Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge

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

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

Fair use rationale for File:Colorwebboll.jpg

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

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

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

Albert Sidney Johnston?

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

External links

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

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

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

nfc tag

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

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

cite check tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

Edits of 18 August 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Lead improvement

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

UDC's ties to KKK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you need OVERT wording, remember that Confederate Veteran, the official magazine of the UDC, had this to say: Great and trying times always produce great leaders, and one was at hand—Nathan Bedford Forrest. His plan, the only course left open. The organization of a secret govern­ment. A terrible government; a government that would govern in spite of black majorities and Federal bayonets. This secret government was organized in every community in the South, and this government is known in history as the Klu Klux Clan ... [1][2] Morty C-137 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Address by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, historian general of the UDC, to the group: [3]

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

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

AND THIS The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) as an organization and by the actions of its members, including prominent members, defended the Ku Klux Klan. S.E.F. Rose was a UDC member who became the 2nd Historian General of the UDC. Her historical focus was on glorifying the Ku Klux Klan which met with praise in the UDC and probably was the chief reason she was elected Historian General of the UDC. - [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goals

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

I added the above source to the article: [6]; please feel free to format the citation as desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Description of Lost Cause as white supremacist

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you may be confused about contested changes. The sentence existed on the page since May 2012:[[7]]. Restoring the sentence to the state it was before you changed it a few weeks ago is of course not the contested change. Are you able to find the quote in Garner's book describing the Lost Cause as white supremacist? I sincerely doubt it. Otherwise, what is your justification for changing the sentence in this way? Cjhard (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Samholt6, this would be the place to discuss this passage, not on the talk page of NorthBySouthBaranof. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We can only write what the sources say about the UDC. Wikipedia:No original research and No WP:SYNTHESIS. Keep in mind that writing that the UDC is a white supremacist organization is a statement that will directly harm the lives of many living people. I know that some sources do consider them white supremacists in some way, but as the article is currently written there is a problem with WP:SYNTHESIS in the lead. If you are going to write something controversial or very harmful to an organization's reputation, please cite your entire source (don't just post a url) and include a quotation. If a source considers them white supremacist, please explain why they consider them white supremacist and avoid writing in WP:WikiVoice or using weasel words.Waters.Justin (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Quotes:

"Rebecca Latimer Felton, Descendants of Confederate veterans who served in World War I received the Cross of Honor from the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Thomasville, circa 1920. Cross of Honor Recipients from Cartersville, spoke to UDC chapters throughout Georgia on a crusade to educate farm women in 1897. Aiming to empower poor whites as well as sustain notions of white supremacy, Felton argued"

"historian James M. McPherson, have accused the UDC of being an organization of white supremacists and neo-Confederates"

"That the women who climbed the UDC ladder saw no conflict in progress made at the expense of minority groups should not be surprising, because UDC women were white supremacists invested in maintaining white control"

"The UDC and other like minded heritage organizations were intent on honoring the Confederate generation and establishing a revisionist history of what they called The War Between the States. According to this Lost Cause mythology (...) The Daughters regarded the Ku Klax Klan (...) as a heroic organization, necessary to return order to the south."

 Volunteer Marek  20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"The monuments were put up as explicit symbols of white supremacy. The group responsible for the majority of these memorials was the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the most influential white women's organization in the South in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Honoring Confederate heroes, generals and soldiers alike, was one of the group's primary objectives, and the hundreds of monuments throughout the South -- and beyond -- serve as testimony to the Daughters' aggressive agenda to vindicate the Confederacy." Cox in Washington Post "In a 1989 article in UDC Magazine, for instance, Walter W. Lee minimized the horrors of the Middle Passage by pointing out that "the sixteen inches of deck space allotted each slave is not all that smaller than the eighteen inches the Royal Navy allowed for each sailor's hammock and the slaves rapidly had more room due the much higher death rate."

Lee also argued that "the worse suffering group among those engaged in the trade" were "the crews of slave ships." Other victims of slavery Lee cites are "the purchasers of slaves" who "found themselves locked into a form of agriculture that could not compete with the new machines."

Other UDC articles praise an array of neo-Confederate ideologues such as Michael Andrew Grissom, author of Southern by the Grace of God (a book which portrays the original Klan favorably) and a member of two racist groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South.

The UDC has also worked directly with these kinds of groups in erecting monuments and staging Confederate battle flag rallies. Most recently, the UDC's president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with League president Michael Hill and white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons." from SPLC research

• Georgia division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) was formed on November 8, 1895. Initially, the UDC worked both to maintain the beliefs of the Lost Cause, a heroic interpretation of the Civil War (1861-65) that allowed southerners to maintain their sense of honor, and to build monuments in honor of Confederate hero... Rebecca Latimer Felton spoke to UDC chapters throughout Georgia on a crusade to educate farm women in 1897. Aiming to empower poor whites as well as sustain notions of white supremacy, Felton argued that although farm women were not cultured like members of the UDC, they too were the descendents of Confederate veterans. Some critics, such as historian James M. McPherson, have accused the UDC of being an organization of white supremacists and neo-Confederates.

She (Cox) emphasizes that women, not men, shaped the South's memory of the war and thereby perpetuated a "Confederate culture" that celebrated mainly the veterans but also the women of the wartime generation and that rested on a coherent narrative of the South's history. That narrative stressed that Confederates fought in defense of state sovereignty—not slavery. It also presented an idyllic portrait of the Old South and slavery as well as a vivid account of what the Daughters considered the horrors of Reconstruction. As a result, Cox rightly and forthrightly concludes, the UDC promoted states' rights and white supremacy.

"Monuments were a costly enterprise, socially, politically and financially. Prior to the rise of the UDC, most Confederate monuments were placed in cemeteries, but beginning in the 1890s such monuments were intentionally placed in public spaces, especially on the grounds of state capitols and local courthouses. The message to all who set foot there was clear—this is a white man’s government.

During that decade, as southern state legislatures worked to dismantle Reconstruction and disenfranchise black men, and when lynching black bodies reached epidemic proportions across the region, the Daughters supported this culture of white supremacy by altering the southern landscape with monuments to their heroes."

"While the Black Codes were adopted, a new propaganda effort was initiated, designed to retell the story of the South. The pre Civil War economy was healthy, everyone was at peace, and the slaves were happy. Organization began to flourish after Reconstruction to portray the genteel image of the south. One such group was the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). The UDC raised funds and erected hundreds of monuments and statutes in the South and the North. These memorials were installed fifty, sixty years and more after the end of the Civil War, a term they refused to use. The UDC refers to the treasonous conflict as the War Between the States so as to remove the onus of sedition and rebellion.…UDC articles praise an array of neo-Confederate ideologues such as Michael Andrew Grissom…a member of two racist groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South…The UDC has also worked directly with these kinds of groups in erecting monuments and staging Confederate battle flag rallies. Most recently, the UDC’s president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with League president Michael Hill and white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons." Mayor of City of Madison statement on city website.

References for § Description of Lost Cause as white supremacist

Grammar in the lede

Shouldn't it be "both of which have been viewed . . " rather than "both of which has been viewed"? 131.109.225.34 (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. It would be "neither of which has" but "both of which have." KDS4444 ^(talk) 07:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So I cut it out again

"Kirk Savage, professor of history of art and architecture at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in his book Monument Wars that the UDC has tried to legitimize Jim Crow rule in the American South. Savage also wrote, "Even more fundamentally, the history of white supremacy in this country does not begin and end with the CSA and its apologists like the UDC."

So I emailed Dr. Savage, sent him the section attributed to him and got back this reply.

