Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Restoration of material added to 1970-1990 section

I have restored material that was recently added and subsequently removed from the 1970-1990 section of the article. It was removed under a claim of wp:coatrack. The content removed came from two sources, Lou Cannon's President Reagan: The role of a Lifetime and Jeremy D Mayer's Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campagins, 1960-2000. The material was contained in sections of the respective books which were specifically discussing Reagan's "young buck" comment. Given those RS authors felt the material was relevent and important in context I think that is sufficient to say the material is relevent to the article. Note that other material from the Mayer book added at the same time was not considered coatrack. Springee (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I identify three problems with the information you've added.

1. The added information surrounding his Neshoba speech is WP:Coatrack. This article is about the Southern Strategy. Anything relating to Reagan needs to be almost directly in terms of the Southern Strategy. So mentioning that the Neshoba County speech was an essential part of his Southern Strategy or the starting point of his Southern Strategy, is clearly relating to the article. However, all this additional material about speaking at the urban league, or who told him to cancel or not, has no relevance to the Southern Strategy itself and the Post article doesn't make any connection between what you've included and the Southern Strategy. The article only mentions the SS once, as if in passing, towards the end of the article.
2. The second problem arises with your description of the DNC polling by CRG. First, the source doesn't claim it was "race neutral" and that's a misrepresentation of the source. It said "seemingly race neutral" which means it may appear race neutral but it's not. The author then references the study to show how white people resonated with it because of its coded language. The whole paragraph is about the subtle and suggestive nature of Reagan's rhetoric. It certainly isn't about Reagan being race neutral. So I've fixed this for you and edited this information to accurately reflect the source.
3. The information you've added reflecting on his "strapping young-buck" comment, is WP:Coatrack. It's one thing for third parties to analyze the statement in relation to dog-whistle politics and Reagan's Southern Strategy. However, how Reagan felt about the term or his denying racism on his part, is not related to the Southern Strategy itself and doesn't refute how historians view his implementation of the SS years later. Even further removed from the subject is a comment by a former football player that Reagan housed once. This article isn't about Reagan or whether he's racist, it's about the Southern Strategy. So we have: The Southern Strategy > Reagan using dog-whistle politics and coded language > The "young buck" comment as an example of coded language > How Reagan felt about about "young buck" and explaining it wasn't racist > Some random former college football player who claims Reagan was unaware of race. Those last two iterations have no relevance to the Southern Strategy and are examples of coatracking information about a simple example used by multiple sources to represent his coded language and dog-whistle politics. Even in the source of the football player quote, the quote appears in an entirely separate paragraph about the authors personal opinions about whether Reagan was racist. In no way does the author connect this football player quote to Reagan's use of coded language or the Southern Strategy. As a matter of fact, the author's reference to the "young buck" comment, concludes the paragraph about racial appeals. This is exactly how the paragraph was structured on WP before your additions.

Lastly, I'm concerned about this most recent edit. You previously expressed wanting to rewrite the intros to a couple of sections, yet these additions have nothing to do with the intros. On top of that, there has been a long running sentiment of trimming the article because it was poorly written and had way to much fluff. Fyddlestix just went through and extensively streamlined the article, so it doesn't make sense why you're trying to add more tangentially related, coatrack material. Scoobydunk (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• On Reagan's comments explaining his "young buck" statement and how he stopped using it <-- That is relevant to his use of coded language in implementing the Southern Strategy. However, I believe one of the sources explained how he started to use "young fellow" instead of "young buck" because it was less overt. So having a brief mention about that is perfectly fine, but the football player commentary serves no purpose relevant to the Southern Strategy.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The common theme in the above rejections is that information that tends to cast doubt on a claim of coded racism is removed even if it was contained in reliable sources which were specifically discussing the incidents in question.

1. The Neshoba speech is claimed to be a deliberate nod to white southern voters. The circumstances around it (first stop, etc) are seen as part of the proof. So the fact that there was internal disagreement in the campaign regarding giving it, there was fear of potential backlash and that Reagan understood the concerns but gave the reason for doing the speech anyway. As you have been informed in the past, a source does not have to mention the southern strategy to support the discussion. Some sources claim this speech was evidence for so sources which offer other motivating information are also relevant to the discussion.
2. Effectively what you are saying is you added one word to the quote.
3. The "young buck" information was part of a section of a book discussing the incident. If a RS felt it was related your claim that it wasn't becomes OR.

The general "not southern strategy" argument could be used to remove the whole section. Lassiter has said none of this later stuff is true Southern Strategy. You are right that I would like to fix the lead paragraphs cleaned up. I have also learned that without support from other editors this won't happen because you will revert whole edits if they attempt to discount claims of Southern Strategy even in the face of RSs. Springee (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem here, you just admitted to adding information that you think casts doubts on what other reliable sources say, when they actually don't. That's called original research.

1. The 1980 article you use to "cast doubt" on Reagan's Neshoba county speech, doesn't support the argument you just made. Nowhere does the article even suggest that "internal disagreement" casts doubts on what reliable sources claim was a "deliberate nod to white southern voters." Furthermore, if you're trying to prove something "casts doubt" or goes against what peer reviewed reliable sources say, then the source needs to be of equal strength. Hence, you can't use a news paper OP Ed to contradict peer reviewed reliable sources. It's fine to use lesser sources if they support the majority viewpoint as supplemental material, but when sources conflict, the most reliable source gets used. Regardless, none of your response refutes the fact that the information you added has no relationship to the Southern Strategy and to use it the way you intend is an example of original research.
2. Well if you actually read my edits, I added more than one word. However, that one word is monumentally important in accurately presenting the source. It's the difference between "does" and "does not", adding one word completely changes the meaning of what was said and removing one word completely changes the meaning.
3. The "young buck" was listed as an example of Reagan's dog whistle politics and I'm not refuting that. However, the parts you added about the football player were not related to the "young buck" comment, and has no relationship to the Southern Strategy. Again, the author doesn't use the football example to "casts doubt" on the fact that Reagan attempted to use coded language to persuade southern voters. He only uses it to support his opinion that Reagan wasn't racist, which is completely irrelevant to the Southern Strategy itself and appears at the end of a completely different paragraph. So to claim that it has any relation to his "young buck" comment is WP:SYNTH and it's still an example of coatracking. Also, Lassiter's opinion doesn't dictate how the article is written, since he's clearly in the minority viewpoint. There are other scholars who discuss and consider the Southern Strategy differently than Lassiter, and their views get included into the article just the same. <--Actually, they get included more-so because they aren't minority opinions.

