Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] old comments

Is this external link really necessary in the article? I don't exactly see how relevant that is to the content of the article. The person quoted was not part of the national organization, but rather a state branch of SCV. One can find incendiary remarks from members of any group, but that doesn't mean that they should be given an external link on their wiki page unless it somehow deals with or interferes with official organizational policy. His comment was not part of SCV policy. Is there any objection to removing this? --BWD 03:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Morris is not "a member", he is the division officer of Ohio as well as commander of a camp. Further, the message was sent to an SCV mailing list, so it's not as if it was just an off-hand remark to some drinking buddies. Has the national SCV repudiated his views? Fired him? Rather than a bare external link, it'd be better to discuss it in the text, so that we can explain that Morris was a state division commander rather than the national staff. -Willmcw 10:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the context of the link. There's nothing in the main article about this individual. It's just a blind link at the bottom of the page. Although I'm not a member of SCV, I do know a couple of members and I know enough about the organization to know that they are not filled with racist bigots. Sure, there are fundamentalist idiots in any organization you go to; SCV is no exception. However, that doesn't mean that this wiki entry deserves a blind link at the bottom of it discussing some random bigot. His comments are not representative of SCV, and I wouldn't know if SCV has repudiated these remarks.
The blind link at the bottom smacks of trying to push an agenda. If it's there to show racism in the organization, why not start a new section explaining this racism? Why put a random link to some website at the end of the article? It needs more explanation and justification, in my opinion. Putting a new section in the entry explaining the percieved racism in the organization would give people here a chance to refute it or at least make it balanced. An external link doesn't do that.
I say either remove it or give it context. But what do I know? I'm new to wikipedia. --BWD 10:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it should have context. I'll work up a sentence or two. There have been reports of a shift in the SCV over the past couple of years, depicted even as a battle for the group's soul. A chunk of poorly written, POV, and unsourced material covering that change was properly removed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sources availabe for a properly written, NPOV, and sourced paragraph on internal struggles within the SCV. It's on my to-do list. If anyone has reliable (i.e. newspapers, etc) sources for the SCV please add links. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Re the factional infighting in SCV, see the SPLC Intelligence Report, available online. This publication is in no way NPOV, but the information is generally reliable.Verklempt 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV violated by excessive external links to the SPLC, etc.?

Why does there need to be 5 links to highly biased SPLC articles? (I realize this issue is somewhat related to the discussion below, but i am making the case that the totality of the external links violates neutrality). It's obvious that the SPLC views the SCV to be only a white supremacist organization. I don't see how the overall article benefits from having their message repeated over and over. Balance is in order. Jcpaco 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links are to provide more information for those readers who want to learn more. We are not currently using them as sources for the article. Such external links do not need to be NPOV. The SPLC covers the SCV more than most media outlets do, so they are one of the better sources available. -Will Beback 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This article needs work

The recent factional split and ideological shift in the SCV needs addressing.Verklempt 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you recommend some articles to use as sources? -Will Beback 08:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The SPLC Intelligence Report (online) has many informative articles on this ongoing factionalization. While this publication is clearly opposed to the SCV's new ideological turn, its reporting seems to be factual and reliable.Verklempt 05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree but others (see above) feel there are too many SPLC references already. Unfortunately, there are few others who report on the SCV. -Will Beback 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the opinions of some, this article ("Sons of Confederate Veterans") is not a sub-page of the SPLC website.Fix Bayonets! 22:44, 31 Aug 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problems

The {{NPOV}} tag I placed in this article has been removed twice now by User:Fix Bayonets!. Though I clearly pointed out one (of many) examples of non-neutral language used in this article in my second edit summary, I was ordered to take my concerns to the talk page. Though I found the remark to be entirely incivil, here I am. The article is clearly non-neutral. The first sentence is a good example, "SCV is a historical and patriotic honor society and non-political fraternal organization dedicated to preserving the history of the American Civil War . . . ." First of all, no modern organization should be described as "patriotic" in the first sentence of its article. Second, the "dedicated to preserving the history of the Civil War" bit is perhaps non-neutral, given that some groups argue that the SCV is dedicated to preserving only its particular view of said history.

Also, I note that every external link critical of the SCV has been removed from the external links section. Actually, the article has been wiped of almost all criticism of the SCV. The only reference in the "Criticisms" section of the article actually spends more time attacking the criticising person than it does on the content of any criticism of the SCV. Obviously, the article should not be overcome with criticism of the SCV. However, presenting almost no criticism at all is a huge mistake as well, and is clearly not neutral. A NPOV tag is clearly warranted, and editors to this article would be wise to read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your chance to engage in discussion here about the neutrality of the article. Plese stop removing the NPOV tag (I see that User:Quothe the Raven has removed it without explanation now). · j e r s y k o talk · 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A brand new user, User:Cave quid dicis, has now removed the NPOV template, and none of the users that have removed it have bothered to respond to my post here. I suspect that there is sockpuppetry going on here. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It is obvious that this article is the target of SCV supporters who object to an objective description of the organization. The article has become a vehicle for SCV propaganda.Verklempt 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the same can be said of others in reference to SPLC propaganda ???--Black Flag 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The correct track to take is to present a neutral view of the organization. A neutral view includes criticism by notable organizations like the SPLC. The article should not, however, be overwhelmed by such criticism. But as the article stands now, the SCV is presented exclusively in a positive light. That's not neutrality, especially when there are numerous, notable, vocal critics of the organization. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The SPLC is hardly the only source of data other than the SCV itself. There are numerous academic treatises on Lost Cause revisionism that address the SCV and related movements.Verklempt 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I aplogize for my prior remarks to you. Sometimes, it is best not to immediately respond to a given post, and to wait and reflect after the expiration of a calm interlude -- I failed to do that, resulting in my poor choice of actions and words. Although I take exception to your viewpoint on this issue, my ultimate intent is to resolve this dispute in a kindly manner.--Fix Bayonets! 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept your apology. I'm pleased that you have chosen to engage in the discussion here.
Regarding the actual changes to the article, I think that, perhaps, one thing we can all agree on is that everything in this article, as with all articles about subjects that sometimes seem or are perceived to be controversial, should be sourced accurately. I hope everyone agrees to that basic assumption. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording direct quote "for NPOV"

User:Verklempt just reworded a direct quotation "for NPOV".[1] I don't see anything in WP:NPOV that would justify such a rewording. "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." The part of the article in question makes no assertion, it just presents SPLC's view. Thus the original quote is perfectly acceptible under the NPOV policy.

Second, to modify a direct quote is to misquote, unless the additions are made for clarification and are surrounded by square brackets, as the "[in the SCV]" part of the quote. Thus, putting the phrase "what the SPLC terms" in the modified quote creates a misquote, meaning the SPLC never said "what the SPLC terms", this is an editorial addition that should normally be surrounded by square brackets to make it clear that it's not part of the original quote. However, in this case there is no need for this additional phrase at all, since the paragraph attributes the entire quote to the SPLC, so it's quite obvious that the views expressed in the quote are those of the SPLC itself.

Finally, the scare quotes that Verklempt added after the words "hate group" are once again a misquote. The SPLC did not use scare quotes and it is a distortion of what they said to put them around this term. For these reasons I am reverting Verklempt's edit. -- noosphere 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User "Verklempt" removed the referenced SCV quotes within the 1st paragraph, replacing them with pov, and added further pov interspersed within the article. For this reason, I am reverting the article to the prior version of 19:07, 4 September 2006 of user:"Peruvianllama." Black Flag 02:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
While I admit that the version you dislike needs to be referenced and perhaps edited for POV, the version you have reverted to definitely has POV problems. In my opinion, the entire article needs to be rewritten and sourced thoroughly. Perhaps some of the content can be salvaged, but it definitely needs to be referenced. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
All statements appearing in this article should comply with Wikipedia policy and be fully cited. I will remove all uncited and/or poorly sourced pov. If continual "rv"s occur, then the article should be blocked or other Administrative remedies applied. Black Flag 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You're perfectly right, per Wikipedia policy, to point out that the article must be sourced. However, make sure that you are not reverting to versions of the article that are also unsourced. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
With this series of edits, the article has not been referenced in any satisfactory sense (as it does not reference reliable sources) and is still POV (albeit in a pro-SCV sense instead of an anti-SCV sense). This version is actually more POV than the other (though both are possibly unacceptable). I suppose this does confirm the need to rewrite the article, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the article to a prior version you (Jersyko) had posted (your version of 17:31, 4 Sep 2006), then I added citations to every sentence which references the organization's purpose, "affiliations," and "agenda."--Black Flag 04:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see this link to Wikipedia's reliable sources requirement: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. The sources provided do not adhere to the requirement. Regarding a "version of the article I had posted," my edit to the article was merely to add a "POV" tag. Implying that I somehow approve of the version of the article because I posted it is deceptive. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Black Flag, your edits are very interesting. Some of the claims you've deleted from the article lack, as you say, citations. Curiously, however, the very citations you use to source the claims you substitute for the claims you delete could have been used to support the claims you've deleted.
Take for example the claim "SCV membership is open to male descendants (lineal and collateral) of soldiers who fought for and honorably served the Confederate States of America during the Civil War;" In this edit you deleted that unsourced claim and substituted "Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is a historical and patriotic honor society and non-political fraternal organization dedicated to preserving the history of the American Civil War and the 1861-1865 era." and used an SCV web page as your source. That very source contains this sentence, "Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans is open to all male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces." So, instead of deleting the original wording you could have just used that very SCV web page to support it. Curiously, you did not.
Ooops. I'm blind. The quote you substituted actually contains some of the information you deleted. My mistake. Sorry about that. Gotta read more carefully next time. Still, you did not justify deleting the SPLC information that I talk about below. So I'm still going to restore that information to the article. -- noosphere 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, all your edits use the SCV itself as the source, while deleting content that was sourced by the SPLC, and you also deleted links to information on the SCV from the SPLC without giving any justification. Therefore I am going to revert your edits. In the future please do not delete useful, well cited information or relevant links. Thank you. -- noosphere 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To Noosphere/Jersyko/Verlempt & all other SPLC advocates: Applying your own logic, SCV's opinion of the SPLC belongs in the SPLC article? Interesting. --Fix Bayonets! 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop using the SPLC as a stalking horse. There is a wide variety of sources that confirm the SPLC publications.Verklempt 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe you've mischaracterized my position, Fix Bayonets. If you read my comments on this talk page, you'll note that I find both the version with an overabundance of material cited to the SPLC and the pro-SCV version of the article to be violative of NPOV. Mainstream media sources should be used most prevanlently in this article, with some citations, of course, to the SCV site and SPLC site. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of Intent To Request Mediation/Arbitration

To: all editors of the S.O.C.V. article...

I am inclined to request mediation/arbitration with regard to this article, as well as protection/semi-protection pending resolution.

If the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” Wikipedia article is to be a fair representation of Wikipedia’s “work product,” it cannot be the de facto opinion page of the Southern Poverty Law Center ["SPLC"] (or other agenda-based individuals and/or organizations).

Wikipedia policy is that:

“One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that [contributors/editors] must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.” WP:V

Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Examples of exceptional claims include those which are:

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." Exceptional Claims (emp. added)

It seems clear to me that certain users' continual edits and reversions of the SCV article are not in keeping with the Wikipedia standards referenced above.

Any assertion that the SPLC is a widely accepted “objective and reputable publisher” is quite laughable; as is any assertion that "The Nation" magazine and other cited materials are "apolitical." Furthermore, one cannot assert that the SCV is an extremist group and use in support of such hypothesis the sole opinions of individuals and organizations who are known to have an extremist and/or politically charged agenda.

For brevity's sake, I will defer the discussion of further objections to the present treatment of the S.O.C.V. article for the time being [but by no means should it be inferred by any party that the afore-going issues represent the only objections to the edits and revisions in question].

Of course, the preferred course of action would be that we could reach an equitable and reasonable consensus amongst ourselves as to the just and proper treatment of the S.O.C.V. Wikipedia article.