"Dear Einar, I think this is the first time I’ve been consulted on a fact check! It’s wrong btw — I did not discuss the UDC in Monument Wars. I did a little bit in Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves. p158 I talk about the UDC’s role in the faithful slave monument. KS"
Now I realize that some familiar voices are going to pop up with "Original research" and the even more dreaded, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT., or perhaps, "we know, or are 99.9% sure, that you are a member of a hate group so why should we believe you, but you know what, the guy who is supposedly being quoted is saying that he did not write it. Will this mean nothing to you? Let's find out. Carptrash (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well hey I emailed him too! Well no I didn't, but I could claim to have just as easily (and I really, really, really, really doubt you actually did), which is why Wikipedia doesn't accept such ridiculously spurious claims as evidence. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So are you going to put it back? Despite being told that the author didn't write it and despite that fact that there is no real reference given? Also by saying, "ridiculously spurious claim" you are saying that my claim is not true, right? Somewhat confirmed by "(and I really, really, really, really doubt you actually did)" Carptrash (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you find a real argument for your case. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean like, how do I prove someone did not say something even when they say they did not? That's a tough one. Carptrash (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I've checked the WP:RS and WP:V policies and there's nothing in them that says "unless of course someone named Carptrash just kinda claims they emailed someone who said nuh uh, unverifiably" so... Morty C-137 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It turns out the claim was added by our good friend Volunteer Marek. No real surprise there. Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I trust Marek over someone who makes hand-wavy claims about "emailing someone". Morty C-137 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to recalibrate your trust mechanisms. Marek's claim is not in the book. I did email the author. Call that "debunking" my claim if that helps. Carptrash (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

<AGF, please> @Morty: Please cut out the snide assumptions of bad faith. The statement was questioned and fact-checked: that is enough to establish concern about the quote until it can be conclusively verified. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and if an editor of Carptrash's standing has concerns and followed up on them, they should be taken seriously. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So someone I've never heard of before just out of the blue, after their first few claims were debunked, says "well I emailed the guy and he says otherwise" with no way to check that claim and I'm supposed to take it as gospel? Excuse me while I have a laugh. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You're supposed to treat them civilly. Please start now. Carptrash is an editor of long standing who has expressed concerns about the accuracy of a statement. Dismissive rudeness is not an appropriate response. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If I announced I had emailed a professor and had an email and therefore a source was invalid, there'd be one of any number of stalkers instantly screaming "competence" and trying to have me blocked. I have not been "dismissively rude", I have pointed out that such a claim is not valid under wikipedia policies.

Meanwhile in another thread, "Carptrash" has now several times tried to send editors on wild goose chases [8][9][10][11][12][13], then left an edit summary of "**** you" while misrepresenting a comment of mine and inappropriately accusing me of "on-line bullying", so you'll forgive me if I'm less than inclined to play "let's pretend" with someone who behaves like that before making what are impossible-to-verify claims. Morty C-137 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It's possible for you to disagree without snark, and it's possible for Carptrash to be wrong about some things and not others. It's also possible to blindly follow Wikipedia policy and be at odds with reality. We're writing an encyclopedia, and if an editor expresses concern about the correctness of what we're publishing and backs it up with correspondence with the author that casts doubt on the assertion, we're obligated to take it seriously. Your personal annoyance with Carptrash should not enter into it. The existence of a statement with a reference is not a license to insist on its retention, and prior disagreement with an editor is not a license to condescend.

Your statement at RSN concerning those who disagree with the SPLC [14] is hyperbolic at minimum and an accusation at worst. I read it with dismay. As an admin who's had to deal with genuine hate for that organization and what it represents at the SPLC page [15] [16] as well as politically-motivated POV from people who've been told what to think at Breitbart, I'm not keen on use of the SPLC as a sort of Godwin's Law to win arguments.

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the truthfulness of Carptrash's account of the email exchange, and I advise you to drop the "let's pretend" business. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have no reason to trust the truthfulness of Carptrash's account given that they've just today sent fellow editors on wild goose chases. Morty C-137 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing aside, Morty C-137 (talk) does raise a legitimate point in that we are unaware if the email text above is legitimate. @Carptrash:, can you (exempting any personal information) provide the exact text of the email you received from Savage?--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm growing a little tired of the "is this legitimate?" questions. See my talkpage - User_talk:Acroterion#United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy for the text that Carptrash quoted from the email. Let's get the content right. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And I'm getting tired of being told that anyone can just up and claim they emailed someone and get a source that has stood with no objection till now removed, after previously claiming they couldn't find the words in the text and then admitting they were only searching a couple-page PDF that only held the intro. You may have some weird history with them that makes you think their word is gospel, but to me they're just a random person and this isn't passing the smell test. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll make it plain: stop accusing other editors of lying. You're making personal attacks. This isn't a war you must win, and you're impeding actual discussion with your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Plain"? What is plain to me is that Carptrash doesn't know what they're talking about, and as stated by Calton, [[Carptrash's credibility is gone] at this point. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Look, I am familiar with Dr. Savage and his work, I have the book mentioned below, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth Century America,, in my library. I am editing this and other related subjects, mostly monuments, because I have been studying them for 30 years. Of course I am just a random person, but it is not random that I am at this article. Like your trust test you need to work on your smell test. Perhaps if you had not pigeon holed me as a right wing hate group person too soon we could get past this. recently someone accused me of being a marxist because of the definition of racism I used. Now you have me as an alt-right type (my words, not yours). I could hardly be both and am neither. Your friend the Volunteer seems to have reached the same conclusion as you. Ask him for a page number of that reference, if he comes up with one, fine, put the stuff back in. But you might ask him where he ran into the book, or was it just the title and an abstract? If you really want to revisit my process we can do that, but it won't change the reality of that stuff not being in the book. Carptrash (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Kneeling Slaves

• Comment -- Savage indeed touched on UDC in the latter book, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves: Race, War, and Monument in Nineteenth Century America, as discussed in these Gbook previews:

• Loathing Lincoln: An American Tradition from the Civil War to the Present, by John McKee Barr
• Monuments to the Lost Cause: Women, Art, and the Landscapes of Southern Memory edited by Cynthia Mills, Pamela Hemenway

I believe that there's some suitable content here that could be included in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Savage had this to say to me today. " I think this is the first time I’ve been consulted on a fact check! It’s wrong btw — I did not discuss the UDC in Monument Wars. I did a little bit in Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves. p158 I talk about the UDC’s role in the faithful slave monument." I quoted his writing elsewhere, "Even more fundamentally, the history of white supremacy in this country does not begin and end with the CSA and its apologists like the UDC." but it was removed with the edit summary, “Remove cherry picked quotation that attempts to misrepresent article and specifically Savage as if he were a defender of white supremacist groups”. That was a real WTF? But folks see what they want to, or think they are going to see. Carptrash (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pulling that out, when the previous paragraph had been about the UDC's "overt indoctrination" campaign, is indeed dishonestly misrepresenting the content of the article. The WTF here is the brazen gaslighting going on. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I would WP:AGF Carptrash here and trust him when he says he emailed Prof. Savage. I will double check the source - it's possible that it was Standing Soldiers rather than Monument Wars if that's what Prof. Savage says. Volunteer Marek  15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again @Volunteer Marek:. You have somewhat redeemed me from this. "Carptrash's credibility is gone," though probably not all the way.

I just cut this out and moved it here

"Kirk Savage, professor of history of art and architecture at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in his book Monument Wars that the UDC has tried to legitimize Jim Crow rule in the American South."

I found the book on line [17] and word searches for "Jim Crow" and "Daughters" revealed no hits. If someone else would like to explain this it could be returned. Carptrash (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now it turns out that the link is just for the introduction. If someone with access to the book gives us a page number we could put it back. Carptrash (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty ballsy to yank a legitimate and well cited source from a professional historian out, claim you didn't find the words in a text search of only the intro, and then demand on that basis that someone buy you the book before it can be used. I'm WP:BOLDly putting it back. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Morty C-137, I did a search for a bunch of the key words in the book (via Google Books): United Daughters doesn't show up in the index, which is viewable in its entirety. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not finding the book searchable. OTOH I did find this by Dr. Savage: [18]. It may be usable as written by "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.". Morty C-137 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, I can't find these words either. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find it either. I might have put in the wrong source. I'll take the quote out for now until I can figure this out. Volunteer Marek  15:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know what happened - I made a mistake. Savage talks about Daughters of the American Revolution legitimizing Jim Crow (pg. 256), not the UDC. Thanks Carptrash for catching the mistake and making the effort to verify it. And my apologies. Volunteer Marek  15:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay @Volunteer Marek:, just remember that we all make mistakes when you are eviscerating my editing. In any case, thank you. Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Caleb Glover

The photo of Caleb Glover as a recipient of the Southern Cross of Honor was removed because he was not "representative" of the recipients of that honor. I have photos of two other African Americans wearing a Southern Cross of Honor, and a newspaper article about a third, and there were many other African American Confederate veterans that received them. So, it would appear that the photo was removed because it does not fit the narrative that this page presents about the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. If there are statements indicating that the organization promotes white supremacy because they are "viewed by some as white supremacist", then a photo or reference that shows that to be incorrect should also be allowed. I do not believe that a group that supports white supremacist views would bestow their highest honor (Southern Cross of Honor) on any African Americans.

