Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 4

Why "Confederate" with a small c?

Why is this article titled "Neo-confederate" with a small c? Does the title not refer to the Confederates, as in the Confederate States of America? It is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized. The page should be at Neo-Confederate. For instance, see Neo-Nazi. (Note that I am not necessarily comparing Neo-Confederates to Neo-Nazis, but it is the most direct structural parallel that comes to me at this time.) 71.105.74.192 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd concur, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I had the same question. Capitalization will make it clearer. -- Alarob 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the blanket reversion and no comment?

Why the blanket reversion? Could I see some justification for it? Or is it just an attempt to foist a single political view onto Wikipedia?Dogface 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

I deleted the line about the usage of the term neo-confederate implying association with neo-nazis, because there is no evidence anywhere to back this up. Neo- is a prefix used in several other forms besides for neo-nazi. D-rew 01:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the term "neo-natal" compare babies to Nazis?Verklempt 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Confederacy and Nazism are totally unrelated.

Incidentaly, what does "groups and individuals who have a positive belief system concerning the historical experience of the Confederate States of America, the Southern secession, and the Southern United States" mean in plain English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally unrelated, apart from the fact they see a group of people as subhuman and sometimes don swastikas too. But unrelated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.87.205 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This article in essence, is another subpage of the SPLC website

This article does not conform to Wiki standards. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, etc. It is nothing more than a SPLC propaganda piece.
--Fix Bayonets! 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is absurd.Verklempt 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning issued to User:Verklempt--Fix Bayonets! 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you unable or unwilling to make a rational argument for your case?Verklempt 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. This article does not conform to the above. Suppose an article were to appear on Wikipedia under the title: "neo-Zionist," in which virtually everyone in the Jewish community was accused of being a racist, or race-baiter, or engaging in some other nefarious conduct in furtherance of a unified neo-Zionist goal of overthrowing the government of the United States in favor of a Zionist Occupation Government. And further suppose that in “support” of such article, were (primarily) links and references to Stormfront articles. Is it your contention that such an article would be balanced and conform to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR? --Fix Bayonets! 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is off the wall. The WP article does not accuse anyone of anything. It does report criticisms of various groups, and the groups' own positions. It cites a variety of sources. I don't see any merit in your complaint or your edits.Pokey5945 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

While I know very little about this subject, as I discovered this page from another source, I was bothered by this phrase: "The following are among those accused." I'm sorry, but this is really sick. Accused by whom, for what?Dubyavee 06:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific Issues

• User "Paul" is correct. His comment of 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) astutely points out that the article, as a whole, is "a hodgepodge of accusations and other speculation." There should be some attempt at WP:NPOV, balance, and "counter-point."
  
  

• User "IP Address" is correct. His/her edit of 15:24, 21 July 2006 correctly points out that "[t]he intended lingual association of 'neo-' and 'confederate', is with 'Neo-Nazi' and meant to align their stigmas as somehow related." That statement should be placed back into the article.
  
  

• User "Dogface" is correct. His edit of 04:22, 3 September 2006 was correct to delete the "Liberty Advocate" paragraph-- L.Adv. looks like a group of one member. The "Liberty Advocate" material should be (again) deleted.
  
  

• It should be stated clearly in the article that the "sources" for the very existence of a so-called neo-Confederate "movement" stem from a small number of individuals/groups on the political left (left-of-center). In other words, the article is written from the perspective that IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT that such a so-called "movement" exists, and that such "movement" is of "significance," numerically speaking.
  
  

• It should be stated clearly in the article that most of the critics of the UDC and SCV stem from a small number of individuals/groups on the political left (left-of-center). Furthermore, it should be stated that the Southern Poverty Law Center is described as a "controversial liberal organization" by the Washington Post and as controversial and sometimes "misleading" by Harper's Magazine. Edsall, Thomas B. “Conservative Group Accused Of Ties to White Supremacists.” Washington Post, December 19, 1998, p. A08 ("The Southern Poverty Law Center [is] a controversial, liberal organization that tracks conservative militia and "patriotic" organizations");
  Silverstein, Ken. “The Church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.” Harper's Magazine, November 2000. p._.
  
  

• The article leaves one with the impression that only racists believe that the secession of the Southern States was justified. That is not correct. It should be stated that other eminent scholars of constitutional law and history have defended the constituionality of secession.
  
  

• It should be stated in the article that the UDC and SCV declare themselves to be apolitical.[1][2]
  
  

• For the sake of balance, it should be stated that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have tendered letters of commendation to the SCV and the UDC.Clinton, Bill. "Letter of June 21, 1994 from Bill Clinton." UDC Magazine, Sept. 1994: p. 9. Bush, George W. "Letter of Commendation." Confederate Veteran, June, 1996: p.6.
  
  

• While the above issues are not the only ones which should be addressed, they should serve as a good start.
  
  

--Fix Bayonets! 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

1)The anonymous complaint from a year ago is out of date given subsequent editing. 2) The "neo-Nazi" line of argument is absurd and unfounded. Let's see some evidence for that whopper. 3) The movement exists both in the minds of its critics, and in the minds of movement activists themselves. The numerical significance of the movement is established by the movement's own rhetoric (see SCV and LoS memberships claims). 4) I agree that criticism should be contextualized, but not by using sarcastic, distancing adjectives such as "so-called", which introduce POV. 5) I disagree that the article "leaves the impression" re racism and secession. It never links the two concepts at all. 6) I agree that the stated objectives of the groups mentioned should be included, and juxtaposed with the critics' counter-claims. 7) The letters from Presidents are trivial factoids that do not illuminate anything significant about their recipients other than that the President was courting their votes. There is no good reason to include them. If we do include them, it rather shoots down the organization's claim to be apolitical, doesn't it?Verklempt 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

My thoughts:

1. The alleged lingual link between "neo-Nazi" and "neo-Confederate", if it is to be in the article, must be referenced to a reliable source. "Neo" has a clear meaning aside from its association with "neo-Nazi" (thus terms like neoliberal and neoconservative are in common use), so it seems that saying the prefix is being used as a way to associate these people with neo-Nazis is a somewhat dubious claim, though I'm not discounting it as a possibility. In other words, we cannot merely assert that there is such a link without reference because there are rational reasons to doubt its validity.
2. "Liberty Advocate" does not appear to be remarkably notable and does not seem to meet reliable source guidelines. If no one can prove to the contrary, it should probably be removed from this article.
3. It is POV to say that the sources for the existence of the neo-confederate movement come from a small number of sources on the political left. A google search for the term comes up with about 100,000 hits. I'm not opposed to describing the proponents of the term as generally left of center, but we would have to be omniscient (or have a lot of time and patience) to say with certainty that it's really only coming from a small number of sources.
4. Regarding the SPLC, you know my thoughts on that from the SCV talk page. I'll reproduce them here for everyone else's perusal, "The article already mentions that the critics are on the left, no reason to repeat that claim with a mention that the SPLC is "liberal." If the SPLC is going to be described as "controversial", the article must say exactly who is saying it is controversial. It's not an objective fact that it is controversial, it is a fact that person X has described it as controversial. But this article isn't about the SPLC, and I think such criticism of the SPLC belongs in the SPLC article."
5. Generally, this article suffers from some of the same back-and-forth problems that the SCV article was facing for awhile. In other words, it seems to be bouncing between versions that are slanted against the term and versions that are biased in favor of it (well, as much as one can be "for" or "against" a word, anyway). Actually, even the version of the article that is purportedly biased in favor of the term's use contains some subsections that are written from a POV that is slanted against the term's use. Perhaps this article needs to be reorganized or rewritten entirely. I'll mark it with a cleanup tag for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where to start on this article. Is there an article about US secession ideas on Wikipedia? I know New England thought about it three times before the War of Northern Aggression. South Carolina thought about it while Andy jackson was in office. I know some talked about it after Kerry got his butt handed to him in 2004. Heck, West Virginia succeeded at it in 1863 from Virginia, but that's not quite the same thing.--Bedford 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The neo-Confederate movement combines secessionist ideology with Lost Cause historical revisionism. It is best conceptualized as an ethnic nationalist movement. There are heavy helpings of unabashed white supremacy laced through, even though most of the orgs attempt to distance themselves from overt displays of racism in their official pronouncements.Verklempt 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very arrogant for verklempt to think that he/she has this issue "locked down" when it clearly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.23 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed Sebesta

