Revision as of 00:18, 14 March 2023 editEastcote (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,652 edits →Neutral point of view← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:59, 10 December 2024 edit undoPantarch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users554 edits →Logo: threshold of originality: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(57 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|ACW=yes|B1=y|B2=y|B3=n|B4=y|B5=n}} | {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|ACW=yes|B1=y|B2=y|B3=n|B4=y|B5=n}} | ||
{{WikiProject Organizations |
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Annual readership}} | {{Annual readership}} | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving --> | <!-- Template:Setup auto archiving --> | ||
== |
== Neutral point of view == | ||
{{hat|Discussion based on a misunderstanding of NPOV}} | |||
⚫ | Have we slid back this far, wikipedians? The article reads like something out of the most biased tabloid. This is an organization for the descendants of veterans from a war that happened almost 200 years ago, whose members include prominent and respectable individuals including one U.S. president. It reads like these people are reforming the KKK and trying to lynch African Americans. What happened to neutral point of view? Perhaps not everyone should be ashamed of their great great grandparents because of their involvement in a civil conflict that happened before anyone who is currently alive was born. I politely suggest a re-evaluation of the entire article, and let's not devolve into vitriol-laden political posturing, despite how fashionable it seems to have become in recent years. ] (]) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | :I love to hear from a true optimist. There are too many opinionated editors on Misplaced Pages to have anything like neutrality on articles like this, unless they engage in some serious self-reflection. I fully support your suggestion, and look forward to a return to neutral weighing of sources, rather than treating any and every media or academic hit-piece as a "reliable source". Just look at the thread above this. It was deemed just fine to keep accusations of racism in the article, but let's delete the fact that the organization itself disavows racism. ] (]) 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
The lead paragraph contains language that alleges white supremacy promotion by the SCV. This needs to be removed. It is an opinion, not fact. | |||
::I agree. The page could use appropriately weighted balance. Can you folks come up with some independent reliable sources which justify your positions? Please list them here and I'll advocate their insertion. ] (]) 00:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd love to provide references to say that the SCV is just a group about genealogy and history, but I'm not even going to try. My references would be overridden by countless references that say the SCV is all about white supremacy and racism. Such is the world we live in, where truth doesn't matter in the face of all these folks who see racism and oppression everywhere. They have the weight of "reliable sources" on their side, even though those sources are biased beyond belief. As someone else on this talk page said, Misplaced Pages isn't about fairness, it's about what "reliable sources" say. I guess that's why I don't play around with Misplaced Pages all that much these days. Truth matters for nothing. ] (]) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::{{Ping|Eastcote}} This is not the place for complaining about WP's guidelines, see ]. Do you really call a work like ]'s '']'' an "academic hit-piece" ? ] (]) 06:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Let me add that neither I nor anybody else on this talk page said that WP "isn't about fairness" - you might want to read those comments again. ] (]) 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The SCV really is this bad, if not worse... I think the article is a fair/accurate representation. The organization is a borderline white supremist group. In recent years their membership has been leaked showing many prominent white supremist, KKK members, and other racists amongst their ranks. ] (]) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::"Borderline white supremacist group". I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. As for membership being "leaked", that makes it sound as if the SCV is a secret society whose members are sworn to not betray each other to the public. Just about every membership organization, from the Audubon Society to the Boy Scouts, treats its membership list as private information. And as for "guilt by association" because there are "racists" as members, I have it on good authority that there are actually Jews who are members of the SCV. I guess that means the SCV must be some secret Zionist organization as well, huh? I suggest that for this to be a truly factual article that presents its subject from a truly "neutral point of view", that sources using such "guilt by association" biases be reduced in prominence, and that the organization's own charter and by-laws be relied on a bit more. ] (]) 19:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
⚫ | == White Supremacy, yet again. == | ||
In 1906, the Sons of Confederate Veterans incorporated this declaration into its organization documents: | |||
“The Sons of Confederate Veterans, in furtherance of the Charge of Lieutenant General Stephen D. Lee, shall be strictly patriotic, historical, educational, fraternal, benevolent, non-political, non-racial and non-sectarian. The Sons of Confederate Veterans neither embraces, nor espouses acts or ideologies of racial and religious bigotry, and further, condemns the misuse of its sacred symbols and flags in the conduct of same...” | |||