Respectfully, --Black Flag 08:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll find no Wikipedia policy requiring apolitical sources. The only requirments are that the claims found in the article are cited properly and are presented fairly. -- noosphere 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the policy to which I refer. --Black Flag 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
AND Please re-read the paragraph to which you allude in its entirety:
"Any assertion that the SPLC is a widely accepted “objective and reputable publisher” is quite laughable; as is any assertion that "The Nation" magazine and other cited materials are "apolitical." Furthermore, one cannot assert that the SCV is an extremist group AND USE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH HYPOTHESIS THE SOLE OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE KNOWN TO HAVE AN EXTREMIST AND/OR POLITICALLY CHARGED AGENDA." (emp. added)
--Black Flag 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting statement. You seem to claim that the SPLC (or some other unnamed group) "is known" to be an extremist group (without providing a shred of evidence), while at the same time you object to providing evidence that the SCV is an extremist group. And, once again, there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting "politically charged" sources. -- noosphere 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you have once again missed the point entirely. Please re-read the paragraph to which you allude in its entirety:
"...[O]ne cannot assert that the SCV is an extremist group AND USE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH HYPOTHESIS >>>THE SOLE OPINIONS<<< OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE KNOWN TO HAVE AN EXTREMIST AND/OR POLITICALLY CHARGED AGENDA." (emp. added, with special notation to phrase 'THE SOLE OPINIONS')
Notwithstanding the above, please know that I am indeed pleased that it is your goal that the subject-matter is (to use your words) “presented fairly.” That is all I and others ask as well.
--Black Flag 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Who are these "individuals and organizations who are known to have an extremist... agenda"? (again, source with "policitally charged" agendas are not prohibited by Wikipedia policy) And what is the evidence that they're extremists? -- noosphere 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Where specifically are the claims in this article not presented fairly? -- noosphere 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, with all due respect, you missed my point entirely. Or, perhaps, you are choosing not to address the point I raised?
--Black Flag 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Your point seems to be a purely academic one, since you apparently can't or won't provide any evidence that any of the sources used in the article are extermist groups (except the SCV itself, of course, but I doubt you're referring to them). Still, I agree with WP:RS which says, "that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party." Now would you care to substantiate your charge that the groups used as sources in the article are extremist groups? -- noosphere 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it's too early to request mediation or arbitration at this point. There are problems with the current version of the article. For instance, there are statements in the intro, the first sentence even, that belong in the "Criticism" section. Additionally, these statements should not be presented as objective fact (as they are now), but rather as the opinion of "pundits" or, better yet, the opinions of the magazines or writers who wrote the cited articles. I am about to start a bit of work on this article. If anyone has a problem with any of the changes I make, please say as much here. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we reach a basic consensus as to objective standards first? To do otherwise seems to invite further continuous editing/revisions/reverts, etc. It would indeed be unfortunate if you (as a group) will not stop the apparent "edit war" long enough to even discuss and "map out" fair standards and objectives.
--Black Flag 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The objective standards that need to be applied here are found at WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The current, anti-SCV version of the article does not adhere to these standards. The older, pro-SCV version of the article does not adhere to these standards. If you don't like my changes, please post here. However, these are the standards that I'm using. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Then, in the spirit of good faith and compromise, I shall await your first draft, and refrain from exercising the right to make editorial changes for the time being.
Respectfully yours,
--Black Flag 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of terms

I think that a lot of the problem here has to do with definition of terms. "Honorable" service, for example. I have an "honorable discharge" from the United States Army, easily verifiable (were I a "notable" person) by the fact it is recorded in the public records of my county of residence, as it has been since my discharge. That is the term. It would be easy for many to see my service as otherwise. Certainly Al-Qadea members would see it as "dishonorable" service to Zionism, Trotskyists would be likely to see it as having been "dishonorable" service to Capitalism, etc. But the term "honorable" is nonetheless the official, authentic, and correct one. Likewise, my great-great-great grandfather served "honorably" in the Confederate Army, not to hold on to his (nonexistent) slaves or to support slaveholding or slavery as institutions, but because his homeland (the South) was being invaded. Whether others see anything honorable about this service is not the point. Linking Confederate Veterans per se to racism, white supremacy, and other related ideologies is wrong, just as it would be to link all who served in the Wehrmacht with Naziism, or all who served in the former Iraqi Army with Baathism and slavish support of Sadaam Hussein.

The term "War Between the States" has long been considered to be a Southern apologist term, and "American Civil War" has become standard. This should be the usage here regardless of the editor's viewpoint, just as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" should be used in that context, even if one is a fundamentalist who sees it as really being "Darwin's Speculative and Unworkable Scheme".

I think that Verklempt and Fix Bayonets! would both do well to have active user pages and let us see where they are coming from. Both seem to be changing the page frequently to their POVs in the name of making it NPOV (what I think is right and NPOV, everything else is POV). It is appropriate to talk about the dispute within the SCV between factions, which is now certainly a matter of public record. Ordinarily I would think that links to the group's website belong at the end, but this would seem to be the only way to prove what its own official statements are. These have to be taken into consideration – how the group defines itself – as well as what critics (named critics) have to say about it. Take the Benevolent and Patriotic Order of Elks. Others may find it to be both unbenevolent and unpatriotic, and if these viewpoints have been verifiably published in notable media, this should be taken into consideration, not in lieu of the group's official statements but in addition to them.

All the controversy within the SCV is in large measure why I, an eligible Southerner who is a Civil War buff, have never joined, as I want to be part of heritage group, not a racial purity and/or supremacy society. That having been said, I don't think that the article should be largely a series of links to SPLC articles or sites about how dangerous it is, or a series of links to white supremacist sites. The SPLC has its own agenda, too, as has been noted. But lots of dissenting members notwithstanding, it does seem to be objectively verifiable that the SCV is becoming more of an irredentist, secessionist group. This all belong in the article, but not in the context of "these guys are all awful and this group is terrible". Facts should be presented, with appropriate links to exposition from both sides. I think that this is the direction that Jersyko is trying to take the article, and the direction in which it should be headed. Rlquall 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Rlquall and Jersyko:

I wish to extend sincere thanks to user Rlquall for taking the time to comment here. I, too, believe that "[l]inking Confederate Veterans per se to racism, white supremacy, and other related ideologies is wrong." And I again thank Jersyko for his efforts to re-draft the SCV article. I believe that with their help we can reach satisfactory resolutions to most, if not all, issues in dispute. --Black Flag 06:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I leave you with the following interesting quote:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

! ;-)

--Black Flag 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


These are all relevant points. However, can you confirm that proof of a Confederate ancestor's "honorable discharge" is a prerequisite to SCV membership? I removed that language because I don't think that is the case, nor do I think it could be proved or disproved for the majority of Confederate ancestors. For the most part such records simply do not exist, given the way the war ended. Furthermore, I know SCV members whose ancestors were never discharged, honorably or otherwise. So to include the word "honorably" in this article is thus POV, not a statement of fact.Verklempt 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In reply to "Verklempt":
Even a half-hearted examination of the SCV online "membership application" form demonstrates that the organization’s official policy is that “[m]embership in Sons of Confederate Veterans is limited to male lineal or collateral descendants of those who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces.”[2] It is also clear that the SCV, as an organization, spends time and money attempting to verify the information supplied in member applications.[3][4][5] Such is the case even for Cadet membership.[6] Therefore, you are mistaken as to the issue of requirement of “honorable service.”
But you mentioned that you "know persons" in the SCV. Therefore, you could have asked your acquaintances about membership requirements. I have never encountered an SCV member who was not happy to discuss the organization with those genuinely interested. But having scrutinized your history of edits to the SCV article, it appears that the subject of “honorable service” (or lack thereof) is not your true objection to the existence of the SCV. Perhaps you will elucidate your actual objections to the SCV on your personal Wikipedia “User Talk Page?” In any event, as you might inquire as to any agenda I might have, I shall volunteer such information.
I object to any attempts to cast this organization in a false light. Some of the SCV’s members no doubt harbour sentiments which some might consider “secessionist,” “extremist,” “monarchist,” or any other “ist” one might care to imagine -- other members do not. As with any organization or association of individuals, opinions will vary across the philosophical, religious, and political spectrum. And that, my friends, shall never change as long as such organizations/associations are comprised of humans. But the varying and diverse individual opinions of each and every member of the SCV are not the opinions of the SCV as an organization, and vice versa.
Regardless, one’s personal opinion of the SCV, the Confederacy, and/or Confederate descendants is immaterial to any factual examination of the SCV. Obviously, the SCV has its own aspirations, as do all organizations (even “for profit” and “non-profit” organizations). But the SCV does not mask its agenda and purposes. The organization states that it is a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved.[7] The SCV seeks to preserve and accurately depict why the ancestors of its individual members fought for the Confederacy.[8] For some, it was slavery. For others it was States’ Rights. For some, it was honor. For others, it was because armed soldiers invaded their ‘hearths and homesteads.’ There were many reasons. But in an age when self-appointed “gate-keepers of all knowledge” have become accustomed to affixing labels on everything and everyone, any prospective goal of a truthful depiction of the various causes which served as the animus compelling Southern men and boys to stand in a firing line -- bleeding, and even dying for the respective cause(s) which they believed in – has been relegated to the scrap pile of the beast named “political correctness.” --Black Flag 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of the published membership qualifications. The question remains as to whether that "honorably" is POV or not. Is it something that the SCV membership gatekeepers have some objective way of measuring, ind if so, how do they do that? My understanding is that they do not, but if there is evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. From what I can tell, the "honorably" requirement is rhetorical, part of the group's ideological expression.Verklempt 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Statements of fact are not based on your "understanding of things." Speaking for myself, that is something for which I am truly thankful. --Fix Bayonets! 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just being polite, and acknowledging that I'm not infallible. But I do think I'm correct. I'm asking you to give evidence that "honorable" service is objectively defined and measured by the SCV gatekeepers. If your claim is factual, then it should be verifiable. If there is no evidence that the SCV defines and measures this in an objective manner, then the default assumption should be that it is part of the organization's rhetoric, and thus not NPOV.Verklempt 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere along the course of your "...being polite...," did you actually read the portions of the SCV membership application which ask for branch, unit, company, pension#, dates mustered in/out, etc.? And did you notice the part where it referenced the fact that staff researchers attempt to verify the information supplied? Of course, you seem quite an expert on the subject of Confederate service records, as you instinctively appear to know that none exist for most Confederate soldiers. And you appear to believe you have a right to revert articles based upon your own speculations. Afterall, why bother to let facts get in the way of conjecture. --Fix Bayonets! 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough of that. Everyone needs to stay cool and remain civil. One word, which isn't necessary in this article regardless of whether it is POV, is not worth fighting over. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I do wish everyone would "place their cards on the table," though. I do not believe that the real issue here is use of the word "honorable." I believe the real objections of some people are to the SCV itself, to the Confederacy, to their descendants, to Southerners in general, to the South, to Dixie, to the Flag, and everything associated with those things. Let's address the actual accusations being brought by some (which appear to be charges of "extremism," "racism," etc.) Those are the issues which keep creeping into the SCV article. For anyone to pretend otherwise seems disingenuous and patronizing (in my opinion). --Fix Bayonets! 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm discussing evidence, not personalities. I will not respond to ad hominem arguments. I edited that one word out for NPOV. I'm familiar with the records and their limitations. Can you tell me how "honorable" service is defined and measured by the SCV? I'm still waiting for evidence that the SCV defines and measures this dimension in an objective manner.Verklempt 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed numerous Administrators’ comments regarding articles pertaining to organizations and/or associations, it appears to be abundantly clear that Wikipedia consensus regarding this issue is that an organization’s/association’s description of itself should appear in the content of the subject-matter article. In other words, inasmuch as the SCV declares that it is “a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved,”[9] such fact should be included the article. Likewise, Wikipedia consensus is that in instances where a particular organization/association declares that its membership is limited to certain criterion, a good Wikipedia article will include such organization’s/association’s declared “admission” requirements. Thus, I must agree with Rlquall and Bayonets: with regard to the SCV’s officially stated policy, “the term ‘honorable’ is… the official, authentic, and correct” term which should be included in the article, as such is the officially stated policy of the organization -- whether Verklempt or other users like it or not.

Verklempt appears to mistakenly believe that Wikipedia policy is that with regard to an article on any particular organization, it must be proven that such organization rigidly and unfailingly enforces its membership “admission” requirements. There are numerous flaws in such interpretation, including, but not limited to, Wikipedia’s policy against original research. Furthermore, as can be seen by the perusal of sundry Wikipedia articles, it is not Wikipedia practice to impose such a ‘burden of proof’ with respect to articles pertaining to organizations. But, in any event, good faith attempts have been undertaken to demonstrate that the SCV’s admission requirements are “limited to male lineal or collateral descendants of those who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces.”[10]; and that the SCV, as an organization, spends time and money attempting to verify the information supplied in member applications.[11][12][13] Verklempt chooses to reject such evidence.

As stated before, I suspect that the above-referenced “membership criterion” issue is not the actual issue bothering Verklempt. I cite, by way of example, Verklempt’s revision of the SCV article dated 22:00, 1 August 2006, in which Verklempt inserted the following text:

“By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic [sic.] of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.” -- Verklempt revision of 22:00, 1 August 2006.

The above-posted material would seem to be indicative of issues larger than those of the SCV's “membership criterion." Again, I join Rlquall in suggesting that Verklempt state Verklempt's true objections in this matter on Verklempt's "User Talk" page.

In order to further clarify my own position in this matter, it is my firm belief that Wikipedia articles should not be used as a pedestal in which to advance one's own personal agenda(s) -- after all, there are numerous commercial web pages which provide an avenue for such projects. Sound logic, sound research, and, where applicable, valid 'scientific method' should guide one's approach to contributing/editing. But in any event, it appears that it is agreed by the consensus of reasonable minds here that the SCV’s stated raisons d'être and admission requirements should be included in the subject-matter Wikipedia article, although I also agree with both Rlquall and Jersyko that certain presentation of criticism may, under certain circumstances, be appropriate; as long as such criticism is supported by non-politically charged/non-biased sources and is not given undue attention or weight. It appears that any inclusion of SPLC references in the manner contained in the existing version of the SCV article violates the above-referenced policy. Again, I do not believe the present SCV article has been given the same objective treatment as other Wikipedia articles (e.g., compare the present version of the Wikipedia "SCV" article to that of the Wikipedia “MoveOn.org” article). Nonetheless, I continue to honor the terms of our informal “mediation/ADR” in progress, and await further re-draft of the SCV article by Jersyko, whom I again thank. --Black Flag 09:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Application of "WP:RS" Policy, et al.