It's more prudent to construct the article by including what sources actually say, rather than trying to "cast doubt" on what peer reviewed source say by including a bunch of coatrack material. I ask that you be mindful of this with your future edits. I hope that we can continue to compromise and yield a better article.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Show that you are making a good faith effort to compromise by proposing ways to reincorporate the RS'ed material that you removed from my edits. The large scale reverts with a claim of coatrack certainly appears to be uncivil. These are reliable sources that address the specific instances mentioned in the article. If the sources think the information is relevant then it is OR on your part to claim otherwise. Springee (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already shown good faith by reading and researching the material you've added and finding ways to include it that doesn't violate WP policies concerning OR and NPOV. I've compromised on Aistrup and the CRG and I've compromised on the additional "young buck" material. Also, you haven't shown that those sources connect the football player quote to the Southern Strategy, or that Reagan planning on speaking at the Urban League "casts doubts" on his use of dog whistle politics and coded language. Those are entirely OR arguments that you're just demanding that I accept as true, though the sources clearly don't substantiate it. If you're genuinely interested in developing the discussion, I suggest finding sources that explicitly support your position, instead of just asking others to accept it as true. Just like when you attempted to find sources to substantiate calling Lassiter the "originator", it quickly and efficiently yielded a consensus that there were no strong reliable sources calling him the "originator" and we compromised on "leading proponent". It's not different here and that's how WP policy should always be applied as per WP:Verifiable. Also, remember that we have peer reviewed sources stating the use of "strapping young buck" as racially coded language, so to "cast doubts" on that we'd need equally reliable sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't shown that any of my edits violated OR or NPOV. You have claimed coatrack but fail to cite specific guidelines. I'm also certain that correcting bad citations doesn't count as coatrack but you reverted at least one example of such.

The Neshoba material you removed was from a RS. It is relevent because the coded racism narrative provided in the WP article and some of the associated sources makes several claims to build the coded racism argument (intentionally starting campaign at the fair, a plan to appeal etc). If the campaign wasn't even sure about making that stop then it is a relevant claim. This is not my opinion but the opinion of reporters discussing the subject.[1], [2]. These are in addition to Cannon work. The RS's are connecting the dots for us. I have added the additional sources that make it clear that history does not have a common voice on the racial intent of this speech.

I changed the Airstrup welfare queen comment just to indicate that Aistrup doesn't explain why people make the connection, he simply states that they do. The other change is I have made it a stand alone paragraph. As more details have been added to both it and the previous subject it makes sense to make these individual paragraphs.

I made several changes to the young buck section. First, was to break the combined Aistrup-Lopez citation. Airstrup does not talk about the young buck comment in his book and thus should not be cited here. This was a change I had previously made but it was reverted (twice I believe). Since we have RSs that don't agree I haven changed the paragraph to make it clear this is an claim made by some, not a fact historians agree upon. I have used Mayer's exact quote (which more closely mirrored my original addition vs the later revision). I have included the Burghardt quote because Cannon explicitly links the claims of campaign racism to Burghardt's quote. I have rephrased the entry to make this connection more apparent in the text. Springee (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I did prove how your edits violated WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You can't post WP:SYNTH arguments in an attempt to "casts doubt" on what peer reviewed reliable sources say. On top of that, you can't use Op-Eds to refute what peer reviewed sources say. We use the strongest sources in WP and when sources have conflicting information, the most reliable source gets used. That means that Aistrup and Lopez get's used over the two blog posts you just listed in this comment section. Also, one of the specific guidelines that applies is WP:COATRACK and within that there is the "Criticism Gambit" and WP:BITR. However, even with the "Criticism Gambit" your football player reference has ZERO relation to the southern strategy, same with your additional information and inferred arguments for the mentioning of the Urban League, which is WP:OR. Also, I didn't connect Aistrup with the "young buck" commnet, it's connected to the welfare state comments in the preceding paragraph.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent revert of my edits included material unrelated to the "young buck" story. You created a NPOV discussion regarding that content yet you reverted far more. Based on the NPOV discussion you are only disagreeing with that material and not the other edits. Please restore those. If you contend that all the edits should be reverted I will request that the NPOV discussion be closed as too narrow in scope and I will instead as for dispute resolution regarding the whole edit. Springee (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing concerns using coatracking and inferior sources cover just about all of your edit and is certainly not "too narrow".Scoobydunk (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing others of POV pushing is assuming bad faith. You have not shown the sources are inferior nor have you explained how it applies to the range of edits you reverted. Springee (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why I opened a DRN discussion to see if the community agrees if you're violating wp:npov. WP:verifiable clearly explains which sources are generally the most reliable and should be used over other, less reliable sources. I also, I have addressed how those concerns apply to the revert. However, if you feel a specific part of the revert wasn't address, you're free to quote it here and I'll be happy to address it for you. Just cryptically asserting something wasn't addressed, doesn't contribute to the discussion. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your cryptic claim that "coatracking and inferior sources cover just about all of your edit" does not address a complete revert. Since you are the one who made the revert, the onus is on you to justify it. Broad applications of "coatrack" and NPOV as justification for a revert doesn't contribute to the discussion. Springee (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've thoroughly detailed and justified why the information you've added is against WP:COATRACK. There is nothing "broad" about it and I've addressed the issue specifically. So instead of expecting other editors to figure out what you think hasn't been addressed , you should just specifically list what you think I've yet to justify. This is the second time I'm asking you for a clarifying statement, continuing to refuse to supply an answer is against WP:TEND which says: "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."Scoobydunk (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. You are not addressing my questions. As you said, ontinuing to refuse to supply an answer is against WP:TEND which says: "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.". Please answer my question to show that you were reverting other's work in good faith. Springee (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have answered your question, you've yet to answer mine. This is the third time I'm going to ask you specifically state what you think I haven't addressed in my revert. I won't ask another time and refusal to answer the question will be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No actually, you have not answered my question. You have avoided it. Springee (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes about recent section edit.

1. Claims of NPOV and Coatrack were put forward on the NPOVN. There has been no support for the view that the included information violates either policy.
2. The Herbert and Jack White references in the Neshoba county paragraph are both opinion articles used in support of facts and are thus inappropriate citation. The Herbert reference was removed from this section earlier and then restored. However, because they are being used to support a statement that “people claimed…” and because the claim is supported by two other sources (hence the text wouldn’t change) they were left in place. The Lopez references were not changed from the Salon article to the book though this would be a reasonable change.
3. The Mayer and Cannon books should be considered very reliable sources. The WP:RS scholarship section says the following

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

Both the Mayer and Cannon sources have been reviewed in peer reviewed journals. Mayer is also a professor in the field. Both books are listed in Google Scholar’s citation index (Cannon’s Role of a Lifetime: 583, Mayer: 53, Lopez for reference is at 35).