Is this person so notable/credible that someone can be labelled a "neo-Confederate" upon his sayso alone to the point that this becomes encyclopedic? After all, pretty much anyone can allege anything about anyone else. It has been alleged, for example, that Bill Clinton was secretly a Communist, that Richard Nixon was secretly Catholic, that certain Popes were actually Freemasons, and all kinds of other things, but that does not automatically make such allegations encyclopedic. I think that we should be more interested in who is a self-identifed neo-Confederate, just as Wikipedia tends to list as being gay self-identifed gays, not purportedly gay people, and would only consider allowing someone else to be listed as gay with several credible outside sources, not just one very partisan and self-serving source. We wouldn't let Fred Phelps alone determine who was or was not gay, and we shouldn't let Sebesta alone who is a neo-Confederate, even with the annotation that he is the sole source. Rlquall 22:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have an important point here. However, the Southern Independence Party rejects the label, according to the article. But if the SIP is not neo-C, then the term has no meaning, and this WP article should be deleted. Sebesta's ID on this particular group should be self-evident, regardless of his own credentials. In this case, going by the group's self-ID alone would lead to a wrong conclusion. Eugene Genovese was a member of the LoS. If LoS members are not neo-C, then who is?Verklempt 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that Sebesta has published on the neo-C movement in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. He is rather more than a self-appointed watchdog--he is also an independent scholar whose work has been validated by the research community.Verklempt 00:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember that a list of persons was given for which it was claimed I had stated were neo-Confederate. Many of the persons I had never stated were neo-Confederate, but did claim that they had give support to neo-Confederate groups. If there is a claim that Ed Sebesta says something, it would be good to have it verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the list of alleged Neo-Confederates was added by an editor seeking to disparage the use of the term. I believe the idea was to show how ridiculous some of the allegations are. OTOH, I think is is reasonable to uses sources to indicate, in an NPOV manner, how the term is used and who is regarded a part of the movement. Sebesta's website has been altered, so some of these references may not even work anymore. Perhaps we should trim the list to those entries with two or more sources. -Will Beback 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The two-source rule is a good idea, but there may be one-source examples that should remain. If there is a one-source example that seems like it belongs, specify both the source and the rationale for inclusion.Verklempt 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if there is an entry claiming that I said something or asserted something there should be a footnote to verify it. I remember this list, and there were people that I had never said were neo-Confederates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Slur

This article should mention how the word is seen as an offensive slur to most people. I have seen where men have retaliated by calling people Neo-Yankees as a comeback. Which would prove its offensiveness.

"Most people" have never even heard the term, much less do they know what it means or to whom it refers. Any random word can be used as an insult. I think this one has a long way to go before it falls into that category. It is nearly always used to describe a particular nationalist ideology and movement.Verklempt 02:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, It was originally invented to compare Nazis to Confederates, which have nothing in common. That is why people see this as an insult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Virginia Confederate (talk • contribs).

Ahh, yes, just like neoliberal and neoconservative are meant to evoke Nazis too, right? Neo- is a prefix in common English use. Cite reliable sources which demonstrate your claims, please. I've place a prod tag on the Neo-Yankee article you just recreated, and will afd it if you remove the tag. Just compare google hits for the terms "neo yankee" and "neo confederate" and I believe no more discussion will be necessary. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

useless

This article is trite and meaningless and largely refers to a few private views held by some individuals.

I agree. It is pure slang.

I am offended. According the Summary of neo-Confederate beliefs I am solidly Neo-Confederate...thank you. The entire article as it has an accusatory overtone. It kind of reminds me of the spoof film "If the south had won" in which blacks ran around like "Gone with the Wind". The point is that slavery was in Boston to Georgia and that war was about a philosophical difference of right and wrong. The South saw the North largely as currupt bankers and lawyers. So Consider if the south had won what would the spoof on the north look like. The point is that the winner of war writes the true revisionist history. Take a step back and you will see that this entire article falls into the category of bashing the losing side instead of true intelligence. Mingomtman (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Our opinions, valid though they may be, are not of concern here. Out job as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist

I deleted it. There is no reason to have a list of people/organizations accused of something. It is too closely related to a McCarthy Era blacklist. And since the majority of them stand accused by one person, it really doesn't belong. Comments? --Milton 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it back. The article is about neo-confederates and naming who these people are is an integral part of the article. The SPLC is not "one person" but an organization and it is a widely quoted source whenever news articles are written about extremist fringe groups. Could the list be trimmed? Probably. Discussing specific deletions would probably be a more productive use of this discussion page than unfounded charges of McCarthyism. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not prance around the bush. There is no listed justification for WHY those groups are considered neo-confederate, they are simply tossed out there. The article admits that many consider it a slur. The anti-Semite page doesn't list accused anti-semites. It doesn't matter if it's sourced or not. Listing people and organizations accused of neo-confederate leanings without providing a reasoning why is irresponsible. And don't waste time saying that "the article is about neo-confederates and naming who these people are is an integral part of the article," because that's not true. Defining a term doesn't necessitate a list every application. If you want to put SOURCED reasons why people or organizations are, feel free to. I personally will leave it up there, if it meets Wikipedia standards. Regards, --Milton 15:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: If you want to provide a link to a list of the organizations, that'll work. It just doesn't belong as its own section. --Milton 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If your goal is really to reach consensus, as you indicated on my talk page, then I would have thought that you would have initiated the conversation before you deleted the list the first time but certainly before you deleted it a second time. It is easy enough to obtain info. from the source and add it to the list. I have now done it on three of the organizations listed and will continue to do that as time permits. If you really want to improve the article, you can do the same thing and we'll be done twice as fast. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to take note of the introduction to the Intelligence Report which describes its criteria:

The neo-Confederate movement includes a number of organizations that generally share the goals of preserving Confederate monuments, honoring the Confederate battle flag, and lauding what is judged to be "Southern" culture. Many have close ties to the white supremacist League of the South (LOS).

As the battle over removing the Confederate battle flag from atop the South Carolina Capitol heated up this year, leaders of relatively mainstream groups like the Heritage Preservation Association, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy shared the podium with the likes of the LOS and the Council of Conservative Citizens — despite the latter groups' clearly expressed racism.