I haven't finished reading your entire comment yet, Black Flag. However, I thought I should respond to your first paragraph. You say "it appears to be abundantly clear that Wikipedia consensus regarding this issue is that an organization’s/association’s description of itself should appear in the content of the subject-matter article." Well, Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline does not agree, "Material from self-published sources . . . may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves . . . where the material is one of the following . . . not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye. . . . It should also be: not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing . . . Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact . . . In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided." Thus, it would actually be best to not cite the SCV website at all in this article (other than in an "external links" section). I have not removed the references merely because of my inability, thus far, to find a really good source that describes the organization and its activities. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your statements in and of themselves, you are correct. But you are incorrect as to your theory of the application of said statements to the matter I raised above. The reason that such application of statements is incorrect, is that we are dealing with two (2) distinct and separate issues.
Issue #1(a) & (b) -- VERIFIABLE DECLARATIONS (SCV's Officially Stated Raisons d'Être and Admission Requirements): (a) The SCV officially declares that it is “a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved.”[14] (b) The SCV’s officially stated policy is that its requirements for admission into the organization is “limited to male lineal or collateral descendants of those who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces.”[15] It is a documentable fact that the above statements are declarations of the SCV. As one holding a juris doctorate, you are aware that such official statements/publication(s)-of-statements are facts which can be legally recognized. Under certain circumstances, such statements may even constitute "admissions," in the legal sense of the word. By way of example, the fact that Nixon SAID "I'm not a crook" is a fact which can be legally recognized. Sane persons cannot debate the fact that Nixon MADE that satement. The issue as to whether Nixon WAS, or WAS NOT, in fact a "crook" is obviously a matter of debate to some people.
Issue #2 -- OPINIONS: SCV Opinions (Other statements or materials published by the SCV). Obviously, the SCV's opinion of itself and others is an entirely separate matter from the SCV's officially stated raisons d'être and admission requirements.
I quote Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin:
"When dealing with published sources not regarded as reputable enough to be used as sources of information on other people, we may nevertheless use them as sources of information on themselves if they have a Wikipedia page, but even then we proceed with caution. So for example, Stormfront may be used as a source if we want to know what Stormfront says about itself in the article about that group, but we don't use Stormfront as a source of information on Jews. We also don't repeat its views about Jews in the Stormfront article unless we're carefully selecting certain passages to illustrate what kind of organization it is. But we don't allow the Stormfront article to become a platform for Stormfront propaganda. Wikipedia is not an extension of other people's websites."
As can be seen, the above remarks are in context and quite applicable to the subject-matter dispute regarding the Wikipedia SCV article.
Again, if you carefully examine my statements of Wikipedia policy, Administrator comment thereon, and Administrator application thereof, you will find that my statements are quite accurate and on-point. If you examine other Wikipedia articles in comparison to the SCV article, you will find that my demonstration of inequitable treatment (of the SCV article) is very compelling. And as to your theory that the SCV cannot be cited whatsover, I respectfully tell you that you are quite incorrect, for the reasons set-forth above.
Respectfully, --Black Flag 14:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect, SlimVirgin's interpretation of the policy is not policy itself (in any event, I'm not sure that the interpretation actually supports your point). You say we have "two distinct and separate issues." In one respect, you're right, there are two issues. However, we cannot accept the SCV's description of itself as a "patriotic" or "non-political" organization as an objective fact any moreso than we can any other potentially controversial statement on the SCV's website because of the policy I've pointed out.
What we can do, however, is present the SCV's description of itself (which I think the article has started to do in the "mission" section) in such a way that the reader can tell that the article is talking about what the SCV says about itself instead of an objective fact (note the use of "The Sons of Confederate Veterans describes its mission as . . ." instead of "The SCV's mission is . . ."). I'm not saying the SCV's description of itself is wrong, I'm saying that we cannot present its description as a fact in the article's introduction or anywhere else. Perhaps we are on the same page here? · j e r s y k o talk · 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that is EXACTLY what I said above. I assure you that I have examined and researched this issue very thoroughly. --Black Flag 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I thought that might be the case. I wanted to emphasize that wording is important in my response, and I hope that came across. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree the SCV's own rendition of its membership policy and its purpose should be in the article, even if it is POV. By definition, the organization's POV should be described in the article. But it should not be replicated uncritically, for to do so would violate the NPOV policy. I propose that the membership requirement description be moved out of the intro, so as not to give the impression that WP endorses the SCV's own interpretation of "honorably." I would also lke to request once again that Black Flag drop the relentless ad hominem. It is entirely irrelevant. Finally, BF's argument that SPLC publications should not be referenced is an unsupportable interpretation of WP.Verklempt 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


To: user "VERKLEMPT" Regarding: Request For Withdrawal of Unfounded Accusations

In your message dated "18:30, 13 September 2006" [above], you accused me of making, and I quote: "relentless ad hominem [attacks]." Seriously, I do not know to what you refer.

First of all, Merriam Webster defines the term "ad hominem" as follows:

Main Entry: 1 ad ho•mi•nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made[16]

By reviewing the above, you will quickly ascertain that at no time did I, or have I ever, engaged in ad hominem attacks on any party at Wikipedia. Again, I do not know to what you refer. I do know that I cited language you posted in the form of an edit to the SCV Wikipedia article, to wit, the following remarks you posted 22:00, 1 August 2006:

“By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic [sic.] of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.” Verklempt revision of 22:00, 1 August 2006.

In my previous messages on this point, I had suggested that your prior remarks (such as those listed above) demonstrate that perhaps your objections to the SCV article run deeper than a mere objection to the use of the term "honorable." In doing so, I used rational and deductive processes to attain a reasonable conclusion. Ordinarily, I would have most likely ignored your accusation entirely, and not responded in any manner. However, you chose to make such accusation on a public Talk page, as opposed to my personal Talk page. Additionally, you have: (i) called into question my integrity; and (ii) most egregiously, you have accused me of violating Wikipedia policy (the accusation I took most seriously). Therefore, I politely ask (in as earnest a manner as I know how), that you withdraw your accusation immediately. Respectfully,--Black Flag 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge / Acceptance

I withdraw the "relentless" part, which adjective I included because I had mistakenly confused you with Fix Bayonets. As far as I can see, the Black Fag account has only deployed ad hominem against me on one occasion, wherein he challenged me to reveal my "true objections," thus implying that the objections I recorded on this page were somehow untrue. You, sir, have impugned my honor. I'm thinking about challenging you to a duel.Verklempt 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To Verklempt: Re: THE DUEL
I am at your service, sir. We shall duel to the death. The methodus pugnandi shall be as follows:
We shall meet on the field of honour at dawn tomorrow, Friday the 15th day of September in the year of Our LORD 2006, with our respective seconds. Our seconds shall each supply one (1) set of matched dueling pistols. By toss of a shilling, we shall determine which matched set to use. My second shall toss the shilling, your second shall announce your call. By an additional toss of a shilling, we shall determine which pistol from the afore-going matched set we shall use, respectively. Your second shall toss the shilling, my second shall announce my call.
Afterwards, our respective seconds shall, at an oblique angle from one another, each walk seven (7) paces distance, and set our respective swords in the ground to mark the point(s) of death. Afterwhich time, your second shall then drop a hat to signal commencement, and we shall each advance at a rapid step to our respective markers, turn, and fire at will. Upon the expiration of one or both of the parties, honour shall then be satisfied. In the event that the afore-going formalities do not yield a victor, said formalities shall be repeated until honour is satisfied.
Upon satisfaction, the forces of the vanquished party(s) shall immediately withdraw across the Potomac River, never to return. Until then, I am in good humour.--Black Flag 08:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above discussion concerning the term honorable: I am an SCV member and have examined numerous applications for membership. The term "Honorable" as used in relation to a confederate veteran's service generally relates to the conditions that existed when a veterans's service ended. If the service ended due to a soldier being captured, wounded, or killed in battle or due to wounds sustained or died of disease the service would be considerad honorable. A soldier who deserted the Confederate Army would not have honorable service. I hope this clears up this point. The term honorable service as used by the SCV is in my experienc an objective standard. Chuck Rand - Sept 16, 2006.

[edit] NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag as the article is pretty well balanced. The SPLC is a radical, agenda driven, organization and as such their criticisms can not be taken seriously.L0b0t 13:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've specified the people making the claims in the criticisms section. We really must avoid the weasle words of ambiguity like "pundits" and "observers".L0b0t 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and reorganization

I have rewritten certain passages and reorganized the article. It is certainly not perfect right now, but I think it does a better job of adhering to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR than it has in awhile. My search for a non-partisan media source that presents a thorough investigation of the SCV (its history, modern activities, and controversy) was not successful today, though I could have done more looking. I plan to look further later in the week (perhaps even tomorrow), though I have run out of time for today. I welcome comments on my work here, as well as edits, of course (though potentially controversial edits to the article really should be discussed here first). · j e r s y k o talk · 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you define non-partisan? Nearly everything the SPLC has published can be found in daily newspapers as well. There are also a number of scholarly journal articles and conference papers that reiterate what the SPLC has published. I have added cites to both types of sources. Should the SPLC publication become defined as "partisan" simply because the SCV members do not like what it reports? If so, then all of these newspaper articles and scholarly papers would also have to be defined as "partisan." The fact is that newspaper reporters and scholars often base their pieces on data gleaned from the SPLC, and expressly acknowledge that source. If the SPLC is considered a reliable source by journalists and scholars, I see no reason to accept its demonization by the SCV members here. Recall that "heritage defense" is the SCV's mission, according to its own web page. These guys are editing here for the purpose of pushing the SCV agenda. Don't let them exclude a perfectly acceptable source simply because it conflicts with their ideological agenda.Verklempt 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I haven't given in to any demands to exclude the SPLC, TNR, or any other source from this article. My edits to the article did not remove links to the SPLC, for instance, but rather moved some of the SPLC content to a different subsection. The SPLC's criticism of the SCV absolutely belongs in this article. However, I agree with the pro-SCV editors in one regard—the SPLC's description of the SCV should not comprise the introduction to this article, nor should it be overrepresented in this article. This works both ways--the SCV's description of itself should not comprise the entirerity of the introduction or the article content, either.
Finally, regarding a "non-partisan" source, my point is that, while many of the sources we currently have are acceptable under Wikipedia policy, why shouldn't we try to find an in-depth description of the SCV in, say, a major newspaper (like the NYT or Washington Post), that would be agreeable to everyone involved in editing this aritcle? I'm not talking about the content of the source being agreeable, but rather the source itself. I haven't been able to find such a source yet, but I will continue looking this week. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with your stated goal here, but these guys will not accept the legitimacy of any source that disagrees with them. They think the NYT and the Washington Post have a liberal bias and are out to get them. The other issue that we should keep in mind is that the SCV is factionalized between the neo-Confederate wing, and the more moderate wing. The current regime has been purging the roles of its more moderate ideological opponents in recent years. There should be an entire section in this article on this recent history. We should try to present the positions of both factions.Verklempt 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You make an excellent point about the factions within the SCV. I remember reading the New Republic article on the subject when it was originally released, though it is no longer accessible to non-subscribers (it's the one linked in the references section). I agree that there should be a subsection on the factionalism in this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The effort of Jersyko is much better than the anti-SCV slanted prior version. I do want to correct a slight problem with Paragraph #2, sentence #1 of the article. I do not know who originally phrased that particular sentence (I don't know if Jersyko wrote it or someone else) and that isn’t my concern. While I will follow the example of BlackFlag in not editing Jerseyko today, I did correct sentence number #1 of paragraph #2, which states…

"In recent years, the SCV has become more focused on "heritage defense," which involves responding to perceived insults in references to the Confederacy and "the South" in U.S. history." In support of this allegation, the following weblinks are provided: ^ http://www.scv.org/heritageDefenseFund.php; http://www.scv.org/pdf/heritagecolumn_issue3_2004.pdf . The problem with the way that sentence reads is the fact that the quote states that the SCV's "heritage defense" is in response to "perceived insults." Again, the references do not support that statement. The example given in the references was Maryland's action prohibiting the SCV from receiving funds from the sale of SCV license plates. Maryland's actions were overturned in favor of the SCV in federal court -- "perceived insults?" Come on, let’s be honest. Therefore, because the references don't support the particular wording of the sentence as currently written, I simply reworded it to reflect accurately the referenced material (reworded: "In recent years, the SCV has taken actions in furtherance of "heritage defense" regarding references to the Confederacy and "the South" in U.S. history"). In doing so, I have tried to state my reasons for the edit clearly and rationally. I believe that such an edit is fully justified, fair and conforms to Wikipedia guidelines.