Can't use blogs and privately published books to refute what peer reviewed sources say. Also, your latest addition violated WP:OR and continues to violate WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You continue to revert properly sourced material. You have claimed BRD but as you said in another article's talk page BRD can not be the reason for continued reversion. wp:brd BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. At this point, if you were following BRD you would be discussing how to integrate the changes vs simply reverting which BRD says would be seen as edit warring. Your justification for reversion have already been addressed as insufficient. Mayer and Cannon's books are RS even if you simply don't like them. They have both been reviewed in peer reviewed journals and both have higher citation counts (Cannon by a great deal) than Lopez's book. The claim of OR is unfounded as the material I added was clearly from the sources and that can't justify such an extensive revert that covered several sections of the article. Finally you claim WP:NPOV but you have already raised that claim at NPOVN and no one supported your view. Springee (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As an example of material that was improperly removed under the claim of "NPOV" and "blog" was this single sentence added near the end of the section. This view conflicts with that of Mayer who saw Reagan as racially insensitive but also one who campaigned in a relatively colorblind fashion in the 1980 and 1984 elections.{ref name="Mayer"/} That comes right from the Mayer book. It was not related to the previous paragraph where you disagreed with you edits. In performing an undo rather than selective edit you are (as you have done several other times) doing what WP:BRD suggests will be seen as edit warring. This is compounded by your continued failure to offer suggestions for integrating the good faith edits. Springee (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's attempting to bypass dispute resolution and have started to revert the article again. I didn't cite BRD as the reason for my reversion, and the only one who's violating the guideline is you. Just because no one has yet to comment with an opinion on the NPOV noticeboard, doesn't mean my concerns aren't backed by WP policy. Finally, the quote you just referenced from Mayer is a clear example of violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR. This paragraph is talking about the southern strategy and what you added was Mayer's opinion about Reagan personal racism. You've added it to "cast doubt" on what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the southern strategy, and it's a clear misuse of the source and the source isn't of equivalent reliability. Just because a source/speech/article/blog was mentioned in other peer reviewed works, that doesn't suddenly elevate the source to be of peer review quality. To suggest that Mayer's opinion about Reagan's personal racism "contradicts" what others say about the southern strategy is original research. You're the one claiming the contradiction and it doesn't exist. You first need to find a quote from Mayer that says that Reagan didn't use the southern strategy, and then we still have the undue weight issues to deal with on top of that.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also you seem to ignore the "where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." part of the WP:RS policy. This is saying that some texts that were originally books/articles/monographs/research papers that have been published in peer reviewed sources or well-regarded academic presses, are considered reliable. Your sources haven't been published in those in those peer reviewed sources and haven't been scholarly vetted through the peer review process.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one asking others to confirm your opinion that I'm violating a guideline. Please cite the editors who agreed with your arguments... after 10 days. You claim Mayer and Cannon are not reliable enough to contradict Lopez, yet both works have been subject to scholarly review and exist in a scholarly citation index. The RS guidelines say that is one way we can know they have entered into scholarship. Please cite previous examples of such sources being rejected as non-scholarly. Also, please explain how you can justify that hard line on sources while restoring the removal of an op-ed article used as a source of fact vs as an op-ed opinion.[[3]] Springee (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No I posted on a noticeboard looking for assistance and none was offered. My arguments are directly supported by multiple WP policies. Also, the RS guidelines on the citation index is only if users are unsure about using a reliable source as a representation of the scholarly point of view. Notice how it specifically mentions a peer reviewed journal article as an example, that comes from a less established peer reviewed publication. This has nothing to do with taking privately published books and blogs, and pitting them against peer reviewed sources. No, WP policy uses the strongest sources available and those sources are not equivalently reliable. Still, you've restored the Mayer portion without addressing the fact that the paragraph is speaking to the SS and not about Reagan's racism. Restoring content without discussing or addressing the concerns of others can be seen as disruptive editing, especially since you've already been asked to seek dispute resolution, and have now decided to take to reverting again without resolving the issues.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

When you posted to the noticeboard you are effectively asking "Am I right in thinking". When no one says you are then we as other editors can assume you are not right. Sorry, you may not like that answer but that is what the lack of positive response means. At this point you should do the right thing and ask that the topic be closed so we can seek a better venue to solve this dispute. Your RS ideas are again just wrong. In the material you recently reverted there are no blogs being used as references against works of scholarship. Instead I am using two books that scholars have reviewed and acknowledged as reliable. Common sense dictates that we don't simply throw out two RSs just because, in your humble opinion, they aren't scholarship. That is an improperly assigned question of weight. I restored the Mayer passage that you had previously removed as part of a large edit undo (your fourth in a short period of time... well now fifth). I did address your concerns but you just don't like the answer. Herbert, a questionable opinion article as used in that part of the article, and Aistrup claim that the GOP was actively using coded racism etc hence proof of a continued Southern Strategy. Mayer's look at the use of race in the same time period is more complex and includes all parties. What he finds is that the GOP largely didn't use race in the 1980 and 1984 elections, hence a big blow to the previous claims of large scale coded racism etc. He also actually talks about many cases of the Democrats using race, both trying to scare African Americans to vote against the GOP and in some cases in racist adds such as Gore's use of Willie Horton against Dukakis. Anyway, as has been explained to you by other editors, and I will explain to you again, if the primary subject's existence (Southern Strategy) is based on several supporting arguments (GOP use of coded racism, and in this case this exact sentence, "With the ascendancy of Reagan, the Southern Strategy became...") and another source disagrees with the supporting argument (Reagan didn't use coded racism in 1980, 1984) then it is a relevant source. It speaks directly to the sentence about Reagan. Perhaps a better question for you to ask is why do we have half a paragraph quoting an op-ed article, a bit you would strenuously argue is not a reliable source if I were to post it? Well I guess you didn't try to restore the Herbert op-ed that was being used as a RS this time. Why did you restore it last time? Springee (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, people post to the noticeboards seeking assistance. It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong" and thinking in terms of that dichotomy shows a battleground mentality. It's the same as putting things in terms of "winning" or "losing". I can just as easily say, since no one disagreed with me, then that means we must assume that your additions were Coatracking and Pov Pushing since no one thought it necessary to correct/refute me. Also, WP:RS says that articles are based on scholarly material and that peer reviewed sources should be used when available. This subject is clearly covered by scholarly peer reviewed sources, so there's no reason to include less reliable sources. This is especially true when those less reliable sources express minority viewpoints and contradict the most reliable sources covering the subject. Not only is this outlined in WP:RS, but it's also explained on WP:NPOV under [WP:BESTSOURCES], which specifically explains that the most reliable sources be used to avoid NPOV disputes. Here, you're intentionally using a less reliable source to include a viewpoint that goes against more reliable, peer reviewed sources. To make matters even worse, you've yet to supply a quote from Mayer that shows he doesn't think Reagan used the Southern Strategy. So, despite the RS and NPOV issues, there's also the OR issue because based on the information you've quoted from Mayer, it does not support a claim that he doesn't think Reagan used the Soutehrn Strategy or that he didn't use coded racism. Please provide a quote from Mayer that says "Regan didn't use coded racism in 1980, 1984", then at least we can take that to dispute resolution, either/or NPOV, RS, or both to address Wikipedia's policies concerning BESTSOURCES. If no such statement exists, then we also have a clear OR claim.