The political cross-pollination between these neo-Confederate organizations is also seen in the large number of cross-memberships among their leaders and activists. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I deleted them per WP:LISTS, regarding undersourced, controversial material reflecting negatively on individual persons. --Milton 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how this list reflects negatively on anyone. Most of these folks are proud of their political beliefs. The only real controversy is over what to call them. "neo-Confederate" is not intentionally pejorative, and far more NPOV than the alternatives.Verklempt 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The belligerent tone of your comment belies the supposed politeness of your request. As mentioned previously, the tone can be used as a pejorative, and often is intentionally so, as the article maintains. Furthermore, many of the organizations contest their labeling as a neo-confederate group. I hardly think that a recognition of history and culture automatically constitutes a hate group. Whatever the definition of the term may be, it carries a strong subjective definition. For example, take a look the Iraq article, and the sometimes intense debates over what verb to use regarding what the United States has done and is doing (occupying? invading? etc). I am not in the least opposed to discussing why some groups or people may be considered neo-confederate, but the entire page takes a rather negative view on neo-confederatism ("accused" "alleged" "claims" etc), and as such, violates WP:NPOV. Either the page should be rewritten to a more neutral tone, or the list should be removed. If I had a page listing people of being guilty of "Tomfardyaism," and cast "Tomfardyaism" in a negative light, it would therefore cast the people in a negative light. --Milton 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are conflaing several distinct issues. First, my "tone" is perfectly polite. Please do not engage in ad hominem. Second, "neo-Confederate" and "hate group" are not synonyms and should not be used as such in this article. Third, if specific neo-Confederate groups or individuals have expressed discomfort with being so labeled, then that should certainly be included into the article. It is relevant. Why exclude it? Fourth, your complaints of POV are a separate issue. Specify what they are, and we'll deal with them separately. I would argue that it does not make sense to discuss neo-Confederate movement as an abstract concept, without also specifying some examples of such groups and individuals.Verklempt 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I engaged in no ad hominem. Your tone was accusatory, but it doesn't matter. Second, the article itself states that many people do consider 'neo-confederate' and 'hate group' as synonymous, and so do the sources accusing groups of being neo-confederate. Third, the application of the label "neo-conservative" is controversial, AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE, yet this controversy is apparently not enough to stop anyone from doing so in an encyclopedia article with a supposed neutral tone. Fourth, I've addressed as many of my complaints regarding NPOV as I could without removing the disputed section. Fifth (I know you don't have a fifth, but I do), the article not only admits that accusations of neo-confederatism to non-secesionist organizations are controversial, but it then accuses non-secessionist groups of being neo-confederate, and it then cites references which it also admits are controversial. You are therefore using a single, controversial source to apply a controversial label to an organization, and I find that quite irresponsible. --Milton 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the middle ground would be to include a paragraph about the main leaders of the movement? That would give an opportunity to explain what their involvements with the movement are and why the sources categorize them this way. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a good start would be clarifying the movement's history, other than stating that it is a movement. --Milton 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, who is this Ed Sebesta person? Sure he has a Wikipedia entry, but his credentials are somewhat lacking. Is every loud-mouthed person with a blog and an agenda a reliable source for an encyclopedia? I find that most of these sources admit a bias, and most of the entries only have one source, which I find to be undersourced. --Milton 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'll just come out with it. I am a native Tennessean, and a proud southern boy, and according to certain aspects of this article, a neo-confederate myself (I don't advocate secession or white supremacism). I am hereby recusing myself from this article's work, per WP:COI, and I want to convey my heartfelt apologies for wasted time and any hard feelings. I'll be more than happy to explain to any of you why the majority of Southernors could be labeled neo-confederate, and why there is such a large amount of southern pride, which seems to conflict with the majority opinions as such, on my talk page. Best wishes on improving this article, and Wikipedia as a whole. --Milton 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The article is about neo-confederates and naming who these people are is an integral part of the article." Sorry, no. It would be appropriate to name the leaders of the SPLC, for example, because they freely admit to being members. They willingly associated themselves with the organization. Labeling particular people "neo-cons" implies they willingly associate themselves publicly with the neo-con movement. Barring the existence of some official statement on the part of the individual being referred to as a neo-con acknowledging their acceptance of the term as an accurate descriptor of their ideology, their inclusion in this list is irresponsible and unacceptable. Unwarranted accusations like these have no place on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.225.132 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this from a link from someone trying to smear people they don't like. I deleted the list of people and organizations for all of the reasons above. There are no citations. No effort is made to indicate who calls him/herself this, and who has just been smeared (and why, where, when, and by whom - aka, a source). Atrocious that this is in here. Sixteenkats (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced paragraph

I removed the following undocumented paragraph:

Given that its use may have a pejorative or disparaging connotation, the application of the term "neo-confederate" to groups that do not readily fit the description of a secessionist organization is controversial. The term is commonly employed by organizations on the political left, while many of the organizations it is applied to are on the political right. There is little consensus over which groups are properly termed "neo-confederate" and which are not, even among the organizations that monitor them.

My reasons:

1. The article does not allege, nor do historians discussing neo-confederates and the Lost Cause, that in order to be labeled neo-confederate the group MUST advocate current secession.

2. The left-right allegations are just that -- allegations. Especially where there are criticisms of Lincoln by neo-confederates, conservatives such as the Claremont Group and Dinesh D'Souza defend Lincoln. Sources are needed to back the original claim up.

3. I find a great deal of consensus among the sources cited as to what constitutes a neo-confederate -- there is no significant argument "among the organizations that monitor them". Tom (North Shoreman) 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph amounts to original research. · jersyko talk 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This Article is all pointless.

The word Neo-Confederate is a word invented by the SPLC. People are considered Neo-Confederate if they so much as touch a Confederate flag. Who is it to say who is a Neo-Confederate. The SPLC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.87 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why lower-case "neo-confederate"?

Will someone please explain why the term is deliberately lower-case in this article? The term is related to the Confederate States, right? It makes no sense to lower-case it, as far as I can see, yet clearly this was a deliberate choice. So why was the choice made? The issue is not discussed in the article. Is lower-case supposed to be P.C.? -- Rob C (Alarob) 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was decided here: [3], but without any particular reasoning or discussion. Another person raised the same question last year, #Why "Confederate" with a small c?. I have no object to "Neo-Confederate". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the capitalization. That's the normal use pattern.Verklempt 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I opted for "neo-Confederate" by analogy with "neo[-]conservative" and because there is no formally organized organization that uses the term or names its own members "Neo-Confederate." I have asked an admin to move the article, and changed lower-case "confederate" to "Confederate" throughout. Noticed that someone must have gone through at some point and lower-cased all the C's, even in direct quotes. I checked one and found that it had been capitalized in the original. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#July 2, 2007. -- Rob C (Alarob) 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. · jersyko talk 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies

Apologies are in order for an edit that I made yesterday. I had no idea that Morris Dees had named the Mises Institute as "Neoconfederate". I have received newsletters from Lew Rockwell for years (because I enjoy reading about Libertarian economics), and I had no idea of the other accusations. I respect Morris Dees and we agree on many things. I am as pro-civil rights as you can get, and my wife is a contributor to the SPLC. So, I will have to do some deeper research of the Mises Institute. Once again, I apologize for editing without doing research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.14.65 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by Allegation

The last section is unconscionable. A list of the allegations is not a NPOV, it's pure propaganda. Some of those on the list are there because they do not follow establishment orthodoxy. For example, criticism of Lincoln, belief in states rights or secession, etc. This list should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.113.203.3 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's complete crap. There seems to be only one user that keeps putting it back up. I wonder why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnybobiche (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide which groups or people do or don't follow or promote the neo-Confederate point of view. Our job, as encyclopedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sourcee using the neutral point of view. The list is neutral and verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any way in which the SPLC or its associates can be construed as a unbiased (reliable) source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnybobiche (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the SPLC is constantly quoted by and referred to by newspapers whenever the subect is hate groups. You need to quit deleting sourced material until a consensus has been reached that agrees with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material? The Southern Poverty Law Center is a sham. Any moron can start a group that winds up being quoted by the media. The John Birch Society comes to mind. It has no business in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps YOU need to quit ADDING questionably sourced material until a consensus has been reached that agrees with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.23 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If the list is verifiable, then there should be sources. I removed this section for this reason (see Blacklist talk above), but it was reverted without explanation by Kentetsubuffalo without any explanation. I re-deleted it - add citations to each claim if you think it should stay. This is not NPOV and there are living people in the list.Sixteenkats (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be completely rewritten

This article needs to be completely rewritten. It isn't focused on what neo-Confederates believe but rather various grips individuals have.

