Talk:Knights of the Golden Circle/Archive 1

Problems
Beyond the first paragraph, this article may contain copyright violations (material cut-and-pasted from the external links), and seems to contain some contradictions between amterial cut-and-pasted from different sources. AnonMoos 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is troubling but equally so is the detail that Bickley supposedly started the KGC in 1835 and then didn't start the first castle (chapter) until 1854. A very long incubation? I'll check the links to see if this was at least copied accurately. One of the sources, Donald Frazier, says KGC was founded in 1855 (page 13).

The eHistory link is the source of the 1835 reference and it is couched in the words "it is said" which suggests that this early date is doubtful. It also says that if it was started that far back, it was started by some unnamed men in South Carolina--not Bickley who was from Virginia. Where this article deviates from plagiarism, it goes directly to error. I will change the erroneous reference to the founding of the organization now, and perhaps edit the whole thing later so as to rid it of plagiarism.


 * The small portion of the article that deals with the Gettysburg Campaign is from a book I wrote, and since I wrote this section in the Wikipedia article, is used with my permission. Scott Mingus 11:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I’ve written a book on the KGC published in 2021. Although it’s title is The Knights of the Golden Circle in Texas, it covers significant ground outside that state. KGCbook (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, George Bickley did not start the KGC in 1835 nor did he build it by himself. He met with 5 men (a Masonic number; 5-pointed star) one of whom was General John Anthony Quitman, supposedly on July 4, 1854. Quitman had taken over The Order of the Lone Star which was re-formed in Sept 16, 1851. I doubt the full meeting happened until January 1855. One can’t trust everything George Bickley said. He was a salesman and hustler. You need to read my book. KGCbook (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Need to verify content by adding proper citations. Jim (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You should include my book, The Knights of the Golden Circle, in your Further Reading section. - Randolph W. Farmer. See also my article on Handbook of Texas Online in Charles Powell Bickley. KGCbook (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources must be used
Removed reference to the ‘KKK’ in the opening lead. The reference used is from a treasure hunting novel. The term “A few historians” is not applicable when only one source is given, and should not be in the opening lead. Find a reliable reference that can historically connect the KKK with the KGC and not a conspiracy theory hatched from a treasure hunting novel. Jim (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My book is a reliable source - strictly non-fiction. I spent more than 20 years researching it and feel it could help your efforts here. KGCbook (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Albert Pike KGC & KKK
Freemasonry is very important to understanding the Knights of the KGC. There certainly should be an inclusion in the article about Secret societies and Freemasonry.

The Freemasons were founded by the pope's Knights Templar. The Templars use the cross on their shields. And it seems the KKK burned crosses to frighten the Blacks from anything Christian, or have them run to the Catholic Church for help. Involved in US immigration, numbers are power to the Pope. He does not want the Blacks becoming Protestant. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this self-published internet blog a reliable reference or source? Propaganda, perhaps? Jim (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was posted for reference, someone may have further research from the quoted historian Walter L. Fleming. There are other books which claim the KGC later became the KKK. Don't know how well they're all referenced. Certainly seems plausible to me, given the Freemasons were members of both, and the Greek "circle" in both names. One existed before the Civil War and the other post war. The KGC supported the war. No longer serving that function as the KKK they had a new function, or so it would seem. This looks like Flemings book on the KKK. Haven't had a chance to look through it for references on the KGC. Could be worthwhile. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The information above may be problematic, but the fact that the KGC officially disbanded in 1865 and the KKK was founded in 1866, the use of the word "circle" in both groups' names (in Greek in the Klan's case), their similarity of purpose (spreading racism), plus the membership of people like Pike who seem to have led/belonged to both organizations, suggests a connection between the two, and yet the connection is rarely discussed or investigated by reputable historians. Even an investigation with a null result would be fascinating, because the question seems to be, "How could the two not be related?" Milesnfowler (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical event
An editor had removed the historical fact that the bishop threatened excommunication against anyone who joined. This really happened, but the editor felt it had to be "analyzed by a historian" to be in here. There are two historians who have reported it. The the affect on Catholics was not reported because it is largely unknown and most likely (therefore) to be unanalyzed. It's like the shooting of Kennedy. It happened. Nearly any WP:RS will do. That Lee Harvey Oswald shot him is speculative and needs a somewhat better cite/"analysis". Student7 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of the Lone Star
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/08/30/news/the-knights-of-the-golden-circle.html

Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I’ve written something for Handbook of Texas Online about the Lone Star of the West. It probably won’t be published until early 2023. However, they’ve already published 3 articles I’ve written, two of which deal with KGC leadership. KGCbook (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal with Golden Circle
I'm proposing merging this article with Golden Circle. Both are relatively short and it seems that they are only relevant within one another's contexts (The Knights of the Golden Circle seem to be the main group who promoted the idea of a Golden Circle territory and it was to be their main goal). Both articles also have rather similar intros and this article could benefit from the map shown at the top of Golden Circle. TripleShortOfACycle (talk - contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Quite agree. deisenbe (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Golden Circle (proposed country)? Presuming that's the case, I support the proposal.  I would suggest that this article be the surviving one, and the material from Golden Circle (proposed country) be merged into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've BOLDly made the merger. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seemingly irrelevant addition of link to Biden inauguration subsection/questionable sources
The new subsection "Plans to seize Lincoln and inaugurate Breckinridge as president" contains a link to details of the security precautions taken for the 2021 presidential inauguration despite no apparent relation between the two events, one purported and the other evident. Multiple searches reveal no substantial connection in any form between the recent unrest in Washington and secessionist activities in Buchanan's cabinet.

Furthermore, the first reference to an article or extract written by one David C. Keehn makes no mention of any effort to prevent Lincoln from assuming the Presidency, to install Breckinridge in his place, or to do anything other than divert arms to secessionists in the South. Finally, the second reference is a seemingly non-peer reviewed, self-published work of questionable relevance.

I've removed the link to the article on the Biden inauguration, as no direct relevance or connection other than the author of this section's assertions is evident.

The entire section is in need of less shoddy scholarship and clear textual proof of any plot to kidnap Lincoln or otherwise interfere with the 1861 inauguration. Otherwise, it should be removed or revised. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

About the lead
Beyond My Ken, could you explain why you are constantly reverting my edits to the article? "Whose existence was not, in fact, a secret" doesn't sound as wiki-like as, say, "whose objective was". And that image of the Golden Circle should go below the infobox, no? Unless I'm wrong, and every other article does this. If we're going to say that their existence isn't a secret, put it somewhere else in the lead or just don't call them a secret society, because a secret society that everyone knows exists isn't a secret society, it's doohickeys trying to bring back slavery <- Just read the "Secret society" article real quick, turns out you can call it a secret society even if everyone knows what it is. But still, at least reword it or put it somewhere else. Yeesh. AdoTang (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because they did not improve the article. Make an edit which is an improvement, and I won't touch it."Secret society" is fine where it is, it is an essential fact about the group. Why would we try to hide it by re-writing it or moving it elsewhere? That makes no sense.There is no requirement that an infobox be at the top of the page.  For this circumstance, it makes much more sense to visually define what the "Golden Circle" was immediately, so that the article will be more understandable to the reader.When I re-work an article -- in this case merging in material from elsewhere -- I just don't throw things around and edit robotically, I put real thought into where things go and in what order they should be presented.  This is something I've done to literally many hundreds of articles, and I'm pretty good at it.  When someone comes along afterwards and improves on what I've done, I think that's great, because the goal is to constantly improve articles.  But, on the other hand, when people fiddle and it's clearly not as good, I don't hesitate to revert.  Just because they're my edits doesn't mean that I can't be objective about whether they're good or not, nor does it mean that I can't tell the difference between an edit that improves the article and an edit that does not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But my edits did improve the article. This is the only article I have seen on this entire website where there's an image above the article's own infobox. Again, "whose existence was not, in fact, a secret" really doesn't sound like something from Wikipedia, it sounds like something from a separate page that's half-informal.
 * You don't own this page. You know that, right? You can't just control people and say "nope, you did something I don't agree with, it's not an improvement". AdoTang (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Stewardship. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I counter with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Actions 1, 3, and sort of 4, and I guess Statement 6, sure.
 * I just did an edit that I hope satisfies your needs; that whole "they're not a secret" was added to an EFN so it's not in anyone's way and people can see what the KGC is about.
 * I see no benefit in moving that to a footnote. I've reverted Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no benefit in having that be the first sentence someone sees when they hover their mouse over Knights of the Golden Circle when every other article on Wikipedia has a proper short summary as its first sentence. AdoTang (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)