To answer your question(s), the source was being used as supplemental material and wasn't problematic since it aligned with the scholarly viewpoint on the matter. At least, the parts that you removed. However, I didn't feel a need to restore it, since it is covered by other sources and this is another example of a compromise. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on what I've read here, I share Scoobydunk's concerns and I don't feel that Springee has fully addressed them in their responses. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to help address any concerns you might have. What particular concerns do you have? Please understand that there have been several recent edits here. Scoobydunk's undos with out offering alternative or specific suggestions aren't helpful in identifying his specific concerns.

Scoobydunk, you just made a claim as to what the scholarly POV is, "the source was being used as supplemental material and wasn't problematic since it aligned with the scholarly viewpoint on the matter." Please provide a RS illustrating your claim. Springee (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's your quote from Mayer? Should probably finish that first before you start chasing red herring arguments. Also, the scholarly viewpoint I reference is the one voiced by the peer reviewed articles already mentioned in the article, like Aistrup and Lopez. So where's that quote?Scoobydunk (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree that Mayer is a reliable source even if it conflicts with Lopez/Aistrup? Why bother providing you with a quote (the page numbers are all there for you to look it up) if you will then insist that the source isn't reliable enough for inclusion? Also, please tell us what you think the scholarly view point is for this section (the viewpoint you mentioned above) and provide the needed evidence. Which article do you think claims to speak to the consensus of scholarly views? Springee (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote where I said "consensus" regarding this issue. The scholarly viewpoint is the one provided by scholarly works/sources, which I've already mentioned. It also seems like you're ready to drop the issue over the inclusion of Mayer, since you refuse to supply a quote that backs what you tried to include in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you are willing to justify your own improper addition of a source (Herbert) yet you want me to follow 100% of your rules. You said it was OK to improperly add Herbert back into the article because it agreed with "the scholarly view" Well which view is that and why does that justify violating RS rules that you expect others to follow? When you removed the Mayer sourced information you claimed it was because of RS. You said it can't be used to refute claims from a book published by scholarly press. Well are you taking that back? Either you agree that Mayer is reliable enough for inclusion even if he doesn't agree with Lopez or Aistrup or it isn't. Decide before I offer a quote. While you are at it declare for Cannon as well. Springee (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered your questions regarding Herbert. If you're confused, go back up and read it. Both Lopez and Aistrup support the information that the Herbert citation was being used for. Those are both scholarly views and Herbert was aligned with them. This isn't difficult. Also, I removed mayer for reasons concerning RS, NPOV, and OR. It's disruptive to ignore the other aspects that I've repeatedly spoken to and you've yet to refute.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't said why you thought it was OK to go against WP:RS and use an op-ed article as a factual source. Once the improperly used Herbert article was removed why did you restore it despite knowing it was an op-ed article? Mayer is a RS, since Mayer was the source of the views in question it wasn't OR. NPOV would have to assume that scholars have a unified view on the specific material you removed. You argue a general (not uniform) scholarly consensus on the top down vs bottom up but that isn't a consensus on the particular claims regarding Reagan's campaign. To claim so is OR on your part. Springee (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for the gamesmanship that is on display in this conversation. Can we turn down the heat please? Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, the rhetoric is too strong. As I said before, I think Scoobydunk seems to be trying to use a wide range of complaints. Please let me know your concerns so I can try to better address them. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have explained it and you've yet to supply a quote from Mayer substantiating what you attempted to add to the article. Also, NPOV doesn't assume that, you should try reading WP:BESTSOURCES, which specifically applies here. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Scoobydunk has claimed issues related to RS, OR, Coatrack and NPOV when reverting my edits. I don't know which particular concern you have so I would like to start by closing out the RS claim. The others don't matter if the material isn't considered reliable. The argument is that WP does not allow the use of material that was published in non-academic press to refute claims published in academic press. I would generally agree if one were suggesting we replace the claims of Lopez and Aistrup with those of Cannon and Mayer. I have never suggested that and only ask that both sets of claims (interpretations of facts in this case) be included.

Both Cannon and Mayer should be treated as similar to peer reviewed sources. Several times I've pointed out that Mayer is an academic, his book was reviewed by a peer reviewed journal, and his book has been cited by a number of peer reviewed journals. I think that would establish the book as a highly reliable source. Lou Cannon's story is similar though he is a long time reporter rather than scholar. However, Cal State did granted him an honorary doctorate which clearly indicates scholarly respect for his work.[4]. In granting the doctorate the Cal State announcement noted:

Mr. Cannon has written five books about Mr. Reagan, including the acclaimed President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, originally published by Simon and Schuster in 1991. ... Mr. Cannon has received many distinctions from several higher education institutions in California. ... On a national level, Mr. Cannon has won numerous awards including the White House Correspondents Association's coveted Aldo Beckman award (1984) for overall excellence in presidential coverage, and the first Gerald R. Ford Prize (1988) for distinguished reporting on the Nixon, Ford and Reagan presidencies.

The book mentioned in the Cal State announcement, is the one I used as a reference. I think the above should be sufficient to at least establish that the Mayer and Cannon books would be highly reliable.

The next question would be how should we handle them vis-à-vis a scholarly work. WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." I think we can take that to mean even in cases where it doesn't agree with the scholarly work. That same paragraph says that we should uses in text attributions when the sources disagree. I can't find anywhere in WP:RS where it says we should automatically exclude reliable sources if they disagree with peer reviewed sources.