I am on of the editors of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction," University of Texas Press, Dec. 1 2008 release date.

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html

This web page has the table of contents and the Introduction to the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the criticism. I'm sure you're right. Would you care to take a stab at doing the re-write? You're obvioulsy qualifiedand familiar with the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's inappropriate to add commentary to the article.[4] I appreciate that you want to help readers, but the best way to do that is to improve the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to see a scholarly work that can separate individuals and groups with real mal intent from those who happen to be scholarly (or activist) historical revisionists on Civil War and/or pro-secession. And also not get into this guilt by association of people who may have had some passing affiliation with questionable people -- or who are dubious of all the politicized smears they hear against people. The whole issue has been used as a political battering ram based on poorly sourced or unsourced info from people making a buck scaring the heck out of wealthy contributors about all the neoconfederate neo-nazis running around. So fact based work without an ax to grind would be appreciated! This is article is low on my list of things to make less POV/WP:BLP violating, but so many wiki articles, so little time! Carol Moore 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

My primary problem with the article is that it tends to improperly mix neo-confederate groups and individuals which DO practice or advocate racism or "hate" with those who DO NOT, and it is very troubling for me. The "List Of Alleged Neo-Confederates" is a clear example of what I am talking about. Cited as a source is SPLC, which is really NOT a neutral source. And I say this as somebody who has no problem with SPLC going after specific hate organizations that have committed crimes: they still are biased on this subject, and therefore should NOT be the ONLY source of a particular accusation. The article also very clearly confuses "Neo-Confederate" and "Racist", and that really is an untruth. For example, I found it necessary to edit out the Ku Klux Klan out of that list, because the Ku Klux Klan has nothing to do with the reestablishment of either the Old Confederacy or a new one. There is a similar confusion between "Neo-Confederate" and "Secessionist": just as not all Neo-Confederates are racists, not all advocate a new secession either. I in particular would like to see the term "Alleged" stricken, since most of the listed organizations readily admit they are "Pro-Confederacy" and would like to see the accusations stricken as well. Some of these accusations may well belong on a "Racism" page, or on a page about the individual organizations and the page on the SPLC, but including them here just paints everyone with a "racist" brush and is incidiary. A statement somewhere to the effect of "The SPLC generally considers the neo-confederate movement racist." would be more neutral AND more accurate. There needs to be a BIG rewrite, but I cannot be the only one who does it. I will help, though.Lizmichael (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments above yours, in any case, someone's got to do the work. When I get back to being more focused on secession in general, and US in particular, and I am looking into who is who anyway, might take a crack, but that would not be probably til January or February. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as of today, I have finished a rewrite, if you could call it that. Most of the previous body of the article has been retained, it has just been reordered. The primary principle I used was, first you have to define what the protagonists really believe, BEFORE you publish what the antagonists believe about them. That had never been done, and I inserted a section on Neo-Confederate beliefs. The "List" of Neo-Confederates has been retained, but the initials over "who accused them" has been removed... if such things are to be reinserted, they should be reinserted as references, not as the main body of the article. Almost all the SPLC criticism has been left intact, but it has been made clear that it is "their opinion" as opposed to it being presented as if it were "unbiased". Also, I removed the von Mises Institute from the list, because in looking at their organization, I cannot honestly see that the organization itself purports Neo-Confederate beliefs, even though I am aware that several of its board members do. I also included a paragraph on the "Lost Cause" because although the Lost Cause was being critiqued, it was never identified or defined in the first place: said paragraph was already on the Wiki-Lost Cause article. I have not addressed the concept that some consider "Neo-Confederate" an insult-that discussion will wait until another day. As to cites on the Beliefs section, I will get around to that... but the article was just so scatterbrained, I felt that "unscatterbraining it" was the first priority. Lizmichael (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for improving the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

I recently made this edit [5].The organisation is not notable and its inclusion is a violation of undue weight. I would be happy to discuss this with any who might object.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to its removal. I just didn't want to be the one who did it. I agree with your summation. It took me a while to realize you were talking about the Liberty Advocate paragraph. I wasn't real happy it was there, but with everything I was doing, I didn't want to be the one who took it out. Lizmichael (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has gotten even worse. It is astoundingly bad. Edward H. Sebesta. Until I can fix this page you can read the introduction and browse the book, "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction," by the Univ. of Texas Press. The link follows. http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html Newtknight (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed that, Newt, in the new section in this discussion page on Race and Ed Sebesta. I haven't yet taken the Sebesta stuff out completely, just reordered it all, but I do think that's a legit topic of discussion as to whether it should be removed. I do see I have to keep my eye on these things more often. Lizmichael (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Added section for further reading

In getting this entry fixed, I thought I would start with adding a section for further reading so the person finding this article could do some further reading on the topic. There is only one book on neo-Confederacy, however, there are three books which provide some information on movements prior and forerunners to the neo-Confederate movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a good add. Trust me when I say the relevant pro-Confederacy authors I can find will join the critics. Lizmichael (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote one section, moved some things around, and added section =

1. I added a history of the term and usuage. In particular that it is used by neo-Confederates themselves.

2. I rewrote the introduction to be more scholarly and not a neo-Confederate self-representation. I did include the prior introduction, but summarized it and included it as part of a nationalist program.

3. I moved some material out of the "epithet" part to the history part. I deleted a complaint about James McPherson which wasn't much about the "epithet."

Some neo-Confederate vigorously object to the term. Also, they complain that they don't get a hearing and are dismissed as neo-Confederates. However, I think that neo-Confederates are frustrated that the public is now aware of neo-Confederacy and can identify it when they here it.

4. Updated references to include "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction." It is a book by a major university press and was peer reviewed and the only book on the topic by a university press. At least of which I know.

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.115.174 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem with what you did, Ed. You introed the term as only having a scholarly meaning and only being negative. This violates Wiki standards as to bias and balance. Your paragraphs are fine if moved to the criticism section, but before you offer criticism of the movement, you have to DEFINE the movement, and the paragraph you submitted does not do that. Bottom line is, the people in the movement define the movement, like it or not. If you want to go to the scholarly, you should go to the supportive scholars, not the critical scholars, first.