Although I disagree with Jersyko and BlackFlag on some issues, I am thankful that they are trying to work on this article.--Fix Bayonets! 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Revisions

I moved the last sentence of the opening section into the "Criticism" section where it belongs. I noted the nature of the publications Salon and New Republic. Although most persons with political savvy are aware that the afore-said publications are left-of-center, a young reader or other unlearned person might mistakenly believe that such publications are in the "main stream." I made similar notation to the SPLC for the same reasons stipulated above. Lastly, I noted that the SCV has received letters of commendation from the two most recent American Presidents.
Cheers!--Black Flag 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll need a reference for the letters of commendation bit. It should be included if a reference can be provided. I think, however, that the other edits were POV. For instance, characterizing the SPLC as "controversial" (without any reference) and rewording the criticism sentence that was moved to read "The SCV has been criticized by a small group of pundits" (a characterization of the number of pundits) instead of simply "The SCV has been criticized". Finally, a reader can click on the articles for Salon or The New Republic to learn about those publications' biases, so discussing them each in turn here isn't really necessary. I do agree, however, that the article should mention that the SCV's critics are generally left of center (or at least the ones we know of). In other words, we should say the critics are generally on the left, but we shouldn't say "TNR is left of center" and "The SPLC is a controversial left of center organization." Good compromise? Bad compromise? Thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I added references to the L.O.C.s, as well as the SPLC as controversial.--Fix Bayonets! 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
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. (the last sentence of this comment is an opinion; the others are per Wikipedia policy) · j e r s y k o talk · 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The reference you chose to delete clearly indicated the sources: Washington Post and Harpers. I edited the paragraph in conformity to the above.
And you are incorrect as to your interpretation of the phrase "left-of-center." This from the wikipedia article: "Centre-left, left of centre and left liberal refer to the left side of mainstream politics in liberal democracies."[17] So I have re-linked accordingly.--Fix Bayonets! 17:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If there's going to be a link, it needs to be to "American liberalism", not "left wing politics". The latter is a much broader term that encompasses such ideologies as communism and social anarchism. American liberalism is a much more accurate descriptor. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with your analysis of the above. Although I won't do as you have done, and revert every edit, I will table this for now for the sake of further discussion and opinion. In the meantime, I will be searching for further sources.--Fix Bayonets! 18:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
How in the world can you "vehmently disagree" with describing The New Republic and Salon as "american liberal" instead of "left wing"? Left wing is a very broad term. American liberalism is a more precise term. Why shouldn't we use the more precise term? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To make this more clear, here's the first sentence at left wing politics: "In politics, left-wing, the political left or simply the left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents, socialism, anarchism, communism, social democracy, progressivism, American liberalism or social liberalism, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the right." Of those words, only progressivism and American liberalism describe TNR and Salon (and some critics on the far left even dispute that they apply to TNR). · j e r s y k o talk · 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Having now read the "American liberalism" article, I definitely reject the above. As I read the "Am.lib." article, the term "cheerleading" came to mind.--Fix Bayonets! 18:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
But that doesn't change the fact that american liberalism is a more precise term than left wing politics. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, the link isn't really worth arguing about. You don't like the content of the American liberalism article, I don't like the imprecision of "left wing politics". Are you ok with the article merely stating "left of center" without a link? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay... no link. --Fix Bayonets! 18:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factionalization

Why was this section deleted? It appeared NPOV and sourced. -Will Beback 05:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[COPIED from below, for sake of convenience (F.B.)]: So that editing may continue pending the resolution of the dispute, I've moved the text to talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/factionalization. -Will Beback 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, any comments on this talk page about the factionalization actually support inclusion of such a section. It seems quite appropriate given the media coverage of it. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The so-called "factionalization" reported by the parties in question is 'overstated,' based on dated information, and largely a product of wishful imagination.
Also, the quality of the "cited" source(s) does not conform to Wiki policyb (WP:RS). Even were it proper to include such dated and poorly sourced material, the material in question was presented as fact, and was presented without opposing view(s). It is intellectually offensive to me that anyone would suggest that the above is "NPOV." Additionally, I consider the above edits to be a breach of the agreed method of resolving the dispute regarding this article.
As I assume good faith with respect to most (but not all) of you, I suggest that if the consensus is that so-called "factionalization" material is desired, a draft of such material should appear HERE, and discussed and revised, before it is injected carte blanche into the article. I have tagged this (SoCV) article and respectfully request that all persons comply with our attempts to informally mediate the issues in dispute as indicated.--Fix Bayonets! 04:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes the sources dated? If events occured then they occured. There's nothing inherently wrong with contemporaneous sources. What do you mean by saying that the sources are poorly sourced? We shouldn't hold this material to a higher standard then the rest of the article, much of which is totally unsourced. Further, our WP:NPOV policy requires that we include all viewpoints. Deleting some viewpoints does not further that mission. If there is another view we should add it instead of deleting the entire section. You have not said that there is anything specifically incorrect about the material. Let's add it back and improve it. -Will Beback 08:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Will. If the sources are a problem, perhaps we need more? Here are a few I've found today:
I don't know how many of these are useful. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I believe The New Republic source cited later in the article (but not in the factionalization section) discusses the factionalization. The SPLC website does too, of course, though using the SPLC as a source in this article tends to meet with resistance, so I'm fine with not using it, but I merely want to point out the sources for the existence of the factionalization. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal Mediation

Unless I am given a valid reason to do otherwise, I shall promptly submit this article and the disputes regarding same to formal mediation. I am quite displeased with the treatment of the subject-matter article, especially the most recent changes. I am also quite vexed by the cavalier and assuming attitude displayed by certain editors
--Black Flag 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even commented on the "factions" section, yet you want to take this to mediation? Rlquall, Verklempt, Will Beback, and me have all, at some point on this talk page, posited that the article should discuss the factionalization in the SCV, and no objections were made until after Fix Bayonets removed the section the first time. The criticisms by Fix Bayonets seemed to be mainly focused to the sources used, so more, indisputably reliable sources were provided and were inserted in the article text. So, please, let us know your thoughts on what's wrong with it. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I made some edits to the section, and I think all of it now comes directly from the sources cited. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the standards set-forth in WP:RS, et al., are not “pick and choose.” It seems that certain editors like to invoke certain portions of the standard to the exclusion of others. I have addressed this issue before, apparently, to un-interested ears.

Wikipedia policy is that:

“One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that [contributors/editors] must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.” WP:V The definition of, and policy regarding, “reputable publishers” can be reviewed here.

Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Examples of exceptional claims include those which are:

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." Exceptional Claims (emp. added)

It seems clear to me that certain users' continual edits and reversions of the SCV article are not in keeping with the Wikipedia standards referenced above.

Secondly, as to the alleged “factionalization” issue, it has already been stated by others that:

“the issue was presented as fact,… without opposing view(s).” F.B., 04:36, 5 Oct. ‘06, ¶2 (emp. added).
“[the issue was not presented in] context. B.W.D. 10:45, 10 Dec. ’05, ¶3.
“[b]alance is in order [i.e., balance is found wanting]. Jcpaco 10:06, 20 May ‘06
“Facts should be presented, with appropriate links to exposition from both sides.” Rlquall 16:28, 11 Sept. ’06, ¶4, (emp. added).
“[All] criticism [should be] supported by non-politically charged/non-biased sources and… not [be] given undue attention or weight. [myself] 09:53, 13 Sept. ’06, ¶6.

Moreover, as you yourself have stated:

“media source[s] [should be] non-partisan…” jersyko 17:05, 10 Sept. ‘06 (paraph.)

Furthermore, you and other individuals have repeatedly ignored other editors' multiple requests to resolve the issues here on this Talk page prior to posting content which the latter believe to be a violation of WP:NPOV. This is unacceptable, and the next instance of same will IMMEDIATELY RESULT in request for formal arbitration/mediation.
--Black Flag 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First off, you need to stop the arbitration threats. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is policy that must be followed.
    Second, the only comments from those you mentioned above that are relevant to the factionalization section in this article that existed until you removed it just moments ago were those made by Fix Bayonets. Comments by BWD and Jcpaco from December '05 and May '06 do not address the section that was written just days ago.
    Third, "balance" is not Wikipedia policy unless competing sources of equal reputablility conflict on a matter.
    Finally, you cite a lot of comments and policy. But can you please explain exactly how this version of the factionalization section violates those policies? I don't want to read the policies again; I know them quite well. I would like to hear your take on how, for instance, the particlar sources cited (most of which are newspaper articles, it seems) are not reliable sources. Is the problem attribution? But the section says "an alleged shift", "SSCV alleges", and "The dissidents complain"; not much is presented as objective fact, but rather as allegations and complaints by certain persons. The very existence of the SSCV, however, proves that there is some dissension, so surely you're not disagreeing there. If there is a response to the SSCV from the SCV somewhere, you can add it to the section, but Wikipedia policy doesn't require "balance", so the subsection can exist in the article without it (I'm fine with including such a response if you have a source). · j e r s y k o talk · 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Before I comment further, I ask for your stipulation that, with regard to the proposed sub-section titled "factionalization," we will resolve issues on this Talk page prior to any inclusion [into the SCV article] of the material-in-dispute. If there is no basic agreement as to the 'informal' ground rules (i.e., if certain parties intend to resume ad hoc edits), I see no point in further discussion of this matter. Secondly, I ask you to withdraw your ill-advised comment regarding my supposed "threat" [to mediate]. I never issue threats. I stated a fact -- I will in fact resort to formal processes if the present pattern of behaviour continues.
--Black Flag 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is required policy and is very clear on the matter of the order of the dispute resolution process. You said you were going to resort to mediation before you even attempted to engage in discussion on this talk page about the subsection. Next, you said you were going to resort to arbitration both in your article edit summary (which also took place before you made a substantive comment at talk, might I add) and at the end of your first substantive comment on this talk page. Compare to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. So what am I supposed to withdraw? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting an RFC, fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Was your mischaracterization and distortion of my prior comments unintentional? I never stated that I would not discuss the issue(s) here. I unequivocally stated that issues should be resolved on the Talk page, and that said issues should be resolved prior to the publication of material in violation of WP:NPOV.
----Black Flag 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, you never stated you wouldn't discuss issues here. However, you didn't discuss issues related to factionalization here before you began to talk about mediation and arbitration. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should I have? You seemed content to ignore the comments of others [supra]. Why should I believe you would treat me differently? In any event, I have indicated above some of my concerns above, and have clearly expressed my intention to resolve the issues regarding this article. And you have yet to state whether you will stipulate to the informal ground rules alluded to earlier.--Black Flag 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
But I've responded to every comment made about the factionalization section. I've even refrained from readding it to the article pending comments from other editors. What have I 'ignored' exactly? And we're all obligated to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution regardless. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Black Flag and Fix Bayonets have yet to offer any specific alternatives to the present version of the Factionalization section. What specifically do you want to change and why? Explain yourself. Offer some constructive criticism that we can act upon.Verklempt 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think Black Flag and Fix Bayonets should suggest alternatives. I am led to believe that their only resolution would be to totally remove it from the article. Please discontinue any personal attacks, or asking other people to certain take actions. If both Jersyko and Blag Flag put their points as simply as possible, I think it will speed up the process of resolving this.--Connor K. 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this section of this talk page is much less clear than one just above it: Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans#Factionalization. The complicated conversation here stems almost completely from the arbitration threats and bears little relevance to any substantive article content. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neo-Confederate

Re jersyko's claim that none of the sources mention "neo-confderate." Not quite so. See the two Mountain Xpress pieces. One uses the term; the other uses the term "neo-secessionist," which means the same thing. There is no shortage of additional sources. See especially the McWhirter piece in the Atlanta Constitution. This WP section seems extremely understated in light of that report.Verklempt 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to misspeak, I didn't see anything like that on a read-through of the articles, but I obviously missed it. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. After reading McWhirter, it seems to me that the factionalization section needs to be expanded. McWhirter goes into a lot of detail on the grievances of what he calls the "traditionalists". And then we'd need to add more of what the other side is saying as well. The fact that the Military Order of the Stars and Bars splintered off as part of this factional dispute is not mentioned in the article, which seems a major oversight.Verklempt 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with factionalization material

So that editing may continue pending the resolution of the dispute, I've moved the text to talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/factionalization. -Will Beback 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin (without any limitation whatsoever):

"[T]he issue[s] w[ere] presented as fact,… without opposing view(s)." F.B., 04:36, 5 Oct. ‘06, ¶2 (emp. added).

"[The issue was not presented in] context." B.W.D. 10:45, 10 Dec. ’05, ¶3.

"Balance is in order [i.e., balance is found wanting]." Jcpaco 10:06, 20 May ‘06

"Facts should be presented, with appropriate links to exposition from both sides." Rlquall 16:28, 11 Sept. ’06, ¶4, (emp. added).

"[All] criticism [should be] supported by non-politically charged/non-biased sources and… not [be] given undue attention or weight." [myself] 09:53, 13 Sept. ’06, ¶6.

"[M]edia source[s] [should be] non-partisan…" jersyko 17:05, 10 Sept. ‘06 (paraph.)

Another issue which remains to be settled pertains to the external links: As many others editors have already pointed out [supra] the "contra" viewpoint is disproportionately represented in the "External Links" sub-section.

I will comment further on these matters when time allows.--Black Flag 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you, Will B.