The extent of the disagreement is notable here. The sources do not disagree on the basic facts. What they disagree on is how we should read the facts. I think this NYT op-ed article that talks about the op-ed battle that occurred between Krugman, Herbert, Brooks and Cannon sums things up nicely and illustrates how we should handle this case.[5] Basically all the sources agree on the facts but not how to read the facts. Let each source give it's interpretation and then the reader can decide. (I am not proposing using this op-ed link in the actual article) Springee (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read the edits that are under dispute. What I see is several paragraphs recounting the broad strokes of generally accepted facts, followed by a very large paragraph mostly dependent on two sources. I make no judgement about the motives behind those edits, but it really reads like that large paragraph is trying to dispute everything that came before. I also think your comments here are trying to unduly elevate Cannon. Sure, he's probably a solid RS, but there are many reporters and many biographers of Reagan, so why are we singling out the opinion of this one? Also, I believe you said or implied that you had an academic background, so surely you realize that his honorary doctorate is useless as a credential for our purposes. Gamaliel (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I think you are saying that you at least agree that Cannon and Mayer can be treated as RSs even if they disagree with an academically published source. Basically we aren't dealing with a RS dispute in your view. I'm happy to try to work on the content but I first want to establish that we have four sources than can be treated on basically equal footing. I half agree with you on the honorary doctorate. Yes, it does mean he didn't get it the way many of us did and he didn't suffer through writing a dissertation. However, it does raise his profile and suggests a general endorsement and respect by those in the scholarly community. The reason why put so much effort into establishing Cannon (and Mayer) was not because I think they are more reliable than Lopez and Aistrup but because they were being excluded based on the claim that they weren't as reliable.

I went hunting for archive conversations discussion dealing with scholarly vs non-scholarly sources. This topic by some of the editors who worked on the policy seems poinient.[6] From the discussion: "There are many other examples, in many areas, which I have seen myself over the years, where editors become confused and assume that scholarly sources always trump news media or other popular sources, to the point of excluding the latter kind. " Basically the editors reiterate that scholarly sources don't automatically trump and thus result in the exclusion of non-scholarly sources. I think that should be sufficient to allow Cannon and Mayer to be used in cases where they disagree with Lopez and Aistrup. Springee (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Even if others agree that Cannon and Meyer are appropriate to use, that does not mean they also concur they should be used in the manner you prefer. Too much weight is placed on them over other Reagan biographers and the mainstream viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, your concerns are valid but I would first like agreement that Cannon and Mayer are reliable sources so we can move forward with the other issues. I know Scoobydunk will stick with the view that only scholarly sources can contradict a scholarly source. However, it is clear that those who wrote and edited WP:RS did not intend that reading. If we can agree that Mayer and Cannon (and I'm sure others) are reliable then I think we are in a better position to move forward. BTW, I think we need to be clear that we don't have a source from which to claim a "mainstream viewpoint" vis-a-vis the edits where I used Cannon and Mayer. We do have scholars giving relative weight to the top down vs bottom up views but my recent edits don't relate to that topic. What we are dealing with here is one side saying "X was meant as a coded racism message" and the other side saying "no it wasn't". Scoobydunk is demanding that we exclude (ie treat it as fringe) the "no it wasn't" POV because it didn't come from a peer reviewed source. I'm saying we should include both views since both come from RSs.

I'm not sure I agree that I'm putting too much weight on the claims of Cannon and Mayer in the edits. Remember that the 1970-1990 section isn't based on that many sources, and certainly not many high quality sources. In the part that talks about Reagan in particular I saw Lopez and Astrup as the two strong sources that said, "young buck", Meshoba, and "Welfare Queen" were deliberate coded messages. This isn't trying to use two sources to refute all claims of racism. Instead this is using two sources that, despite being very different in nature, are saying the same thing, these three examples were Reagan's racial insensitivity, not deliberate coded racism. Certainly it is not correct to have an article where WP voice says 'Reagan was testing coded racist messages' when reliable sources contradict that claim. Springee (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Cannon and Mayer and RS: I'm sorry, I make no claims about your motives, but too many times on Wikipedia I've seen editors gain consensus on minor points and claim that as consensus of larger edits based on that unrelated discussion. Other editors can discuss what they like, but I won't be participating in a discussion like that beyond what I've already said here. Context is everything, and I will only be discussing those sources in the context of your proposed edits, which I feel clearly violate WP:UNDUE, or if you wish to propose using Cannon and Mayer in a different way. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you can find authors who will jump on the racism band wagon. However, that does not mean we should exclude the views of two reliable authors who are specifically talking about the incidences in question. First, remember that we do not have a scholarly consensus in this particular area. So we have to be careful with assignment of weight. That said, at least the claim of undue should allow for inclusion. Do keep in mind that when we are talking about claims of racism, you are more likely to find authors who say "yes, that is another example" vs authors who say no. Regardless, we should not exclude it, especially since Cannon and Mayer agree in this area. That said, perhaps we should start a new section and try to talk about the specific edits and move away from attempts to dismiss reliable sources based on claims that RS says they can't contradict scholarship. Springee (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

All of this is moot if you can't provide a quote from Cannon or Mayer that says "No it wasn't", which is what I asked you for numerous times now. No point in hashing out a RS debate if the claim is original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should I jump through your invented rules if you are going to claim the sources aren't reliable in the first place? If you agree they are reliable then we can work on the claims. Please assume good faith. Your accusations imply otherwise. Springee (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's dial this back everyone. Scoobydunk, please assume good faith. Springee, let's move past this issue of attempting to get people to say what you want them to say about particular sources and talk about how we would potentially use those sources. Gamaliel (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you for bringing things down. I do think it is important that we start with an understanding that the Mayer and Cannon sources should not be thrown out if they disagree with a scholarly source. It is clear that WP:RS was not meant to censor sources that are reliable if they don't agree with a scholarly work. I would also point out that given the VERY large number of articles and books that cover Reagan and politics etc it won't be hard to use Google to search for a few key words and find additional articles that say similar things. If we want to accept that as an indicator of weight then why not use citation count for a given source? As to what I will say, well at the high level let's look at what a few sources have said about Reagan and his handling of race issues. Certainly we have some that claim his actions were deliberate. Cannon and Mayer both see Reagan as insensitive to race but offended by the notion of doing something he saw as bigoted. The Neshoba visit was an attempt to win voters in Mississippi because the state was expected to be a tight race with Carter. However, neither Mayer nor Cannon see the mention of states rights as some sort attempt to use coded language. Rather they see it as a screw up and one the campaign was worried about. Basically, why would the campaign knowingly try to inflame via coded language when the next stop was an attempt to woo minority voters? No one denies that "state's rights" could be coded racism but Cannon and Mayer view Reagan's use of the term as a screw up based on being blind to the issue rather than an attempt to appeal to racism.

