Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BoldGnome (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 18 June 2017 (Undid revision 786303969 by Pepe.rocks (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:02, 18 June 2017 by BoldGnome (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 786303969 by Pepe.rocks (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Merge

Please merge these two article. --evrik 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Which two? --Delirium 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Colorwebboll.jpg

File:Colorwebboll.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Albert Sidney Johnston?

The memorial stone at the University of Mississippi states that it was commissioned by Albert Sidney Johnston. That was the name of the Confederate General killed at Shiloh in April 1862. There was also Albert Sidney Johnston Jr (presumably his son), who was killed aboard SS Ada Hancock in April 1863. Would this be a 3rd-generationer of the same name? Details would be of interest. Valetude (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

External links

I removed the extensive linking to affiliate Web sites on June 17, 2014 (for a second time). That is because, as currently structures, the section violates Misplaced Pages's external linking guidelines listed at WP:EXTERNAL. The section "Links normally to be avoided", clearly states: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information." The listing of UDC affiliate Web sites clearly violates this prohibition. If a separate article were to be worked up, say "List of United Daughters of the Confederacy affiliates", that list might contain a link (as a footnote) for UDC affiliates. WP:EXTERNAL clearly provides for an exacption under the section "Links to be considered", but cautions: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable." None of the links in the UDC article were to an affiliate directory page, and it clearly violated the rule against long lists of links.

If a particular UDC affiliate Web site has a page about UDC history that provides particularly useful information about the UDC (not the affiliate), then the information should be incorporated into the text of the main article and the affiliate Web site cited and linked to, as appropriate to an inline citation.

Barring that, an extensive "External Links" section about UDC affiliates is nothing but advertising. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

cite check tag

I added the cite check because there are a variety of statements made in this article that I thought were questionable but that are only supported by books sources that aren't available online. Before deleting the tag, please add quotations to the refs that indicate what material from these sources supports the material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

that is no help. the tag is not deserved until the critic can specify an actual issue in the text. Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, an example is this content: " constituted part of the growing public memory about the antebellum years and the Lost Cause, as they usually defended the Confederacy." That seems rather aggrandizing. It is rather odd that every single source for the article is a book. I think this article deserves verification. If you disagree with me, please discuss rather than removing the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a misreading of the many cited sources which emphasize the importance of the group in memorializing the Lost Cause. You need to look at major studies such as Cynthia Mills and Pamela H. Simpson, eds., Monuments To The Lost Cause: Women, Art, And The Landscapes Of Southern Memory (2003) and H. E. Gulley, "Women and the Lost Cause: Preserving A Confederate Identity in the American Deep South." Journal of Historical Geography (1993) 19#2 pp 125-141. The complaint that the article is based on scholarly books is very strange indeed--Those are the best and most reliable sources produced by generations of serious scholars, all of whom point to the UDC as a major player. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a misreading, it's a non-reading. I don't have access to those sources so I'm merely asking that someone who does have access go to the library and verify. That's all. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Upon review perhaps {{verify sources}} is a more appropriate tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes i can verify them--it's a well known topic and the challenge was uncalled for. Of course you do have access: Your local library can borrow all the books for you. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean it's all verified? You added some book sources. Would you mind adding quotes of the passages you drew from? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I verified all the sources I used. We have a good-faith rule here and I am mystified why you think there is any problem. You do not seem to know anything about the topic and you have not used the most basic tools (like google and amazon, let alone your local library). Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested anyone was acting in bad faith. You are correct though, I have no subject matter expertise (nor should I need any). Why won't you add quotes of the passages you drew from? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

nfc tag

I added the WP:NFC tag because there appears to be some textual content copied from a variety of outside web pages. For example, the third paragraph of the "History" section appears to be a close paraphrase of this page. Please do not remove the tag until the article has been scoured an all non-free content is removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Between cut-downs and re-writes I'm satisfied that there's no longer non-free content in the article, so I'm fine with the removal of the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Goals

I've deleted this section. It's basically promotional with details available on the website. It's also misleading. It ignores things such as this statement from an academic source: " the role of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) in demanding textbooks for public schools that told the story of the war and the Confederacy from a definite southern point of view. The work of the UDC in raising countless thousands of dollars for building Confederate monuments, and their care and persistence in creating and sustaining Confederate Memorial Day into the twenty-first century are all essential elements perpetuating Confederate mythology, as Karen Cox clearly shows in Dixie's Daughters." Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the above source to the article: ; please feel free to format the citation as desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

