Talk:Solid South

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Southern strategy 2 Sources/References 3 Merge with Southern Strategy 4 Last paragraph

[edit] Southern strategy

The addition of the information that the Civil Rights Act had Republican support is valid. Nevertheless, in 1968 Nixon did pursue a "Southern strategy" aimed at winning votes from Southerners who were hostile to the Act and to civil rights in general, so I've restored that reference and link. JamesMLane 21:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources/References

Can some of our editors add a References section with the citations for this account and maybe some general bibliographic references on this subject? --Dystopos 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Southern Strategy

Please keep discussion on this page. I see no difference between the subject of this article and Southern strategy. It appears that their respective contributors are simply ignorant of the other's existence. There is a large duplication of content, although both contain information that the other does not. I do not know which title should be kept. I prefer Solid South, but I could be wrong. If they are not merged, I hope that this discussion will at least lay out a clear deliniation between the subjects of the articles such that there is no overlap in content and that it will be abundantly clear in the future where new content should be added. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. These are completely different topics, I believe. Southern Strategy explores the Republican Party's attempt to wrest the south from the Democrats; it's an article about a political strategy. Solid South is a history article. There's noting wrong with what you call "duplication of content" because the articles cover similar ground.Griot 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor. They are two separate articles, one dealing with a recent political strategy and the other with a political history that existed from after the Civil War until the 1970s. One could state that the Southern Strategy came ended the Solid South but that doesn't mean they should be one article.--Alabamaboy 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. The Solid South article covers a much longer time period. JamesMLane t c 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging to one article, but I support reducing redundant content. Solid South should point to Southern Strategy for detailed information on the organized campaign and Southern Strategy should point back to Solid South for the context and aftermath of that project. --Dystopos 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the content deliniation? Southern strategy starts with reconstruction and Solid South has a section for "Solid South today". I'm fine with the two articles remaining. Wikipedia is not paper so we don't have to merge slightly separate topics, but we need to redistribute some content between these articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge these two articles. Their topics, "Solid South" and "Southern strategy", are opposites, the first representing Democratic domination in the southern United States 1877-1964 and the second representing Republican domination 1964-present. The only similarity between the two concepts is that they are both consequences of white racism. Yes, the end of the Solid south is essentially the same as the start of the Southern strategy. Possibly Southern strategy could be shortened. Paul 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last paragraph

While the last paragraph is probably largely factually correct as of October 2006, it seems to be both POV and, as far as I can determine, unreferenced. Comments? Rlquall 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph reads as follows:

As of pre-midterm elections, 2006, the political climate has begun to shift in the "Solid South" states. Wavering support for an unpopular war and repeated exposures of corruption and mismanagement of the Republican dominated Administration has made many staunch "Red States" not so "clearly-colored". September-October polls reveal larger support for Democratic candidates then in 2004. Much of this is attributed not so much as a shift in political ideology, but more to a growing disilluionment and resentment of the current Republican administration.

It wouldn't be hard to find citations for the proposition that most analysts expect the Republican Party to lose seats in 2006, in the South and elsewhere. Nevertheless, that point doesn't add much to the article. The preceding section (Solid South#The "Solid South" today) notes that the southern states' Congressional delegations are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. This makes it clear that the solidity of the "Solid South" is most notable in Presidential politics. The year-to-year fluctuations in the prospects of each party's House and Senate candidates don't need to be detailed. I'm removing the paragraph. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)