The photo needs to be returned to the page to present a balanced view of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and its work to honor Confederate veterans and their descendants, regardless of their race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gi076011 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You do realise that the honour was given to him about a century ago and the references to white supremacy are contemporary? And the awards don't prove what you think they do. But that's not an argument for here. We shouldn't be using images to make a point which they don't directly make, which is what you are trying to do. If we have an image it should be typical. No one is arguing that no such awards were given or that there aren't any black members. And Wikipedia doesn't attempt to be neutral, read WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 22:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The comment that the photo does not refer to the same time period as the white supremacist references is incorrect. Those that view Confederate monuments as white supremacist base that belief on the time period when they were erected, which was during the early 20th Century. That is the same time period that the photo of Caleb Glover was taken. So, the photo needs to be returned as a balanced view of the UDC's activities during that period.

The image shows a Confederate Veteran who was presented a Southern Cross of Honor to honor his military service. He is the same as hundreds of others. The reference that I don't know what the award meant or proved is incorrect. The issue with the photo is that it does not fit the narrative of this page because it seeks to portray a single story: The United Daughters of the Confederacy promotes white supremacy. The fact that the UDC presented its highest honor to an African American, and the fact that there are African American members, prove that false. Based on the history of this page, it is apparent that attempts to include that information are discounted and removed. This shows a bias that should not be allowed.

Also, when reading the information on WP:NPOV, it states that neutral language should be used. There is nothing neutral about the phrase "white supremacy," but there are multiple quotes using that phrase about the UDC. Those should be either changed to neutral language or removed.Gi076011 (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources describing it as white supremacist are describing the current UDC. Again, you are clearly trying to use an image to make a point. Of course the term "white supremacy" isn't neutral. Are you really asking us to remove the term from all articles? How about "racist", should that also be removed? We use non-neutral terms all the time. What NPOV actually says is " neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Now if we said "nasty white supremacists", you could legitimately object to that. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The occasional awarding of honors to black men could also be seen as part of the racist "faithful slave" narrative like the monument to Shepherd Heyward Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include the photo, per WP:WEIGHT. Presents a distorted picture and is undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

At least two of the books quoted on this Wikipedia page are about the UDC in the period between 1894 and WWI, which is the same time as the photo of Caleb Glover. Karen Cox's book focuses solely on this period, and most of the white supremacy references seem to come from this book.

I do not see the correlation between giving an organization's highest honor to an African American and a "faithful slave" narrative. I do not believe that any group that is promoting white supremacy would actually give their highest honor to someone they considered inferior. Also, there are numerous images of African American Confederate Veterans at Civil War reunions. They are shown wearing their ribbons as a source of pride. No one forced them to attend. They went because they were proud of their service in the Confederate Army.

The issue with the white supremacy references is that they are the only ones allowed on this page. The UDC has issued a statement against hate groups and racism as each President General takes office. It is published on their website, but attempts to reference this have been removed because they don't fit with the narrative of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gi076011 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What you believe has no more weight than what I believe. An organization that continues to put up monuments to the Lost Cause of Pre-13th Amendment life is White Supremacist in every possible way. Celebrating those who fought to continue enslaving black people is exactly as bad as it sounds. When the organization starts tearing down their statues instead of just issuing denial statements the RS might portray them differently. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I did not state what I believe. I referenced a statement issued by the UDC condemning hate groups that has been removed from this page as self-published because it is on the UDC's website, even though groups such as the Daughters of the American Revolution and the United States Daughters of 1812 are allowed to reference their websites on their Wikipedia pages. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Daughters_of_1812> It seems that the UDC has been singled out to prevent any information that contradicts this pages narrative from being added. The comments that are made about monuments are one person's opinion and appear to be based on emotion, rather than fact. Gi076011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice about AN

I opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy about activity around this page. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Stated Purposes of the Organization

I updated the introduction paragraph with the stated objectives of the United Daughters of the Confederacy from their website.<www.hqudc.org> It was removed stating that is was removed for "undue reliance on primary sources". I do not understand that statement and it appears to be invalid for two reasons.

First, there is no such thing as undue reliance on primary sources. Primary sources are always the most reliable when discussing any subject, and what an organization says about its current goals and objectives is more valid than an outsider's interpretation of the organization's purposes based on documents that are 80-100 years old. The "stated purposes" that are currently on the UDC page are NOT the organization's purpose. Those do not include many of the objectives of the group, and they do not capture the broader work of the society. It would appear that this is because the current objectives of the group in their entirety do not fit with the narrative of this page

Second, the following hereditary organizations are allowed to state their objectives and membership process using their organization website as a reference. If they are allowed to do that, then there is no Wikipedia rule which can be used to prevent the use of the UDC's website as reference of the society's current objectives. Here is a small sample of the pages that cite their organization website:

    Daughters of the American Revolution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution>  Reference #1
    United States Daughters of 1812 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Daughters_of_1812>  Reference #3
    Jamestowne Society <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestowne_Society>  Reference #2
    Mayflower Society <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayflower_Society>  Note #1
    Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Union_Veterans_of_the_Civil_War>  Reference #2
    Society of the Cincinnati <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati>

There are many other organizations that also reference their websites on their Wikipedia pages. This is a sample intended to show that this is allowed on Wikipedia, and the stated goals from the change that I submitted on April 6, 2018 should be returned to the United Daughters of the Confederacy page.Gi076011 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree that primary sources are always the best for describing an organisation's goals and purpose. Stated goals and purpose, perhaps, but to assume that organisations always accurately portray their own intentions to the outside world is problematic. If there are articles about other organisations that do this, then they need to be changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Many organisations are keen to present an acceptable/attractive/etc face to the world in order to promote themselves, and that face doesn't necessarily represent the organisation accurately. Many groups do this. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph and the Formation and Purposes section of the UDC page offer a biased and disgraceful description of the organization. The focus the editors have placed on opinion from other sources and references to white supremacy and the KKK is wrong and clearly designed to shape reader opinion. These wrong and influential words appear at the top of the page, designed to undermine and de-legitimize the UDC right at the beginning. The reader is immediately bombarded with these words, so the focus takes the reader away from the real purpose and objective of the UDC. The readers get a wholly negative impression and are likely to turn away and click out of the page. God forbid they are using these opinions as true facts. The UDC is a valid and legal organization and it should be given the respect and credit it has earned for over 100 years, whether you agree in the Confederate and Southern heritage, or not. Its stated purpose, from the official organization's website, is THE primary source; the rest is opinion and should be removed or highly sectioned off as opinion. Are we still in a constitutional republic , with a 1st Amendment right , or are we subjects to a minority group of editors solely out to misinform and shape public opinion based on their own ignorant and biased opinions? At minimum the references to white supremacy and KKK should be removed. The "Controversy" section, or if you can create an "Opinions" section, is there for a reason - to place in alternative opinions, but they should be identified as opinions, not embedded cleverly into the main descriptors as if they are gospel. That's disingenuous and even slanderous. And as far as the SPLC, it is a highly biased left-wing group that has been often discredited and called out for inappropriate and flat-out ignorant pronouncements and beliefs, for the purpose of destroying Southern heritage and those they consider "hateful". Re-reading the introductory yet again I see it is dripping with contempt. It is wrong how the UDC is portrayed here, and it is should be corrected.historicaljohnny (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The examples given are far less controversial organizations. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I included a small list of the organizations that include their purposes from their website. There are actually many more that are allowed to do this. It should not be the opinions of a small group of editors to decide whether one group's stated purposes are valid, while another's are not. In this case, the UDC is being singled out because someone has decided they are more controversial than others. There are a large number of UDC members who are also members of the Daughters of the American Revolution, United States Daughters of 1812, the Jamestowne Society, etc. Those groups do not consider membership in the UDC an issue which would bar someone from belonging to their organizations.

