more African American). Springee (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Springee. An argument could be made that this RFC is malformed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The framing of the close Q+A directly mirrored the original framing of that RfC. It did not take any stance on whether to use "racial conservatism" or "anti-black racism" or something else, so it is perfectly appropriate to discuss that here. "Most historians say" is directly in line with the close's directive to include in-text attribution. I should also note that S Marshall was pinged in the opening of this RfC, and he is perfectly capable of weighing in if he feels Option C goes against any consensus formed in the prior discussion. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying we should attach some significance to the fact S Marshall hasn't commented yet? I just found out myself about this a couple of hours ago. Unless you know something about his schedule we don't....I don't think that means anything.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear there is a big difference between "appeal to racial conservatives" and "appealed to anti-black racism". The former describes who but not the message is for. The latter describes the message. The RfC said there was consensus who was targeted (the party appeal to racial conservatives) but not what the message was. Springee (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A Option D has been added....but the cited source for it says nothing about what "most historians" think. (But only the abstract is available.) In fact none of the cited sources talk about what "most historians" think.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've been specifically asked to comment on whether option C is permissible in the light of the prior RfC, and my view is that yes, it is permissible. On Wikipedia, RfCs expire through the passage of time, and nearly 12 months have passed. Even if option C does amount to repeating a question that's already been decided, it's still reasonable to revisit it. There may be new sources to consider, and there's certainly a fresh political context.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You closed a well attended RfC. The language in your close left people to continue arguing over it like it's a divine text. Such is Wikipedia, I guess, but that takes some time, especially when some pretend it never meant anything and others stall progress by repeatedly pushing fringe theories that the RfC you closed should have put to bed. Now it sounds like you're vacating your close altogether. The consensus among the sources has not changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

    Fully agreed with Rhododendrites on this. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've added an option E and F based on the discussions above. It was rightly pointed out that this RfC presented a false set of options as we can be compliant with the prior RfC without choosing any of the 3 choices which are all biased in a certain direction. Thus I've added an option E which simply states the shift happened but doesn't explore why and option F which is, we remove the content since it doesn't have to be in the lead at all. Springee (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC

  Sdkb please do not remove the options I've added without explaining why you think they aren't justified first. The close does not say this content needs to be included nor does it restrict how it would phrased if included. Since you started this without getting any input as to correct possible options I have added some. Springee (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I included the options that had been discussed in the prior RfC and were most plausibly consistent with the consensus found there (as described in the closing statement). Few editors in that RfC argued, as you have, that the GOP did appeal to "racial conservatism" (as you insist on calling it) but that the lead should not mention it or should not link to Southern Strategy; the two sides were mainly that it did and the lead should mention/link it or that it didn't. The close found in favor of the editors saying it did, so I based the options around that. I object to your additions, which you are clearly willing to edit war to force them in. I'll mention the advice that S Marshall gave after the close of the prior RfC: you probably do need a new RFC on what the specific wording should be. Make it clear in the RFC question what we've already decided ... Editors will try to relitigate the previous question but you can safely disregard any such behaviour. Nobody who's got any business closing an RFC would give that any weight. Forcing that relitigation into the RfC question itself is plainly disruptive. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)You framed this RfC in a way that limited options vs what the prior close would allowed. The language "racial conservatives" is from the scholarship on the subject which seems to be a better source vs media articles. The close did not say the article should link to the Southern Strategy. If the prior RfC ended up with options that were not part of the original question but are allowed by the closing then we should respect that. Do keep in mind that those who were opposed the first time still have a voice. Those who argued, as you put it, that the GOP didn't aren't automatically excluded from discussion as to how to include text if we decide the GOP did. Ultimately, the problem here is that you stated this RfC without allowing some level of discussion first. Springee (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly wanted to add Paleoconservatism to the infobox, but User:Toa Nidhiki05 reverted, claiming it is not a "major faction". Should he be overruled, and my edit reinstated? Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Question: what is the sourcing that you are basing this bold addition off of, Goodone121? (Summoned by bot) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I am relying on the wikipage for the ideology. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You will need reliable and independent sources. Using other articles is circular, so you will need something besides that. (Of course, the sources that article uses might provide somewhere to start looking to see if they support your proposed addition.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Goodone121: Setting aside the merits of your edit, you might want to read WP:RFCBEFORE. It would be better that we all discuss this in a less formal setting and see if we can reach a consensus, before we get into the rigmarole of an RfC. Unless there's a past discussion here I'm missing, I'd politely suggest you self-revert on starting the RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I believe this is better, to get a final answer. @Seraphimblade: The infobox's hidden comments said nothing about needing cites, so I use it as a special case, of having a rebuttable presumption against the normal requirement. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider a "rebuttable presumption against the normal requirement", or even precisely what that's intended to mean. Article information is expected to be verifiable, and there is no "infobox exception" to that. Now of course, sometimes infobox material, much like material in the lead, is instead cited later in the article, and as long as that's the case that's fine. But an infobox is not a dumping ground for unreferenced information, nor an exception to the verifiability requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Goodone121 masquerading as Bettering the Wiki: When you're done reading WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:V, please turn your attention to WP:RFCOPEN, in particular the part in bold saying you should Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Your statement is not neutral, it's based on no reliable evidence, and the whole RfC is premature. Please withdraw it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)