Really, part of the issue here is you have one set of sources that make a direct accusation. You have others that talk in broader terms but in those terms say "Reagan wasn't trying to appeal to racism". However, to do that they use more words. How do we say what those sources say succinctly? That was one of my big struggles with the edits.

To be honest I think much of what I wrote was good (the material that has been reverted). I think we should try to group up some of the claims of coded racism and we should make it clear that those are accusations, not proven facts. For instance, the article currently states (thus speaks in WP voice) that Reagan used the young buck phrase as a test and then toned it down when told it was racist. The follow on claim by Lopez that "young fellow" was also coded racism seems very questionable and inconsistent with the way Mayer describes the story. But since Mayer doesn't specifically say "young fellow" wasn't coded language it seems we have an impossible to counter claim. This is why I think the bigger picture was important. Mayer was clearly indicating that Reagan stopped using the phrase because he didn't want to be racist. Lopez makes the virtually impossible to disprove claim that Reagan really did want to appeal to racism. So do we include a story that Cannon tells in response to several accusations of appealing to racism (the college football story) or do we say nothing and make it look like Mayer, Cannon etc would agree with Lopez's follow up accusation? Either way we should not allow the article to state the claims of Lopez as if they were reliable fact.

I've been working on finding a few more sources to back what I've been trying to add. David L Chappell is highly critical of Dan Carter's book (cited in the WP article) and provides some more insight into this specific Reagan information but also the evolution of the Southern Strategy section in general. For the moment I will stick with the material most related to this topic. Here is a bit from that long article:

By Carter's lights, Reagan revealed the underlying racist motive of all his policies in occasional "slips of the tongue"- his referring to a black man as "a strapping young buck," for example (p. 64). No doubt Ronald Reagan, like most Americans, has some racist sentiments in his mind; they inevitably leak out on occasion. But they have leaked out of liberal leaders' minds too, as civil rights leaders repeatedly pointed out in the 1960s. The point here is not to defend Reagan's stupid and callous remarks but to put these things into perspective. Carter is right that Reagan had a "tin ear when speaking to black audiences," but then again, he said ridiculous and irrelevant things to white audiences as well. Carter holds out Reagan's near-slurs as smoking guns - the key to all the "coded language" he used about "welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action" (p. 64). Carter's emphasis on slips of the tongue depends on an odd assumption: that Reagan was appealing to sentiments that his supporters were ashamed to admit. Rather than see what a change this is from the speeches of George Wallace, and the frank race baiting of other Democratic demagogues of Faubus's generation, Carter devotes himself to the alleged continuity. He argues, in effect, that Americans who voted for Reagan were really voting for his racism, but that they had to have that racism hidden from themselves by "coded language."

Carter at times backs away from the code-cracking and mind-reading and admits the importance of nonracial issues: "Reagan presided over a massive shift in public attitudes away from the compensatory racial and economic policies of the 1960s." That is a far cry from saying (as his emphasis on coded language relentlessly implies) there was a shift towards more racist policies. Carter seems afraid- as most of the so-called left in America is afraid- to call a policy bad unless he can also call it racist.

Putting too much weight on the above would be a Weight issue but when we start seeing a number of sources saying the same things (Reagan wasn't trying to be racist but he wasn't sensitive and he did have slips of the tongue) we can now realistically say not all agree on the coded racism claims and the evolution claims (Lassiter specifically says there were only four genuine instances of the Southern Strategy and Nixon's was the last). I've found some other good leads as well but it takes time to do this. I've taken perhaps 4 trips to a research library to get material so far.

Sorry, the above is a bit stream of thought and I'm sure there is something in there that Scoobydunk will try to quote out of context to use against me. I would be happy to work with you on changing this article (as I did with Fyddlestix) if you are willing. Springee (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your sentence "Cannon and Mayer both see Reagan as insensitive to race but offended by the notion of doing something he saw as bigoted." is a good summary of what you've said about these sources (I have yet to read them myself.) I would not be opposed to including a sentence like that in the article, but I think your previous edits placed too much weight on these sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have additional sources that talk about the subject so that could increase the weight. At a higher level what we have is a section that says "Reagan continued and expanded the Southern Strategy". I think that is a very questionable stance for the article to take. The sources talking about the Neshoba speech range in their views from it was clearly an appeal to racism to, he was playing to the audience while being blind to what his campaign handlers were telling him about the backlash (ie he knew better but did it anyway) to he really didn't get that even if he didn't feel this was racist it would certainly be seen as such. Mayer's overall view of Reagan and race is interesting. He sees Reagan as someone who felt racism and bigotry was fundamentally wrong but he also saw Reagan as someone who really hurt the GOP vis-a-vis African Americans. Reagan did oppose many programs that were intended to help minorities on principle grounds (grounds that ignored the structural issues minorities faced but were not based on racial objections). But Reagan on the broader level Reagan was not trying to appeal via racism. He was interested in things that interested his target voters but felt it was fundamentally wrong to use the law to hold back minorities. He was not a racist and was not trying to find ways to appeal to white voter's inner racist.

If you are interested in working on the 1970-1990 section I would be happy to set up a new section where we can try to improve the langauge of that section. Is it OK to use a part of the test page as an article sandbox? Springee (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sources on Reagan and the southern strategy

• "Like Nixon and others, Reagan successfully used the southern strategy...Reagan's use of such racial code words...was enough to win back the South."
• "....Reagan playing very much to the Southern Strategy...using those code words."
• "The Southern strategy offered a more palatable reality, retooled and 'recoded' by...Reagan to sell an embittered white citizenry..."

When discussing the relative weight of a source we are allowed to give our subjective opinions. It is very easy to find articles that claim Reagan was racist or using the "Southern Strategy". All one has to do is search for those terms in Google Scholar. It is much harder to search for the opposite since sources that don't support claims of racism or Southern Strategy may simply not mention those things at all (See Rjensen's replies to Scoobydunk from a few months back). Also, we should consider if the source fits will earlier facts even if it was scholarly reviewed.