Since it will be impossible for Wikipedia to correct all pages that use an organization's website, and the organization's actual stated goals and objectives, the UDC page should include the objectives from their website. People are free to think whatever they want about an organization, but if one group is allowed to reference their own website, all must be allowed to do so.Gi076011 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Within reason Wp:aboutself allows statements such as the ones in question. Springee (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When you write "if one group is allowed to reference their own website, all must be allowed to do so", Gi076011, you seem to be assuming that Wikipedia articles are usually written by their subjects. That might sometimes be the case, but it is strongly discouraged. I would repeat my previous answer: if some articles are problematic, then they should be fixed rather than being used as an excuse to allow other articles to simply reflect what their subjects would like to say about themselves. This isn't just the view of a handful of editors, but is Wikipedia policy - see WP:PRIMARY. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not assume that any group is writing their own Wikipedia article. I do not know who edits the Wikipedia articles for the groups that I mentioned. I used the word "their" to indicate that the page is about them. I think you are missing the point if you think all the Wikipedia pages about organizations can remove references to their websites. There are far too many, and the number indicates that this rule is not really enforced. It is being used in this case to prevent information contradictory to the page narrative from being added to the page. I don't think the intent of Wikipedia is to allow editors who are obviously hostile to an organization to use a select set of source material to paint a negative image of the group.

A group's "stated purposes" should be from statements issued by the group. That is why it is called a stated purpose: the organization stated that these are their purposes. What you have in the UDC's Wikipedia article is what the editors think they do. Unfortunately, that is based on half-truths and source material about the group that focus only on the early part of the 20th Century. Society has evolved in the last 100 years, and so has the United Daughters of the Confederacy. You cannot focus only on their past, especially when writing about the stated purposes of the group.

I will reiterate my stance that other organizations are allowed to reference their websites, and the UDC cannot be singled out because the editors have determined that they are controversial.Gi076011 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in "discussion" here, but did want to point out that the above is essentially a dressed-up elaboration of WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS, and is theredore not policy-compliant. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

After doing some additional research, I found that WP:BFAQ#LINK states that an organization's website may be referenced in the Wikipedia article about them. So, the other articles referenced above are allowed to include their website as a reference and the UDC article is allowed to do the same. This should mean that the stated purposes from an organization's website can be used with the website as the source.Gi076011 (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BFAQ#LINK is about the inclusion of external links, not references. There's already a link to the organisation's official website at the end of the article. Primary sources can be used as references, but that doesn't mean that they should be used as the main source for material on the organisation's aims and objectives - especially where those are the subject of controversy. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF it is perfectly reasonable to have a statement in the article to the effect of "the groups stated goals are XYZ [cite]" The length shouldn't be excessive and details should be left to the citation. Springee (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

The concluding line of the first paragraph should be removed. "[H]as been viewed by some" is a preposterous type of sentence to include in the central overview of an article. Just as many citations could be provided to say "The organization's upkeep of graves and care for aging veterans has been viewed by some as commendable" or something equally opinion-based and laudatory that has no place in a Wikipedia article. PGMcCullough (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@PGMcCullough: This line represents a dissenting viewpoint held by many in regard to the controversial politics of this organization. We maintain a neutral point of view on Wikipedia and with five citations supporting this position, the line must stay. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources that are used to support that view of the United Daughters of the Confederacy are all about the organization prior to 1940. That last line does need to be changed or removed since the current wording makes it seem as if it is about the group today. All organizations change over time, and the time period needs to be clarified for accuracy.Gi076011 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That characterisation does not appear to apply to all sources. See this one, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My statement should have been more clear. I was referring to the sources cited in the Wikipedia article on the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The article that you attached is not cited in the Wikipedia article, and it appears to be very biased.Gi076011 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Any view of an organisation is going to be biased. That's one reason why we have our WP:NPOV policy. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The UDC is an undeniably controversial organization and whether you or I disagree with dissenting assertions is irrelevant, this is not our website. WP:NPOV will prevent removal of this opinion; though an RfC may offer hope to the contrary, the case will be decided by the abovementioned policy. - Conservatrix (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III

Greetings! I would like to establish lowercase sigmabot III on this talk page to manage the discussion backlog. Please post your thoughts, support or objections below so that we might reach consensus. Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done 48hrs no objections. – Conservatrix (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of edit on 5-23-2018

I completed an edit on the United Daughters of the Confederacy which addressed additional information not posted or contained within the original article regarding the group being considered by some to be a white supremacist organization. While I did not, and do not, dispute the fact that some do consider the group a white supremacist organization, I included documented and referenced material that also indicated the group has minority members. This information was supported by two articles from different online publications which clearly indicated African American women belonging to the UDC. One article was from the BBC and dated 2011. I also included picture references to reunions where both African American men and Native American men attended monument dedications and reunions during the early 1900s.

My edit and references were removed by a Cordless Larry with a comment that Wikipedia can not be cited as a source. Is this the only reason for the removal? If that is the case, would it not have been easier to correct the error that I made in citing Wikipedia rather than remove the entire documented and researched entry? Consequently, I tried to cite the actual petition being raised online at Change.org. When I did this, I was informed that the site is blacklisted by Wikipedia. Despite the blacklist, the site is present, the petition is being promoted by the organization, and it should be considered to give a fair and accurate rendering to the UDC page on Wikipedia and allow the reader to see there is additional information about the organization.

So, final question here - if I reference a different page, and repost, will that be sufficient?

Cablewriter (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cablewriter: Perhaps the better question is to provide the link to the different page and ask whether it is a reliable source.

Wikipedia cannot be directly cited as a source. That said, if material is being pulled in from other articles, we can cite the same sources that the other article uses. So whichever articles you cited, you'd need to have cited the appropriate references from that page. (Technically, you're using that other source; you just got there by way of a different Wikipedia article, rather than searching directly.)

As for the Change petition, that's a primary source and not reliable. If other sources are cited in the Change position, we can cite them, if they're reliable. However, the petition is effectively a piece of persuasive speech and outside the definition of reliability. Change petitions shouldn't be cited directly, but newspaper articles written about the petitions can be. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ping Cordless Larry. – Conservatrix (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix - Thank you for the clarification regarding the Wikipedia reference. Since the petition in question is a primary source and can not be used, I will remove it from my post. There are few articles regarding the petition at this time outside what I have found on UDC and SCV sites.

The other sources were primarily taken from a Google search and site unrelated to Wikipedia. I assume they will be okay as such, but I will double check them and ensure I did not inadvertently grab an article through Google that was linked to Wikipedia somehow. As far as I knew, all other sources came from other outside sources for references.

Assuming I remove the Wikipedia reference to the petition, double check the other references, and remove the statement about the petition - I do not wish to put the statement in obviously without a solid reference - would I just need to repost the edit or is there another method of approval before I can get the edit into the article? Thank you

Cablewriter (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You start your edit with, "While some claim the treatment of the Confederacy, along with its promotion of the Lost Cause is a form of white supremacy, the organization has a wide range of members including African American ...." This text implies (and your comments above confirm) that you are trying to refute the charges of white supremacy. Rather than stringing together a series of sources in order to lead the reader into possibly drawing the conclusion you want them to, what you need to do is a reliable secondary source that directly states that the UDC and Lost Cause have no relationship with white supremacy. Simply proving (again with reliable secondary sources rather than anecdotal claims) that there may be some African Americans in the UDC does not refute the numerous sources that the UDC has been a proponent of white supremacy. See WP:SYNTHESIS Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To answer a specific question, I reverted not only because I saw Wikipedia being cited as a source, but because this aspect of the article has been the discussion of quite some debate here on its talk page and the edit did not seem to reflect consensus here. At this point, consensus really needs to be established here before the wording is changed. I also agree with North Shoreman's point about synthesis. If there are sources that refute the white supremacy claim, then they should be cited, but using original research to try to demonstrate this is not allowed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Online petition to "remove white supremacy references" from this Wikipedia page

Should some mention of the UDC's concerns (as expressed below) be noted in this article?

Their online "Change dot org" petition states:

"The United Daughters of the Confederacy is not a white supremacist organization. The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) Wikipedia page contains quotes and information from sources that are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of American culture and history in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The published sources are incorrect and it is offensive to all members of the UDC to have the organization labeled as a promoter of white supremacy.

"The following affirmation of the goals of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and its stance on racist groups, has been published by each President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy since 2008. Based on the organization’s stated opposition to groups that promote white supremacy in any form, the references to the United Daughters of the Confederacy as a promoter of white supremacy must be removed from Wikipedia.

