Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 10 April 2022

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

Organizations C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2009)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Under criticisms of the Sons of Confederate Veterans it needs to be noted that SOLON, and the NEW REPUBLIC are liberal, left wing publications. > > Without these declarations the criticisms are biased, and imply that the publications represent a majority of publications, which is clearly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.160.5 (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sons of Confederate Veterans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scv.org/heritageReporting.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806161141/http://savethescv.org/Introduction.htm to http://www.savethescv.org/Introduction.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170826113158/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/23/coming-soon-swastikas-racial-slurs-on-license-plates?int=998208 to https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/23/coming-soon-swastikas-racial-slurs-on-license-plates?int=998208

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead should but does not summarise the article, NPOV

And since it doesn't mention any controversies, fails WP:NPOV/ Doug Weller talk 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agreed. I couldn't find any consensus here that the lead shouldn't be changed in any way without an explicit consensus, so I removed those inline comments. I tagged the controversy claim as needing a citation. I also reworded it to say that the display of the symbols is controversial, rather than the right to display them itself. Not enough people in the US oppose freedom of speech for the right itself to be considered controversial. The controversy is about whether people should display the symbols, not whether they can. This is appropriately described in the lead of the page linked to: "Displays of flags associated with the Confederacy have long been controversial." That was probably just a case of bad wording. Hopefully removing those inline comments will allow people to actually address the problem indicated by the template message. We may have to just remove the sentence entirely if it stays unsourced for long enough. — Tartan357   05:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-organized the first paragraph of the lead, basically replacing "encouraging Southern historical study" (based on a source from 1926) with "promotion of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology." I think this is well supported by good sources given in the body of the article. I felt a certain temptation to replace "encouraging" with "falsifying", but that would have been unencyclopedical. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename the page “Order of the Confederate Rose”

   Rose Greenhows page says the group changed their name to the former in the early 2000s. The name of the page should be the group’s current official name.

108.77.140.13 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Or... rename the page "Descendants of Traitors--and Traitors Themselves" because that's what these people are.

Per their website, they're still referring to themselves as the SCV, so that is what the page should remain titled. Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

RE - the traitors comments - So are the signers of the Declaration of Idendepence and their descendants, but you don't see people advocating for a similar name change to Sons of the American Revolution. SCV was founded in 1896 and doesn't have a lot in common with groups like League of the South. The SCV and United Daughters of the Confederacy as well as the families that preceded them are simply doing what generations of families have always done, remembering their fallen. Don't let your confirmation bias tell you otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyfore (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Andyfore: You mean remembering those who have fallen in defense of racism and white supremacy. That's kindof an important detail you lft out. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As explained here, the Order of the Confederate Rose is a support group for the SCV, not a new name for the group. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Is there any reason why this isn't included in any categories on White Supremacy, Discrimination or the Alt Right? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I have fixed it by adding the category "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to the category "White supremacy". --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't improve this article. Aren't there any reliable sources describing the SCV as a white supremacist organization? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are already in the article. OhNoitsJamie 14:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why is the organization not directly described as a white supremacist one, and why is the article not part of the "White Supremacy" category? 46.97.170.115 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is part of the "White supremacy" category, because the category "Lost Cause of ..." is part of "White supremacy". The very first sentence states that SCV promote White supremacy. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's never directly described as a white supremacist organization. The term "white supremacy" appears a total of 5 times. Two of the mentions say that the lost cause myth is linked to white supremacy, two claim that they supported white supremacist groups and one is about Dylan Roof. At no point in the article is the SCV itself called white supremacist, despite the context making it obvious, which makes it look like the article is deliberately trying to avoid calling a spade a WP:SPADE.

An infobox under the image could be helpful, as well as a footer. By contrast, Neo-Confederate has both the Alt-Right AND Fascism in the footer, and is also included separately in the "White nationalism in the United States", "White supremacy in the United States" and the "Alt-right" categories, in addition to the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy". Instead, the categories this article is in, include "American Civil War veterans and descendants organizations", "Heritage organizations", "Lineage societies", and most curiously "Charities based in Tennessee", and "Nonpartisan organizations in the United States". I fail to see what makes a white supremacist organization "non-partizan", or a "charity". 46.97.170.115 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

To call it directly a "White supremacy organisation", we need good reliable sources that do so (directly, not only indirectly). Regarding the categories: I removed both "charity" and "nonpartisan" (thank you for the hint), but regarding "White supremacy" I can only repeat what I stated above. That's because of the logic of the category system which forbids to list the same article both in a category and a sub-category of that category. If another article (in this case, Neo-Confederate) has a problem, it should be corrected there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If Neo-Confederate has a helpful list of links to fascism and alt-right related articles and SCV is a Neo-Confederate organization, then it is simple logic to include those lists at the bottom of this article as well. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Other articles are no reliable sources as defined in WP:RS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because of the logic of the category system which forbids to list the same article both in a category and a sub-category of that category. This does not sit right with me. It's immediately obvious what "White supremacy" is, but "lost cause of the confederacy" is nowhere near that obvious. What we have here, is an unassumingly named subcategory used to mask something much more despicable. Not to mention the category includes things that don't seem to have anything to do with white supremacy, at least on the surface. But Neo-Confederate ideology IS white supremacist, and the SCV IS a white supremacist organization. And I'll be very surprised if there aren't multiple reliable sources describing it as such. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I added Category:White supremacy in the United States, because I just learned that I was wrong regarding the categories. Regarding the reliable sources: They may be there, but somebody has to find them. You're welcome to find and provide them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Alleging White Supremacy

The lead paragraph contains language that alleges white supremacy promotion by the SCV. This needs to be removed. It is an opinion, not fact.

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...”

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.

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.

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. 

I strongly urge editing of this Misplaced Pages article to remove opinion and bias. Restewartjr (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the charge seems pretty well verified. 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: "Anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 enslaved people supported in various capacities Lee’s army in the summer of 1863". But this is not a discussion forum. The club's Facebook page may claim what it will, but reliable secondary sources say differently. Drmies (talk) 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. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Non-White soldiers and freeman volunteers" is a bizarre way to spell "slaves used as expendable cannon fodder against their will". And wikipedia cares very little about an obvious white supremacist organization's PR slogans. They can claim to be whatever they want to present themselves as, it's not going to change objective facts. Nor will it change the fact that the civil war was fought to preserve slavery, not any of the other nonsense neo-confederates and other white supremacists like to pretend it was fought for. Sure there are non-white members of the SCV. That in itself means nothing, as objective and verifyable facts will never be invalidated by a couple of pundits saying the stuff they're paid to say. As far as I can tell, you're the only one here pushing oppinion and bias over what's factual. 46.97.170.146 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Needful comparison of SCV and UDC?

I'm watching this slow motion edit war and asking myself: is there even a significant reason this comparison 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)? BusterD (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2022 (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. @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. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2022 (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. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (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 Ty Seidule'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 ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2022 (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. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 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). Rsk6400 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical Errors

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? Asims6801 (talk) 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 not a forum for free discussion of the subject. If you have specific improvements you'd like made to the page, come prepared with reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 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

Asims6801 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• 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. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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 Asims6801 (talk) 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”." BusterD (talk) 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. Asims6801 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• The name Lost Cause of the Confederacy 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. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (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