Look at the way the first source talks about Reagan's use of coded language. Factually it somewhat aligns with Lopez, Mayer and Cannon. All agree Reagan did say "young buck" and "state's rights". However, Mayer points out that Reagan said the phrase once and then never said it again. Lopez confirms that. Philpot, claims that phrase, uttered in 1976 when he wasn't even the GOP nominee, helped Reagan win the south (presumably in 1980). Doesn't that particular claim seem questionable? If Reagan did in fact only say "young buck" and "state's rights" once each and 4 years apart then how did those coded phrases win over southern voters? If other coded phrases did the heavy lifting then why aren't they mentioned? It would seem that Philpot's telling of the facts doesn't really align even with Lopez, Cannon or Mayer who all say that the "young buck" and "state's rights" phrases were used only once each. Springee (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll stick to what the peer reviewed reliable sources say over your attempt to undermine the legitimacy of their claims.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You also tried to justify using an op-ed article to support a factual claim. Are you going to be OK if I do the same so long as it supports the claim of a reliable source? I would suggest toning down the hostility. Springee (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing others of hostility is not assuming good faith.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Reagan made his case against civil rights legislation not in the pugnacious, arm-waving, and belligerent style of Wallace but in a polished and low-key manner."
• "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose."
• "While Nixon has been more pronouncedly identified with the southern strategy, many presidents before Nixon and since have used it. Ronald Reagan did in his infamous 1980 speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in which he called for states' rights."
• "The strategy for such a politics gathered a powerful momentum during the Reagan era with the practice of "coding" racial meanings so as to mobilize white fears. Hence, the use of terms such as quotas, busing, welfare, and multiculturalism as signifiers to arouse the insecurities and anger of whites.</nowiki>
• "Reagan knew that southern Republicans were making racial appeals to win over conservative southern Democrats, and he was a willing participant."

Dec 2 Edits

I've added a new set of edits to the article. One of the key changes was added more sources as well as additional scholarly sources (though WP:RS specifically allows non-scholarly sources to be considered highly reliable in this case). I think the whole section is getting too long so I would be interested in suggestions as to how we might trim it down. One may be to cut out a lot of the discussions of individual examples of "coded racism" and just change over to something more like summaries. (signed after the fact) Springee (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be exactly the wrong place to cut. This section explicitly discusses the evolution of the strategy and scholars explain how it evolved into coded language. Those examples are listed and explained by numerous scholars as examples of coded language and give readers an understanding of the type of language Reagan used to convey the evolved southern strategy. This all directly relates to the Southern Strategy. If anything would be cut, it would be an entire paragraph about Reagan's "Tin Ear" combined with criticisms of an authors work which have nothing to do with the Southern Strategy itself. Oh, and sign your talk page comments.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, given the generally hostile attitudes that have been passed around here it would be best if you would use phrases that assume good faith such as "please remember to sign your comments" vs the one above.

Your wrong place to cut comments assumes that we need more material in this section. You are correct in saying this whole section has nothing to do with the Southern Strategy. The evolution section really should just be moved into a general article talking about the use of racism in campaigns. Mayer's book gives examples of both sides doing it in various forms. Lassiter says that the last genuine example of the use of the Southern Strategy was the Nixon midterm election. "Those examples" are actually some of the few offered by any scholars. Chappell makes that rather clear in his review of Carter's work.

The use of the word "argues" was deliberate in my edits. "Explains" is means that someone is telling how something works. "Notes" means they are drawing attention to a thing or event. "Argues" means they are telling us how we should interpret something. Lopez can not prove that Reagan was field testing so his is making the argument to convince the reader. The words I used did not violate either WP:NPOV or WP:WTW Springee (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My wrong place to cut comment doesn't assume anything, and I suggest focusing on what people actually say, versus drawing conclusions from what they say. Also, the Evolution section specifically refers to the evolution of the Southern Strategy and belongs right here. Lassiter's opinion about what's "genuine" is irrelevant when multiple other scholars refer to Reagan's Southern Strategy. And describing your sources as "notes" while making sources you disagree with "argues" pushes a particular point of view. I can just as easily claim that Mayer "argued" that Reagan had a "tin ear", since that's his opinion and not a matter of provable fact. WP:CLAIM describes using these loaded terms, where "argue" would be equivalent to "claim" and implies a sense of doubt, while "notes" implies resoluteness.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does assume exactly what I said. I did include what people actually said. You are also wrong about the usage of the words, "note", "argues" etc. You would be correct, you could say Mayer (and Carter) argued that Reagan had a tin ear. Since it is an opinion. However, it is also one that both sides of the discussion seem to agree with. Saying that Reagan didn't say "young buck" again is just an observation (unless you are accusing Mayer of being wrong). It is a statement of fact with no interpretation applied. The same would be true if you said, "Reagan said "states' rights". Once an author tries to ascribe a meaning to the statement then we have to look at how the meaning was applied. If Reagan said, "I used states's rights to appeal to racists" then it would be reasonable to state it as fact. However, Lopez can't prove Reagan's intent since he wasn't in Reagan's mind nor in Reagan's confidence. So he can make the argument that Reagan was appealing to racists vs using an expression that he didn't realize was seen as racist in the south. Note WP:Claim does not mention "argues" as loaded term. Since you don't like it can you suggest a better term to indicate that a statement attributed to Lopez is his original contribution vs just reiterating an observation? Would postulate or hypothesize be better? I would be OK with "according to" since that doesn't imply the statement is one of fact vs the view of the speaker (WP:SAY). Would that be OK with you? Springee (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. Lopez describes it as matter of fact and doesn't present it as merely an argument or opinion, it's also consistent with what numerous other scholars and peer reviewed sources say about Reagan's coded language.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not OK to present the opinions of Lopez as consensus since it is clear that other sources do not agree with him. It doesn't mater than a number of sources say that if others don't agree and none claim that theirs is the consensus view. In cases of disagreement we should be using the more accurate language. Are you claiming there is a consensus among reliable sources? Springee (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim a consensus on this matter. Strawman arguments are not constructive to the discussion.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Where in the following paragraph is it made clear that these are the claims of one source and that other sources do not agree?

One example of Reagan field-testing coded language in the South, was a reference to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a "strapping young buck."[57][61] Reagan, when informed of the offensive connotations of the term, defended his actions as a nonracial term that was common in his Illinois hometown. Ultimately, Reagan never used that particular phrasing again.[62] The "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist, but worked just as well to provoke the racial tensions of Southerners and white victimization.