UDC's ties to KKK

We have a new editor who claims there was a close link between the UDC and KKK. He is unable to quote any RS that says that--or for that matter any unreliable secondary source. The KKK was defunct by late 1870s decades before the UDC was founded. No KKK ex-official was linked to UDC. So it's fake history. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have provided several sources, please do not misrepresent them. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Also from Ku Klux Klan, "The second group was founded in 1915..."; the sources I have provided, from University of Mississippi and University of Kentucky, discuss the group in the 1930s. I suggest RJensen is woefully mistaken or uninformed with regard to history. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

the cited Mississippi page is an anonymous self-published blog that fails the Wiki rules WP:RS which states: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. Furthermore it does NOT say the UDC was closely tied to the kkk -- the first kkk was defunct by 1880. the 2nd kkk is not at issue here. Your other source is legit but she makes no such assertion as you did--try quoting her. You are unable to find a quotation that supports "closeness" because no RS ever made that claim. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The cited Mississippi page is a project of the Winter Institute, not a "blog"; the blog on the site, separate from the historical materials that they archive and provide analysis of, is only in the /blog/ section and provides a small set of updates on content added. I have provided valid sources; I understand you may have some form of emotional attachment to this argument and that your specialty has nothing to do with this. Morty C-137 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

wiki rules: self published blogs are not RS; this one is anonymous and it makes no such claim in the first place. The KKK was defunct when UDC began and no RS links the two. I have no attachments in any way to UDC and since Morty C-137 brings it up I'm a PhD student of a leading specialist on the era C. Vann Woodward. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(A) it's not a blog. (B) It's not hard to find the owner, the institute is listed. (C) Again, I recognize that you have some form of emotional attachment to protecting the UDC and KKK, but this isn't your area of expertise. Please stop misrepresenting sources and policies. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the WP:RS rules. and please drop line c) It's a false personal attack on me. Rjensen (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have, and I'm sorry you have trouble understanding them. http://www.confederatepastpresent.org is a historical preservation and research site which keeps alive documents connected to slavery and segregation that so many who want to whitewash (pun unintended) history available would prefer to see vanish or be removed from circulation. They do this so that teachers and educators can use the true records of the time periods in appropriate context. It is not a "self-published" source, nor a "blog", but rather a publication of a well respected research group (the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation, founded in 1999). Again: I understand why you dislike the documents and want to attack them, but they exist. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

please drop line c) It's a false personal attack on me that violated wiki rules on civility. Rjensen (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at that site it clearly falls into WP: SPS. It might be usable if the authors are considered expert sources, and their work in this field is published in other reliable sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking further, I don't see any link from the winter institute back to that site. There's nothing on the contact page for who is running this page. I don't think this can be called a reliable source by any metric. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You're joking right? Did you miss the Winter Institute link right on the contact roll?

Or how about the site's main page. And yes, the writers ARE FUCKING EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD SPECIFICALLY, far more so than "RJensen" is. The Confederate Truths’ web site, in association with the Winter Institute, is an Internet extension of the book, "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: 'The Great Truth' about The 'Lost Cause,'" edited by James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta, and published by the University Press of Mississippi...James W. Loewen: Jim Loewen taught race relations for twenty years at the University of Vermont. Previously he taught at predominantly African American Tougaloo College in Mississippi. He is currently a Visiting Professor at Catholic University.

He is the author of "Teaching What Really Happened," "Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism," "Lies Across America," and "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and "The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White." His official website is http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/

