Talk:Dixiecrat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dixiecrat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2: 3 months

Politics: American / Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

The Klan Is Right Wing?

Robert Byrd Democrat Senator and Klan Organizer/Leader

Bill Clinton said in his eulogy, "There are a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd in the newspapers -- and I read a bunch of them -- and they mentioned that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan. And what does that mean? I'll tell what you it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected."(as a democrat) "The family feeling, The clan loyalty, the fanatic independence,. the desire for a hand up, not a hand out, the willingness to fight when put into a corner -- that has often got the people from whom Senator Byrd and I sprang in trouble, because we didn't keep learning and growing and understanding that all the African-Americans who have been left out and left down and lived for going to church and lived to see their kids get a better deal, and have their children sign up for the military when they're needed -- they're just like we are"

According to wiki, Byrd's political career spanned more than sixty years. He first entered the political arena by organizing and leading a local chapter of the [Ku Klux Klan] in the 1940s

He then served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1947 to 1950, and the West Virginia State Senate from 1950 to 1952. Initially elected to the [United States House of Representatives] in 1952, Byrd served there for six years before being elected to the Senate in [1958 United States Senate election in West Virginia|1958]. He rose to become one of the Senate's most powerful members, serving as secretary of the [Senate Democratic Caucus] from 1967 to 1971 and—after defeating his longtime colleague [Ted Kennedy] for the job—as [Senate Majority Whip] from 1971 to 1977. Over the next 12 years, Byrd led the Democratic caucus as [Senate Majority Leader] and [Senate Minority Leader].

https://www.historynet.com/robert-byrd-consorts-kkk-grand-dragon/?f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjclintonrobertbyrdeulogy.htm 184.170.78.152 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your initial question: yes. Who have they politically endorsed the past few decades? Also check out Southern strategy. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leading wording

Is there any idea what the mealy-peely wording in the lead is supposed to mean?

After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party, at least for a time,[6] prior to the realignment of party ideologies that occurred over the next several decades.

Shouldn't we just say something like: 1.) "The GOP attracted the support of white supremacists/segregationists" 2.) While pointing out that many held "left-wing economic views" (at least for whites.)

I feel like we should just say that. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "faction" to "fraction" 151.251.246.140 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Faction is the correct word EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece as source

Using an opinion article from WaPo for the political spectrum as a source is ridiculous. If that’s the standard, you could probably find an article in a conservative publication claiming that manipulating elections is a liberal tradition that cites voter fraud in Philly. 65.175.130.98 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"you could probably find an article in a conservative publication" Conservative propaganda outlets with no fact-checking are not reliable sources in any shape or form. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to check why Fox News-style "reporting" (fabrications) are not allowed. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So WaPo opinion pieces with obvious bias could never be “propaganda”, yet all conservative publications are “propaganda”. 71.174.93.202 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the Washington Post is rated as a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if George Will writes an opinion piece critical of Democrats in the Washington Post, then it must be treated as fact? 71.174.93.202 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how it works, but I recommend reviewing WP:NEWSOPED under

WP:RS. It also may be best to take general policy questions to WP:TEA. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Such an obviously biased source. ~2025-32464-93 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American Civil Rights Movement

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 8 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoveforMankind (article contribs). Peer reviewers: History.Student.2026, Apettit1.

— Assignment last updated by Apettit1 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]