"Reaffirmation of the of the United Daughters of the Confederacy

"WHEREAS, The United Daughters of the Confederacy is a tax-exempt, non-profit Organization whose objectives are Historical, Benevolent, Educational, Memorial and Patriotic; AND WHEREAS, The United Daughters of the Confederacy is an Organization dedicated to the purpose of honoring the memory of its Confederate ancestors; protecting, preserving and marking the places made historic by Confederate valor; collecting and preserving the material for a truthful history of the War Between the States; recording the participation of Southern women in their patient endurance of hardship and patriotic devotion during and after the War Between the States; fulfilling the sacred duty of benevolence toward the survivors and those dependent upon them; assisting descendants of worthy Confederates in securing a proper education; honoring the service of veterans from all wars as well as active duty military personnel and cherishing the ties of friendship among the members of the organization, AND WHEREAS, The United Daughters of the Confederacy is a patriotic Organization which honors and upholds the United States of America and respects its Flag, AND WHEREAS, The United Daughters of the Confederacy does not subscribe to policies of individuals, groups or organizations that do not honor and respect the United States of America and its Flag, THEREFORE, BE IT KNOWN, that The United Daughters of the Confederacy does not associate with or include in its official UDC functions and events, any individual, group or organization known as unpatriotic, militant, racist or subversive to the United States of America and its Flag, AND BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that The United Daughters of the Confederacy will not associate with any individual, group or organization identified as being militant, unpatriotic, racist or subversive to the United States of America and its Flag."

• Remove white supremacy references from United Daughters of the Confederacy Wikipedia page

Christian B Martin (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian B Martin (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That url didn't work. This one does- I've had to tweak it as the url is not allowed. /www.change.org/p/wikipedia-remove-white-supremacy-references-from-united-daughters-of-the-confederacy-wikipedia-page And no, I don't see any major media coverage (or any coverage) about it, it's not an official petition which suggests it probably won't get that. But it does mean we will be getting more WP:SPAs here. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The United Daughters of the Confederacy DOES have Black Members in it's chapters, and has presented awards commending and recognizing the participation of Black People to the Confederate Cause. IF the UDC was a promoter of White Supremacy, this would NEVER happen! Galndixie (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galndixie: The article doesn't say the UDC is white supremacist. We say, accurately, that it's been described as white supremacist. I know that there are a handful of black members - do you know how many by any chance? My impression is that it is only a handful from what I can see. As for your awards, see this. and this article[19] from the Louisville Courier Journal. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure they honor blacks like this Shepherd_Heyward. Commerating the forced participation of slaves in a war to ensure their slavery... Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL. It's "Heyward Shepherd." And he wasn't a slave. -Topcat777

When UDC members start showing up at rallies with 'Black Lives Matter" signs, when they agree that CSA monuments are hurtful to many people and belong in cemeteries and museums and not in front of courthouses then perhaps they can earn the removal of the stigma of "racism." As long as reliable sources say it is so, it is so. This is also why we don't like people or organizations to edit articles about themselves. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• No, the article should be governed by what reliable sources say, not what online petitions request. All online petitions do is encourage drive-by POV editing on Wikipedia, and some variant of DENY is called for in such cases. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored per WP:NOTCENSORED, nor does Wikipedia tend to kowtow to the opinions of an off-wiki organization. If supporters of the UDC or any parties on Wikipedia are willing to spend the time to evaluate and properly contest the reliable sources that describe the subject organization as white supremacist, then we can reexamine this issue, but for now we reflect what the sources say.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A petition is not going to do any good. There are too many zealous SJWs here that want to smear who they perceive to be their political enemy. They count the SPLC as a "reliable source" if that tells you something. Unfortunately, this sort of activity damages the credibility of Wikipedia. I notice that when someone references a Wikip. article they usually give the caveat- "For what it's worth." -Topcat777

References

UDC's secondary sources and encyclopedic content verified

The UDC’s stated objectives and information added on 7/24/2018 have been removed for some reason. The objectives and information are based on recent sources and are closer to the actual aims of the group than the previous verbiage. The sources are all credible news and information sources. The information would have been vetted before it was included in the articles. In addition, the rule that has been cited for not using the UDC Website as a source for the organization’s objectives, was that primary sources could not be used, only secondary. All four of these sources are secondary. --historicaljohnny (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC) The organization’s statement from 2017 is from a secondary source quoting the President General’s statement following the Charlottesville disturbance. It clearly states that the United Daughters of the Confederacy has no ties to white supremacy groups and asks that all Americans denounce racial divisions and hatred. This is the current policy of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and it should be allowed to counter the allegations of white supremacy made by those outside the organization who do not understand history or the evolution of Southern society.historicaljohnny (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY allows for direct statements, generally verbatim quotes, to be used on relevant articles. However, policy does not permit users to contribute their own interpretation of the source material, as opinions may only come from reliable secondary sources. Posting a statement direct from the UDC website without uncited commentary is perfectly fine. – Conservatrix (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote from the President General and the UDC's stated objectives that were removed earlier were from Newsweek, not the UDC website. So, I am very confused. Newsweek is the source of the deleted information, but you're saying it should be a primary source if taken right from the UDC website AND the President General as the primary source. So is it best if I cite both sources (Newsweek and UDC websight) to make sure it's correct? That way a reader can make a judgment based on both sources. Please advise.

The objectives should be included in the introductory paragraph, as that is where purpose and objectives usually go, but is there another place it should be placed? Just trying to get clarity on what is the correct way to go. Thankshistoricaljohnny (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I would use {{cite web}} to quote the official statement relased by the UDC on their website. Include the Newsweek article at your discretion, though you will need a secondary citation for supporting or dissenting viewpoints. Be certain to make use of the access-date function to record the date this statement was pulled from the website for use on Wikipedia BY YOU. To clarify, the date you publish the citation. A succeeding President-General may not agree with the current officeholder and may order the statement be withdrawn. Future editors can then make use of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to verify the prior existence of a quoted statement based on your access date without having to dig through a sea of more recent edits. – Conservatrix (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

From user talk page: Is it okay to put both the quote and the objectives in the introductory paragraph? I want to be sure I'm following the correct policy. Thankshistoricaljohnny (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

An introductory paragraph is meant to summarize the contents of an article. The concluding sentence already establishes a denial of charges of white supremacy. Therefore, your contribution would best be placed in the Criticism section below the paragraph detailing these claims made against the organization. – Conservatrix (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"Denies and reaffirms"

The sentence "The UDC denies assertions that it promotes white supremacy and reaffirms the objectives of the organization" in the introduction reads like a press release to me. At the very least, I think this should be reworded to "has denied...reaffirmed". Any thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It was part of a larger edit by PaulClark67. Most of that edit got reverted over POV issues, but that bit stayed in. I think it might be more appropriate to get rid of the reaffirms bit, as the long section explaining what the objectives were got reverted by another editor. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not advocating that the less positive aspects of the organization be ignored. The quote that I have proposed states that the CofC promoted the Lost Cause, which is an accurate statement and in line with the depiction of the UDC in Raising Racists. However, your statement that the KKK and UDC chose similar methods of indoctrinating children is not correct based on this book. DuRocher's point in "Like the KKK's children's groups, the UDC utilized the Children of the Confederacy to impart to the rising generations their own white-supremacist vision of the future." only means that both groups used children's groups to indoctrinate children. The remainder of that section of Raising Racists points out key differences between the two.

The assertion that using more neutral language "clouds the issue in a POV manner" is incorrect. The quote that I propose is a more accurate statement because it agrees with the overall portrayal of UDC/CofC in Raising Racists. The quote currently on the page appears to be a POV that is intended portray the UDC in the most negative manner possible by using only the only sentence in the entire book that states the two organizations are similar.

In reviewing other discussions on this Talk page, it would appear that editors are accused of violating Wikipedia's POV guidelines when anything is not negative about the UDC. Having negative POV language is just as bad, and the current quote comparing the KKK's children's groups to the CofC appears to fall into that category.