1)What are the opposing viewpoints, and where is the evidence? 2) You haven't specified why the sources already cited in this section should be considered partisan.Verklempt 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The unlinked quotes Black Flag has repeated above do not seem to be concerned with the factionalization text. Please don't keep posting them as they don't further the discussion. What other viewpoints should be better represented and what are some sources we can use for them? -Will Beback 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Additionally, I object to my (altered) "quote" being taken out of context. Clearly, I was saying that it is NOT against Wikipedia policy to use "partisan" sources, but that I would personally prefer to find non-partisan sources for this article (and we have numerous newspaper sources for the factionalization section). · j e r s y k o talk · 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

Having read the section and citations, it looks (at least superficially) to be adequately neutral and sourced. What exactly is the dispute? Does an editor claim that these quotes are taken out of context or that other relevant information has been omitted? If another group split off from the Sons of Confederate Veterans over political issues, that does seem worth mentioning in the article. Durova 05:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm curious as to what, exactly, is objectionable in the subsection, as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have no problem with that section. If somebody from the organization is trying to hide relevant though not necessarily positive information, then they better think twice before wanting to be on Wikipedia.UberCryxic 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War nomenclature

In principle, I don't object to the anonymous editor's insertion of a paragraph on Civil War nomenclature among SCV members. The problem is in finding a verifiable source. The edits might work if dialed back a notch to conform to whatever sources could be turned up.Verklempt 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In your own words

(The following discussion pertains to the DRAFT factionalization sub-section).

According to many of you (including certain SPLC advocates), "a neutral view considers both sides not just one." Therefore, the factionalization sub-section should "consider both sides, not just one." According to many of you, regarding an article or sub-section of an article, the [anti-SCV groups view] "should not... be overrepresented...." Therefore, regarding the factionalization sub-section, the viewpoint of the anti-SCV groups should not... be overrepresented...." According to many of you, an article or sub-section of an article "should not... be overwhelmed by... criticism." Therefore, the factionalization sub-section "should not... be overwhelmed by... criticism." According to many of you, if an article or sub-section of an article "is presented exclusively in a positive [or negative] light... [t]hat's not neutrality...." Therefore, the factionalization sub-section "should not be exclusively in a positive [or negative] light... [because,] [t]hat's not neutrality...." According to many of you, "WP:NPOV requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these [conflicting views] should be presented fairly, but not asserted." Therefore, regarding the factionalization sub-section, the "[conflicting views] should be presented fairly, but not asserted [as if fact]."

I also quote Rlquall on point:

"It is appropriate to talk about the dispute within the SCV between factions.... [However,] ... links to the [SCV]'s website... seem to be the only way to prove what its own official statements are [regarding the above].... Facts should be presented, with appropriate links to exposition from both sides.... [Further commenting that:] I don't think that the article should be largely a series of links to SPLC articles or sites about how dangerous it is, or a series of links to white supremacist sites. The SPLC has its own agenda, too, as has been noted." 4th paragraph, Rlquall 16:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)(emph. added).

And to quote Black Flag:

"...[T]he standards set-forth in WP:RS, et al., are not pick and choose." 1st paragraph, Black Flag 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)(emph. added; TO WHICH I WOULD ADD that the standards set-forth in WP:NPOV are not pick and choose).

Therefore, the factionalization sub-section, if included at all, should be neutral and not be overly representative of the views of the anti-SCV groups; and should present facts, with appropriate... exposition from both sides (including the SCV's own declarations regarding so-called factionalization). I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE THE ABOVE ANY CLEARER TO THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTIONS.
--Fix Bayonets! 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the opposing view, and where is the evidence for it? I searched the SCV site for the controlling faction's take on the situation, and didn't find anything.Verklempt 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Verklempt: Do not insert the draft version of the sub-section into the article again, until the issues have been resolved. Fair warning.--Fix Bayonets! 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't simply refuse to answer our questions about sources for the opposing viewpoint and then claim that we cannot reinsert the subsection in the article because "issues have not been resolved" (couldn't this mean that you could keep the subsection out of the article forever?). Removing the subsection entirely is really not an option at this point, as every third party that has commented from RFC so far has supported its inclusion (adding to those of us who are already involved in this discussion who think it should be in the article). I reverted to an earlier version of the subsection. Do you find the older version more or less objectionable than this one? Why?
I actually prefer the second one (the newer draft). It's more informative and cites more sources (including an excellent newspaper article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution). If the only objection to it is that it doesn't present the "opposing view," I think we should go with it instead of the earlier draft, as no evidence has been presented that this opposing view even exists in reliable sources. (I made some edits to the draft page for source formatting, fyi to everyone.) If such sources are presented, of course, we can add relevant information to the subsection. So can we please get some sources · j e r s y k o talk · 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you (plural) think the present DRAFT factionalization sub-section is "neutral", then frankly, we have larger problems to deal with. I had thought we had been making progress on this article. I no longer think so, and believe that things have taken an abrupt turn for the worse. I can't understand why suddenly, we seem to be "so apart" philosophically (concerning Wikipedia standards of neutrality). Perhaps mediation is the better route. --Fix Bayonets! 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to the above, the alleged factionalization material is dated. As I know certain editors are not able to grasp the concept, see dictionary:
main entry: dated
function: adjective
OUTMODED, NON-CURRENT, <e.g., dated formalities>
- dat·ed·ly adverb
- dat·ed·ness noun
But, as you state, the material is "overly represented". By way of example, note the following:
Current Article: Word Count
Intro: 119 Words
History: 107 Words
Mission: 175 Words
SCV HQ: 122 Words
Tags: 163 Words
Criticism 312 Words
Now let us examine the
DRAFT factional'n section: 667 WORDS.

THAT IS RIGHT... 667 WORDS. I say again, 667 WORDS. That, sirs, is a bloody joke, as is the suggestion of the section's alleged "neutrality." Therefore, I still OPPOSE the inclusion of the skewed, biased, and non-neutral "factionalization" section. If others insist on its inclusion, I and others shall insist on mediation. It appears that others will have to demonstrate the meaning of the term "neutrality" to certain persons. --Black Flag 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to present any constructive criticism. Until you do, there is nothing that we can act on to improve the present version. What is the alternative version you advocate, and where is the evidence for it?Verklempt 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: see the above.--Black Flag 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source for an opposing viewpoint. Note that you just removed a shorter version of the subsection, not the one you are so vociferously arguing against right now. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see any constructive criticism. What exactly is dated? It looks to me as if the dispute is ongoing. There was a huge flare-up in 2005, and I've seen no evidence of a more recent resolution. So how exactly should it be updated? What in the sub-section is non-neutral? How should that be remedied? What are your requested changes, and where is your evidence? Right now, there is nothing to mediate, because you haven't put any alternatives on the table.Verklempt 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback had the courtesy to move this section into a draft page, so that we could discuss and re-edit. I object to your mulish and aggravated refusal to cooperate with these efforts, and consider same to be a violation of Wikipedia good faith policies. --Black Flag 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Will moved the subsection before the RFC responses started rolling in. There is clear support for the inclusion of a subsection on the factionalization in the article, as multiple third parties have said that they consider the original subsection to be neutral. I'm still waiting for those "opposing" sources. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Your complaint is five days old. Since then, you've spent a fair amount of time kicking up a fuss without putting any new evidence or alternative interpretations on the table. How long do you expect us to wait for you to stop setting off smoke bombs and finally get down to work?Verklempt 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please understand that whereas I am not a paid activist of the SPLC or other similar-minded group, I do have the same leisure time to devote to this article as others might have. As I informed Jersyko, I will attempt to work on the factualization sub-section this coming week end, perhaps earlier (time permitting).--Black Flag 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Why should we wait for you any longer? In all the time you've wasted making non-substantive complaints and threats, you could have done some constructive edits. Show me some good faith effort.Verklempt 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any suggestions from BlackFlag or FixBayonets about how to improve the "Factionalization" section. It's been under discussion for a week. Revert wars are not helpful, and may lead to haveing the article protected from editing. I urge those who have problems with the contested section to propose changes that will address their concerns. Quoting comments really doesn't help the article. -Will Beback 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True or False

First, let us establish the “parameters” in which we shall work:

True or False: The “factionalization” sub-section should "be [current and] not dated."?

True or False: The “factionalization” sub-section should "consider both sides, not just one."?

True or False: Respecting the “factionalization” sub-section, the viewpoint of the anti-SCV groups “should not... be overrepresented...." ?

True or False: The SCV article "should not... be overwhelmed by... criticism [of the factionalization sub-section ]" ?

True or False: Respecting the “factionalization” sub-section, the SCV "should not be exclusively [depicted] in a positive [or negative] light... [because,] [t]hat's not neutrality...." ?

True or False: Respecting the “factionalization” sub-section, the "[conflicting views] should be presented fairly, but not asserted [as if fact]."?

True or False: Respecting the “factionalization” sub-section, “[f]acts should be presented, with appropriate links to exposition from both sides....(including the SCV's own declarations regarding so-called factionalization)"?

True or False: Respecting the “factionalization” sub-section, the section should not “be largely a series of links to SPLC articles or sites about how dangerous [the SCV] is, or a series of links to white supremacist sites.”?

--Black Flag 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

True or false: You're engaging in stalling tactics. The NPOV rule is set in stone. There is nothing to debate on your formalistic questions--they're already answered by the NPOV rule. There are no links to the SPLC in the draft, never were any. You've been asked repeatedly to show evidence of "the other side," whatever that is. Where is your evidence? What are you waiting for? Why do you keep stalling and putting up this smoke screen instead of doing some productive work on this article?Verklempt 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Consensus favors inclusion of the subsection submitted to RFC. It is neutral and well sourced. If you want to expand it to include opposing viewpoints, go ahead, but that does not change the consensus that the subsection is appropriate as written. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your true colors.--Black Flag 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

BF - You appear to have time to compile these lists of quotes, yet you claim you do not have time to improve the article. Furthermore, an earlier estimate of the size of the Factionalization section is either mistaken or out of date. The current version [18] is 366 words, excluding the references. -Will Beback 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Or even the version that was submitted to RFC, which is far shorter (the longer one uses more sources and is generally more informative, but I would be fine with including the shorter one until a second RFC confirms that the longer one is appropriate). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing in good faith?

I see Blackflag's latest edits as more evidence of his stalling tactics. His claims about the numbers of SCV dissenters are blatantly POV, and unsubstantiated. His argument that the AJC's reporter is liberal and controversial cites to broken links. One of them goes to a web site run by an undergraduate, the other to a talk show host's web page. These do not meet WP's standard of verifiability--not even close. You would expect that someone so fond of quoting WP policy would be well aware of the problems with his edits. This is why I cannot view them as good faith attempts. The third cite goes to a WP article that exonerates the reporter of a corporate criminal's charges against him. That is simply a dishonest use of sources. Finally, when I raised these problems, he goes to his habitual threatening mode on my user talk page. I sense that we are dealing with a man without honor.Verklempt 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than focusing on individual editors, let's focus on the article. With the recent edits to the Factionalization section I assume that BalckFlag has now made it sufficiently NPOV to include in the article. Unless I hear some reason not to, I will move it back. -Will Beback 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Your blatantly Pro-SPLC view has been rejected before by consensus, and will be rejected again. And I hope other editors are aware that you immediately reverted my attempts at first draft of A DRAFT PAGE (THAT WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY DEMANDED), before other commentators could even see what I had written. You are disingenuous and have poorly masked your SPLC agenda, which you have demonstrated before, such as when you wrote this:
“By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic [sic.] of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.” -- Verklempt revision of 22:00, 1 August 2006.
I rest my case.--Black Flag 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me say it again - let's not focus on individual editors, but rather on the product. BF, apparently the changes you wanted to make the piece more NPOV were characterizations of the reporter and bnewpsaper who published one of the reports. Is that right? -Will Beback 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not move it yet, I (and I assume others) are not through.--Black Flag 00:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
More stalling tactics. However, I aggree that it should not go back in until the broken links and POV cites to substandard sources are removed. Furthermore, the POV that BF inserted about the number of dissenters should come out. Note that we have yet to see evidence of "the other side", which apparently doesn't exist. Instead, we get a smear of the AJC reporter as liberal and controversial. It's looking more and more as if there is no other side, and no other valid evidence.Verklempt 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to be "through" with text to include it in the article. We're never finished editing anything on Wikipedia. Everyone can edit the material in the article. I still haven't heard any reason to keep it out of the article. -Will Beback 00:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I find the text to be neutral and well-sourced to reliable sources. It also has the added bonus of being informative and interesting. It belongs in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LACK OF GOOD FAITH

SO YOU COLLECTIVELY WILL NOT GIVE ME A PERIOD OF DAYS, WHEREAS JERSYKO WAS GIVEN WEEKS TO MAKE MINOR REVISIONS TO THE SCV ARTICLE? So much for "good-faith."--Black Flag 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is preventing you from editing the text. In fact, if you can provide a source for it, please add the counterpoint to the subsection. And I took a few day to edit the text, not weeks. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally would love to see the controlling faction's side presented in more detail. But of course, the more detail you get from one faction, the more you need from the other faction to balance it out.Verklempt 01:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Mercury

Fix Bayonets added this to the article and sourced it to a magazine called "Southern Mercury". Aside from POV problems in the text added, the statement is presented as objective fact instead of attributed to a certain source when it's clear that "Soutnern Mercury" has a well-defined POV. Here's their website. It certainly has some reliable source problems. I don't think we should use this source for facts in articles about subjects like the SCV. Besides, the supposedly factual information is actually contradicted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article that is referenced here, which refers to post-2003 continued factionalization. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is allowable as a source to show opposing view, and should be retained. Furthermore, don't cite to the New Republic, The Nation, the Atlanta Journal, and then DARE to raise the issue of "neutrality."--Fix Bayonets! 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The statements by TNR and The Nation are attributed to those organizations and are confined to the "criticism" section, not the rest of the article. An allowable source for an opposing view would be, say, a newspaper article discussing the SCV's own view of the factionalization, or, better yet, an article actually written BY the SCV that discusses SSCV. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, adding adjectives like "limited" to describe the factionalization is inherently POV. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "An allowable source for an opposing view would be, say, a newspaper article discussing the SCV's own view of the factionalization" The Southern Mercury is an educational foundation of the SCV. So it should be retained, by your own admission.