When a statement is made in WP voice it indicates that the statement is not disputed. Are you saying there is consensus that the "young buck" incident was field testing coded language? It certainly seems that you are. Springee (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, strawman arguments are not constructive to the discussion. No where in what you quoted does it say anything about a consensus.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusing others of making straw arguments is not assuming good faith. You are correct, the paragraph does not say consensus but it should be obvious that WP's voice should not state that something that is controversial is a given. WP:ASSERT "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. " So I ask again, are you claiming Lopez's view is the consensus view? Springee (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, making strawman arguments has nothing to do with behavior/good faith. Many people commit logical fallacies all the time and are unaware of it. However, you admit that the article says nothing about "consensus" in this regard, yet still present an argument claiming it does. Also, you've yet to provide a quote from a source that shows this information is in serious dispute, and the fact that nearly a dozen peer reviewed sources describe Reagan as using coded racism as a matter of fact and not opinion means that this is not something commonly considered subjective.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP says we should not use WP voice, ie stating something as a fact, if there is not consensus among reliable sources. We do not have consensus regarding the "young buck" comment. We actually don't have consensus among sources saying Reagan used coded language (vs slips of the tongue). Since you claim WP voice is appropriate then you need to show that there is consensus. Since wp:assert didn't convince you, WP:YESPOV might help. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. ... If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Mayer disagrees with the young buck story as coded racism. Cannon also disagrees. That alone should be enough to show that there is not a consensus view. You can argue wp:weight but not consensus. Hence if you want to keep the statements in WP voice you are arguing there is a consensus. You should also review this policy WP:RS/AC, "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." You have said it is appropriate to use WP voice to state something was field testing coded racism. To use WP voice you need to show there is a consensus. Where is your proof? Springee (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, no where have you shown a dispute exists among scholars. Numerous peer reviewed sources describe it as a matter of fact, and our responsibility is to ensure the article best represents those sources. Again, the only person talking about consensus here is you. I could be convinced if you actually found a policy that explicitly says that WP's voice is reserved only for explicitly stated consensus.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cannon and Mayer both see the young buck comment as a slip of the tongue, not coded racism. Again, WP policy says we should use attribution in cases like this. And I have already shown when WP it is and is not to speak in WP voice. All you have to do is click on the links and read. Springee (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you quote where they say it's not coded racism? You've yet to show there's debate on this position.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, your red herring argument. When they talk of it as a slip and tin ear moment (Chappell also says this) it isn't good enough because you want "Reagan was not test running coded racism". Sorry, you don't always get what you want. But it you read Cannon, Mayer and Chappell you will find they don't support the claim that Reagan was trying out coded, racist terms. Springee (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a red herring. The policies you list explicitly rely on there being a debate, and for there to be a debate you have to show that there is an opposing viewpoint. The part you quoted from WP:RS/AC speaks to saying "most scholars", which is not what's being done in the part in question. So that's the actual red herring argument in the form of a strawman argument, which is what I explained earlier. No where does that section claim a consensus, and the part you quote from RS/AC only speaks to claiming consensus. So, I see no evidence of a "debate" on the matter, and it's perfectly fine to use WP voice, especially since it's described objectively that way by numerous peer reviewed sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We have RSs that don't agree with the claim it was deliberately coded racism. We have another source that says it was. That means we don't have consensus. The end. Springee (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Every single source does not need to agree for us to include a statement of fact - if we did that then we'd rarely be able to report anything as a fact at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I contend that there is sufficient evidence that we should not present much of the material in the article as proven fact. Note that in general previous editors have agreed and presented the material in the 1970-1990 section as attributed statements. The exception is the WP voice statement regarding "field testing" a statement. Why are we making an exception in that case? Why shouldn't we err on the conservative side and attribute the statement as we do with the rest of the material in the section? Anyway, in my recent edit I added a number of new sources to the article, including ones that support the Reagan gaff school of thought and ones that directly challenge some of material attributed to Dan Carter (David Chappell). Lopez's work is relatively recent (published in early 2014) so it is reasonable to think that others haven't had time to reply yet. I typically expect it to take 6-12 months to produce a new journal paper much less a full manuscript. Authors are more likely to continue with their own work rather than simply refute some claims by Lopez. Politics after all is one of those spaces where there are many interpretations for things. That said, Calvin TerBeek's scholarly review of the book was extremely critical. Many respected political commentators disagree with the general claim that Reagan was racist. Those include Mark Shields (not a conservative by any means) [7], [David_Bernstein_(law_professor)|David Dernstein], a prof at George Mason U [8][9], "I’m not sure what to make of this. Except in the context of Reagan’s remarks, I’ve never heard of [or at least don’t recall hearing of] “young buck” being used as a racial term, and I’ve read lots of racist drivel from the South in my historical research. Nordheimer doesn’t cite any source for the claim that “young buck” meant “large black man” in the South." Four Reagan biographers, Steven F. Hayward, Paul Kengor, Craig Shirley, Kiron Skinner, coauthored a Washington Post article [10] arguing that "Reagan’s legacy has been unfairly dogged by claims that his 1980 presidential campaign was marked by the use of code words and symbols that accommodated white racists." Skinner was the lead author on one of the other Reagan sources ( I added to the article recently. Clearly there are a lot of scholars who have said they disagree with the claims of racism and the young buck story in particular. I understand that some of those sources are opinions by the scholars rather than in peer reviewed books. However, just because they haven't put that view in a book (and some have) doesn't mean we should ignore their statements as insignificant and write a claim in WP voice which would indicate scholarly consensus. Anyway, I hope people will take the time to look at some of the sources I've tried to add. In the mean time I'm going to take some time off from this article because I'm tired of trying to make contributions while dealing with Scoobydunk's bludgeoning and uncivil editing. Fyddlestix, I hope you will continue to make improvements to the article. I think you have had a good eye for removing so much of the clutter that was in the article. Springee (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"while dealing with Scoobydunk's bludgeoning and uncivil editing."Please assume good faith and don't make personal attacks.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee, as I'm about to note on the NPOV noticeboard, I really do think you've found sources that can be used in a limited fashion. But for the record, your section immediately above is one spectacular synthesis.

One political commentator saying Reagan did have a dismal record on race and made at least one comment racists would approve of (but wasn't a racist personally) + one scholar's blog that makes the absurd claim that "young buck" isn't used in a racist context (to this day, even) and then immediately retracts it (which you don't note) + four sympathetic biographers != "a lot of scholars" who can be used to imply Reagan didn't appeal to racists using coded language.

I really do think you can make a positive contribution here, because it never hurts to have a devil's advocate to the commonly-accepted position. But simple contradiction doesn't mean an issue becomes equally-weighted "he said, she said" (something I wish the corporate media would stop pretending). And neither synthesis nor encouraging the reader to synthesize are supportable edits. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)