I also want to submit to you that this whole article basically began as a slam piece against all Confederate sympathizers. Some of us cleaned it up in order to add balance to the article. "We" never submitted the article and didn't really want the article here to begin with. So we were not "blowing our own horn", we were telling the truth. Lizmichael (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing section on beliefs

I am making the Section on Beliefs a summary section. So we can list their major beliefs in one or two sentences, then we can have sections on each topic at length. Otherwise it is too long a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtknight (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the section as rewritten is that someone wholly unfamiliar with the movement rewrote it, and beliefs which represent a significant minority are given prominence over commonly shared beliefs, such as the "Celtic heritage" section, something I rarely hear discussed among Neo-Confederates. Lizmichael (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Confederatism, does anyone use that term?

I haven't seen the use of the term neo-Confederatism outside this Wikipedia. I propose that the terms are neo-Confederacy and neo-Confederate as noun and adjective. 72.190.115.174 (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur on this, and have changed Neo-Confederatism to Neo-Condeferacy wherever I find it. Lizmichael (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The more correct term is Southern Nationalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.186.13 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of date list of Confederate groups

I think the Edgefiled adverstiser dropped out of the neo-Confederae movement years ago. Other important groups, such as the Abbeville Institute isn't mentioned.

Is the Confederate Society of America still alive. Is the Southern Military Institute more than a static web page. I am going to look to see which groups are still in existence and delete out defunct groups. I plan to add some important groups that are missing.

I need to remember my tildes

72.190.115.174 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgefield Advertiser apparent no longer publishes and has no links so I removed them. Abbeville Institute has no separate Wiki link but does have a website so I will include them under external links at the next opportunity. CSA is still alive, I moved them to external links. SMI is still an organization in the making, and since they have a Wiki entry, they stay for the time being. Please add anyone you think appropriate, but remember, they must actually be neo-Confederate groups, not independent groups who have n-c's in them. Lizmichael (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete groups just because they're defunct, if they are otherwise worthy of inclusion. It'd be sufficient to note that they're defunct.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Will, if they are in a list of Wiki articles and they have neither a Wiki link nor an independent outside link, I don't think they belong in either the Wiki list or the external links list, especially if the list purports to be current. They can still be referred to in the body of the article if there is something relevant about them. Lizmichael (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unimportant groups in list of Confederate groups and list of links.

Government of the Confederate States of America. Is this group more than a few people and a web page? Also, Confederate States of America. Same issue, is it really more than a few people and a web page?

I need to remember my 72.190.115.174 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is there are several organizations purporting to represent the legitimate government in exile of the CSA. Which one is the legit one? Well, you tell me. Lizmichael (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Confederate States of America was in a list of Wiki links but there was no link to it, so I removed it. Lizmichael (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Confederates and Race and Ed Sebesta

I want to submit this proposal before the group before I actually do it. I believe that this entire section of "Neo-Confederates and Race" does not belong in this article but in an article on the Sons of Confederate Veterans, since the entire section is about the SCV and its publications. If it stays, it needs to be summarized: it is written as if it is somebody's thesis and not a Wiki section or article. I will do one or the other. But I want group input first before deciding where to go.

As an aside and summation to the edits I have already made, I have not essentially deleted anybody's work, but I HAVE put everybody's work in its proper place. Just because "you wrote it" and think it is so important doesn't mean that it belongs at the top of the article. The way I HAD it was logical. The additions made the article look like meandering nonsense. For example, the Beliefs section was created for a reason, to define what Neo-Confederates believe about themselves. It was in a logical format with sections. Someone decided that their personal opinions on N-C beliefs were more important, and placed them at the top, ignoring the format as if it didn't exist. I didn't remove anything, but I did place the additions in their proper sections.

I have to advise new people, go to the Wiki standards section, and check for how to treat criticism, standards on bias, balance, and neutral point of view. NPOV is important if you want to write stuff here. Also, *I* did not put in the Sebesta sections. That was done by new authors. I merely put them in their proper place in the article, so don't blame me. But I will address whoever DID use Sebesta. You first of all cannot use him as an NPOV, because he's not. He is a critic: he must be treated as such. Second of all you cannot cloak his identity as you did in the opening paragraph. Third of all, if you ARE Sebesta, and this has occured to me that you may be, you are not allowed to reference your own work in Wiki articles. Lizmichael (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to update my comments on Sebesta. I believe Sebesta's comments are comments made by him to hawk his book. Hawking his book is not the purpose of Wikipedia. His book is referenced frequently, and usually his book is placed at the book of lists. Doing a web search of Neo-Confederate led me to several instances of this hawking. Which is fine, outside of Wikipedia, but not in it. I think references to his book need to be reevaluated as to whether they legitimately address the Wiki article, or whether they just hawk his book. I think to evaluate Sebesta's beliefs, you need to go to his website. He believes for instance that the American flag is not sufficiently anti-Confederate for his tastes and has redesigned the American flag, I kid you not. For the time being, I'm going to leave most of it there, and leave it as an open discussion. Undoubtedly, Sebesta is NOT an NPOV. Lizmichael (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after hearing nothing, I replaced the paragraph with a two sentence statement that some have accused the SCV and CCC of basing neo-Confederacy on race. I use the material as a reference, and reference it only. Maybe the SCV dissertation belongs in the SCV article, but it's too long and irrelevant to be here. The two sentences are migrated to the "Criticism" section. I am doing it this way to acknowledge the criticism, and so someone does not think I removed the SCV dissertation because I disagreed with it. I didn't. But it is too long to belong in this article and it was too disjointed to summarize. I also tried to find better refs than Sebesta whenever I could without removing what he wrote. Lizmichael (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on the stance on civil rights and feminism

I am not editing the page directly, because I do not have a citation I can provide which backs up my empirical (ie, personal) experience. I would suggest that instead of saying "many neo-Confederates adopt a typical paleoconservative view..." on both of these items, that it's not quite as strong as all that - I would go with saying "some" instead of "many", and toning down the stance on feminism with saying "some", as well. Again, I don't have studies to back me up, but, I have run across many people who would otherwise fit the description of being a neo-Confederate, but are quite fine with more modern views of feminism, and are fine with the intent (if not maybe all the outcomes) of the civil rights movement. taylorrx (talk)

I agree. I'm one of those people you mentioned. I fit pretty much every qualification to be a so called "neo confederate" (whatever the heck that means) except for the civil rights and feminism part. I almost fully support what was done in the civil rights era. Saksjn (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have actually removed the antifeminism section, as it is Ed Sebesta who put that there, and he refuses to defend his statements. I am planning to change the civil rights sections to "paleoconservative and libertarian" since I think that is more precise. I will concede the many to the suggestion of some, although I really think many is accurate. Lizmichael (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I removed the following paragraph from the lede:

Criticism of Lincoln and the War have been ongoing since the Civil war itself. H.L Mencken in his "Five Men at Random," Prejudices in 1922 wrote "Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has been perceptible humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus marking hum fit for adoration in the Y.M.C.A.’s.""Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76. This comment would have put Mencken firmly in the camp of so called neo conservative. Some scholars argue that any Historical revision of Lincoln or the traditional view of the American Civil war will label a Historian as a Neo-Confederate

There is no mention of the subject neo-confederate that is attributable to Menken. All Neo-Confederates MAY criticize Lincoln but that does not mean that all criticism of Lincoln is Neo-Confederate. The last two sentences are purely unsourced speculation and original research. Furthermore the article lede is not the place to introduce new material not covered in the body of the article. If there is some DOCUMENTED link between Mencken and the Neo-Confederate movement made by a reliable source, then this should be documented in the body of the article.