Furthermore, the (now defunct) dissension was in fact "limited."--Fix Bayonets! 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. It was not clear from the "Southern Mercury" website. The website says it is published by the "Foundation for the Preservation of American Culture", which, I found elsewhere, is a nonprofit arm of the SCV. I stand corrected, this is an acceptable source to demonstrate the SCV's view of its factionalization.
It is not, however, a source of objective fact. If the SM article says that there was no factionalization after 2003, it should be presented as the view of SM or SCV, not as objective fact (especially when a different source contradicts the statement). I will edit it as such and remove the POV pointed out in my last comment. My apologies for not realizing immediately that the source comes, indirectly, from the SCV. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I edited the article to reflect the mathematical and historical fact that the 2002 dissension was small/limited in number. --Black Flag 20:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please source it to a reliable source? · j e r s y k o talk · 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the SSCV website says "members are beginning to leave the SCV in large numbers". Honestly, I don't trust the reliability of the "large numbers" statement, nor do I trust the reliability of the "small" or "limited numbers" statement. Clearly, the sources disagree. Thus, we should not chracterize the size of the faction in this article at all. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the quantifier should remain. The SCV publishes its official membership numbers. One cannot include text which purposefully obfuscates facts as to "when," "where," "how many," etc., merely for the purpose of aggrandizement of circumstances.--Black Flag 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [PS -- Undoubtedly, the SCV thanks the SPLC for galvanizing and uniting SCV members and increasing its membership base]

But SSCV is/was clearly made up of not only ex-SCV members, but current members who disagreed. Using the SCV's membership numbers to prove the "limited" (again, what does that mean, exactly?) size of the faction doesn't work. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, masked attempts to inflate the "success" [laughing hysterically] of the anti-SCV movement "do[n't] work." Again, one cannot include text which purposefully obfuscates facts as to "when," "where," "how many," etc., merely for the purpose of aggrandizement of circumstances.--Black Flag 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOSB / SCV

I removed the paragraph pertaining to the allegation that the MOSB was "expelled" from the SCV. The information was so factually inaccurate, it was actually funny. The MOSB has never been "a sub-group" of the SCV. The MOSB was founded on August 30, 1938. The MOSB has never been "expelled" from anything by anyone. The two organizations (SCV and MOSB) are, and have always been, separate, having different membership criterion and independent goals. The two organizations continue to promote and support each other, and occasionally co-sponsor events, as can be seen by viewing ANY current literature produced by the respective organizations.--Fix Bayonets! 12:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your claims? The para you deleted was substantiated by an article in a mainstream newspaper.Verklempt 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the article/info. It isn't supported.Exceptional Evidence (also, seeWP:NPOV#Undue_weight)--Fix Bayonets! 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain yourself. I tweaked the MOSB para per your previous objections. It most certainly is supported by a mainstream newspaper. The WP policy you linked doesn't seem relevant in this instance. What is the nature of your objection here? Where is your evidence? ALso note that you reverted a host of edits that have nothing to do with MOSB, and that are supported by ites to multiple newspapers.Verklempt 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See Exceptional Evidence (also, see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight)--Fix Bayonets! 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what you already wrote above. It still doesn't address the questions I put to you. Surely I don't need to remind you of the good faith negotiation policy?Verklempt 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could Fix Bayonets indicate which claims he considers extraordinary? That'd help resolve the dispute. -Will Beback 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The information is cited to newspaper articles. By nearly any measure, newspaper articles are reliable sources. Please don't remove the edits completely. If you don't like how it is worded, we can work on that. Can you point out what you'd like to change? · j e r s y k o talk · 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, the allegation of the left-wing Atlanta newspaper is false. See, for example, [19]. The larger issue is unequal weight give to leftist agenda and SPLC. Verklempt has a clear agenda, and his prior posts speak for themselves. Other editors continue to object to this Article's treatment as a de facto SPLC subpage. There is quite enough SPLC feces on the article page already.--Fix Bayonets! 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Which allegation? If it is only one allegation why are we removing additional text? -Will Beback 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is quite enough SPLC feces on the article page already.--Fix Bayonets! 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What specific allegation are you claiming to be extraordinary? -Will Beback 23:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There are no links to SPLC in the deleted text. The MOSB page you cited does not appear to contradict any statement in the WP article. So where's the problem?Verklempt 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks are reverting with the comments "see talk page". What are we supposed to see here? -Will Beback 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links foolishness

I've removed all the linkcruft from the ext. links section. All the article needs is 1 link to the SCV site and 1 link to their primary critic SPLC. This is getting out of hand if there is something from external links that you feel is important enough for the article, write it into the article and cite the ext. link as a source in the ref. section. wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of links an not a mouthpiece for the SPLC. L0b0t 12:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT (strongly).--Fix Bayonets! 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, perhaps there were too many links to SPLC articles in the external links section. WP:EL is instructive here, however. Many of the articles you removed were newspaper articles referencing the SCV, including one about license plates and one about an advertisement by the SCV in a newspaper; another link removed was to the SSCV's website. I added many of the links back into the external links section but I removed several of the SPLC articles, as they were overrepresented. Additionally, I'm not opposed to further trimming down the links. However, removing all but two of them goes too far. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As at least four other editors have pointed out, there is still an undue weight problem.--Fix Bayonets! 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Another problem which exists, is the references to the "Save the SCV" "group" (???) and related website. Note that NOWHERE on that website is even ONE member, director, officer, etc., identified by name. The website could in fact be a BLOG created by one or a few individuals. As such, it is not an appropriate reference, nor an appropriate link.--Fix Bayonets! 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I must stress, if the info in those external links is important enough to be in the article; then it is important enough for you to write it up in your own words, put it into the article and put the link into the reference section. Smalltown newspaper articles from 6 years agoi have no place in the encyclopedia unless they are sources for the article. L0b0t 15:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times is not a "small-town newspaper", you're removing far more than the straw man argument you're making here. SSCV is already discussed in the article text and is discussed in some of the article references, thus a link to its homepage in EL is certainly appropriate. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires that external links be "written in" to the text in lieu of being in the external links section. Are you saying that you'd rather that the article discuss the information from these links in detail in its text instead of the EL subsection? Surely not. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, please read WP:EL. Write the info into the article or leave it out, but enough with the external links. If the material in these links is important enough to list, then write it up in your own words and put the link into the reference section. If the info is not important enough to be written into the article then it is not important enough for a link by itself. L0b0t 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think L0b0t's point is well made. Perhaps it could (also) be re-stated as: Wikipedia isn’t Google. If leftists wish to track down and read every “hit-piece” on the SCV, they can go to Starbucks, drink over-priced coffee, and use Google to their heart’s content. Wikipedia was envisioned as a free online encyclopedia, not a free sub-page of the SPLC.--Fix Bayonets! 17:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In further support of the above, I quote Mr. Wales:

"...[W]e don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."

– Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: Wikipedians by politics; emph. in original)

--Fix Bayonets! 18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding external links, I'd remind newcomers that as recently as last year references in Wikipedia articles were frequently placed in the external links section rather than using footnotes. It is likely that some of those links were used as sources for assertions in the article. So we should be cautious about removing them. -Will Beback 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This particular "external links" section contained nothing but the official SCV website until this edit [20] when User:Grazon added a link to a piece of SPLC propaganda. If people a year ago were putting cites in the external links section, then they are wrong and should busy themselves replacing those cites in the reference section where they belong. Cheers. L0b0t 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is just wrong. Nothing in WP:EL supports deleting, for example, a link to an article in the New York Times that discusses the subject of the article. Additionally, nothing in WP:EL supports deleting the external links from the article then coming here to say "they are wrong and should busy themselves replacing those cites in the reference section where they belong." Again, I'm not opposed to trimming down the section (as I already started to do), but I am opposed to deleting nearly everything. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lack of good faith negotiation

fixbayonet, please justify your repeated rvs. You have yet to identify a single error, offer a single alternative wording, or offer a single piece of contradicting evidence.Verklempt 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Have read read the Wiki policy I cited yet? (Exceptional Evidence; Undue Weight)?--Fix Bayonets! 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not specified how the edits you object to are in violation of these policies. There are no exceptional claims in play. Both sides in the dispute agree that the dispute exists. The cites are to mainstream newspapers. Equal weight is given to both sides in the dispute. Until you can explain your objections in more detail, it is impossible to engage in negotiations with you. Your rvs appear to be more of the stalling tactic we saw earlier in the week.Verklempt 03:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a pattern of bad faith is emerging

Over the past two weeks, we've seen a handful of editors complain that the SCV side is not presented. However, the complainants have yet to offer any constructive edits or any new sources. They haven't even attempted to articulate what they think is missing. Instead they revert wholesale large swaths of editing, and give unexplained pointers to WP policies that don't seem relevant. What is the best way to deal with this phenomenon?Verklempt 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that some editing was made by "User:Fix Bayonets". While I object to the inclusion of the "fractionalization" material, I believe the most recent edit is more balanced than the one you (User:Verklempt) wrote, in that counterpoint is included.
I restored the SCV membership requirements back into the first paragraph. I cannot imagine why it was removed again -- or perhaps I can. So I would reserve the "bad faith" comments, were I you.--Black Flag 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that Jersyko reverted "honorable service," even though consensus was reached. That is unacceptable.--Black Flag 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not looked at any of Fix Bayonets' edits to the factionalization section. However, this edit to the intro did a bit more than merely add "membership requirements". It characterized the SCV as a "patriotic" honor society and "non-political" organization. I do not doubt the patriotism of many SCV members, nor do I doubt that many of its goals are non-political. However, these types of claims are certainly disputable, and are, in fact, a POV characterization of the organization and its goals. Additionally, the edit made the unreferenced claim that "The SCV’s membership is comprised of individuals from all walks of life and professions." While this may be true, such a remarkably broad characterization ("all walks of life" and "all professions" covers a lot of people, doesn't it?) is improper for an encyclopedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And if you're going to claim that consensus supports each of your changes, especially the ones I discuss in the comment above, you need to point it out. Where is this "consensus" that supports describing the SCV as "patriotic" and "non-political" in the first sentence of the article? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Finally, we get to the heart of the matter, do we not? You do not feel the SCV is "patriotic" and "non-political." I cannot say that your statements come as a surprise.--Black Flag 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I took great pains in my comment above to make it very clear that that is NOT what I believe. Try reading my first comment above once again. Honestly, I have no opinion on the matter other than to point out that Wikipedia should not chracterize it as such. I won't comment on any further comments directed at my personal beliefs. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No my friend, it is a documentable fact that the SCV is a I.R.S. Sec. 501 non-profit apolitical organization, and any attempt to state otherwise is unacceptable, and is, in fact, POV pushing in and of itself.--Black Flag 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
IRS tax determinations don't control Wikipedia content. Rod Parsley gets a tax exemption as well, but one can hardly claim that his actions in the runup to the 2004 election were "non-political". But where's this "consensus"? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wiki guidelines often "don't control Wikipedia content" either. The attempts of certain editors to use Wikipedia as a forum for SPLC propaganda is unacceptable and in violation of policy and contrary to Mr. Wales' intent for the project.--Black Flag 13:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
May I take your response as acknowledgement that there is no consensus on the description of the SCV? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you may not. You can take my response to mean that I will not tolerate SPLC propaganda, as Wikipedia is not the proper forum for such garbage. The insertion of SPLC propaganda into the subject-matter article is in violation of policy and contrary to Mr. Wales' intent for the project.--Black Flag 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Black Flag on this one. There is no need to have any negative comments about an article's subject in the intro, that is very bad writting. Criticisms should be woven throughout the article in a point counter-point manner using only mainstrem verifiable sources. The SPLC is not a mainstream verifiable source; but rather, a very partisan, self-published source, ergo not acceptable according to WP:VS. If any editor wants to use SPLC claims to defame the SCV then those editors are more than welcome to lease some domain space and start their own anti-SCV website. Keep this anti-southern hate speech out of the encyclopedia. The cites from newspapers (NYT, AJC, et al) are great and should be the sources used. Wikipedia can only use the SPLC as a source about the SPLC, if some SPLC claim makes through the fact-checking process of a major mainstrem press source then and only then can the SPLC claim be used and only as cite from the press source not from SPLC website or press release. All this childish back and forth bickering has GOT TO STOP. I suggest that the 2 or 3 anti-SCV editors take a break and stay away from this article for a few days. You rae all making Wikipedia look bad. L0b0t 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The edits in question didn't remove negative stuff from the intro, but rather added POV that casts the SCV in a positive light. Here is the relevant dif. Black Flag is merely attempting to confuse the issue by talking about SPLC in response to my edits to the intro and questions about conensus. Neither has anything to do with the SPLC at all. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Though Jerseyko is correct that non-SPLC material is being removed, SPLC material should not be removed either. It is a reliable source, per WP:RS. -Will Beback 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the SPLC is not a valid source as it is self-published. L0b0t 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The SPLC is not the issue. It is incorrect to say that it's self-published (an example of a self-published source is a personal website or a book that was printed and published based on financing provided by its author), but, again, talking about the SPLC is confusing the issue, as almost nothing in the article as it stands is referenced to the SPLC. Let's not confuse the issue any further. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to confuse the issue. The SPLC is self-published in that it IS a website published with their own money and lacking fact-chekers and editors that one finds at a news organization. If there is anything AT ALL in the article from the SPLC it needs to and should be replaced by a real journalist making those claims. L0b0t 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any NPOV cites to the SPLC remaining in the article? I thought they had been weeded out long ago. I agree that only clearly disclosed POV cites should be made to SPLC.Verklempt 23:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The SPLC is no more self-published than is TIME magazine. In Wikipedia usage, "self-published" means that an unaffiliated individual has published without reference to editors. Large organizations, such as SPLC, are in a very different league. -Will Beback 00:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not buying it. The SPLC is not a large group, only a wealthy one. Size of group has no bearing on editorial and fact-checking ability. The SCV is a MUCH larger group than the SPLC, but it would not be a acceptable source for anything in the SPLC article. Self-published has nothing to do with size and everything to do with due diligence and editorial competence. the SPLC is only a valid source for information on the SPLC, just as the SCV is not a source for anyone but the SCV. L0b0t 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The SPLC is accepted as a source in dozens of articles, and its use has been the subject of dicussion. It is a well-respected research organization. It is also one of the only news sources which regularly covers this subject. Can you point to anything they've published about the SCV which is unreliable? -Will Beback 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed something remarkably intersting. You know why the article talks about the SPLC in the factionalization section in its current form? Because Fix Bayonets edited it to do so this morning. With respect to Will et al, again, the SPLC is not the issue, no matter how hard the SCV partisans try to make it the issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that we are so stupid that we don't know who feeds these stories to the "mainstream" press? Only a fool or a liar would contend that the SPLC (and their "fellow travelers") are not driving this agenda. --Fix Bayonets! 06:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not a fan of unsourced, unproven conspiracy theories. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the printed media's great tradition of reliability, neutrality, and truthfulness is why it is doing so well right now. I guess all over America, in stockholders' meetings, they're clapping high fives and saying Das Vedanya right now? --Fix Bayonets! 14:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is that supposed to prove your theory? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC

I don't understand all the constant complaints about SPLC recently. None of the recent contested edits in the past few weeks have cited SPLC at all, and yet they are still criticized as if they did have something to do with SPLC. How does this make sense?Verklempt 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be because most of the "sources" can be traced back to the SPLC. I wonder if Clinton and Bush have tendered any letters to the SPLC? Typo26 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the entire Criticism section removed?

I don't recall any discussion here about removing the entire criticism section. It should be restored pending good faith negotiations.Verklempt 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There should not be a criticism section in this (or any other) article, as it poor style and a POV magnet. Please see all of our work at People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals and its discussion page. Per Jimbo Wales, the criticisms should be interwoven into the article in a point counter-point manner. It makes for easier reading and finding info and it cuts down on trolls. While that should be the eventual goal of every article, the section should be restored until this is discussed here on the talk page. L0b0t 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable solution to me. However, there is a history of opposition to such interleaving, from the folks who are attempting to suppress the critical perspectives.Verklempt 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Having dropped by to visit the old RfC, I find this a very odd position. Where has Jimbo Wales spoken out against criticism sections? Many articles have such sections and they usually work fine. Durova 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the talk page of People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals where we have been discussing this issue for quite some time. "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales. L0b0t 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not we have a criticism section, I hope we all agree that it sin't appropriate to simply delte sourced criticism from the article. [21]. -Will Beback 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

TO USER VERKLEMPT: DEAR GENIUS:

YOU, USER VERKLEMPT...

...YES...

...YOU!!!!!!....

...YOU REMOVED THE CRITICISM SECTION.

CHECK YOUR EDIT OF 00:37, 15 October 2006.
--Fix Bayonets! 04:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. It must have been accidental. My apologies. I wonder why no one noticed?Verklempt 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Jimbo's comment now. If someone wants to re-edit the criticism information so it's dispersed through the article then removing the section is fine, but it's a bad idea to just remove sourced information. Durova 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. For me the criticisms are not the issue, this group has some detractors with valid points, the issue is placement. Having a seperate section of criticisms is just inviting POV edits, it makes it harder to find the rebuttal of critics and leads to a stilted article weighted with positive info at the top and negative info at the bottom (a troll magnet). L0b0t 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:NPOV

As predicted, the article is now overwrought with SPLC criticism. Therefore, it violates Policy regarding undue weight. The Policy states that:

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views."

Therefore, at the very least, the Criticism/Fractionalization info needs to be shortened. I did remove one (1) par. of the Criticism section which contained duplicate info regarding so-called "fractionalization." OBVIOUSLY, the "fractionalization" info does not need to appear in more than one section.
--Fix Bayonets! 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicitous?

Why was this text removed?

  1. ^ Tom Steadman, "Traditions on the line," News & Record/July 21, 2002, http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups342.html
  2. ^ 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 comment was:

  • removed 1 paragraph. containing duplicitous info [23]

It appears to me to be properly sourced. What is duplicitous about the text? Which parts are wrong? -Will Beback 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because the same (bull feces) point was made in the 2nd paragraph of the "fractionalization" section (in re: LoS, etc.). So I removed the latter of the two.--Fix Bayonets! 05:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Duplicitous" means "deliberate deceptiveness". Perhaps you meant "wikt:duplicative". In any case, it isn't either. The preceding paragraph presents material from different sources. -Will Beback 06:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are 1/2 correct. The word "duplicitous" means: 1) marked by duplicity; 2)deceptive in words or action (source: Merriam-Webster). I meant both. And yes, as you stated, the same material was presented. Therefore, the latter instance was removed. --Fix Bayonets! 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I asked before, could you please say what is duplicitous? And what other source are we relying on that shows the decptiveness of this material? - (unsigned, by 09:11, 17 October 2006 User:Will_Beback).
For starters, the last sentence is pure SPLC POV, and can't be included. And the SPLC is not WP:RS. I'll give you an analogy you can appreciate. You contend that David Irving is an unreliable source because he has been caught fabricating stories. Well I contend that because the SPLC has been caught fabricating stories, they are an unreliable source.

The point of the Steadman quote is made elsewhere in the fractionalization sub-section, so is unnecessary. As I and others have stated, this article is destroyed by SPLC driven manure.--Fix Bayonets! 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for calm

I realize that for some editors here this article is about family heritage and regional pride. These are serious matters that deserve respect and dignity - and things that can make people hot under the collar. The temperature of the discussion has gotten fairly high here, which isn't the best environment for collaboration. May I suggest the essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons? Let's remember, "Nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia." Respectfully, Durova 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] relevance of cause of Civil War

It is enough to simply state the SCV's position in the debate. If we were to elaborate on the evidence for either side of the debate, the article would become very long and unwieldy, and duplicate other articles in which this historical episode is relevant. The cite to Walter Williams is thus irrelevant. It is not clear whether or not Williams is even a member of the SCV, much less a spokesman for SCV. This article is not the place to debate the cause of the Civil War.Verklempt 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands now, here is the structure of the lost cause discussion in the article: (1) critics say SCV supports lost cause, (2) the SCV's actual statement on the issue is provided, (3) a person unaffiliated with either the critics or the SCV says, "oh, but lost cause may be historically correct". #3 is something that belongs in the lost cause article, not this one. Remember, this article is about the SCV, and the subsection is about criticism of the SCV, not criticism or support of the lost cause idea. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't USA Today, either. We are talking about one sentence. And I remind the SPLC activists that they continually have no problem whatsover expanding the size of this article, as long as SPLC fecal matter is included. So the "size" argument is bogus. Most importantly, the Williams quote is a rebuttal to your inclusion of the "Lost Crusade" references. IF you have a right to include "Lost Cause" arguments, we have a right to include rebuttal, especially rebuttal coming from noted scholars. An acceptable alternative is to remove the "Lost Cause" references (including arguments about slavery, etc.) from the SCV article.--Fix Bayonets! 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has a "right" to anything in any article. You haven't addressed my argument, it being that this article is about the SCV, and the subsection is about criticism of the SCV, not criticism or support of the lost cause idea. What you're advocating is that if you can't provide non-SCV related rebuttal evidence of criticism of the SCV in an article about the SCV, the criticism should be removed. Good luck supporting that with policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussions of the "Lost Cause" belong in "Lost Cause". All we're saying here is that it is an element of the SCV's historical view. The only relevant rebuttal would be if someone has disputed that the SCV adheres to the "Lost Cause". -Will Beback 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And you ignored my point as well. IF you have a right to include "Lost Cause" arguments, we have a right to include rebuttal, especially rebuttal coming from noted scholars. An acceptable alternative is to remove the "Lost Cause" references (including arguments about slavery, etc.) from the SCV article.--Fix Bayonets! 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But the rebuttal doesn't mention the SCV. What is its relevance to this article, as opposed the "Lost Cause" article? -Will Beback 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Williams quote DOES address the SUBJECT-MATTER of the "Lost Cause" accusation which had been placed into the article. The fact that the Williams reference doesn't mention the SCV is irrelevant, and a "red herring" argument.--Fix Bayonets! 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree that it discusses Lost Cause and not the SCV, then go on to say that the fact that it doesn't mention the SCV is a "red herring". Ummm, a red herring is something that draws attention away from the central issue. The central issue of this article is the SCV, not Lost Cause. Thus, because the sentence doesn't have any relevance to the SCV, it is the red herring. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<<"The central issue of this article is the SCV, not Lost Cause">> Then delete the "Lost Cause" references (including arguments about slavery, etc.) from the SCV article.--Fix Bayonets! 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Lost Cause narrative is a core aspect of the SCV's ideology, as demonstrated by the SCV cite. Why do you want to delete it?Verklempt 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthering Marxism and the fabrication of Anti-Southern B.S. is a core aspect of the SPLC's ideology, as demonstrated by the SPLC website and SPLC critics. Why do you want to include it? --Fix Bayonets! 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not following the logic of your argument. There has never been any mention of Marx or Marxism in this section, and the passage in question does not cite to the SPLC. The reason for including it is that it comments on a core aspect of the SCV ideology in a critical fashion, and is thus relevant to the criticism section. I have never seen SCV deny this. On the contrary, SCV appears to embrace it, as demonstrated by the quote from the SCV site. You have yet to explain why it should be deleted. The SPLC conspiracy theory doesn't really fit here.Verklempt 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a subsection in this article on the SCV that discusses criticism of the SCV (it is common practice for Wikipedia articles to discuss criticism of their subject, and to do otherwise would actually violate NPOV). Part of that criticism is that critics say that the SCV, specifically, adheres to Lost Cause. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Would Fix Bayonets or Blak Flag care to respond to Verklempt or my points here in lieu of edit warring, please? · j e r s y k o talk · 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm always happy to respond to courteous, sincere and non-patronizing requests. The SCV is accused of supporting the "Lost Cause" narrative, which is supposedly "the evil propaganda of white racists." The Williams quote demonstrates that an African American scholar holds the same opinion (cause/non- causes of the War). Perhaps SPLC activists can now call Walter Williams a white racist, too. --Fix Bayonets! 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fix Bayonets, the question is why this quote should be in this article instead of the article about Lost Cause. You've demonstrated that it is certainly relevant to a discussion of Lost Cause, but not the SCV's stance on Lost Cause. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No one has placed any text in the article saying that the Lost Cause is "the evil propaganda of white racists." -Will Beback 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You and I both know (and others know) that the reason the "Lost Cause" material is in the SCV article is because it is being used in an attempt by SPLC leftists to disparage the SCV. The "Lost Cause" material is used by the SAME Wikipedia editors to disparage any and all Southern organizations who engage in heritage defense. Only a fool or a liar would argue the point. If this was not the case, the SPLC activists who patrol this site daily wouldn't care one way or the other. The Williams quote is necessary to rebut the attempt to disparage the SCV by inclusion of the "Lost Cause" comment. Because I have integrity, I have declared openly what my beliefs are, instead of pretending otherwise.--Fix Bayonets! 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy quotient is getting a bit high here. Try a little good faith. Instead of talking about SPLC activists and conspiracies to disparage southern culture, let's address arguments. So, again, the question is why this quote should be in this article instead of the article about Lost Cause. In fact, I'd say that the quote in fact does belong on Wikipedia, just not in this article (would a crazed activist admit as much?). You've demonstrated that it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of Lost Cause, but not the SCV's stance, specifically, on Lost Cause. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In good faith, I have stated my reasoning. You (all) either aren't listenening, or do not care what the reasons are... as you intend to continue your pattern of an edit war on this issue. So I will ask others to consider the matter, as it appears there is ZERO objectivity here anymore.--Fix Bayonets! 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