I am open to discussion and suggestions so that we can find a solution to the current question. If other editors would like to comment with their ideas on how to resolve this question, that might help us resolve this issue.

galndixie 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am in favor of not including the KKK and children teaching connection. I mean, how are the techniques, the teaching methods, any different from those used, for example, by any Sunday school. Who also often raise folks to be racists. Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the two comments above belong in the discussion two sections up. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am very new to this, I will move it to the correct section, can the comments by Carptrash be moved with this? Thank you. galndixie 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Who can provide an explanation why my edit was reverted off the page:

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is an American hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894 in Nashville, Tennessee. The stated purposes of the organization includes the commemoration of Confederate soldiers and the funding of the erection of memorials to these men. The UDC's stated objectives are historical, educational, benevolent, memorial and patriotic. A further description provided includes: "To collect and preserve the material necessary for a truthful history of the War Between the States and to protect, preserve, and mark the places made historic by Confederate valor; To assist descendants of worthy Confederates in securing a proper education; To fulfill the sacred duty of benevolence toward the survivor of the War and those dependent upon them; To honor the memory of those who served and those who fell in the service of the Confederate States of America; To record the part played during the War by Southern women, including their patient endurance of hardship, their patriotic devotion during the struggle, and their untiring efforts during the post-War reconstruction of the South; and To cherish the ties of friendship among the members of the Organization".[1][2][3][4] [5] The organization's treatment of the Confederacy, along with its promotion of the Lost Cause movement, is viewed by some as white supremacy.[6][7][8][9][10] The UDC denies assertions that it promotes white supremacy and reaffirms the objectives of the organization. [11][12] [13]historicaljohnny (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I can, Paulclark67, since it was me who reverted you. As I explained in my edit summary, recent changes to the article's introduction have been contested (see above), so really need to be discussed here first. An article introduction should merely summarise the content of the main body of the article, and I felt that your edit added too much information to that introduction. It already covers the organisation's stated objectives in sufficient detail, in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know why there has been a noticeable effort to alter public perception of this organization by multiple accounts. One particularly suspicious user refused to answer whether they were affiliated with or employed by the UDC. This article may need to be protected citing issues with WP:POV and WP:COI. – Conservatrix 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a coordinated effort from the editors on the UDC page who currently control the content (i.e. Cordless Larry,Conservatrix, Binksternet (talk) and others) to attack the UDC while denying the accurate and truthful identity, purpose and objectives of the UDC. The opinions of the editors and biased narrative, along with the consistent reversions of text, is a blatant attempt to portray the UDC as a white supremacist, racist organization who is affiliated with the KKK by using extremely opinionated (and slanderous) referencing. They have completely changed the Introduction section to make it appear the UDC is racist and white supremacist with absolutely no facts or proof. Any attempt to correct this error, in the Introduction or elsewhere on the page, is reverted by these few editors, thus controlling what the public sees. These accusations are false and these editors, along with the ridiculous sources they cite, offer no proof for such accusations. The few editors who challenge this latest editor group, like myself, continuously try to correct this disturbingly negative portrayal. There is no question there is an attempt to slander the UDC and destroy its reputation in the public's perception. The editorial changes I have submitted follow wikipedia policy, follow the guidelines and contain the proper sourcing and citations. In looking at the evolution and history of the page since 2003, when the page appears to have been first created, the description (inc. the Introduction) of the UDC has been factual, balanced and accurate. However, around 2016, there was an obvious attempt to subvert the page and hi-jack the narrative and content. I challenge anyone to look at the "history" of the page to verify my observations. So this coordinated effort is not from so-called "friends of the UDC", it is in fact coming from the editors who hijacked the page; this is nothing short of a cabal trying to tie the UDC with the latest media fad to connect racism and white supremacy, or KKK, to a non-profit organization that they don't agree with. Just because you as an editor disagree with an organization, does not give you the right to undermine that organization with slanderous and unfounded citations and narrative. And remember, POV is like an opinion - everyone's got one. There are two sides to a coin, two sides to an issue, but that should go in the criticism section - leave the Introduction to the way the organization has FACTUALLY and HONORABLY described themselves as a legitimate organization. It is not so say criticism (of the UDC or any organization for that matter) should be removed, rather it is to provide a place for criticism, with the benefit of the doubt going to organization itself. Otherwise you are crossing a line and moving into the realm of slander. The UDC's stated objectives are indeed fact, whether you agree with it or not. For editors to blatantly omit that fact (especially in the Introduction section) is a form dishonesty and reputation-destruction that is against the intent of wikipedia .historicaljohnny (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The organisation's stated objectives are not omitted from the version of the introduction that I reverted to; they simply are not covered in as much depth as in your preferred version, which included in the intro more detail than is found in the article body. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in another discussion, WP:NPOV protects the claim of white supremacy whether or not anybody likes it. This website is an encyclopedia that records the World as it is, not as we want it to be. There are biased editors, yes, but no cabals. I sadly have not the kitty-cat nor the monocle to play the villain. Historicaljohnny, if you feel outnumbered by established editors an RfC can be opened to solicit consensus. Be sure to publish mention of your RfC on relevant WikiProjects! And, not that it matters, but I am sympathetic to the UDC. – Conservatrix (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't about protected claims, as i mentioned above, everyone's got an opinion on something in this world, even topics or material they know nothing about. This centers on slander. A clever and coordinated misplacement of an opposing claim that should not be in an Introduction because it gives the impression to any reader that the intent of the whole subject matter is more about the UDC as a "white supremacist" and /or "racist" organization. To leave "white supremacy / KKK" in the Introduction, then, attempting to justify that as evidence as to why the organization exists, without proof, without even stating the UDC's own written objectives (cited in multiple platforms) begins to look like a deliberate attempt at slander. You want to issue somebody's opinion claim, you should put that in the "Criticsm" section or an "Opinion" section, or remove the page outright. There is no place for that on wikipedia. The editors can dance around this all they want, trying to justify otherwise, but I suggest strongly they reverse course.historicaljohnny (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All mention of white supremacy on this article has been met with quoted refutation from the UDC website. What I have gathered is you want the claim of white supremacy removed from the introductory paragraph; because the claim is substantiated by a healthy retinue of citations, only an RfC can see to its removal/movement. – Conservatrix (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to offer some finality. The controversial nature of this edit makes it impossible to accomplish without an RfC, so historicaljohnny will need to open that process or this discussion is over. – Conservatrix (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you can see why I remain adamant. For you to suggest that the UDC description and language in the Introduction is "controversial", along with the UDC's objectives I attempted to add, is solely an editor's POV based on someone's opinion. Other editors see the description of the UDC's objectives and description as not in the least controversial. However, a claim of "white supremacy" is much more inflamatory and outrageously controversial - and when put right in the Introduction is unacceptable. The "substantiated claims" submitted are not based on fact. Therefore, they don't belong in the Introduction, an Introduction I stress, defines a non-profit chartitable organization; critism of an organization, which you state is the "controversy" subject matter should not be the leading Introduction because you are, in essence, defaming that organization; you are attempting to alter and change what defines that organization. For example, if I was to say that it's foggy outside, or hazy outside, some people would not immediately know the difference. But both are defined differently. (fog is caused by water droplets in the air, the difference being in visibility; haze is the reflection of sunlight off particles in the air, such as pollutants, typically found on hot and humid summer days). The point is there is an accepted definition. You can argue about the efficacy of the definition somewhere else in a discussion, but don't change the definition because you disagree or see others who don't agree with that definition. I do plan to open up a discussion in RFC at minimum.historicaljohnny (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC Introduction Section Used to Describe the UDC non-profit charitable organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Introduction section be used for editorial opinion and/or criticism that undermines the UDC organization, creating a negative perception for the reader in order to denigrate and defame that organization, or rather, should the Introduction section be used for the factual description of the actual stated purpose and objectives of the UDC organization? Furthermore, should not the opinion(s) and/or criticism of the UDC organization be placed in a more appropriately setup section that already exists on the page entitled "Criticism"?historicaljohnny (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bad RFC statement. You are simply asking whether the lead section should tell the reader that the UDC's mission "is viewed by some as white supremacy", which it is. So my answer is that of course the lead section should tell the reader that UDC's mission "is viewed by some as white supremacy". Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet: can you explain why you the RfC is bad? It's not a statement, actually, it's a topic header. My question is whether the Introduction section is the place for opinion, by 3rd party or other, or should opinion/criticism be placed in another section such as "Criticism".historicaljohnny (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's a badly worded RfC. It suggests editors are trying to denigrate and defame the organisation rather than write an encyclopedic article, which is an attack on their good faith, and it asks us to ignore the lead guideline at WP:LEAD by not adding the lead critical comments. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Binksternet and Doug Weller. Your question should be neutral, not leading. And on the actual subject of the RFC, I think if multiple reliable sources call an organization white supremacist, then that's an important and relevant thing to include in the lede. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Of course the lead should be neutral. Perhaps somebody (not me, 'cause I am overworked right now) should rephrase it, or the original poster should specify exactly what the problems are. Though, really, it should all be worked out on the Talk page of that article if possible. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile is ultimately seeing what needs to be corrected and has pointed out the flaw in the current UDC Introduction. There was an attempt to use the talk page to no compromise as all attempts to change the Introduction were reverted. The non-neutral insertion of the "white supremacy" sentence in the Intro is not at all what the UDC is about. I encourage you to google the first two sentences to see how out-of-the-mainstream this current IDC Introduction is (esp. the white supremacy citations). In fact, the first two sentences are not cited at all and it is unclear if they are opinion or other. The white supremacy comment in the Introduction clearly represents a bias; they are not contained anywhere in the organization's objectives and purpose. Yet the editors who control the page revert every single attempt to add the UDCs objectives into the Introduction; thus exposing their editorial bias with zero compromise or collaborative effort. Wikipedia states that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it". You cannot "explain both sides" in the Introduction, hence explanations should be covered later in the article. The UDC article lead immediately sets tone and makes a highly controversial and inflamatory reference, taking the reader away from what the UDC is defined as and what they do as a normal and mainstream description of the organization. The editors are also using highly suspect references that are either outdated, opinionated and have no basis in verifiable proof, especially with claims of white supremacy, racism, KKK. Therefore, the references to such derogatory and slanderous assertions of white supremacy, kkk, and the like, should either be removed from this article, or placed at minimum in the Criticism section so they can be properly refuted. The neutral point of view (NPOV) rule is not used in this Introduction. As stated: "Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." historicaljohnny (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• The article's intro should do more than simply parrot the organization's objectives and and purpose. For instance, the Wikipedia article on the UN doesn't quote the UN Charter, but instead describes the UN using a multitude of secondary sources and also mentions that there are people who criticize the organization as being ineffective and corrupt. The statement in the intro that the UDC "is viewed by some as white supremacy" has plenty of sources to back it up and those sources are scholarly and notable enough to be included in the intro. In fact, these accusations should be further expanded on later in the article to give further context. If you feel accusations of white supremacy denigrate the organization, maybe you should take it up with the people making the accusations, instead of the editors reporting on it. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Close it down and start anew, per comments above. -The Gnome (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Malformed and POV RfC shut it down and try again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Shut it down and start over I note that User:PaulClark67 is unhappy with the first two sentences as they are uncited and unclear. At the moment they say "The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is an American hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894 in Nashville, Tennessee. The stated purposes of the organization includes the commemoration of Confederate soldiers and the funding of the erection of memorials to these men." They've said that all this month. @PaulClark67:, in your new RfC please be more careful as it appear you haven't read them carefully. He's claiming they mention white supremacism, but they don't. We cannot decide in an RfC to violate the community guideline at WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Article Neutrality