There have been many attempts to remove from this article the notion that the SCV "promotes...white supremacy". These edits have all been reverted, usually with an explanation that the claim of white supremacy is "reliably sourced". However, I have read through the sources, and none of them states categorically that the SCV promotes white supremacy. Most of the "sources" don't even mention the SCV at all. A couple of them do, but these are best described as opinion pieces, rather than news reports or scholarship. The insertion of "white supremacy" in this article seems to be based on "synthesis" of the sources by various editors. I.e., the SCV commemorates Confederate soldiers, commemoration of the Confederacy is part of a "Lost Cause" narrative, the "Lost Cause" narrative is connected with white supremacists....therefore, the SCV promotes white supremacy. I suggest that those editors who want to keep the white supremacy claim should go out and find better sources. Sources that point-blank state that the SCV is a white supremacist organization or that the stated purpose of the SCV is to promote white supremacy. Otherwise, this back-and-forth deletion/reversion will go on forever. I myself would prefer that the claims of "white supremacy" be put clearly in a section about "criticism", rather than stating in "Wiki-voice" that the organization espouses it, as if the claim is factually true. It is a claim, and needs to be clearly labelled as such. ] (]) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
To that end, the current SCV Facebook pages also affirms the organization’s objections and condemnations of any racial, religious or other types of bigotry. | |||
:The "Lost Cause" is NOT about "commemoration of Confederate soldiers", but about deliberately distorting history. The SCV still claim that their ancestors fought for freedom (imagine the cynicism of that !). In our "Purpose", the connection between SCV and White Supremacy is explained according to rock-solid sources. I'd really like to know which of them can be called an "opinion piece". For the rest, please see the comments at ]. ] (]) 06:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
There are non-white members of the SCV. There are photographs of members of different races, meeting and socializing together to discuss historical documents, photographs and various articles that pertain to the War and subsequent events. | |||
::Where exactly on the SCV website or in any of it's published documents does it advocate white supremacy? Just a reminder this isn't a forum so I'm not interested in a discussion, just the links please. ] (]) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Misplaced Pages policies favor following ''what reliable sources say'' about a subject, not ''what the subject says'' about itself. I would be surprised if SCV ''self-identified'' as a white supremicist organization, but that has little to do with how ''reliable sources'' describe the organization, which is what Misplaced Pages is based on. (Also, to forestall objections, since you seem to have a of what makes a source reliable: ] is how we determine what constitutes a reliable source here.) --] (]) 21:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I understand. Because the SCV is a Confederate history/advocacy group its implied that it is a white supremacist organization, which is just following wikipedia guidelines. That's all very neat and tidy, but I didn't ask what about what "reliable sources" think of the SCV or what the SCV thinks or promotes itself to be. I asked where are the sources that demonstrate that the SCV has de facto, as an organization, committed acts or issued documents that can directly link it to white supremacist ideologies or advocating that ideology? I have gone through the list of references and I hope you are not suggesting that those demonstrate the SCV is a white supremacist organization because they seem to be more editorial then actual reporting. ] (]) 00:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The description currently in the article corresponds well to the description of SCV given in reliable sources. For everything else, please see ]. --] (]) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yeah it's not a forum nor is it supposed to be an editorial site. This article is very weak in facts. If your going to accuse SCV of white supremacy in the first paragraph you need to cite a source immediately. I'd put one in, but I can't find one. Thus my original question. ] (]) 01:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Lack of Sources for Several Statements == | |||
Recent postings on the Facebook page have included discussions about | |||
• Non-white soldiers as freemen volunteers. | |||
• Activities and social events that included both whites and non-whites. | |||
• Condemnation of, and actions against, any form of bigotry, prejudice or exclusionary practices, publications, activities, organizations, rhetoric and advocacy. | |||
This topic is a recurring one. The article has several statements that are either not sourced or sources do not substantiate summaries that are written here. I suggest we remove the page in its entirety as it is simply a ground for propaganda on all sides (which is what I thought I was doing - I’ve never removed a page before, only edited). As much as I agree with the statements written, we simply cannot have unsourced opinions constantly posted and reverted to once removed. It makes us, as editors, look petty, immature, and stupid and makes Misplaced Pages look biased and anti-factual, perpetuating the ban by school systems to use Misplaced Pages as a source for essays and research papers. MRJ 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I strongly urge editing of this Misplaced Pages article to remove opinion and bias. ] (]) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Which of the 64 references do you challenge, and which statements do you assert are unsupported? Bear in mind that the lead paragraph is a summary of the sourced content in the body of the article. As for deletion, that's extremely unlikely to happen. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:As stated, I will compile a list later in the day. This issue gives grounds for a user to watch Janet Osseburg videos on Rumble and use them as a source to cite something as baseless as Obama being involved in child trafficking and sacrificial eating. We are allowing behavior like that if we continue to allow statements to be posted without proper citation. MRJ 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Hmm, the charge seems . BTW, the non-white soldiers bit, are you referring to that old myth? BTW there is no doubt that Black people did contribute, albeit not voluntarily: . But this is not a discussion forum. The club's Facebook page may claim what it will, but reliable secondary sources say differently. ] (]) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Agree with Drmies. They still state on their website, "The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution." Do they know that for their ancestors the meaning of "liberty" was the liberty to torture and rape enslaved human beings (adults and children) ? I'm afraid, they do. --] (]) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::It would be worth noting that presumably some of these descendants' ancestors did not have that idea of "liberty", but instead were some of the large portions of population forcefully drafted by the Confederacy against their will, especially from 1862 to 1864. This especially occurred in Appalachian areas, where those soon-to-be soldiers held no slaves, and in general held religious beliefs against owning them. Nevertheless, they were drafted to fight. Of course, elites who did own slaves could find ways around being drafted (see the Twenty Negro Law entry on this website). A great many deserted their families rather than be drafted, but many could not escape conscription. Some of this reality is backstory for the 2016 movie "Free State of Jones." All that to say, there's nuance in history, you can't paint everyone with the same brush, lest it be done to you in the future. | |||
:::-Source, History major and Social Studies teacher. ] (]) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::We very much appreciate the contributions of a history major and social studies teacher. We hope you register an account and learn what we're about. In my view the previous comment by User:Rsk6400 was veering into ] behavior (and so does the astute response by our teacher), as User:Drmies warned might occur. ] (]) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Please sign your posts. No it doesn't give grounds for any article to ignore our policies and guidelines. And schools and universities don't forbid students to use Misplaced Pages. Just as Misplaced Pages itself says, our articles are not reliably published sources. But they are extremely useful in finding good sources, and Universities at least run courses on how to do this, working with editors here who advise them. It's not possible to have this page deleted, it would have to go through ] where you would have to prove that the subject isn't notable, which clearly it is. Looking at your edits, it looks as though you didn't like the criticism and removed it without checking the sources. ] ] 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Needful comparison of SCV and UDC? == | |||
Let's tackle these questionable sources used to support the claim of “white supremacy” in this article. We'll start with: David W. Blight (2001). . Blight discusses events of over a century ago. The only place I could find the SCV mentioned was in a ''footnote'' about an SCV meeting in 1895, one hundred twenty-nine years ago. This book does not support the statement that today’s SCV “promotes white supremacy”. The book makes the connection between the “Lost Cause” and white supremacy, and says that various organizations such as the UCV and the UDC were part of maintaining white supremacy in the South. But, EVERY institution and organization in the South over a century ago was part of maintaining white supremacy: schools, courts, local governments, churches, even the county road commissions. It was ingrained in the culture until the 1960s. Take, for instance, the Southern Baptist Convention, today the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. It was created in 1845 when American Baptists split over slavery, with the SBC being in support of preserving slavery as an institution. In the late 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries, it was certainly part of the fabric in the South that maintained white supremacy. But we are a hundred years on from all of that, and the SBC has moved on, to the extent that the SBC includes many African-American members and elected an African-American to head the Convention in 2012. Times change, and organizations change along with it. To cite a footnote from a source that discusses how things WERE in 1895, to support claiming that the SCV of 2024 “promotes white supremacy” is a poor use of sources. ] (]) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
I'm watching this slow motion edit war and asking myself: is there even a significant reason needs to be made and does the source actually prove such a nebulous and largely unverifiable claim (that UDC is "bigger and more active")? What sort of criteria? How does the statement inform the reader? Do we have better and more sources? Does anybody mind if I consult a Misplaced Pages editor who is an expert on the subject of hereditary societies (not to weigh in, but to help with sources)? ] (]) 10:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
:The Blight footnote is attached to the claim that the "Lost Cause" is linked to White Supremacy. It is not used to support any claim about the SCV. ] (]) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:SCV and UDC are not important as hereditary societies, but as societies that have actively promoted pseudo-history in order to sustain white supremacy. They have always been working together for that same purpose. So it is important to mention that connection. {{Ping|Azhistorylov}} The source says "bigger and more active", if you can provide a source for current membership numbers, please do so. We can surely change the sentence to something like "originally bigger and more active", but we need a source for that. --] (]) 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
::You are correct in how Blight is being used, but Blight is being used incorrectly. The Blight footnote is being used to INFER that the SCV "supports white supremacy". Actually, it's being used to do more than infer it, as it is used to justify the claim. Misplaced Pages specifically prohibits synthesizing material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The first several sources are there to say that the SCV adheres to the "Lost Cause Myth". Then Blight's book is used to say the "Lost Cause Myth" supports white supremacy. Therefore...we get the synthesized conclusion that SCV supports white supremacy. This conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any source" cited in this article. The Blight citation, and the "white supremacy" claim, should be removed from the article until someone can come up with a reliable source that "explicitly states" that the SCV supports white supremacy. See ]. ] (]) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Members of those organizations would claim they