Edward H. Sebesta: He is an independent researcher who started researching the neo-Confederate movement in 1991. He is one of the editors of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical introduction," Univ. of Texas Press, 2008. He has been published internationally in peer reviewed academic publications. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The page in question is unsigned and we don't know who wrote it. but the source NEVER makes the claims invented by Morty C-137 about the kkk close connection to early UDC. No kkk operated in the 1895-1915 era when UDC was formed and set up its programs. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't miss the link on their website, ~~I noted there wasn't a link back to that website from the winter institute~~. The only people saying they are associated with the winter institute is the website itself. And anybody can claim anything on the internet, which is why a reverse link is important. Read the policy on self published sources that web page is not a reliable source. Further, there is no indication that any of those people are the actual writers of that page. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Striking part of the last comment, I had to do some digging, but they do have a link at the winter institute. It's buried in the winter institute website. http://winterinstitute.org/academic-service/educational-resources/civil-rights-social-justice/ --Kyohyi (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It DOES say who wrote it, despite RJensen once again misrepresenting. The Confederate Truths’ web site, in association with the Winter Institute, is an Internet extension of the book, "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: 'The Great Truth' about The 'Lost Cause,'" edited by James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta Morty C-137 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is the person who wrote that "In its early incarnations the group was closely associated with the white supremacy movement and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan" answer: Morty made it up all by himself with no support from any rs. It's false history and Morty is confused about the fist & second kkk's Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So RJensen keeps saying, ignoring the experts and shouting "false history" because he can't argue facts. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"facts" in Misplaced Pages = what the RS say. None of the sources say it's a fact--only Morty thinks that a KKK not founded for 20 more years was "closely associated" with the early UDC. None of his sources say any such thing. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go with actual experts over RJensen, whose key method of argument seems to oscillate between shouting "me me" and name-dropping who he worked with in unrelated fields, assuming he is even who he claims to be. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been warned about your incivility. Try quoting a statement from a rs that supports your original thesis: I do not think you can do it. Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

From reading this, Rjensen is saying that the sources do not support the statement that you are making Morty. He's also asking you to substantiate through quoting where in the source you are getting that they were closely associated. From reading through the sources I don't see that either. I see the authors taking the position that both groups used similar white supremacist rhetoric. That's a different statement from closely associated. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

All I see is him shouting "false history" a lot. And he's been both rude and arrogant, repeatedly. I have provided sources, he has provided name-dropping and not a single source to back up his claims. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

He's saying that the sources you provided do not say the things your say they are saying. And he's asked you to quote the portions of the sources that support your interpretation. He doesn't need to provide a source if he's not including material in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Morty is unable to support his link between UDC and the KKK with any quotes from reputable sources. I'm reverting it until he can. Morty C-137, please support your claim here rather than just revert it back. Cjhard (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I have provided scholarly research by experts in the field. Cjensen on the other hand shouts nonsense and doesn't back it up. Now quit being a stalker. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry-- we all missed the quotations Morty says he "provided"--exactly what did the experts say? Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you, but you need to understand that content stays out of an article until there's consensus that it should be in. Please discontinue your personal attacks against me, Rjensen or anyone else, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Engage others in a civil manner and discuss your edits. Please. Cjhard (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at the two confederatepastpresent.org sources.--SamHolt6 06:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have looked over the two confederatepastpresent.org sources. For reference, both pages concern articles written by the UDC supplemented with synthesis provided by confederatepastpresent.org itself. The first source cites pages from a 1928 book, "The South in American Life and History," published by a UDC member with the approval of the Tennessee Division of said organization. The pages explain the history of the KKK in a positive light (this could be seen as consistent with support), but do not draw an affiliation between the KKK and UDC. The second page linked to cites a 1936 issue of The Southern Magazine, a paper published by the UDC (the exact document cited is “Secret Political Societies in the South During The Period of Reconstruction”.) This (Southern Magazine) article again describes the titular secret political societies (I.E. the KKK) of the South in a positive light, and praises their activities. The article cites a quote from a member of the UDC supporting the KKK. Overall, the website cited (confederatepastpresent.org) uses publications by the UDC and UDC affiliated groups to show that the organization portrayed the KKK in a positive light, but does not explicitly affiliate the UDC with the KKK in any way. Nor do the two articles cited by confederatepastpresent.org affiliate the UDC with the KKK. If we want to explain that the UDC was in support of the KKK and their activities, then that is within our purview, but it would be incorrect to say the the sources cited affiliate the two organizations. Thoughts? --SamHolt6 (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that is consistent with my reading of the sources. I'd also suggest that the sources are not strong enough to justify giving the UDC's support of the KKK too much weight, and is particularly inappropriate to include in the lede. Cjhard (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the only reason Cjhard is here is to engage in Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding me, I'm not bothering with anything he has to say, especially given his stated goal above to edit war. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am REALLY SADDENED to see Samholt enabling Cjhard's wikihounding behavior but here again, you need to learn history from someone other than the woefully misinformed or uninformed Rjensen. The UDC, on the launch of the Second KKK, functioned as a propaganda arm for same.