The observations of DuRocher have been articulated with remarks disparaging toward the UDC. The removed comment may summarize the source quote, but the object of the quote has been slandered. Neutrality is to be enforced in both directions. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, North Shoreman: Issuing a warning whilst this thread exists? Tsk tsk. – Conservatrix (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You avoid specificity in your post -- how about providing some now.

You replace "mythical" with "romantic". I would not have a problem with this, although the word "myth" is often associated with Lost Cause type arguments.

You eliminate "rewrite history". No problem w/o a source, but you do realize that most of what the UDC calls history is a rewrite? Slaves weren't happy with their lot. The war was about slavery.

You eliminate the entire DuRocher quote. Here I find a big problem. What is your justification? I would suggest that you use whatever skills you have at writing and add the quote back with the elimination of what you call "remarks disparaging toward the UDC." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Mythical implies the object is fantastic or beyond reasonable belief; romanticization seemed the more appropriate term. If we are to use mythical in context of the Lost Cause, then it ought to be linked to the Lost Cause article.

The "rewrite history" claim was snarky and dismissive. There is an issue with tone in this removed content that demeans the organization.

If DuRocher is restored to the page, then I must insist we include a contradictory viewpoint to balance the tone of this article. We are not propagandists warning the public against the evils of the UDC, but are neutral reporters publishing their mission and history through established sources. – Conservatrix (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The balls in your court. You don't delete properly sourced material simply because you are sympathetic to the subject of the article and don't like the way it sounds. The article in the paragraph right above the one we are discussing already says (and is also sourced to DuRocher):

"According to the author Kristina DuRocher, the stated aims of the organization included "creating a social network, memorializing the war, maintaining a 'truthful record of the noble and chivalric achievements' of their veterans, and teaching the next generation 'a proper respect for and pride in the glorious war history'.

It seems like the part I've boldfaced already meets your criteria for a "a contradictory viewpoint". Or do you have something else you would like to add which you can attribute to a reliable secondary source? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Romantic" is at best a euphemism, at worst a racist lie. The viewpoint that the subjugation of Africans to slavery was anything but brutal, inhuman, racist and despicable is, indeed, a myth. We aren't in the business of softening historical reality because some racist white people want to whitewash their atrocities. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Romantic and Myth are not mutually exclusive terms, and both seem accurate for the subject matter. If the term "rewrite history" is objectionable, how about substituting a reference to the Lost Cause myth instead? Also, who is DuRocher, and does she talk at all about how the organizations educated children? I'd like to know that, but I don't get that information from either version of the edits to the article. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion someone who has read the book said there were about 10 pages describing the UDC education style. Sources I'm familiar with say that the UDC relied on a series of catechisms -- students were expected to memorize answers to a series of leading questions. The questions and answers fully support the Lost Cause. Googling DuRocher came up with this [20]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll see if I can anything in that book or in Karen Cox's book on the matter. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I suggest you change your attitude and tone. Racist white people trying to whitewash atrocities? Your crazy bias is dripping and you're going off the rails with what you hope to be, rather than what is. So lets get down to the root of the problem. You are making a charge that the UDC is guilty by association because of its support of Confederate and Southern history , culture, heritage. Period. That is an ignorant and slanderous way of thinking, and is anything but neutral. That inflamatory charge is unacceptable anywhere on wikipedia. The narrative you're selling is obvious: associate the UDC with racism, KKK, slavery, white supremacy - everything that in reality actually disgusts the UDC and its members - using dubious cited material from extremely biased authorship, and opinionated inuendos based in zero proof. The goal is to paint the UDC as a racist organization that should be removed from public discourse. Your desire is to destroy the UDC under the guise of the "open source" platform rules, that is wikipedia, all the while going against the very tenets of wikipedia's own guidelines. When I hear slavery thrown around at every whim, I see it's an easy one, it's like crying fire in a theater. As you see everywhere, it's in vogue today to scream "racism!" "evil!" "hitler!" "hate speech!" , etc. etc. It's getting tedious. It's plainly obvious the editorial cabal here are tip-toeing through their justifications why the UDC objectives and purpose should not be in the Introduction, like that is somehow revolting to them. The entire page has been tainted now, the reputation and credibility of the page poisoned. As editors your jobs are to adhere to wikipedia guidelines regarding neutrality (especially with LEGAL organizations) and describe said organization as it is defined as an organization, whether you agree or not; then you can place elements of legitimate criticism or controversies in their proper context and place within the article or page. Emphasis on "legitimate", not the rants of cited authors or scholars who live in a bubble and write opinion narratives with no proof. As written today, the UDC page is a hijacked and tainted page. For those editors on here who have decided to be activitist and connect the UDC to slavery, rather than its true stated and intended purpose is shameful. I stand my my original call and pleading to remove or re-write this page. A real genuine, collaborative effort would be to obtain input from all parties to rewrite this page.historicaljohnny (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Stay on topic. The language subject to this discussion refers to a specific time period around the beginning of the 20th Century. Around this time, the UDC financed the construction of the Silent Sam statue which is currently in the news. At the dedication in 1913 the following was part of the dedication speech made by a KKK supporter:

"I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head."

Wouldn't you agree that this is racist, divisive, and a justification for violence? As far as I can tell, the UDC didn't disavow the statement then and hasn't disavowed it since. Seems like they should have since they paid for the statue.

Historian Cita Cook in a review of historian Karen Cox's "Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture" states the following:

"Activities such as encouraging schools to use books that romanticized both the institution of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan led Cox to declare that the UDC was 'the primary nonpolitical organization promoting preservation of the racial status quo'".

As a long time debate judge (according to another of your edits), do you have any academic sources that refute the above claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And another thing. Historian David Blight writes on pp. 288-9 in "Race and Reunion", addressing probably the best known and most influential leaders of the UDC.:

"In her capacity as historian general of the UDC, Mildred Rutherford assembled a massive collection of the racist underworld of the Lost Cause. Essay contests on the glories of the Ku Klux Klan and personal tributes to faithful slaves fill several of he scrapbooks. ... Rutherford did not confine her collecting duties to written texts; included in her scrapbooks are scores of photographs and postcards of Klansmen, lynchings, and especially 'loyal ex-slaves'. All UDC members and leaders were not as vitulently racist as Rutherford, but all, in the name of a reconciled nation, participated in an enterprise that deeply influenced the white supremacist vision of Civil War memory." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are making a charge that the UDC is guilty by association because of its support of Confederate and Southern history , culture, heritage.

What, pray tell, is "Confederate and Southern history, culture, heritage" except white supremacy, treason in defense of enslaving African-Americans, and the killing of American soldiers flying the American flag?

Supporting Confederate history and culture is equivalent to supporting Nazi history and culture — they are each contemptible ideologies based upon the subjugation, enslavement and mass murder of human beings under the theory that African people and Jewish people, respectively, are subhuman and unworthy of life. Each is remembered by history as a national tragedy which had to be exterminated by force of arms. It is your choice to stand with a legacy of treason, racism and inhumanity. You may not ask Wikipedia to endorse your decision by whitewashing history. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

NBSB is a bit abrasive but correct; if any editor disagrees with the reliable sources cited by the article, they are more than welcome to try striking the sources down at the reliable sources noticeboard. Until then, they are our standard. Per your comments above @Paulclark67: I take it that you disagree with some of the more modern discourse surrounding the subject. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it must reflect not only all that information that came before but also - and more crucially - the modern mindset. If you disagree with the direction academia is taking in regards to this subject, you are more than welcome to try to change it, but not here.--SamHolt6 (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Harping on a statement made over 100 years ago should be placed in the proper context. Many organizations have regrettable pasts that they actively try to change. That kind of cherry picking is in itself non-neutral. Put it in its proper place in the History section, and let others edit the more modern interpretations to refute the attempt to associate the modern UDC with the past. That is balanced. Again, cherry picking one comment made to associate with the organization as a whole is ridiculous. historicaljohnny (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the section of your post which is a clear BLP violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You say, "Put it in its proper place in the History section." Focus. This discussion is about the history section (actually "Formation and purpose"). As I said above when you went off topic, "The language subject to this discussion refers to a specific time period around the beginning of the 20th Century."

No "cherry picking" was involved in my posting. The fact is that the statements provided by Blight and Cox are representative of what other historians of the era say. Both have received positive reviews of their works by their peers and both are frequently referenced by other scholars.

We know your oft-repeated opinions. I will ask you yet again, do you have any academic sources or other reliable secondary sources that dispute anything that has been attributed in these discussions or the article itself to reliable sources?"

You say, "Many organizations have regrettable pasts that they actively try to change." I haven't been able to find any source that says the UDC regrets, disavows, or apologizes for its past. Do you have any source at all where the UDC talks about the racism that it was founded on? Even today the UDC is a firm supporter of Lost Cause history. Blowing smoke by calling out other organizations for racism doesn't qualify. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Again WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RS - discuss actual edits with RS, not ideology. Also WP:NPOV all significant positions are to be presented in proportion to their prominence. ALL positions - complimentary, complaining, contradictory ... No use arguing over “which one” here, because the answer is all of them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Your casual misuse of warning templates is concerning. The original job title was author and without malice it was feminized to authoress. – Conservatrix (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you changed "author" to "authoress", but your claim to have done it without malice falls flat. Nothing else in this article is feminized, so why did you choose to feminize the "job title" of Kristina DuRocher, who has written negatively about the UDC? Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Of the text included in my edit, only the title author applied to a presumed woman. I did not read further to standardize the article. This talk page must be crawling with silent admins because never have I encountered such vicious resolve from collaborating editors. Please review my contributions to this talk page, and only my contributions, as they will reveal an objective approach to our discussion. – Conservatrix (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

SPLC material

Currently there is a section of text in the article noting the SPLC stating the UDC has associations with neo-confederate groups. The material was added as part of an edit war less than a year back. The editor who appears to originally have added the material around June 2017 is now blocked. It does appear this has been controversial material since it's addition. Here is the current disputed material. [[21]]. I had removed this material noting the SPLC has not been established as a RS and the material was self published. Several editors were quick to dispute this. Looking through the RSN it seems there isn't a consensus on the reliability of the SPLC. It's reliable for some claims but questionable for others. However, I made a mistake in claiming RS since the material was attributed. However, that still leaves open two issues. First is weight. Is the SPLC's opinion on this particular claim of sufficient weight for inclusion. I was unable to find 3rd party sources that noted this claim. That makes a case against weight. A second issue is that the cited article is almost 20 years old (despite being in a section called current status). So at one point the SPLC made that claim but I can't find evidence that they still hold that view. They If that view is no longer current we either need to state as much or remove the material. If the material remains then we should include the date of the claim and the UDC's response (with date) (provided by a previous editor). Presenting the impression that the SPLC still believes the UDC is a Neo-Confederate group would be WP:SYN. Springee (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SPLC is an independant source. They are subject matter experts. Other sources have independantly noted the organization promotes neo-confederate views - in fact promoting the confederate cause is why they exist. Stop trying to whitewash this page. Legacypac (talk)

The SPLC is of itself a racist organization. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective. Can you please explain why the opinion of the SPLC is warranted in the UDC page in the first place? With that logic you could have any 3rd party spewing anything and the editors would have an opinionated, rather than factual, page.historicaljohnny 16:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulclark67 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't address most of the comments I've made. If other sources make the claim then we should use them to establish weight. Currently we only have the single source and that source appear to be 20 years old and out of date. If the material is up to date then a reply from the UDC would be appropriate in this case. Springee (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

We deal with history and don't toss RS sources after a few years. Find some RS saying the ORG hadls completely refocused in the last 20 years and now opposes (in actions not just words) their long standing purpose of promoting the confederate cause. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't really respond to material that isn't in the article. We currently have a single SPLC comment that is 20 years old. When I searched the SPLC for a recent list of neo-confd. groups they didn't list the UDC. They do show the number of Neo-Confd groups has dropped since the article was published [[22]] and they don't list UDC in their current listing. If there are other reasons the group should be called out we should include those sources instead of the one we have. Again, I'm not opposed to adding details such as the UDC's response as well as noting that the group is no longer listed by the SPLC. Springee (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the 2017 SPLC source you cited above, and it seems to be focused on hate groups, and it distinguishes between listing hate groups and the UDC. "Hatewatch does not list “heritage,” paleo-libertarian or “constitutional” groups like the SCV, UDC, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, Virginia Flaggers or South Carolina Secessionist Party as hate groups, though they have strong neo-Confederate principles and choose to spend their time and money valorizing the darker parts of our history." While I don't think the SPLC material should be removed, I do think that the article could be updated with a reference to this 2017 comment by the SPLC. I'm also a bit surprised there's nothing here on the UDC's muted response to Confederate monuments controversy last year either, as I've seen several different news articles noting the lack of a strong response by the UDC. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The statement as it appears on this page is incorrect. The UDC does not appear on the SPLC's list of Neo-Confederate hate groups. <https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/neo-confederate>. The UDC is mentioned in an article from 2000 that is archived on the SPLC website. That article cannot be used to support a statement that the UDC is on the Neo-Confederate hate group list when it is not on the current list on the SPLC website. The statement should be removed because it is no longer valid or correct.Gi076011 (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. It's not on the list, the only mention of the UDC on that page is "In this regard, neo-Confederacy is best viewed as a spectrum, an umbrella term with roots dating back as early as the 1890s. It applies to groups including the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) of the 1920s", which is pretty specific. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• If a single mention almost two decades ago is considered sufficient wp:weight for inclusion then the organization's reply should also be included per wp:balance. Springee (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Confused question are people actually trying to say, in good faith, that a group called "Daughters of the Confederacy" is not a neo-Confederate organization? They call themselves descendants of the Confederacy, neo-Confederate is if anything too on-the-nose. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)