I also eliminated a phrase " who hold a traditional view of the Civil war". There are too many varied views of the Civil War today, as well as views held in the past, to use such a broad characterization. Historians can have disagreements about important aspects of the Civil War and still be critical of neo-confederates. If there is a reliable source that describes common Civil War views of historians who criticize neo-confederates, then that could be added to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I have also removed the following text:

{{quote|Civil War historian Douglas Harper offers a differing Opinion.

"Eugene Genovese)slavery historian) is another who has observed that, in today's academic climate, "to speak positively of any part of this southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation." When Bernard Bailyn wrote the word "fanaticism" to refer to abolitionist beliefs, he was attacked for using "the vocabulary of proslavery apologists."http://www.etymonline.com/cw/apologia.htm </ref>"

"One stands up for the South with a resignation to being splattered by rotten vegetables. So why bother?"

"Because many otherwise thoughtful and open-minded Americans only see the South, past and present, as a failed society, poisoned by slavery and racism, peopled by evil masters and wretched rednecks -- Simon Legrees and "Deliverance" extras. Any love or respect for anything Southern, to these people, is just a transparent mask for racism. This is palpably false. And it is destructive. First, because objective historical inquiry is an essential aspect of a free, thinking people. To ask, "was slavery profitable?" is not to say, "slavery was justified," even if the answer you come up with is, "yes, it was." Moral abhorrence does not preclude honest study. The historian's job is not to tell you the way things ought to have been, but the way they were.""

There are several problems with this material. In the first place, Harper appears to have only a BA in history and his published writings are limited to his local county in the Civil War. The work cited is not a published work, but a personal website -- this does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship. Also, there is no reference to neo-confederates -- the actual topic of this article. People can be critical of the South and see it "as a failed society, poisoned by slavery and racism, peopled by evil masters and wretched rednecks" without having the faintest idea what a neo-confederate is. You are trying to create an artificial synthesis by equating ALL criticism of the South, for whatever reason, with those folks who criticize Neo-Confederates.

I suggest you discuss any changes you may want to make to the article on this discussion page and obtain a consensus for those changes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feminist Statement

I tend to think the Confederacy was not as bad as it was painted (not to excuse the evils of slavery or discrimination, but just to say not every Confederate was a slave owner, and the root cause was not that of preserving slavery as most of the troops were poor farmers, and decieved into fighting at that), and I certainly don't see many "neo-Confederates" trying to force their wives to do all the housework. i would like to dispute this ridiculous and obviously biased statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.180.181 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the antifeminism section as unverified and not an NPOV. Lizmichael (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "unverified". It was cited, and the cited book is available on Google.Neo-Confederacy:+A+Critical+Introduction,&cd=1#v=onepage&q=feminism&f=false If verification was the only reason for deleting it then it should be restored. If the problem is with NPOV then it can probably be fixed rather than deleted.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

Okay, someone put the "Weasel Words" tag on the article, but has made no discussion that I can find of said weasel words, nor has he or she specified which are the alleged weasel words in question. If the tagger can explain I'd be happy to talk about it. After a couple of months, if I do not hear from anyone about this I am removing the tag. Lizmichael (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to wait months. Editors who add tags should put a comment here explaining their concerns. If there's no explanation you could remove the tags promptly.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done then. If they have concerns they can retag and explain them at any time. Lizmichael (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blacks fighting for the Confederacy

I removed the following section from Neo-Confederates-History because it is not true.

"In fact, neo-Confederates promote the notion that many thousands of blacks (90,000 is the most quoted number) fought willingly for the Confederacy as soldiers. The understanding of this is that the War could not have been about Southern slavery if so many were willing to fight and die for the cause. While the Confederacy most certainly used blacks for non-combat military labor, there is no proof or documentation that thousands of blacks were Confederate soldiers in battle. Because of ideas like these, ..."

In addition to not being true, the placement of the statement does not belong in a list of Neo-Confederate beliefs of history. Such a controversy would be better addressed in the "critiques" section.

If anyone wants to cover this controversy as its own separate section, I'm all for addressing the issue, and the controversy, but saying that there is "no proof" is simply a false statement.

I am compiling a list of links which offer the "documentation" which SPLC says doesn't exist. I will attach it to this talk section. Lizmichael (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.texasescapes.com/MurrayMontgomeryLoneStarDiary/Black-Soldiers-in-the-Confederate-Army.htm
• http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html
• http://mk-mk.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2209350213&topic=4223
• http://battleofgettysburgbuff.com/Newer_Topics.htm
• http://southernpartysw.tripod.com/southernpartiesofthesouthwestssecondsite/id4.html
• http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/DIVERSITY_IN_THE_CONFEDERATE_ARMED_FORCES.htm

Are but a few examples. While the number of actual Black Confederate combat soldiers is certainly in controversy, and probably 90,000 is not a good number, as I have seen no one but SPLC claim that, the number of Black Confederate combat soldiers is not ZERO. Even if there were merely 3,000 or 4,000, this would constitute "thousands" and the SPLC statement would be false.

As I said, if anyone wants to go through the trouble of documenting the controversy, I'm more than happy to help. Lizmichael (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was incorrect about the original location of this statement. It was in "Summary of neo-Confederate beliefs - Culture", not History. Lizmichael (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Respect For Confederate Veterans and Maintenance of Confederate Cemeteries

I am kind of offended that this article lumps people who "respect" Confederate veterans, and want to maintain Confederate graves into the "neo-Confederate" movement. In fact, this whole article seem accusatory, vague and kind of spiteful, I don't care where the sources come from.

Its particularly offensive to me, because I'm an American, who is a Marxist, who does spend some time trying to preserve Confederate grave sites. Apparently this would make me a "neo-Confederate," who is also a racist libertarian capitalist.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Confederate&action=edit# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.190.84 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Foot note number 3

This source is used to back up this, "Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar" The source how ever shows the views of the League of the South. Unless the position is that all or even a Majority of those labeled neo-confederates are members of the league of the south this source isn't very useful. I would also like to ask for a quick clarification if there is the suggestion that only "neo-confederates hold these views or if these views could stand independent of neo-confederates?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Far-right politics

Not all Neo-Confederates are far-right conservatives, or even conservatives. Sure, more of them are conservatives, however, there are liberal Neo-Confederates. So why is it in the "Far-right politics" section? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 23:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the linkages with the far right are more prominent than those with liberal politics. Out of curiosity, who are the liberal neo-Confederates?   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Me, for one. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 01:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. But we can't make edits based on our own personal knowledge.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Though it seems the article is pretty much using the term as "another term for extremist fringe groups". Me personally, I'd stand in support of secession from the corporate elitist US government (my point of view there), while at the same time standing for the equal rights of all people (as that's a social issue). Most of my friends would prob'ly agree with me on that, saying at the same time "screw the govt" and "screw racists". But naturally, I have nothing to cite, other than "we feel this way". — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Massive changes by IP

An IP made numerous POV changes in the article. It is not clear from the edit summaries what the actual issues are. Two editors have now reverted these changes. The IP needs to slow down, separate controversial from non-controversial edits, and explain on this discussion page what needs to be changed. Where the issue is sourcing, the IP should add tags rather than simply deleting since it is impossible to follow what the sourcing issues are when 30 or more edits are made at one time.