http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=162:the-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-defends-the-ku-klux-klan-in-1936&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:tennessee-division-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-praise-the-ku-klux-klan-and-anglo-saxon-purity&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=197:mildred-rutherford-1915-address-to-the-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-about-reconstruction&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-and-their-red-shirt-shrine&catid=36:the-civil-rights-era&Itemid=47 http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:sef-rose-historian-general-of-the-udc-and-her-career-in-the-udc-praising-the-ku-klux-klan&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:after-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-udc-historian-general-sef-rose-the-udc-chooses-grace-meredith-newbill-ku-klux-klan-enthusiast-for-their-next-historian-general-&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145:mildred-rutherford-defends-slavery-in-address-to-the-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

And if you need OVERT wording, remember that Confederate Veteran, the official magazine of the UDC, had this to say: Great and trying times always produce great leaders, and one was at hand—Nathan Bedford Forrest. His plan, the only course left open. The organization of a secret government. A terrible government; a government that would govern in spite of black majorities and Federal bayonets. This secret government was organized in every community in the South, and this government is known in history as the Klu Klux Clan ... Morty C-137 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I note that Rjensen ignored all this and just decided to revert. I will not, given that I know full well that Cjhard's ploy is trying to play as Rjensen's organized edit warrior stooge to get me blocked under the 3 revert rule. But I will continue trying to discuss this, even though Rjensen clearly is uninterested in facts. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Address by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, historian general of the UDC, to the group:

Oh! Daughters of the Confederacy, members of our Indiana Chapters, there was a friend of the South from your Indiana in those awful Reconstruction days. As our Mr. Cunningham has been instrumental in erecting a memorial to Mr. Owens who was so good to our prisoners during the War, so I would like to see you erect some memorial to that Democratic Congressman so anxious to help the South in this hour of her need. I refer to Dan Vorhees, of Indiana. He said it was a shame to make dead provinces out of living States. He said the South was a white man’s country and should be kept so, but that Reconstruction Committee would not listen to his pleading.

The Ku Klux Klan was an absolute necessity in the South at this time. This Order was not composed of the “riff raff” as has been represented in history, but of the very flower of Southern manhood. The chivalry of the South demanded protection for the women and children of the South.

AND THIS The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) as an organization and by the actions of its members, including prominent members, defended the Ku Klux Klan. S.E.F. Rose was a UDC member who became the 2nd Historian General of the UDC. Her historical focus was on glorifying the Ku Klux Klan which met with praise in the UDC and probably was the chief reason she was elected Historian General of the UDC. -

Sources check out. Early UDC actively promoted and recruited for the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Pearson (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it another 24 hours and if none of you have actually bothered discussing by then, I'll assume no more objections follow since quotes have been provided. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Commenting before we get another revert. I still don't think these quotes support the statement "In its early incarnations the group was closely associated with the white supremacy movement and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan". However, they do support statements that early individual members praised the ku klux klan. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well since Cjhard played "revert right before lock" and none of the rest of you could be honest enough to keep talking during it... Morty C-137 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in finger pointing. It's not other people's responsibility to get consensus for what you want in an article. If you've got some suggested text feel free to list it here, if it's just going to be another revert, well I can't help you. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to post quotes. I posted quotes and you all went fucking silent after Cjhard's hounding ploy and deliberate attempt to start an edit war. Excuse me if the limits of my "assume good faith" have been stretched to the fucking breaking point watching that dumb game-playing go on and being forced to sit and wait to see if even one of you is actually operating in good faith. I see now that you aren't. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Kyohyi, you're the only one to even respond still after I posted quotes at the request of you and Rjensen (who is too dumb to actually read a website's front page to understand that yes, it's affiliated with the Winter Institute).

But fine. Do we have enough here, especially adding the following article, to say that the UDC's early incarnation (1894-1919, the separating event being their 1919 incorporation) actively promoted Lost Cause rhetoric, white supremacism, and historical revisionism glorifying the first Ku Klux Klan and eventually the 2nd KKK once it "officially" formed in 1915, and the post-1919 incarnation actively promoted the second Ku Klux Klan which was alive at the time?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-dixies-history-got-whitewashed

I had boiled it down to "early incarnations", plural to cover both the 1894-1919 period (during with the 2nd KKK was formed) and the post-1919-incorporation incarnation in the interest of keeping the wording brief, but I guess maybe we have to be more specific so that Rjensen who has absolutely no clue about history might learn something... Morty C-137 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits of 18 August 2016

