Talk:Neo-confederate/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Opening paragraphs

I re-wrote the lead paragraph to focus on the movement, rather than the use of the term. I don't expect immediate agreement on the exact wording of the list of issues, but I'm open to working on it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there needs to be something in it about how most neoconfederate groups desire to reconstitute the CSA through renewed secession. That seems to be a common feature of them. Also, "revisionist history" may be a POV term. Even though it is used a lot, it is almost always used to disparage the person it is referring to. This should be replaced with something indicating that they espouse history written from a confederate or southern perspective.Rangerdude 19:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it already indicated that secession is an issue, both directly and as part of fulfilling CSA aims. I changed the text about history. I don't think we can call it the "southern perspective" because not everybody in the South is pro-confederate. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I think the new introduction has helped round out the article so that it doesn't dwell on the negative connotation of "confederate" as much. I'm sure it still needs work, but I don't see any pressing need for the NPOV tag. Unless anyone else has issues they feel are not being addressed, I think it can come down. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fine by meRangerdude 20:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Confederate sympathizers

Unless this article is about Confederate sympathizers in general, Sebesta's list of merely pro-Confederate politicians does not belong because it duplicates material in the Ed Sebesta article. Actually, almost everything there is already here). Now that such the Sebesta article exists, we can cut down the references here. Of course the broader question is this: should the article be expanded to cover modern Confederate sympathizers? Then we can have it here and not there. Either way suits me...

Another issue that we need to decide on for consistency's sake- Is it the "Neo-Confederate" movement, the "neo-Confederate" movement, or the "neo-confederate" movement? I tend to use the latter, out of lazines, not disrespect, but it could be argued that if it is a named movement then it should be in title caps. "Confederate" is probably a proper noun when used as shorthand for the CSA, but I don't think that the "neo-" movement is a proper noun, as of yet. More of a description of a political tendency, like "conservative" or "liberal". So, even though it looks funny, "neo-Confederate" is perhaps the most accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WRT Sebesta, removing the list is fine since it's on the other link, however it should be noted still that he makes these allegations against well known figures - perhaps with 1 or 2 examples. I revised it to a shorter version that names the two most famous people he's labelled- Bush and Clinton. This is part of the controversy around Sebesta - the fact that he slaps these allegations against some very well known people.
In terms of capitalization, I think it should be capital N-C in titles and headers but lowercase n-c everywhere else.Rangerdude 06:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: caps. That's fine. So long as we're consistent.

Since this is the article on the "neo-confederate" movement, shouldn't the mention be to someone whom he has actually labelled "neo-confederate?" Otherwise, it's just trying to impeach the critic by making him look foolish. However, I think that we can add a paragraph to the article on the Museum of the Confederacy ball at the Tredegar Iron Works, and the Bush mention could logically go in there.

Haven't we already been through this before? [1] He accuses them of "neo-confederate" affiliations and sympathies all over usenet and his webpage [2] [3] Also, we should not abstain from noting these facts about a figure simply because they make him look foolish. It is not our job here to cover for this guy, who quite frankly has made more than his share of outlandish allegations of "neo-confederate" sympathies. That's why he's so controversial and that's why his use of the term is mentioned in the context of its pejorative uses.Rangerdude 07:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I checked the Tmepl of Democracy site and found that the criticisms of Clinton and Bush were for writing letters of support to confederate-related organizations, so I've edited the text to reflect that. (Sorry I didn't respond earlier - I missed your comment. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, however we shouldn't remove the summarizing statement that gives it context about Sebesta criticizing well known personalities. Even if we don't link to each and every one of them here, it is factual to state that and the names are all found on the Sebesta article now.
The summary is OK, but I deleted this clause "...as well as some who do not" because I've asked before for you to indicate who those people are and haven't seen any response (maybe I missed it, in which case it's my fault). -Willmcw 19:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw - it's not very hard to find them if you'd actually look. There's a list on the article page - all those politicians. Sebesta's mad at them all for sending letters to the UDC, observing their state's confederate history day and stuff like that, but not one of them is any sort of partisan confederate activist! Do you honestly think that Bill Clinton is some sort of closet League of the South organizer? Use a little common sense and stop playing coverup for this Sebesta guy, who has tossed the term "neo-confederate" around rather abusively on more than one occasion.Rangerdude 04:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But he hasn't called Bill Clinton a neo-confederate. All Sebesta is done regarding Bill Clinton is to criticize him for writing congratulatory letters on the anniversaries of the UDC, etc., foundings. Os there some reference that I haven't seen? Show me one person whom Sebesta has called a neo-confederate who clearly is not. Until you can, that clause has no purpose in the article. And please, don't tell me how easy such references are to find. Finding them is the responsiliity of the editor who adds the material. -Willmcw 05:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Didn't we already have this conversation? He accuses Clinton, among dozens of others, of having sympathies with groups that he deems "neo-confederate," namely the UDC for writing the letter. He's also accused Clinton of having a "confederate record" [4]

among other things. You also need to pay closer attention to what exactly is being said in the sentence you keep removing that clause from:

"Ed Sebesta, a self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", frequently uses the label "neo-confederate" as a term of disparagement for groups and politicians who exhibit openly southern viewpoints, as well as some who do not."

Does George W. Bush exhibit an openly southern viewpoint? How about Clinton? Perry? Graham? Ashcroft? Barnes? Kirk? I would argue that they do not. Some of them are southerners, but I don't recall any of them ever calling for secession, waving the battle flag on a street corner, or doing much of anything beyond sending a couple letters to the UDC and commemorating confederate history day and stuff like that. Certainly none of them are politicians who, upon hearing their name, one automatically thinks "oh, he's pushing a southern agenda" or "oh, he's a confederate" like Sebesta evidently does. In case you haven't noticed, there's a big difference between the people on Sebesta's list and George Wallace. To treat them as if there wasn't would be both dishonest and misleading.Rangerdude 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The sentence at the link you've provided simply says, "Probably this Bush Whitehouse might have a less Confederate record than Bill Clinton's White House." That's extremly equivocal. Why don't we drop the whole last half of the sentence? I don't think that you or I are in a position to state whether Bush or Ashcroft have neo-confederate sympathies or not. If Bush offers to raise money for a Confederate museum, isn't that a statement in support of a confederate-related organization (which is what Sebesta has accused him of doing)? Maybe we should just delete the sentence entirely - it's been contentious and I'm sure there's a way of saying something that will be supported more directly by the evidence. Can you even name any groups that do have openly southern viewpoints about whom he uses the term properly? -Willmcw 06:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Equivocal or not, he is criticizing Clinton's WH as having a "confederate record." I also disagree on the presence of our position to evaluate Bush, Ashcroft et al, which BTW we were discussing in the context of whether they exercise some sort of overtly southern agenda. This is a case where simple common sense should apply. Just because some nutcase with a tax registry and a website starts labelling half the US Congress with allegations of neo-confederate sympathies doesn't mean we have to treat those allegations on par with something from a more credible group or spokesman. Part of the controversy about Sebesta in relation to his self-styled tracking of "neo-confederates" is that he's one of the types who sees a closet confederate lurking behind every bush and tree and, as a result, has leveled more than his share of outlandish charges - charges that a more responsible watchdog group or even a relatively partisan one like the SPLC would not dream of making. Whether you agree or disagree with Sebesta's methods and claims, that qualifier needs to be noted about him for the sake of honesty. I've tried to phrase that qualifier in a way that conveys the point but is not overbearing, and comes across in as close to a neutral view as possible. But every time we seem to be getting somewhere of late, you come back and start revisiting things that we settled in previous discussions, all with the seeming goal in mind of covering one of if not the single most controversial things about Sebesta's whole "anti-neo-confederate" campaign. Again I don't know your angle in this one, but even if you agree 100% with everything Sebesta says it is irresponsible to downplay or overlook the fact that enough others do not to make him a highly controversial figure, and it conveys a POV if you're constantly sweeping his dirty laundry under the rug by removing it from articles about him.Rangerdude 07:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Suggested change:
Ed Sebesta, a researcher and self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has criticized many individuals for perceived support of organizations and causes that he has labelled "neo-confederate".

That's too vague. You're removing specific details from the existing text, seemingly because those details reflect negatively on Sebesta even though they are factual details. Like it or not, he's made some fairly wacky charges against two presidents and a large chunk of the US government as well as some very well known and respected scholars. Since the persons he's attacked are now listed in the Sebesta article it would be redundant to list all of them here again. Mentioning a couple of them though is appropriate as a concise way to convey the issue without rehashing it in its entirity. When I added two examples I chose Bush and Clinton from his list for specific reasons. Both are well known, both hold/held the same office, both have been accused of similar sympathies with allegedly neo-confederate groups by Sebesta, and they are representative of the political spectrum - a Republican and a Democrat - which is probably the fairest way to go about it from an NPOV perspective. You've already made several attempts to remove this information, yet from my perspective I have yet to see you offer a sufficient reason of why it should be excluded. It does not seem to be an NPOV violation, or at least you have not specified that much. It is not extraneous or irrelevent material to Sebesta or the article. And it is not in any factual error that you have demonstrated.Rangerdude 07:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be contentious, but I keep removing the info that is unsupported by citations. Wacky charges about the presidents? I haven't seen them. By all means, let's include, verbatim, his wacky charges about the presidents. I'm all for listing the actual dirt on Sebesta, the neo-confederates, and anyone else who has dirt notable enough for mentioning in an encyclopedia. But only actual dirt, not made up stuff. If you want to write that he has indicated that Clinton has a "confederate record", then I can't complain about that. If you want to assert that Clinton's White House has no "confederate record" (in Sebesta's use of the term), because Sebesta has reproduced the letters he complains about. I think that the POV involved is that the denigration of Sebesta. It appears as if you may have decided that Sebesta is a "nutcase" and are trying to use this article and the other to demonstrate that fact. It would be more NPOV to not assume that he is a nutcase and simply report what he actualy does and says, and allow the reader to see the lunacy for themselves. So yes, please, let's add the "wacky charges", verbatim. Thanks for finding them. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A couple things. First off, your demands for "citations" are often impractical for this medium (flooding an article with dozens of links to usenet would make it look like a cluttered mess). Your requests for them are also selectively stringent to the degree that you will not only challenge but also actively remove any factual statement about Sebesta that doesn't meet it, and meeting it requires one to basically hand lead you to each and every link with the most minor detail imaginable - a stringency, I might add, that you do NOT consistently apply to additions and changes that are favorable to your POV. Put another way, by normal wiki standards a simple link to Sebesta's website would suffice for the majority of the information I have included about him as it is all accessible within a couple clicks from the front page. You, however, act as if you cannot be bothered to examine the site on your own and instead expect to be led to each and every facet of it whenever something new from it is included. Perhaps the strangest facet of your citation demands is your insistance upon finding them for each and every sentence about Sebesta, even if the sentence is a generalization or summary of events and characteristics that are specified in detail in subsequent sentences, which are sourced. In your world, we cannot even make the generalization that "Sebesta has made controversial allegations of neo-confederate sympathies against several well known politicians" followed by a sourced list of those politicians in the next sentence, and that is simply absurd.
You also jump straight to word games at the earliest opportunity to obfuscate the information whenever something you do not wish to include is validated by a link. Sebesta openly advertises himself as an "anti-neo-confederate" watchdog and states that the mission of his site is to monitor "neo-confederate" activities, movements, and politicians who support "neo-confederates" (his own wording from the pages where he links to Bush, Clinton, Ashcroft, Kirk, Graham et al), yet in spite of this very clear declaration you refuse to admit any of those politician unless Sebesta ALSO singles him out and again specifically attaches the word neo-confederate not only in his context or relation, but to him individually ala "John Ashcroft is a neo-confederate." Simply stating that "John Ashcroft is friends with a neo-confederate group" or "John Ashcroft spoke to Group X," which is then identified as "neo-confederate," or "John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the UDC," which is subsequently blasted as a "neo-confederate" group all over the rest of his website, does not seem to meet your requirements, and that is a problem because it suppresses the plainly obvious charges and implications of his site. If you build a website that states something along the lines "this page is to monitor politicians who express sympathies with neo-confederates" and it links directly to a list of politicians to which it applies, the fact that those politicians are being accused of neo-confederate sympathies is conveyed directly in the original statement regardless of whether or not he goes back through and individually singles them out. As to Sebesta, I do not advocate writing that he is a nutcase in the article itself. Qualifying him as a controversial source and stating the reason for that controversy (he's accused half the US government of being in bed with alleged neo-confederate groups for crying out loud!), however, is entirely appropriate as a general summary statement followed by specifics, as is presently the case in this article.Rangerdude 18:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RD, there is plenty of room for citations. Don't worry about running out of space, that is not a problem. Uncited "research" is a problem. Especially in generalizations like "some critics charge", or "he calls everyone a neo-confederate". "Half the US government" must amount to several hundred thousand people. Is that a serious charge, or just hyperbole? Hyperbole has no place in an encyclopedia. Verifiable information does. I agree that a general summary statement followed by specifics is appropriate, so long as the summary agrees with the specifics, or vice versa. At the moment, the summary is not supported by matching specifics.

Speaking of specifics, I'm looking for the "wacky charges" about the presidents that you promised. -Willmcw 22:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links to a dozen different usenet posts to "prove" what is common knowledge and undisputed by anyone who is familiar with the subject makes for a cluttered article. There is no "research" here beyond stating simply what Sebesta himself has done and said and what is easily accessible to anybody who is willing to spend more than a minute's time at his website. Thus that website link is more than sufficient. The generalization of "some critics charge" is once again perfectly valid when followed by specific and named critics such as the UDC and also the usenet reference. "Half the US government" depends entirely upon how that government is defined. Though I am not advocating using that term in the article itself and state it only to show how far Sebesta's charges have gone, but in a constitutional sense one man - the president - is literally a third of the US government. I figure Sebesta has attacked enough senators and congressmen to make up the remainder, so even if its a figurative reference it is not that far off from being literally true. And if you don't think accusing two U.S. presidents of having secret neo-confederate sympathies is wacky, I don't believe there is anything that will convince you otherwise. The bottom line: quit shilling for Sebesta through this article and let what needs to be said be said.Rangerdude 02:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:state the obvious, wikipedia:cite your sources. Are you really asserting that "no one disputes" that Sebesta is a nutcase, and that his lunacy is "common knowledge"? Can you provide the link to where Sebesta says that Bush and Clinton have "secret neo-confederate sympathies"? All I have seen is where he complains about their publicly-expressed support for supposedly neo-confederate organizations. Two different things. BTW, I am not "shilling" for Sebesta. I am requesting you to please provide support for your attacks on him. I'm not saying that he isn't deserving of attacks, simply that there have to be clear, explicit references for them. Thanks for doing that. Cheers -Willmcw 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I am, however, stating that no one disputes Sebesta is a controversial source who has made several controversial allegations that the average person would deem extreme. You should check out those links you posted, BTW:
"State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader."
Without a proper qualifier noting who Sebesta is, the reader may be misled. As to sources, note that the guide says "provide references that help the reader to check the veracity of the article and to find more information." All of this may be easily accomplished from a simple link to Sebesta's page. Citations are valuable in providing a means of finding further information and the original source. They become cluttery though when you stick links to each and every subpage that is mentioned off his main page.Rangerdude 03:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits. I think they make the text more accurate, and more interesting. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Texas

The so-called Republic of Texas group seems to be secessionist, but I don't think there is much of anything explicitly confederate ot "neo-confederate" about them. They contend that Texas' annexation in 1845 was illegal - not anything to do with the civil war. This does not appear to be the appropriate article for them Rangerdude 02:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I searched and couldn't find a Confederate flag, so I agree that it is not Neo-confederate, but simply another southern secessionist movement nostalgic for an idealized past. (Or is it just a tax scam? I can't tell.) Anyway, I moved it down to "see also." Cheers, -Willmcw 07:58, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
It still has nothing to do with "neo-confederates." If you want to start an article on "secessionist movements" or something and list them both there do that. But the "Republic of Texas" group simply doesn't have any real connection to this article. Rangerdude 19:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sure it does. -Willmcw 21:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing shown yet. Rangerdude 04:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's time we sat down and found a proper definition of "neo-confederate". Then these arguments over which groups and persons belong would be simpler. I'll see if the SPLC or Sebesta have a definition. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
A definition would be nice, though SPLC and especially Sebesta are prone to providing a biased one. Something closer to the partial definition we have now would be more neutral. In any case, I have yet to see and you have yet to produce ANYTHING that even remotely ties the so-called "Republic of Texas" to anything "neo-confederate." Rangerdude 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you suggest a unbiased source for a definition? -Willmcw 21:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether neo-confederate requires a historical and ideological and geographical link to be applied to southern secessionist groups. I think there is no way to resolve that issue other than by POV fiat. How do wikipedians deal with unresolvable issues?--JimWae 21:26, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

POV fiat? I don't know what that is, but it doesn't sound good. Since we do not want to engage in original research, we can only employ those definitions of the term that have been coined by others. Sebesta, the SPLC, and others use the term to describe a movement that they condemn. If there are people who use the term favorably, then they should be included too. But if there are none, then we have to use the term as defined by those who use it, even if those definitions seem inaccurate to some of us. I think that a reasonable way to proceed would be to collect citations and see what we find. -Willmcw 22:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

My Q is: Does a group need to have a historical connection to the confederacy to be neo-confederate - or does an ideological & geographical connection suffice? People will disagree. Do wikipedia articles deal with issues on which people disagree?--JimWae 05:48, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

The issue of the RoT inclusion here is a minor matter. The bigger question is whether the neo-confederate movement is exclusively a secessionist movement, which is what I believe one editor supports, or whether it is a broad movementone of whose aims is revising history, which is the view that I read in other material. If it is a secessionist movement, then links to other secessionist organizations are relevant. If it is a history-revision movement, then they are less relevant. But to answer your question, there are scores of articles in Wikipedia that editors have disagreements about. -Willmcw 05:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
If we define it as any old secessionist movement you could theoretically even throw in the groups from Taiwan and that would be silly. A secession group with connections to the CSA is a better approach, and neither Taiwan nor the Republic of Texas people have that. Rangerdude 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List Sources?

Willmcw - if you are going to include a list of people who have been labelled neoconfederate you need to come up with a system of sourcing it. For example, use an asterisk to designate who the SPLC labels as NC, another symbol for other groups and so forth. This is necessary because most of the groups that call others NC have clear POV's of their own, and some of them like Sebesta rather extreme POV's. This avoids leading the reader to believe that the article itself has designated these groups as NC's and gives the context on who applied the label. Rangerdude 03:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of the groups in the list are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Sure, we can go the asterisk route if you prefer. With only three sources so far, simply naming them doesn't seem a problem, but beyond that some kind of key would definitely be deirable. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Two additional issues come to mind with this list. (1) if they are already listed in near-verbatim form in the article text, is the list not redundant? If so there's no reason to repeat all the links again. (2) The article designates between the official SPLC "hate group" watchlist (which has only a few NC groups on it) and the report by Mark Potok in one of the SPLC's newsletters. If we are going to retain the list with sources, this distinction should be made so as to avoid confusion of whether the groups are on the SPLC's official hate groups list or not. Rangerdude 04:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since the groups are listed in various paragraphs spread over the article, I think that it is helpful for the reader to have a single list of groups. We could cut down the listing in the SPLC paragraph if you think that there is excessive duplication, but I don't think that there is. As for your second point, I'm not sure I understand the issue. None of these are pulled from the SPLC's "hate groups" list. That list is only one part of the SPLC activities. The SPLC references are from an unsigned Intelligence Report article: The Neo-Confederates http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=460. I think you are the one who added the reference to the hate group list. -Willmcw 05:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Given that this is such a short article I disagree on the necessity of restating them in a list. The sole credible purpose of having a list like that is for ease of navigation, and that need is eliminated by the article's short length since all of them may be easily found in the paragraph. It is excessively redundant the way you have it, so until this article becomes long enough, if indeed ever, that navigation of it is improved by having the list, one or the other's gotta go. Personally, I would prefer leaving it the way it is since the existing paragraphs provide descriptive context, thus eliminating the need to duplicate it by sourcing the list. Regarding the SPLC designations, I direct your attention to the existing paragraph which makes a distinction between the "Intelligence Report" newsletter article and the official SPLC hate groups list, which has a neo-confederate category. Rangerdude 07:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, taking your concerns into account I've moved the info out of the first SPLC paragraph, which makes it more readable anyway, and merged the remaining sentences with the second paragraph. The advantage of the list is that it can show how many sources have labelled a particular group "neo-confederate". Otherwise it's harder for the reader to discern whether a particular group has been labelled with the epithet often or only rarely. I've also added an asterisk for the hate groups. Thanks for the suggestions, they've made for a better article. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

SMI?

Willmcw - SMI (Southern Military Institute) appears to only exist in cyberspace. They have no students, no faculty, and no campus. More than happy to accept donations though - laugh. Aren't there enough real neoconfederates, that you don't have to reference a semi-fictional one? BTW - 155 is my coworker, we've been having a good laugh over all this identity speculation. Best wishes. Can'tStandYa 09:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If some neo-confederate organizations are swindles then that would make an interesting addition to the article. I'll do some more research and see what's up. As for your assertion of being coworkers with the anon, let me guess: you both use the same I.P. number and you both just happen to have the same interests. I've heard those assertions before from others and they turned out to be false. If the accounts act like sock puppets being used to abuse the consensus system, then the simplest answer is that they are what they appear to be. -Willmcw 20:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Believe whatever you like. It's of no concern to me. I was just trying to be friendly. Happy Days. Can'tStandYa 20:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Friendly is good. Regarding SMI, I haven't been able to find anyone who claims that they are only trying to raise money. However the effort does seem quixotic. But, if anything, that makes them a truly neo-confederate outfit. ;) The only really negative reference I found was on this site, which complains about the Worldwide Church of God selling their old Ambassador University campus to either neo-confederates or the Catholic Church. [5] Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Here's one guy who listed the SMI on his resume as recently as this month.
Stan Says:
March 1st, 2005 at 12:02 am
Gosh Tom, I have had the pleasure and honour to meet men such as yourself, Clyde Wilson, and Michael Hill. I count Clyde and Michael as friends. I am a founding board member of the Southern Military Institute, long time member of the League of the South, and former Special Agent with the INS.
As Srdja Trifkovic has said, Whites are dying. Whites face genocide. The way things are going, with Whites being asleep, I’m not sure we can make our coming Genocide any easier for our enemies. Harry Seabrook, in a very gracious way, calls out, “Wake up! Save what is left. That which is about to die.” God bless Harry Seabrook!!!
For Kith and Kin,
Stan Poston
http://www.littlegeneva.com/?p=278.
So apparently it's a lively myth. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Also this blog entry about SMI: [6]

Confederate College of Heraldry

Should be mentioned in this article (http://groups.msn.com/ConfederateCollegeofHeraldry/). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? It seems like a one-person forum. -Willmcw 19:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-confederate groups and the civil rights movement

It is alleged that some participants also believe in opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, though this is denied by many groups that have been called neo-confederate.

Denied by many groups? The League of The South is the largest nec-confederate group. They have few references to civil rights directly, none of them denying opposition to it. Rather, they say things like:

Core Beliefs
American society today is egalitarian and Marxist...
Upholds the ontological or spiritual equality of all men before God and the bar of justice, while recognizing and rejoicing in the fact that is has neither been the will of God Almighty nor within the power of human legislation to make any two men mechanically equal.
Is structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy. In short, a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates where Christian charity (as found in the second Table of the Law) toward our neighbors produces harmony and stability. Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc.
Values and sustains true freedom of association for individuals, families, organizations, and other human institutions.
We envision a free Southern republic that...Restricts the right to vote solely to those who are recognized as citizens of one of the member States of the confederation.[7]

which seem to oppose the civil rights concepts of equality in the workplace.

I also checked the American Renaissance, the Southern Party of South Carolina (Democrats plunder the national treasury in order to appease accredited victim groups - feminists, ethnic minorities and homosexual lobbies and The Southern Party has never advocated the expulsion of other ethnic minorities from the South and we never will.., and In multi-cultural societies,..., governments typically use this as an excuse to enact increasingly onerous laws in order to force people to interact with each other. [8]), the Mises Institute, and the UDC. None of those sites seemed to contain any denials of opposition to civil rights.

Please provide links to many groups denying opposition to civil rights. Thanks -Willmcw 07:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as you are the one in favor of including a civil rights movement reference, would not the burden of proof fall on you to demonstrate that one or more of these groups do espouse opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and not the other way around? And no, quoting beliefs that in your own opinion "seem to oppose" your own concept of "civil rights" (small c, small r) does not constitute demonstrated opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. Rangerdude 17:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It looks like we each have assertions in need of support. I'll remove both assertions until such time as we can find sources to support them. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. Rangerdude 19:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Violation of divine prophecy

  • Another evangelical organizations, Justice at the Gate, equates Confederate disunion with a violation of divine prophesy and sanction for the United States.[9] (website unavailable - Google cache of cited webpage: [10])

Three points: 1) The website cited does not appear to belong to the Justice at the Gate group. 2) The reference seems to be to old Confederates, not neo-Confederates. 3) Which text in the rant on that page are we specifically citing? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Individuals

All of the individuals on the list need to be sourced to specific references. I notice that there's no source at all for Sebesta's supposed claims. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your memory seems to be failing you. All names that are included were previously sourced here on this talk page or on the Sebesta page back in February when the list was first developed. You requested sources then and I obliged by fully documenting them. The addition I just made consisted of no new material to any of the Sebesta items beyond what was already included and documented from back then. Only the SPLC names, which I just found while searching their site, are new and each is properly designated. Please do not make harassing citation requests about material that you know to have already been sourced long ago. Rangerdude 04:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Cool. I'd forgotten that we'd gone over all of these. Please assume good faith. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO...

I'm not going to make edits to this particular article or get too involved with the duscussion (time constraints) but I would like to say one thing. The entire article seems like a hodgepodge of accusations and other speculation. Paul 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Okay, two things: anyone who calls bush/ashcroft/clinton etc. "neo-confederates" is a clown who, to me, seems more confused than anything else. Paul 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush and Clinton haven't been called "neo-confederate". They were criticized for sending letters of support to a neo-confederate organization, the Museum of the Confederacy. Let me see if I can clarify that in the text. -Willmcw 19:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Here's the current text:
  • Various SPLC publications and Sebesta have also accused several well known American scholars, political commentators, and political figures of having connections to or supporting "neo-confederate" causes or groups. The following are among those accused.
I can't see a good way of clarifying it much more. Can you suggest a way? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Prove a Point

Willmcw's recent edit to Ed Sebesta's self-description appears to have been made strictly for the purpose of making a point in protest of a WP:NPOV edit I made to the James McPherson article located here. His edits to this end, which were made on this article and at least two others, constitute a violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Specifically Willmcw attempted to "apply the decision" I made in editing James McPherson regarding NPOV "to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy the contributor objects to," in this case the edit to McPherson. Willmcw's mirroring is evidenced in the fact that he copied my edit description verbatim and substituted Sebesta's name. Per WP:POINT "These activities are generally disruptive" (emphasis in original). Given that this action is also part of a long pattern of similar POV pushing and harassment by Willmcw, it has been documented and added to the list of violations in a currently pending arbitration request against him. Rangerdude 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you just grandstanding or is there any particular point about this article that you want to make? -Willmcw 07:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is, Will, that you are disrupting large ammounts of Wikipedia content for personal and political reasons. Rangerdude 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Your point seems to be that a dispraging, POV term needs to be included for Sebesta. -Willmcw 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
So you're claiming that Sebesta is disparaging himself when he plasters all over his site that he's an "anti-neo-confederate researcher"... You're grasping at straws, Will. Rangerdude 02:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
"Self-styled" is pejorative. -Willmcw 05:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Then exactly how would you prefer to indicate that "anti-neo-confederate researcher" is what Sebesta calls himself? Rangerdude 15:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Simply call him a "anti-neo-confederate researcher", as that is what he is. No need for the "self-styled" business. -Willmcw 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So in other words, you can't make up your mind over exactly what basis you wish to make your disruption on. A few edits back you were claiming the quotation marks around Sebesta's self-description were "scare quotes" even though it is a statement taken from his own words. Now you've changed your argument to purport that the identification of his quote's source as a self-description is the "pejorative" (which is an odd claim in its own right since pejorative=disparaging, meaning you are essentially saying that the authorship of Sebesta's own words effectively permits him to disparage himself). In short what we have here is an editor seeking to invent reasons as to why his WP:POINT disruption, carried out over 4 separate articles in retaliation to a NPOV cite that removed what he saw as a politically beneficial claim, should nevertheless be allowed to stand. While I am unenthused about continuing this further in your tit-for-tat style of near-constant revert warring and political provocation (itself quite odd and "un-admin-like" for an administrator, who is theoretically supposed to foster consensus rather than disrupt it), it is sufficient to note the changing faces and straw-grasping nature of your justifications here as conclusive evidence that the basis for them was not grounded in any genuine interest for improving wikipedia but rather in personal, retaliatory, and POV interests of the disruptive kind. As noted from the outset, this entire episode rises to the level of disruption indicated on WP:POINT to be problematic and accordingly will be included in the general arbitration case against you for your edits and behavior toward other editors. Rangerdude 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)