are valued precisely for their hereditary nature ("sons" and "daughters" sounds definitive). Actually the cited source says "...larger and more active United Daughters of the Confederacy ''consisted'' of men and women of wealth and social standing..." This refers back to the previous sentence when describing membership "After the turn of the century..." the next generation after the veterans. The source itself dates from 2002 and doesn't actually mention any activities at any dates newer than the 1920's (other than bare mention). So this 20 year-old source is specifically about the activities of 100 years ago, not claiming to refer to current activities or membership. ] (]) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Done}} I've added to the ] section a better quote of Beirich on p. 291 in "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" that explicitly states the SCV supports white supremacy: "In March 2000, the scv participated in a Confederate flag rally in Montgomery, Alabama, organized by the LS. Just over a year later, in April 2001, the scv held a joint rally in support of White Supremacy in the 21st Century." See . ] (]) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You are right about the source. However, the source refers to the time when both organizations were really influential and successful in spreading their lies (not my expression, but ]'s). They controlled Southern textbooks well into the 1970s - today they are much less influential and therefore less important. Having said that, I'm not opposed to a wording more in line with the source or with other sources mentioning current membership. Any suggestions ? --] (]) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::PS: "LS" refers to ], "an American white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization that says its goal is "a free and independent Southern republic"." ] (]) 05:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Seems there are two questions here: (1) Should the sentence reference the UDC at all, and (2) If so, should it describe the UDC as "bigger and more active"? My take is that mentioning the UDC is optional, and, given that the support for the "bigger and more active" claim is mixed, at best, we should definitely leave that out. My suggestion is to have the sentence start "The SCV has been promoting the ideology..." and leave the UDC out of the section entirely. ] (]) 22:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I just moved "bigger and more active" to the section where it becomes clear from the context that the qualification refers to the early 20th century. I wouldn't like to drop the mention of the UDC, since they actually took the lead in building and funding monuments and controlling textbooks (the section "History" shows this with references to David Blight's ''Race and Reunion''). ] (]) 15:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Claims of White Supremacy unfounded == | |||
== Historical Errors == | |||
I reviewed the materials in SCV article and spent two days in the SVC museum in Columbia, TN, reviewing the SVC publications. I found no mention of white supremacy or racism in any of the SVC materials on display. The article as written lacks credible evidence racial bias. Instead, I found factual based historical content within the SVC publications some of which contradicts the political and revisionist views so prominent in the opening paragraphs of this article. | |||
There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”. There were many in American history, not just one. Many fought for the Confederacy not to preserve slavery but to defend their livelihood. If the civil war was about white supremacy then why did native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy? ] (]) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
:On the merits, people do unexplainable things all the time. Today, some Russians are fighting to defend Ukraine and some Ukrainians are fighting in Russia's assault. But, this is ] for free discussion of the subject. If you have specific improvements you'd like made to the page, come prepared with ]. ] (]) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
::*https://historyofyesterday.com/fighting-for-the-confederacy-d27ee57e387f | |||
::*https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mexican-texans-in-the-civil-war | |||
::*https://www.businessinsider.com/how-native-americans-ended-up-fighting-for-the-confederacy-2019-6?amp | |||
⚫ | |||
:::historyofyesterday.com is a blog, so not considered a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, per the link I gave you above. Business Insider, while a mildly acceptable source for some subjects, is not considered reliable for 19th century American history. Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas Online is quite a good source and the author Jerry Thompson makes it even better (he being a respected Texas history education figure, and favorite of mine). Here's the thing: nowhere in ANY of the provided sources appears any critique of the Lost Cause, the subject of this article. Handbook of Texas briefly mentions the Lost Cause 336 times in various articles but never discusses or defines it on its own, and where it is mentioned, such discussion or definition seems to align closely with what appears on this page. As an encyclopedia we must hold not only to the highest level of sources available, but also reiterate what those sources say, not draw our own conclusions from the text, as you seem to have done above. ] (]) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
As such, this article is slanderous and amounts to character assassination. It is written under the presumption that all displays of of flags or written material commemorating the thousands of Americans who fought for the Confederate flag are unacceptable. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech which includes opposing views and facts not properly represented in this article. This article and those like it attempt to suppress the civil rights of the descendants of Americans because of their ancestors' beliefs. Articles like this one attempt to suppress a portion of our country's great history. The SCV has the right to display flags and other materials describing factual history of our nation. | |||
:::*https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/confederacy-signs-treaties-with-native-americans | |||
:::*https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jiur | |||