These three edits (I've linked the edit history of the person who made them, as those are the only three edits they ever made) removed several kb of text on the grounds that it "didn't use best sources for citations per wiki guidelines" (and that it was uncited/unsourced). In fact, what was removed was 1) a thoroughly-cited section on a Confederate flag controversy and 2) every single mention of the UDC's relation to the Lost Cause myth (also thoroughly cited). This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of whitewashing to me -- is there any reason not to reintroduce the deleted material? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to hear how you'd like to see it rewritten? Morty C-137 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the removal was incorrect and the material should be copied and pasted back into place as it was. Do you think any part of it needs to be rewritten or left out? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that it's now May 26, 2017 I think that enough of the article has been likely changed that we should review the content rather than just putting it back? If only to make sure it matches well with the rest of the article? Morty C-137 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked looking for a source and left this on the backburner a bit too long (and in the end I misremembered the source, it wasn't about the daughters of the confederacy but about a dozen other "daughters of" groups). Things can be rearranged if necessary, I'm just getting BRD ass-backwards here and looking for discussion before... reverting boldly, I guess? Anyway, I'll do it once the article is unprotected and I have a few minutes. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for two days to stop the edit warring. Several of you are on the verge of being blocked for EW, or possibly already blockable; I didn't look into that before protecting. Work out your disagreement on the talk page, please. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead improvement

The extensive administrative details in the lead were against MOS:LEAD so I've moved them from the lead to its own section and put some general information of the UDC there instead. I don't think the administrative details should be in the article at all, but some information could be taken from it and incorporated elsewhere. If anyone else is interested in improving the lead, be bold and have a crack at it. Cjhard (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Description of Lost Cause as white supremacist

Morty C-137, you made , describing the Lost Cause movement as 'white supremacist'. I reverted this citing WP:NPOV. As an explanation, describing something as 'white supremacist' is very disparaging, to the point of editorialising. Also, because it is an opinion (an opinion I share, by the way), it should be cited to someone expressing that opinion, rather than as fact. For example, on the article for the Lost Cause movement, assertions of white supremacy are cited as the opinions of historians, rather than as facts. Also, as the assertion that the Lost Cause movement is white supremacist is contested (as can be seen in the "Contemporary Historians" section of the Lost Cause page), I'm not convinced that insinuating that the UDC is a white supremacist organisation by including that opinion is appropriate. I'm not sure what you meant when you undid my revision, describing it as "not productive or helpful", but I recommend using the WP:BRD cycle to avoid future edit warring on this page. Cjhard (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not getting drawn into yet another of your bad faith attempts to start a fight. Your edit was unproductive and unhelpful, and did not match the source material. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just have to remind you that as the editor making contested changes to an article, it is your duty to justify those changes. When you say my removal of your description of the Lost Cause movement "did not match the source material", are you referring to the cited book, Garner's Blood And Irony: Southern White Women's Narratives of the Civil War, 1861-1937? If so, could you please post a quote from the book supporting this?

Also, please assume good faith. Cjhard (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You're the one making a "contested change" with your removal. Also, maybe if you'd start showing some good faith... Morty C-137 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe I have shown good faith. I have given a reasoned explanation for my reversion of your edit and have not yet reverted again pending this discussion and your ability to justify your edit.

I think you may be confused about contested changes. The sentence existed on the page since May 2012:]. Restoring the sentence to the state it was before you changed it a few weeks ago is of course not the contested change. Are you able to find the quote in Garner's book describing the Lost Cause as white supremacist? I sincerely doubt it. Otherwise, what is your justification for changing the sentence in this way? Cjhard (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:IronGargoyle, I've explained my reasoning for removing the description of the Lost Cause movement as "white supremacist", what are your objections to removing this description? Cjhard (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than deleting the phrase, someone could add a citation for Matthew Aaron Speiser, “Seeking the Roots of the Lost Cause”, which certainly does use that descriptor for the Lost Cause movement. Newimpartial (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to access that book, but the Lost Cause has the following citation for critics describing the Lost Cause narrative as white supremacist:

I'll change the wording to "These memoirs were part of the growing public memory about the antebellum years and the Lost Cause narrative, which critics have described as white supremacist, as they vigorously defended the Confederacy." However, I think it's a little unwieldy and like an out of place attempt to attach the "white supremacist" tag to this group.Cjhard (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

David W. Blight (2001). Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Harvard University Press. p. 259. ISBN 0-674-00332-2.

Categories: