User talk:Paulclark67

Some observations
When you interpolate your comments, unless someone is watching the history of the page people might not see them as they may only read the latest comments.

The 1st Amendment of Constitution doesn't apply to private organisations - have you ever read it? See Free speech. We have our own policies and guidelines we all need to follow.

The SPLC meets our criteria for WP:RS if for no other reason that it's widely used as a source, although in general it should be attributed when used. I guess you could interpret it as hating fascists, racists, homophobes, etc, but that's not a bad thing nor does it make it a hate group. 18:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I put my comments exactly where I want them. And exactly where they address and refute the comment of the person in question.

Well let's see here Doug. Who's the fascist? Perhaps you and your little group of editors? I'm all about following policies and guidelines - and call out clearly biased crap when I see it. Private orgs have the right to do whatever. I get it. But they don't have the right to be wrong. And save the snarky 1st Amendment comment, "ever read it". I didn't just read it, I live it, and I fought for it, and so did my ancestors who lived before, during and after it was written.

Your juvenile comment points out that I am 100% right about you.

Your other snarky little SPLC comment. It is a blatant hateful organization that you should not be citing, but the fact you are, says alot. You are citing SPLC because it fits your odd worldview. Maybe there are hateful groups on there list, but you are clearly trying to conflate the SPLC and the UDC, and there is no comparison. Stop trying to be clever and sneaky and just stick to facts.

I know full well you don't ascribe to my point of view. Perhaps you run and block me? Isn't that how fascists control others they don't agree with ? historicaljohnny (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)o


 * More or less what I expected. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, since you want to play that game. Even helped write the Constitution. Hell, I remember the torn Confederate battle flag on an aunt's wall. You can't out ancestor me. And of course you're going to cry fascist if you get blocked, or censorship. But you won't get blocked if you act civilly and follow our guidelines and policies. I know of one admitted fascist who could, at least for a while, edit articles on fascist parties with no problems, no blocks. He could have edited forever that way but started writing Sieg heil on talk pages and a fake article that started with his saying he thought it would be deleted but he warned just for a few minutes to have an article telling 'the truth" about the Jews, the Holocaust, etc. If you really think the SPLC should not be used, go to WP:RSN and show it fails WP:RS. Doug Weller  talk 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do want to play that game. My family goes back to the Claibornes of Virginia in the 1620s (google him) and the Blevins' of Wales - and if you want to really get into "ancestors" mine go back to the 1st King of England, Egbert of Wessex. So, be careful there on the ancestor front because, yes, I can out-ancestor you. I cry fascist to those who are trying to re-write history and discredit organizations like UDC. That is wrong, you know it, and the information is wrong on the page, yet you refuse to see other's points of view in a balanced way. That page is not written fairly and you know it. Stop comparing me to some Nazi idiot, racist. My family fought the nazis and fascists in WW2 and actually my great uncle was shot by the germans for working in the dutch underground hiding Jews. And don't compare me to some whack job flying off about the holocaust, etc. Really? I have a deep affection and admiration to the UDC and the SCV. Over 700 (and counting) of my ancestors from Virginia, North Carolina and Tenn and many other southern states were in the Confederate Army and many died. Many of those Soldiers have no markers, gravestones or anything because they were so poor, or just forgotten, many in northern prison cemeteries, like Elmira and Ft. Delaware and Pt. Lookout. The UDC helps to remember these men. And tell their stories. I can share some of what i've collected if you like, first hand letters and records. I can share you the spreadsheet i've collected to show you the evidence. I also have over 100 ancestors who fought in the Union Army; I respect and admire both sides and both historical points of view. Each side's story should be told - and the UDC and the Union organizations of the same, you can count on to tell those stories accurately. So, I would hope those of you on wikipedia who control so much of the narrative and facts would simply tell the full truth and not distort and undermine based on somebody's opinion of racism and "hate group" jibberish from those who don't know their facts, like the SPLC and other so-called writers and "experts". History is not always pretty. I hate slavery as much as anyone. But the truth is many of my ancestors owned slaves, but far many more did not. They were too poor and barely could feed their own families. But ALL should be told - not just a one sided, biased viewpoint. I am one to follow the proper guidelines and rules, and I do act in a civil way. I would expect the same from others.historicaljohnny (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Renaming
Welcome to Wikipedia! I trust all is going well thus far in your Wikipedia career. If you have questions or concerns, you should post on the Teahouse, an administrator's talk page, or my own. I have noticed you alter your username perhaps due to dissatisfaction with its current state. Be aware that we have a process for changing an undesirable username, though it requires an established edit history. Given that your account is so new, you may benefit from abandoning this account and creating a new account with the desired name. This action should be kept to an extreme minimum. Changing accounts to avoid punitive measures is known as sock puppetry and is a bannable offense. – Conservatrix (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. I don't recall changing my username but perhaps in the beginning? I like my username, so I do plan to keep it!  Certainly don't want a punitive measure. historicaljohnny (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The name change to which I am referring is your altering Paulclark67 to historicaljohnny. An account with the name historicaljohnny can be made if you please. Discussions are best kept to one page, so I will answer your question on the UDC talk page. – Conservatrix (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I put this?...I am trying to help you, but your contributions are making waves that will only come back to haunt you. The above chest pounding over glorious heritages makes you look problematic, and I know many admins that would spare no time in issuing a ban. Calm down. Open the RfC with a neutrally-worded proposal and do not argue with dissenting participants, debate without lashing out. Your tenure on Wikipedia could be over in days if this combative behavior persists. – Conservatrix (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix|, are you threatening me? Chest pounding over glorious heritages? Your bias is rather astonishing. So you are saying that you know admins who would ban me and my tenure on wikipedia could be over in days for so-called "combative behavior", and in the same breath, you are saying you are trying to help me. I have been a debate judge for years, so I assure you my rhetoric and arguments are level and sound, and they are by no means combative. You disagree with me and you are trying to bully me out of the discussion because your own logic is being used against you and you are losing the debate. You label me as "combative, problematic" and that i need to "calm down". It appears you are thin-skinned and you are not well versed in debate. Not to mention, the UDC page, if you don't mind getting back to the point, has been hi-jacked. That will not stand and I suggest you cease with your not-so-veiled threats.historicaljohnny (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, yet you seem to be prepared to take on a world that is not fighting. I am politely warning you of an impending doom. – Conservatrix (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United Daughters of the Confederacy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect Binsternet. The information provided is not my point of view; it is not commentary or my own personal analysis of the UDC. The information provided was to correct previously editorial assertions (which unfortunately seems to be the overt stated goal of the article) that the UDC promotes white supremacy, while also leaving out the UDC's stated purpose and objectives.

The sentence I included into the introduction (used to accurately and currently describe the content of the article) is correctly cited by a primary and a secondary source (Newsweek, and the UDC's own website with the President General's statement). This has nothing to do with me, the contributing editor.
 * So this sentence, which I believe absolutely should be added: "The UDC denies assertions that it promotes white supremacy and reaffirms the objectives of the organization, which are historical, educational, benevolent, memorial, and patriotic. Its mission includes the support of U. S. troops and honoring veterans of all U. S. wars.[6][7]"   This sentence is taken directly from the two sources, not me.


 * In addition, this sentence "The organization's treatment of the Confederacy, along with its promotion of the Lost Cause movement, is viewed by some as white supremacy.[1][2][3][4][5] " is the point of view of the editor and is commentary based on that editors' personal analysis. Clearly, this sentence, and similar mentions of white supremacy in the article, is meant as a certain point of view that was written back in 2003 or in 1999. My request from you is to respect my contribution as an editor and put the sentence back into the introduction, or you need to remove the sentence about lost cause and white supremacy. That sentence could go into the Criticism section, but it has no place in the introduction of an article that explains what the UDC is to readers as a factual encyclopedic reference.historicaljohnny (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Newsweek describes the UDC "mission" as coming from their own website rather than describing it as being verifiably accurate. The tone of the Newsweek article is decidedly negative with regard to UDC – they give more credence to the organization having a white supremacist goal. Your version gets into rah-rah patriotism with the bit about supporting US troops and honoring veterans, which is of course empty rhetoric, devoid of proof by action.
 * Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. There's no good reason to emphasize primary sources to try and counter the secondary sources. If the UDC's stated mission was something that matched their actions, observers would have written about that aspect. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The information provided by Newsweek, a highly biased media source in the first place, is nonetheless accurate, in that it verifies the UDC mission, even thought the Newsweek article is written to denegrate the UDC. Before you pre-judge and make a charge of "white supremacy", which seems to be more and more the latest fad used by those that disagree with anything deemed "white", please be careful and accurate. On the other hand, by simple logic it is equally racist to make a false charge that the UDC promotes "white supremacy" which is a racist charge, like the author made in that secondary source. The UDC is not racist or white supremacists. You mention there's no good reason to emphasize a primary source? Well, I provide a secondary source as I was directed. The editors of this UDC page seem to want it both ways. And how do you know that the stated mission of the UDC doesn't match their actions, as you said? Do you have proof to back up your comment? I bet if I provide proof (even as a secondary source), you would come back with yet another excuse why not to let the sentence stand. With the same logic you apply to the UDC, how can you suggest the "observers", that write an opinionated and biased account of the UDC from long ago, is even accurate or pertinent to today? With regards to your "rah rah patriotism" comment, the UDC IS a patriotic organization! That is what it's all about and that is why I'm trying to afford them (the UDC as one of the oldest patriotic women's organizations in the U.S.) the courtesy of being accurate in stating their actual objectives, mission and purpose. And you say that it is "empty rhetoric" when I provide sourcing that the UDC supports US Troops and veterans? How can you possibly ascribe to such a false statement - the UDC PAYS for and provides support to ALL veterans, not just Confederate veterans, who are in fact US veterans by act of Congress and are afforded a gravestone by the US Veterans Administration upon request. That is fact, not rhetorical. Look, you can totally not support or like the UDC, that is another editor's right. But at least be consistent in the application of the rules for ALL editors. That is not much to ask. historicaljohnny (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you start with calling middle-of-the-road Newsweek "highy biased" then we're done here. There's probably nothing I can say to help you get the results you want. In my view, Wikipedia is not for you. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So, seriously you want to help me get the results I want? I did not know you had such power. Unfortunately, wikipedia has become a very dubious online reference. Nobody cites it anymore, and students are not even allowed to use it as a reliable reference on school reports. However, if anything, my editorial input would raise the credibility of the "org", certainly on subject matter covering American history. Historical references are the one thing on wikipedia that does have some credibility, thanks to honest and factual editors. And spare me on the Newsweek comment... Newsweek has been going down hill for years. They don't even have a print version anymore and barely have 100,000 subscribers... per your own wikipedia citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek. The merger with the Daily Beast? and you say they are not highly biased? Perhaps you don't know the highly liberal bent of the Daily Beast? I would say wikipedia may not be for you. Now, if you have courage, then indulge me in this debate in an open and free way. But it is clear you are completely biased in your comments against anything on the UDC. That is wreckless and purely opinionated, one-sided gibberish. historicaljohnny (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is that how you deal with a differing viewpoint? To silence the discussion. Well, you just revealed your real aim for the UDC subject matter. It says it all.historicaljohnny (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF. As for students not being allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, editors aren't allowed to use Wikipedia articles as a source because they fail our criteria at WP:RS. We wouldn't want anyone using our articles as sources if only because they change, but mainly because that's not a purpose of Wikipedia. Many professors run student projects having students write or edit articles to learn how to use sources and to write. A good article is a motherlode of sources for students. Doug Weller  talk 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics
Doug Weller talk 17:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello Paulclark67,

Calling a person a "left wing nut" is a violation of our policy on Biographies of living persons. Please read that policy and refrain from violating it. You may be blocked if you continue that behavior. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Cullen328, I am more than a little bothered by this editor's comments. I just hatted a really silly comment on that UDC talk page, but most of all I am perturbed by their claim that the laundry list of academic, peer-reviewed publications on that same talk page are "100% biased"., if you can drag yourself away from ARE for a moment, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I came here to comment on the advocacy going on at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy and I see that a discussion has already started. The comments such as The "high quality academic sources" you reference are 100% biased against the UDC. If you think academic scholars are your best sources, that's worrisome. That is a major problem.  are rather troubling. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, I would like for you to look over this editor's portfolio: I think they need to be topic banned from the area. Doug, look at this revert by Acroterion--that's in article space. In fact they are simply an SPA here to plug/whitewash the UDC. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't been paying a lot of attention, but yes, a topic ban makes sense. They haven't edited for a while, but I canj't see them changing their behaviour. Doug Weller  talk 18:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia with a possible conflict of interest
Hello, Paulclark67. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)