:::*https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/civil-war/ | |||
:::*https://www.amazon.com/Black-Confederates-Charles-Kelly-Barrow/dp/1565549376 | |||
:::] (]) 23:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::The first three of these four sources might meet RS. You post these URLs but have made no specific change you wish to insert, and have drawn no connection between the sources and the changes you imply. If you were to post a draft statement with citations here, we'd be discussing THAT. Your assertion "native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy" is somewhat supported by the sources you've listed, but I don't see anything connecting this assertion with your broader point, "There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”." ] (]) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am glad that you mentioned this about the lost cause. A major problem I have with current sources is that there is nothing pertaining to other families of causes that would be considered “lost causes”. Strangely, they merely talk about this lost cause rather than others. Memorials to Bacon’s rebellion and Shay’s rebellion, erected by descendants of those events, could be considered lost causes and a rejection of current historical understanding of those events. ] (]) 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::The name ] is the only "lost cause" we're discussing with SCV, not other lost causes without their own article and no connection to Sons of Confederate Veterans. Other lost causes are outside the scope of this discussion. This is a place to discuss changes to THIS article, not a place to advocate your general position. ] (]) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits. I advise that this article be carefully reviewed for unsubstantiated content and political bias. In the meantime, I will advise the SCV of this article and my efforts to set the record straight. | |||
== Time to create an FAQ for this talk page == | |||
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” | |||
The need for an FAQ is demonstrated, IMHO. I've drafted such an FAQ at ] and request input before we decide about inclusion on this talk space. I'll begin just by listing questions. I strongly request assistance, especially when we disagree, so we can hash this out for the passing reader who may take issue with the way we have handled this so far. ] (]) 15:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
GEORGE ORWELL ] (]) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This happened during my editing career but I guess I wasn't around when these ] were going on in 2006. I didn't remember this talk page as being such a battlefield. Interesting reading for the wikipedian. ] (]) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:This is a task I hope I'm not taking on alone. My first questions are intended to provoke more questions and discussion, not by themselves represent work product. ] (]) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|Doug Weller}} I think that could be perceived as a ]. What do you think ? ] (]) 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | == White Supremacy |
||
::NLT blocked. ] ] 19:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::A "threat"? Seriously? Where is the threat? ] (]) 23:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"{{tq|Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits}}" is enough of an implied legal threat to be disruptive. See ]. ] also applies. ] (]) 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::And of course I've told them how to get unblocked. It's trivial, you just say you don't intend to take legal action or encourage others. ] ] 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I noted that Misplaced Pages has failed to make the change. Why is that? I likewise read the SCV literature from their website and see no substantiation of Misplaced Pages's claim. This is not the only topic I have found them to be incorrect. ] (]) 00:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::WP doesn't go by what people say about themselves, but by what ] say about them. ] (]) 05:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Logo: ] == | |||
{{Ping|PRRfan|3Kingdoms}} {{tq|The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is}} (see ]). In the case of an organization we cannot tell this without mentioning its purpose. And this purpose has always been linked with the Lost Cause and with White Supremacy. On the other hand, the fact that they officially disavow racism, doesn't tell us anything about them, since (nearly) everybody claims to be against racism. ] (]) 06:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Sure, I'm fine with removing "officially disavow racism". ] (]) 12:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I included the official disavow because it was in a reliable source and thought in the interest of fairness it should be included. Personally prefer my wording regarding the lost cause, but if more prefer the current wording so be it.] (]) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for explaining. Let me add that WP is no courtroom, so "fairness" doesn't mean that both sides have to be heard. It means ], that is, we neutrally report what reliable sources say, giving weight to each side following secondary sources (see ] and ]). ] (]) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::No problem. I understand your point. I felt that the source I included that mentioned the disavowal would be considered reliable. Thanks. ] (]) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
How is it possible for a badge, composed exclusively of elements such as simple geometric shapes, text, and the battle flag of the ], all of which are in the ], to be subject to copyright? | |||
== Neutral point of view == | |||
Wouldn't this make it ineligible? See: | |||