The IP alleges plagiarism in his latest revert, but has not cited any specifics. He needs to back up this claim.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PS The allegations of plagiarism made in the edit summaries apparently demonstrate a failure by the IP to understand what plagiarism actually is (see [6] and [7]). Disagreeing that a source is properly summarized in the text is not plagiarism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

---

If you are so certain of that why not call in an arbitrator?74.192.7.135 (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

• turning in someone else's work as your own
• copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
• failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
• giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
• changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
• copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing an author's work to define thoughts of "neo-Confederates" without establishing that he is an "neo-Confederate" is but one example of your deceitful citations.74.192.7.135 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Saying that material is plagiarized without giving the source makes it difficult to confirm. I checked one passage that you described as plagiarism here: [8], then I looked at the source, here: [9]. I don't see anything that looks copied. Like here[10] and here [11]. Plagiarism and copying are serious problems which should be addressed where found, but I don't see plagiarism where you do. Logical fallacies are also a problem, but the two terms are not synonyms.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Plagiarism is an educated man's term for unethical and dishonest use of sources. But feel free to employ the eighth grade definition, in a feeble attempt to defend the indefensible. Whatever you may wish to call it, dishonest, or ignorant, use of sources creates a false impression that is actionable. The editors creating and restoring the false material could be sued. Absolutely right, you have a problem. It would be best to fix the material, to closely conform to the sources provided (as I did for you with numerous individual edits with explanations), and avoid the risk--or you could remain stubborn and take your chances (with nothing more than the SPLC's word to support you)! By the way, you are unlikely to have any insurance coverage to pay your defense costs, so I hope you have planned accordingly, just in case.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Please do no make any legal threats. WP:NLT.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

No legal threat was made. Is that the best response you can come up with? I warned you about the risk you are taking. If I planned on suing you, I would provide no warning.74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

For the simple minded and obtuse, a legal threat would begin something like this hypothetical: "Unless you ___________, I am going to sue you."74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using uncivil language.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths

You should be proud Tom {North Shoreman], Jnast1 and Spencer (an administrator no less), the garbage is propagating. http://www.chasingevil.org/2010/07/neo-confederate-movement.html No wonder none of you wish to change all the deceitful citations and faulty logic used for this piece of graffiti.74.192.7.135 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo has been described as a member of the League of the South by one of their state organizations, and has addressed LOTS meetings. The SPLC has described him as one of "the intellectuals who form the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement."   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipiedia is a collaborative project. The community has repeatedly reviewed reliability of the SPLC and has not, to my knowledge, ever deemed it to be unreliable. It's unhelpful for individual editors to decide otherwise on their own.[12] If there are specific reasons why that source might be unreliable on this specific topic, making it special case, then please present that info. Otherwise the SPLC should continue to be regarded as a reliable source.

The SPLC has indeed been found to be a reliable source throughout wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:05, 24 April

---

That is as persuasive as insisting that all Republicans agree that Obama is a lousy President. You make individual decisions all the time Tom [North Shoreman]. What is most galling is you repeat the SPLC's criticism of others and then block attempts to document criticism of the SPLC. To say your actions are hypocritical would be an understatement.74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

That does not surprise me, since the editors appear to either be highly POV and content oriented, or morons. I think it is the former, rather than the latter. SPLC is the ONLY cited source. Is there another source completely independent of the SPLC? I doubt it, but perhaps you can prove me wrong.74.192.7.135 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No denial is ever good enough for the SPLC. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-11/news/bs-md-loyola-professor-hearing-20110211_1_loyola-professor-religious-group-missouri-congressman. The libel continues unabated in absolute disregard of the facts. When you love truth gentlemen, we will get along just fine. So far, most of your efforts that I have witnessed seemed designed to hide the truth. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. DiLorenzo denies being involved with LOTS, but he does not reject the "neo-Confederate" description.   Will Beback  talk  17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Personal attacks? That is laughable. Please identify the personal attack you allege. The personal attacks are in the questionable content of this article. I guess you don't see the irony.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Do you have a source, other than SPLC, to support your claim that DiLorenzo "does not reject the 'Neo-Confederate'" allegation.74.192.7.135 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The Baltimore Sun article covers DiLorenzo's denial of LOTS involvement. He apparently did not take the opportunity to disavow any neo-Confederate views. It's not a disparaging term.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The term "Neo-Confederate" is not contained in the Baltimore Sun piece. The story is about whether, or not, DiLorenzo is a member of the League of the South, not whether or not he is a "Neo-Confederate." The logic you employ is akin to someone stating that some guy is a child molester, because he did not deny it when he denied being a member of NAMBLA. Where were you educated? I think you should get your money back!74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a disparaging term the way the race-baiters at SPLC use it. Wow! I wonder what would happen if I created a "Neo-Yankee" (a.k.a. "Lincoln boot-licker") page and used your words that "NeoConfederate" "is not a disparaging term" as one of the core beliefs of the "Neo-Yankee" (a.k.a. "Lincoln boot-licker") Do you think that would pass muster?74.192.7.135 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You forgot that the page is suppose to be about "Neo-Confederates" But once again, your sources fail to back up that rhetoric. Really pathetic!

---

DiLorenzo Part 2

The IP really turned the above into little but a tirade against other editors and the SPLC. Anyway, I've added a subsection that ties together the "marriage" between four libertarians (including DiLorenzo) and neo-confederates. The two historians cited both use the term neo-confederate prominently in ther articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Actually, it appears that you were dumbfounded--so you decided (all by yourself ) to lash out and add new material attacking Di Lorenzo, Woods, Charles Adams and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. What happened to obtaining consensus before you post? That is what you keep preaching to me! That's right, it only applies to people who disagree with you. It is funny that you will quote Hummel to criticize Woods; but you would not dare quote him accurately about the causes of the Civil War on the Secession, Lincoln or Causes of the non-Civil War pages. Hint: It wasn't about slavery; but you insist on implying a hostility to black people which reveals your true motives. I like your new addition, because it demonstrates what a biased editor you are, better than anything I could ever write. The joke is on you. People will just want to read the books. The majority is already against you.74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP editor

The twice blocked IP from the above edits has apparently returned with a slightly different IP address. As in the past, the IP for POV reasons has deleted properly sourced material. Historian Nancy MacLean is a reliable source as is the book in which her material was published.

The IP's explanation was "this material violates NPOV and tries to insinuate that Republicans (and "neoconfederates") are racists, and uses the words of Alan Stang w/o establishing that Stang was a "neoconfederate." In fact, the conclusions of reliable sources are reportable in wikipedia and it is not a violation of NPOV to report such opinions even if they may offend some readers. As far as Stang, the material (which I didn't add) clearly identifies his writing as appearing in an SCV publication and the SCV has been identified as a neo-Confederate oriented organization elsewhere in the article.

The IP also added back a tag w/o any explanation. I had originally removed it and contacted the originator who agrees with the removal. The IP needs to explain why the tag belongs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits by IP

An IP, who has posted on this article before using other IPs (and been blocked -- see [13] for example), has added unsourced, inaccurate and irrelevant material to this article. Specifically, he/she has asserted opinion as fact (i.e "This view is supported by the fact that the American Revolution itself was a secessionist movement" and "thus the right of secession was well established, supported by legal precedent, and widely accepted in the antibellum [sic] North and South.). In fact, what the IP is doing is asserting that Neo-Confederate views are accurate. While someone may hold these views (in fact the article attributes them to standard Neo-Confederate beliefs), the accuracy is a matter of opinion.

While the IP lists footnotes to an 1803 PRIMARY source by a southern politician, the source does not support the broad claims of the first sentence in question and could not possibly be used to support the second sentence (i.e. how could a work written in 1803 possibly speak for the next 57 years in the antebellum era?) Further, the two quotes from the 1803 work do not appear to be relevant to the article unless the IP can show that the 1803 writing is acknowledged by reliable secondary sources as relevant to the Lost Cause/Neo-Confederate historical vision.

The IP has also twice deleted this properly sourced paragraph:

* The Civil Rights Movement — Neo-Confederates used the history of the Confederacy to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Historian David Blight writes that current neo-Confederates are “ driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement.

Both sentences are sourced and one is attributed in the text (perhaps the other one should also be attributed). The first time the material was deleted the IP wrote, "Author is conjuring fantasy and passing it off as truth. Libertarianism celebrates individual freedom." Of course, the paragraph has nothing to do with libertarianism. The second time the edit summary was "improperly sourced opinion POV". This is a poor argument -- both sources are considered reliable historians in their field -- reliable sources may have a personal POV but NPOV requires us to present all POVs present in reliable sources to the extent they reflect relevant (as opposed to fringe) views.

My opinion is that the IP is being disruptive, but this should give him/her the opportunity to argue the merits of his/her inclusions and exclusions and allow others to comment Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Tom NorthShoreman is, and has been for quite some time, playing gatekeeper on this topic and several others. He has obstructed balanced perspectives, properly sourced, which fail to fit his worldview, which seems to conform to Southern Poverty Law Center dogma. The sources for the material at issue are 1) The U.S. Constitution, The Declaration of Independence (The first document found in the United States Code), and the writings of St. George Tucker. "St. George Tucker was an officer in the American Revolutionary Army, a Professor of Law, justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, judge of the Federal District Court for Virginia by appointment of President James Madison, progenitor of a long line of jurists and scholars, and stepfather of John Randolph of Roanoke." http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&person=3842 The 1803 source in question was the first American legal textbook to analyze the United States Constitution. There is evidence that the work was widely used in Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina. These works were republished in 1999 by Liberty Fund. The material concerning the legality of secession is found under Section XIII here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=693&chapter=68834&layout=html&Itemid=27 It is important to note that this work influenced not only law students, but judges, diplomats and other government officials during the antebellum era. There is a reason Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, shut down newspapers in the North and jailed their editors. He, like Tom North Shoreman, was attempting to suppress this truth. Tom NorthShoreman has destroyed hours of my contributions on a variety of topics. I wish he would stop his contentious and exclusionary editing which seeks to quash "all significant viewpoints." The material is sourced and is quite relevant, since it is juxtaposed against the blatantly unsourced contention that ". . . outsiders often see neo-Confederacy as "rebellion" . . ."

Moreover, the attempt to conflate Libertarianism with hostility to civil rights and the civil rights movement which is a hallmark of NeoConfederacy, according to Tom NorthShoreman and the SPLC, is absurd and reveals the dubious scholarship of the authors, and an insidious agenda at play. Why does Tom NorthShoreman work so hard to stifle "all significant viewpoints" and attempt to label "NeoConfederates" as racists? The libelous deleted paragraph is not properly sourced and is not informative, but rather a sophisticated artifice for name-calling masquerading as historical scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.23.108 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is largely non-reponsive and a personal attack. I asked for sourcing for two of your claims and your reply ("1) The U.S. Constitution, The Declaration of Independence (The first document found in the United States Code), and the writings of St. George Tucker") demonstrates that what you are offering is your own ORIGINAL RESEARCH on what those documents mean.

You claim that, "The libelous deleted paragraph is not properly sourced and is not informative, but rather a sophisticated artifice for name-calling masquerading as historical scholarship." The two sources cited, David W. Blight and Nancy Maclean, meet all the requirements for a reliable source. Have you read either source? Have you read any reviews of these authors' works that support your attacks on these authors? Do you have ANYTHING other than your personal beliefs that these historians well researched conclusions are "libelous". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I am well aware of your exclusionary tactics, Tom NorthShoreman. As I stated you have consistently deleted my contributions here and elsewhere. That is a fact, not a personal attack. Sourcing and truth are irrelevant to you. You contribute and defend unsourced material and then quibble over, for example, quotes from the Declaration of Independence, as in this case. Enforcing your own personal narrative, is all that matters to you. I can't believe Wikipedia allows you to discriminate as you do. 74.192.23.108 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt you will find any instance in which I have defended an unsourced entry. After sifting through all your claims of victimhood, I find that you have offered nothing, other than your opinion, to justify your deletion of the paragraph in question. I am adding the paragraph back -- further deletions by you w/o justification (simply saying you don't like it is not justification) will be treated as disruptive editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad show. No further response and more reverting. I have added two different bullet points to the article with reliable sourcing and language not used before. I have also formally warned you about your edit warring on your talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---

You just reinstated the opinions of two historians as evidence of a groups belief system. These historians are not only outside the group, but they have not interviewed any one in the group. After your disturbing descriptions of this group's beliefs, many question whether the group of so called "Neo-Confederates" actually exist, or whether they are just a figment of your imagination. I believe you have imagined this group of straw men for your own personal reasons. You resist any turn toward reality and consistently refuse to compromise.

I am not surprised by your two new slurs, or your attempt to paint me as the problem, Tom NorthShoreman. That is what you have always done when you are unable to dictate the full content. You create your own straw man arguments and expect people to take Wikipedia seriously after your childish and self-serving editing. When you can't dictate the entire content of the topic, you childishly add new material which is even more baseless and outrageous than your previous entries. Any objective reader can see that this entire page is nothing more than you, Will Beback and one or two others grinding an axe. This topic was never meant to inform or educate anyone.74.192.23.108 (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 48 hours. I restored the status quo to the situation before his/her edits started and added back a new section on Black Confederates. A similar section existed a while ago -- it was stated by the deleter that it would be restored with proof of the accuracy of the claims. I have also removed material that has been tagged as unsourced for a couple of months. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On Sourcing The IP has made, IMHO, irrelevant claims about the sources in the material restored and/or added by me.

IP -- You just reinstated the opinions of two historians as evidence of a groups belief system.

Response -- I believe the number is now up to five. All of them, by a combination of their academic achievements, publications, and peer reviews of their work, qualify as Reliable Sources under wikipedia guidelines.

IP -- These historians are not only outside the group, but they have not interviewed any one in the group.

Response -- Historians are often, if not most always, outside the group they are writing about. Can only Holocaust Deniers write about Holocaust Deniers? Can only Iranians write about the history, politics, wars, or foreign policy of Iran? Can only women write about women's issues? Can only men write about the NFL? As far as who they may or may not have interviewed (do you have any actual knowledge of their sources), it is quite possible to write authoritative, accurate, and academically acceptable history by relying on the analysis of the written and recorded spoken words of the subjects. Neo-confederates, as even a casual perusal of the Internet would know, are not at all shy about speaking their mind or staging public events (i.e. flag demonstrations, ceremonies honoring alleged Black Confederates, press conferences and lawsuits about "heritage violations", writing books). There is a vast wealth of material available on the subject.

IP -- After your disturbing descriptions of this group's beliefs, many question whether the group of so called "Neo-Confederates" actually exist, or whether they are just a figment of your imagination.

Response -- Really? In addition to the numerous sources cited in the article, a google search of "neo-confederate" turns up 1,580,000 hits -- quite an impressive number for something that is strictly a figment of my imagination. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)