FB, please tone down your rhetoric. Do not call anyone who disagrees with you a "fool or a liar", and do not characterize your fellow editors as "SPLC leftists" or "SPLC activists". -Will Beback 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not call anyone a "fool" or a "liar." I did state that only a fool or a liar would argue the fact that the "Lost Cause" material appears in this article in an attempt to disparage the SCV. Since the above (the SPLC's use of certain "buzz words") is a matter of fact, and is even discussed in various publications, I consider my statement to be correct.--Fix Bayonets! 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So if I argue the point, aren't you saying that I'm a fool or a liar? As it happens, I do argue the point. The material is not in the article to disparage the SCV, it is there to reflect legitimate criticisms of the group that have been made by reliable sources. I might add that there are additional sources we could also add that link the SCV with the Lost Cause. -Will Beback 23:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course the Lost Cause passage is a criticism--that's why it is in the "Criticism" section! There is no disagreement on that fact among any of the editors here. So where's the problem? You insist that criticism must be "rebutted," but it is already "rebutted," by the quote from the SCV stating its position on the cause of the Civil War. It is very difficult to see what valid issue you have here, other than that you're attempting to squelch any critical mention of the SCV. But you don't seem to have the same problem adding criticism to the SPLC article.Verklempt 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Will and Verklempt:

Thank you for acknowledging the purpose behind the inclusion of the Lost Cause material, Verklempt. I do respect the fact that you are open about your beliefs (even though I oppose them). I think you would agree that EVERY EDIT which certain editors have made appears to have been made with the intent to include material which disparages the SCV. A quick review of the article's history page shows that this is the case. And while the anti-SCV edits continued, others sat back watching, DOING NOTHING... NOTHING! (some editors even agreeing that the anti-SCV edits had violated NPOV) So I believe that we will have to agree that we stand opposed to each other on this issue.--Fix Bayonets! 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which editors you refer to. There was a big fight on the factionalization section that I added, but I don't see that as disparaging the SCV. Rather, it is a significant part of the group's history. I monitored this page for months, and no one else ever got around to writing it up, so I took it on. It needs to be in there, just as the critical material that you added to the SPLC article needs to be in there. Please note that I have never edited the SPLC article, nor have I ever objected to your adding critical material to the SPLC article.Verklempt 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lost Cause" and Williams quote

It seems to me that this whole issue would be obviated by several things. Removing any reference to what the Lost Cause version is, as we link to it in that very sentence. Moving the accusations of supporting Lost Cause up to the sections where it speaks of the SCV's official position on promoting history. Along those lines, integrating the Criticisms into the main article in a point/counterpoint manner, rather than the troll magnets that Criticisms sections invariably become. I think a larger issue here is the suitibility of the SPLC as a sole source for criticisms of the SCV, League of the south...et al. Namely, since the SPLC is a partisan law firm that profits directly from race-baiting, can they be used as the sole source of criticism on organizations that they deem nefarious? The SPLC has a dog in this fight, should we have 3rd party confirmation of their accusations? I have a growing sense that this may need some kind of arbitration on WP:RS and the SPLC. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by L0b0t (talk • contribs) .

I don't know how we got from talking about an article by an economist to, yet again, somehow questioning the general credibility of the SPLC. Regarding the Williams' article specifically, it's being used as a "rebuttal" of criticism by non-SPLC critics. But aside from the Williams' article, perhaps you're right that the article should incorporate the criticisms more fluidly. Finally, regarding the SPLC as a source of criticism, I don't know about arbitration (it's always a last resort), but perhaps a centralized discussion would be a good idea (perhaps not?)? Will probably knows more about the options here. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
SPLC criticism has been pretty much totally weeded out, hasn't it? SPLC cites are not crucial anyway. Nearly everything the SPLC says can also be found in mainstream news media as well. Complaints about SPLC seem to be a straw man.Verklempt 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the slight topic change. I do think the rebuttal of the Lost Cause narative would be obviated by removal of any mention of what the Lost Cause is. We link to it, the place to debate it's at its own article. The causalilty of the Civil War is much more nuanced and open to interpretation than even Wikipedia's own article can delve into. The article about the SCV is not the place to discuss it. I would hate to see anything here go through an arbcom but I do think the matter of partisan sources crops up enough, across a range of articles, and would love to have a wider discussion on the matter. As an aside, if anyone would like to take a break from debating these articles, many relaxing activities are listed here. Cheers. L0b0t 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence which described that Lost Cause. Readers interested in the topic can go to another article to learn about it. -Will Beback 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Does that satisfy everyone? · j e r s y k o talk · 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me.Verklempt 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Fix Bayonets used the consensus here to do this (i.e., remove sourced criticism of the SCV). Just wanted to point this out. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
. . . and then do this. I've become convinced that Fix Bayonets is more concerned with taking actions that violate WP:POINT than actually contributing. Per edit warring in this and other articles, POV-pushing, 3RR violations, and disruption, I'm reporting Fix Bayonets, and I think that perhaps a user conduct RFC would be appropriate. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was to remove "Lost Cause" material, as it belonged in "Lost Cause" article. Therefore, we agreed that Walter Williams quote would be treated in the same fashion. But all of the "Lost Cause" comment was not deleted. I assumed this was merely an oversight, as I assumed good-faith -- that is the reason I removed the remaining "Lost Cause" sentence. If ALL the parties concerned would comment, that would be more appropriate than Jersyko's bad-faith ad hominem attacks.--Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was to remove the description of Lost Cause BUT to leave a link to the lost cause article in the criticism of the SCV which mentions Lost Cause. You used it as an excuse to delete sourced criticism from the article that just so happens to mention lost cause (no one agreed to that). Also, no one agreed that Walter Williams should be treated identically to the Lost Cause material. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Jersyko is aware that his description of the consensus reached regarding this point is incorrect, as can be seen from the 1st paragraph here (see comment by User:L0b0t).--Fix Bayonets! 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t doesn't pronounce consensus (no offense, L0b0t). The consensus is found in Will Beback's comment further down, with agreement from me and Verklempt and NO disagreement. Additionally, you're misreading L0b0t's comments. He says "I do think the rebuttal of the Lost Cause narative would be obviated by removal of any mention of what the Lost Cause is. We link to it, the place to debate it's at its own article." Will removed the description of what Lost Cause is and left a link in the sourced criticism. That's exactly what L0b0t was talking about (he also recommended we incorporate the criticism into the article text, but he certainly didn't recommend deleting all reference to lost cause). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jersyko, I renamed this subsection and then updated your link so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote")... though I believe that User:L0b0t had originally named that section... not you. Your assessment of the consensus reached isn't correct, and AGAIN I respectfully ask that you cease your ad hominem attacks against me and ALLOW THE OTHER PARTIES CONCERNED to comment.--Fix Bayonets! 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The conversation here and the consensus reached was explicitly NOT about Williams. Your change to the subsection title is misleading. Why the are you fighting over changing a subsection title, anyway? · j e r s y k o talk · 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You have now heard from at least two editors who were parties to the consensus state that they disagree with your assessment (of that "consensus"). Instead of continuing shrill ad hominem attacks against me on this page and elsewhere, why don't you attempt to re-address the actual matter in dispute ("Lost Cause" and Williams quote). If you want the Lost Cause material to stay, I and others editors had stated that it was only appropriate to include referenced rebuttal. If you don't want the Williams quote (the rebittal), it is only fair that the "Lost Cause" material be removed from the SCV article. Even if you refuse to negotiate here, levelling accusations is not the way to resolve the matter. We can take this matter to a fair and impartial group of Wikipedia mediators. And again, I have cross-referenceed other Wiki pages to this sub-section, so I am asking you politely for the third time to not re-name this subsection. --Fix Bayonets! 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"You have now heard from at least two eidtors who were parties to the consensus state that they disagree with your assessment" - who's number 2? Bedford, at AN/I? Bedford has never even commented here, and didn't say anything about the consensus here. What gives you the right to unilaterally change the subsection title of a talk page when you weren't even involved in the conversation until much later than most of us, and you didn't even name it in the first place? And why do you insist on changing the talk section title? Aside from these concerns, your change to the title is misleading, and it also breaks my link to it on a different page. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The subsection title was non-descriptive. And I had fixed your link, as I stated long ago. Now let's address the actual matter in dispute. I know that my edit of the George Allen article today has infuriated you and prompted your series of attacks against me. I tell you now that my edit was not intended to do that. It is my firm belief that NPOV is a two-edged sword, not a butterknife. If it is fair to include rhetoric from a known biased news source, then it is only fair to include rebuttal. The standard applies to this SCV article and the Lost Cuase/Williams quote. If you can use accusations from a politically charged left-of-center magazine in this article about the SCV, it is only fair that rebuttal of such accusations are included. I truly believe that Jimbo Wales would agree with me on this point. Otherwise, if you remove the rebuttals (as you have repeatedly done), the article is falsely biased and skewed to your liking, perhaps, but it is still in violation of WP:NPOV.--Fix Bayonets! 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A true rebuttal of the claim that the SCV holds to the Lst Cause has always been welcome, but we've never seen one offered. The Williams quote has nothing to do with the SCV and doesn't rebut anything in the article. This article isn't about the Lost Cause, it's about the SCV. -Will Beback 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Since I have been asked to comment by some of the interested parties, I will do so. Firstly, the main change that I see as currently being essential to the article as it is written (pending future developments within the SCV) is the merging of the "Criticisms" into the balance of the article as per Jimbo. Secondly, while there is not any reason essentially to duplicate the content of Lost Cause here, it is legitimate IMO to link SCV and Lost Cause, as the SCV's own "Salute to the Confederate Flag" includes a salute to the "Cause" ("...the Cause for which it stands...").
I think that we should also remember that very few people are even attempting to write anything about the SCV that is truly NPOV, but that is nonetheless our goal here. Certainly the SPLC is not putting out NPOV information about anything, and neither is much of the "mainstream"; most of what they say is filtered by a conviction that the SCV is predominately a group of reactionary and racist dinosaurs. That having been said, there are also writings of prominent men associated with the SCV that would tend to verify this point. The conflict between the more traditionalist members and those who intend to mount an agressive "heritage defense" needs to be documented, as it is petinent to the article. However, it should always be kept in mind that most of that which is written about this is either blatantly or thinly-disguised POV. One thing that we sometimes (including myself) lose sight of in writing/editing Wikipedia is that even when referencing "Reliable Sources" as we should is that we should not parrot the viewpoint in those published sources but rather attempt to rewrite the information into an NPOV statement of fact. Rlquall 14:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As long as folks want to cast aspersions, Williams makes a lot of money as a black apologist for various conservative and neo-confederate causes. Sitting in for Rush he probably gets more in a week than most history professors get in a year. If the SPLC folk are race-baiters, Williams is too, in reverse. Even if Mr. Williams believes his own drivel, the biggest reason he gets a national audience is the color of his skin.Faveuncle 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] THE S.C.V. SHOULD WRITE THIS!!!!!!

The head of the SCV should be the one to write this article not some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.24 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Nope. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the anonymous posting above. The SCV should be prepared for criticism and even welcome it. So long as the article doesn't contain patently false information, critics should have their voices heard. Typo26 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EXPOSURE THE 1957 GEORGIA MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS REVEALS BIAS!!!

THE 1957 GEORGIA MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS, in the "Criticism" secion, has made it very difficult for the biased "Civil War historian" proponents of McPherson stand unchallenged. THE 1957 GEORGIA MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS also reveals a major legal nightmare for the present de facto government and Wikipedia. Will Wikipedia cover the THE 1957 GEORGIA MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS up to be politically correct and avoid the screams from the biased critics opposed to revealing the truth of the Reconstruction Era? We'll see... Burk Hale 00:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Articles are not meant to be a back and forth between critics and responses to critics. Articles must be neutral and referenced to reliable sources. You're in danger of violating the three revert rule. Also, please assume good faith from fellow editors. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] possible source

This is in a reliable source. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Praise and Criticism.

This article is largely very well written and sourced. I've read almost the entire talk page and I commend everyone on trying to keep it civil and intelligent. However, I take issue with one crucial aspect. This article seems to accept as fact too many sources that are questionable at best. Too many of these sources have agendas of their own. This in no way should warrant their exclusion from the article, merely a re-write mentioning the questionable nature. For example: the SPLC is anything but a reliable source. Using them as a source, and not mentioning their leanings, is tantamount to letting the DNC write the article on the RNC. While this page is far from unbiased, I link it because it does have easily verifiable reputable sources (for the most part) to give examples of the SPLC NOT being a reputable source. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6989

I must confess my own personal bias, and resist the temptation to remove much of the criticism while recognizing my own slant. I am a member of the SCV. For that reason, I will not edit this article at all. I will bring up my objections on the talk page and allow others to decide the merit of my opinions.

Again, if we lower our standards for sources, then we miss the point of wikipedia. This article, as it is right now, could never pass peer review and make it into a scholarly traditional encyclopedia. Typo26 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)