⚫ | Have we slid back this far, wikipedians? The article reads like something out of the most biased tabloid. This is an organization for the descendants of veterans from a war that happened almost 200 years ago, whose members include prominent and respectable individuals including one U.S. president. It reads like these people are reforming the KKK and trying to lynch African Americans. What happened to neutral point of view? Perhaps not everyone should be ashamed of their great great grandparents because of their involvement in a civil conflict that happened before anyone who is currently alive was born. I politely suggest a re-evaluation of the entire article, and let's not devolve into vitriol-laden political posturing, despite how fashionable it seems to have become in recent years. ] (]) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | {{PD-ineligible}} ] (]) 14:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I have uploaded a ] version of the logo, created by me. In light of the precedent set in https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Bruce_Lee_Core_Symbol_US_Copyright_Office_decision.pdf, I believe that it does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection under United States law. See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. ] (]) 10:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :I love to hear from a true optimist. There are too many opinionated editors on Misplaced Pages to have anything like neutrality on articles like this, unless they engage in some serious self-reflection. I fully support your suggestion, and look forward to a return to neutral weighing of sources, rather than treating any and every media or academic hit-piece as a "reliable source". Just look at the thread above this. It was deemed just fine to keep accusations of racism in the article, but let's delete the fact that the organization itself disavows racism. ] (]) 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:59, 10 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neutral point of view
Discussion based on a misunderstanding of NPOV |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Have we slid back this far, wikipedians? The article reads like something out of the most biased tabloid. This is an organization for the descendants of veterans from a war that happened almost 200 years ago, whose members include prominent and respectable individuals including one U.S. president. It reads like these people are reforming the KKK and trying to lynch African Americans. What happened to neutral point of view? Perhaps not everyone should be ashamed of their great great grandparents because of their involvement in a civil conflict that happened before anyone who is currently alive was born. I politely suggest a re-evaluation of the entire article, and let's not devolve into vitriol-laden political posturing, despite how fashionable it seems to have become in recent years. 2600:6C64:5800:58C:74E5:C5A2:289C:84F1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
|
White Supremacy, yet again.
There have been many attempts to remove from this article the notion that the SCV "promotes...white supremacy". These edits have all been reverted, usually with an explanation that the claim of white supremacy is "reliably sourced". However, I have read through the sources, and none of them states categorically that the SCV promotes white supremacy. Most of the "sources" don't even mention the SCV at all. A couple of them do, but these are best described as opinion pieces, rather than news reports or scholarship. The insertion of "white supremacy" in this article seems to be based on "synthesis" of the sources by various editors. I.e., the SCV commemorates Confederate soldiers, commemoration of the Confederacy is part of a "Lost Cause" narrative, the "Lost Cause" narrative is connected with white supremacists....therefore, the SCV promotes white supremacy. I suggest that those editors who want to keep the white supremacy claim should go out and find better sources. Sources that point-blank state that the SCV is a white supremacist organization or that the stated purpose of the SCV is to promote white supremacy. Otherwise, this back-and-forth deletion/reversion will go on forever. I myself would prefer that the claims of "white supremacy" be put clearly in a section about "criticism", rather than stating in "Wiki-voice" that the organization espouses it, as if the claim is factually true. It is a claim, and needs to be clearly labelled as such. Eastcote (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- The "Lost Cause" is NOT about "commemoration of Confederate soldiers", but about deliberately distorting history. The SCV still claim that their ancestors fought for freedom (imagine the cynicism of that !). In our "Purpose", the connection between SCV and White Supremacy is explained according to rock-solid sources. I'd really like to know which of them can be called an "opinion piece". For the rest, please see the comments at #Alleging White Supremacy. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Where exactly on the SCV website or in any of it's published documents does it advocate white supremacy? Just a reminder this isn't a forum so I'm not interested in a discussion, just the links please. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policies favor following what reliable sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. I would be surprised if SCV self-identified as a white supremicist organization, but that has little to do with how reliable sources describe the organization, which is what Misplaced Pages is based on. (Also, to forestall objections, since you seem to have a somewhat tortured view of what makes a source reliable: this is how we determine what constitutes a reliable source here.) --JBL (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Because the SCV is a Confederate history/advocacy group its implied that it is a white supremacist organization, which is just following wikipedia guidelines. That's all very neat and tidy, but I didn't ask what about what "reliable sources" think of the SCV or what the SCV thinks or promotes itself to be. I asked where are the sources that demonstrate that the SCV has de facto, as an organization, committed acts or issued documents that can directly link it to white supremacist ideologies or advocating that ideology? I have gone through the list of references and I hope you are not suggesting that those demonstrate the SCV is a white supremacist organization because they seem to be more editorial then actual reporting. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The description currently in the article corresponds well to the description of SCV given in reliable sources. For everything else, please see WP:NOTFORUM. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it's not a forum nor is it supposed to be an editorial site. This article is very weak in facts. If your going to accuse SCV of white supremacy in the first paragraph you need to cite a source immediately. I'd put one in, but I can't find one. Thus my original question. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The description currently in the article corresponds well to the description of SCV given in reliable sources. For everything else, please see WP:NOTFORUM. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. Because the SCV is a Confederate history/advocacy group its implied that it is a white supremacist organization, which is just following wikipedia guidelines. That's all very neat and tidy, but I didn't ask what about what "reliable sources" think of the SCV or what the SCV thinks or promotes itself to be. I asked where are the sources that demonstrate that the SCV has de facto, as an organization, committed acts or issued documents that can directly link it to white supremacist ideologies or advocating that ideology? I have gone through the list of references and I hope you are not suggesting that those demonstrate the SCV is a white supremacist organization because they seem to be more editorial then actual reporting. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policies favor following what reliable sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. I would be surprised if SCV self-identified as a white supremicist organization, but that has little to do with how reliable sources describe the organization, which is what Misplaced Pages is based on. (Also, to forestall objections, since you seem to have a somewhat tortured view of what makes a source reliable: this is how we determine what constitutes a reliable source here.) --JBL (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly on the SCV website or in any of it's published documents does it advocate white supremacy? Just a reminder this isn't a forum so I'm not interested in a discussion, just the links please. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Lack of Sources for Several Statements
This topic is a recurring one. The article has several statements that are either not sourced or sources do not substantiate summaries that are written here. I suggest we remove the page in its entirety as it is simply a ground for propaganda on all sides (which is what I thought I was doing - I’ve never removed a page before, only edited). As much as I agree with the statements written, we simply cannot have unsourced opinions constantly posted and reverted to once removed. It makes us, as editors, look petty, immature, and stupid and makes Misplaced Pages look biased and anti-factual, perpetuating the ban by school systems to use Misplaced Pages as a source for essays and research papers. MRJ 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)
- Which of the 64 references do you challenge, and which statements do you assert are unsupported? Bear in mind that the lead paragraph is a summary of the sourced content in the body of the article. As for deletion, that's extremely unlikely to happen. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- As stated, I will compile a list later in the day. This issue gives grounds for a user to watch Janet Osseburg videos on Rumble and use them as a source to cite something as baseless as Obama being involved in child trafficking and sacrificial eating. We are allowing behavior like that if we continue to allow statements to be posted without proper citation. MRJ 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts. No it doesn't give grounds for any article to ignore our policies and guidelines. And schools and universities don't forbid students to use Misplaced Pages. Just as Misplaced Pages itself says, our articles are not reliably published sources. But they are extremely useful in finding good sources, and Universities at least run courses on how to do this, working with editors here who advise them. It's not possible to have this page deleted, it would have to go through WP:AFD where you would have to prove that the subject isn't notable, which clearly it is. Looking at your edits, it looks as though you didn't like the criticism and removed it without checking the sources. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's tackle these questionable sources used to support the claim of “white supremacy” in this article. We'll start with: David W. Blight (2001). Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Blight discusses events of over a century ago. The only place I could find the SCV mentioned was in a footnote about an SCV meeting in 1895, one hundred twenty-nine years ago. This book does not support the statement that today’s SCV “promotes white supremacy”. The book makes the connection between the “Lost Cause” and white supremacy, and says that various organizations such as the UCV and the UDC were part of maintaining white supremacy in the South. But, EVERY institution and organization in the South over a century ago was part of maintaining white supremacy: schools, courts, local governments, churches, even the county road commissions. It was ingrained in the culture until the 1960s. Take, for instance, the Southern Baptist Convention, today the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. It was created in 1845 when American Baptists split over slavery, with the SBC being in support of preserving slavery as an institution. In the late 19 and early 20 centuries, it was certainly part of the fabric in the South that maintained white supremacy. But we are a hundred years on from all of that, and the SBC has moved on, to the extent that the SBC includes many African-American members and elected an African-American to head the Convention in 2012. Times change, and organizations change along with it. To cite a footnote from a source that discusses how things WERE in 1895, to support claiming that the SCV of 2024 “promotes white supremacy” is a poor use of sources. Eastcote (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Blight footnote is attached to the claim that the "Lost Cause" is linked to White Supremacy. It is not used to support any claim about the SCV. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct in how Blight is being used, but Blight is being used incorrectly. The Blight footnote is being used to INFER that the SCV "supports white supremacy". Actually, it's being used to do more than infer it, as it is used to justify the claim. Misplaced Pages specifically prohibits synthesizing material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The first several sources are there to say that the SCV adheres to the "Lost Cause Myth". Then Blight's book is used to say the "Lost Cause Myth" supports white supremacy. Therefore...we get the synthesized conclusion that SCV supports white supremacy. This conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any source" cited in this article. The Blight citation, and the "white supremacy" claim, should be removed from the article until someone can come up with a reliable source that "explicitly states" that the SCV supports white supremacy. See WP:SYNTH. Eastcote (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done I've added to the Links with extremist groups section a better quote of Beirich on p. 291 in "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" that explicitly states the SCV supports white supremacy: "In March 2000, the scv participated in a Confederate flag rally in Montgomery, Alabama, organized by the LS. Just over a year later, in April 2001, the scv held a joint rally in support of White Supremacy in the 21st Century." See here. Carlstak (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- PS: "LS" refers to League of the South, "an American white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization that says its goal is "a free and independent Southern republic"." Carlstak (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done I've added to the Links with extremist groups section a better quote of Beirich on p. 291 in "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" that explicitly states the SCV supports white supremacy: "In March 2000, the scv participated in a Confederate flag rally in Montgomery, Alabama, organized by the LS. Just over a year later, in April 2001, the scv held a joint rally in support of White Supremacy in the 21st Century." See here. Carlstak (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct in how Blight is being used, but Blight is being used incorrectly. The Blight footnote is being used to INFER that the SCV "supports white supremacy". Actually, it's being used to do more than infer it, as it is used to justify the claim. Misplaced Pages specifically prohibits synthesizing material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The first several sources are there to say that the SCV adheres to the "Lost Cause Myth". Then Blight's book is used to say the "Lost Cause Myth" supports white supremacy. Therefore...we get the synthesized conclusion that SCV supports white supremacy. This conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any source" cited in this article. The Blight citation, and the "white supremacy" claim, should be removed from the article until someone can come up with a reliable source that "explicitly states" that the SCV supports white supremacy. See WP:SYNTH. Eastcote (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Claims of White Supremacy unfounded
I reviewed the materials in SCV article and spent two days in the SVC museum in Columbia, TN, reviewing the SVC publications. I found no mention of white supremacy or racism in any of the SVC materials on display. The article as written lacks credible evidence racial bias. Instead, I found factual based historical content within the SVC publications some of which contradicts the political and revisionist views so prominent in the opening paragraphs of this article.
As such, this article is slanderous and amounts to character assassination. It is written under the presumption that all displays of of flags or written material commemorating the thousands of Americans who fought for the Confederate flag are unacceptable. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech which includes opposing views and facts not properly represented in this article. This article and those like it attempt to suppress the civil rights of the descendants of Americans because of their ancestors' beliefs. Articles like this one attempt to suppress a portion of our country's great history. The SCV has the right to display flags and other materials describing factual history of our nation.
Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits. I advise that this article be carefully reviewed for unsubstantiated content and political bias. In the meantime, I will advise the SCV of this article and my efforts to set the record straight.
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” GEORGE ORWELL Mockingbird73 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I think that could be perceived as a WP:THREAT. What do you think ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- NLT blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- A "threat"? Seriously? Where is the threat? Eastcote (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits
" is enough of an implied legal threat to be disruptive. See WP:NLT. WP:NOTFREESPEECH also applies. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- And of course I've told them how to get unblocked. It's trivial, you just say you don't intend to take legal action or encourage others. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
- I noted that Misplaced Pages has failed to make the change. Why is that? I likewise read the SCV literature from their website and see no substantiation of Misplaced Pages's claim. This is not the only topic I have found them to be incorrect. 67.2.194.255 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP doesn't go by what people say about themselves, but by what realiable sources say about them. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Logo: threshold of originality
How is it possible for a badge, composed exclusively of elements such as simple geometric shapes, text, and the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, all of which are in the public domain, to be subject to copyright?
Wouldn't this make it ineligible? See:
This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.
PD Public domain false false |
Pantarch (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a vectorized version of the logo, created by me. In light of the precedent set in https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Bruce_Lee_Core_Symbol_US_Copyright_Office_decision.pdf, I believe that it does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection under United States law. See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. Pantarch (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Start-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles