Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

SPLC Reference Under Current Status

Hello, this article had a reference to an article written by the SPLC from 2000 under the Current Status section. As that was 18 years ago, I updated it to something more current by the SPLC in this edit. However, Volunteer Marek decided to revert my edit with no explainable difference other than the edit was "clearer", which I'm not quite sure I understand. Clear or not, I don't think an article from 2000 qualifies as current, especially following the events in South Carolina and Virginia these last few years, so I'd love to hear why I'm wrong. Thanks! LoquaciousKraken (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This "updating" of yours is a pretty transparent attempt to remove the words "white supremacy". This has been discussed previously and the consensus is that it stays. Please read WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in gaming the system. I'm interested in keeping the page relevant. What's so important about a 18 year old article that it justifies using over more recent statements by the same group? The new source doesn't mention the white supremacy of groups like the League of the South or the the Council of Conservative Citizens, this is true, but I can't find anything by the SPLC claimign those groups still have close ties to the UDC. Would you prefer this 2018 source be used instead? I'd have cited it, but its mentions of the UDC mainly focus on when it was regularly erecting monuments and the current status just mentions the statement by the UDC condemning racism after the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville last year. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek - User:LoquaciousKraken has the edge here. It’s not just the WP:RS AGE, the newer piece also has more WP:WEIGHT of prominence. The neo-confederacy item is more prominent at their site, in search there, and at Google. All of that may be a function of newer and what they are pushing for today and may change next week, but it is still a prominence edge. Both of these seem side-note bits though, it would be better perhaps to find a cite more directly related to UDC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing - why not both? There's nothing stopping us from using BOTH sources. Portraying this as an either/or is a false dichotomy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be open to that. Another editor just decided to move the SPLC reference to criticism though. Would you be opposed to having the 2000 reference in criticism and the 2017 SPLC reference under current status? LoquaciousKraken (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:LoquaciousKraken Sounds like a good resolution between you two to me - especially as their being RS usable is in question on one or the other. I'd suggest WP:BOLD go do it. If the RSN discussion removes one then the other might still be good. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is the use of ANY SPLC reference in any form should be removed. That organization has been discredited for some time. The fact you're even using it in the article is what the objection is.historicaljohnny (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want the SPLC to be blacklisted as an unreliable source, the place to make that argument is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No. SPLC is considered reliable on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how that invalidates my advice that the RSN is the correct place for discussion, Volunteer Marek. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek - no, there is neither blacklists nor carte blanche. A source is only judged RS in some context, and is subject to RSN. SPLC is an advocacy group, hence WP:BIASED on some topics and not RS at all in many topics. They have NO expertise outside their field and they would likely have to be cited with attribution for items within their field as they provide one POV in arguments. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. SPLC is considered reliable in general. Yes, their views should be attributed but that's it. Someone else posted somewhere else a link to "perennial" sources that come up on RSN all the time and it's listed there. So, Cordless Larry, it already HAS BEEN discussed at RSN. Numerous times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't preclude the issue being revisited. I don't expect consensus to have changed, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I will get there... trying to balance this effort. I plan to submit the SPLC, thanks for reminder. historicaljohnny (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think is clearly an advocacy group, so it’s information should be attributed. But that just means they are a WP:BIASED RS. The RS doesn’t mean “right”, it just means a source for one of the significant viewpoints. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it's worth noting that the SPLC is only currently used here as a source for the statement that "The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the UDC as a Neo-Confederate group...". The POV is clearly attributed, and the SPLC is a reliable source about its own statements. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I too agree the SPLC ought to be removed from any list of reliable sources. What began as an organization devoted to assisting the underprivileged has now become distorted into a political advocacy group. Please link the noticeboard discussion. – Conservatrix (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of the SPLC sentence and source should be removed, precisely because it is a highly biased and motivated by destruction of an organization's reputation Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources . The SPLC has been discredited and violates WP:NPOV. Further discussion on its use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard historicaljohnny (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same argument as if saying it 5 times makes it more valid. There's longstanding consensus that the SPLC is a reliable source and its (attributed) opinions on hate groups and extremism are relevant to Wikipedia. It's listed on Perennial Sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof The WP:Rsp is just an essay - kind of 'What Mr X thinks' or has as notes. Not policy or consensus and shy of being complete. RSN would be the place to get a resolution on specific issue, and not some page of notes. It seems a bad idea anyway to be blindly endorsing or excluding everything from a goup, it rather ignores the idea of context and that they are limited to one field and in this case an advocacy group is WP:BIASED. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Red herring. All sources are potentially "WP:BIASED." That very segment of the guideline states: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

The SPLC is not neutral. Neither is the ADL. Nor is the NAACP. Still less the NRDC. Yet you will find all of the above appropriately cited in Wikipedia, because they are reliable sources in their spheres, being prominent advocates with long-standing reputations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

UDC - not white suprecamists

No edit request made, WP:NOTAFORUM applies, and the hand-wave toward arguments for slavery in the initial statement are alarming.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The United Daughters of the Confederacy is NOT racist or white supremacists. The monuments or markers erected about 100 years ago or more were placed by wives, daughters, nieces of men who fought in the WBTS and to honor their services Most of the men did not own slaves and were fighting to protect to their property. The women had bake sales or sold items at bazaars for nickels and dimes until they raised enough money to purchase the monument. These monuments were not placed to intimidate anyone. It is ironic that for many years blacks and whites walked or drove by these monuments without any fear, but the national narrative now is that they were put there for reasons other than just honoring the person for whom the monument was erected. As for the subject of slavery, one must go back many years before the war and ascertain the arguments both for and against this horrible institution. When the war broke out there were many slaves in the Union states. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in a country which Abraham Lincoln was not president of and therefore it was meaningless at the time. He also changed his stance on slavery several times to bolster his political stance. As for a member or members of the UDC marching with the BLM group, that is not going to happen. The BLM is a hate group that can be equated with the KKK. I personally think that the BLM is an affront to law-abiding US citizens and they only promote violence and hate. I wish this page on Wikipedia would have a proper and correct definition of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. What is out there now is just wrong and needs to be updated to reflect the work of the women, who - since 1894 - have only tried to honor their ancestors. They are not political and not a hate group. Do the right thing.Dogpound3 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Do you have a specific edit suggestion here or are you just trying to do the whole "those people who built monuments to slavers aren't racist because they're related to the slavers," rhetorical thing for forumy reasons? Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC) What's WBT...nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC) " ascertain the arguments both for and against this horrible institution." - wait, what? So on one hand, it was a "horrible institution". On the other hand, there were apparently arguments "for" this horrible institution. Ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Marek, watch your bias and your snarky little comment taken way out of context. Obviously the person's referring to the context of the time pre-1860.historicaljohnny (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)k User:Paulclark67, I'm going to include this under this hat so no one has to see your odd comment and false accusation. Be mindful. And please don't be explaining anywhere that slavery wasn't horrible in the old days. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Section on Lost Cause / Neo-Confederate issue.

Per Wikipedia:Criticism, a criticism section is generally a poor way to arrange material that some editors feel to be negative, especially (as in this case) when we lack a clear source unambiguously grouping all those things together and labeling them as criticism. I also have WP:NPOV / WP:OR concerns; the sources for this section (especially the first section, which is presented as factual and seems uncontested) present their descriptions as a neutral history of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and an accurate summary of its views. We can present disagreement over those points, but categorizing the views of a historian like McPherson, in particular, as "criticism" would absolutely require a source unambiguously stating that, preferably one as or more reputable than McPherson himself. --Aquillion (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the formation and purpose of the UDC

Formation and Purpose Section, Second Paragraph Change the quote from Kristina DuRocher from this "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." To this: “The object of the organization included uniting the “children and youth of the South in some work to aid and honor ex-Confederates and their descendants.” The Children of the Confederacy was intended to “indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause.’” Quote replaced with two quotes making the same statement in more neutral language, using the same source by Kristina DuRocher

The updated statement makes the same point about the Children of the Confederacy, but it removes the reference to the KKK to make the language more neutral. Any reference to the KKK is not neutral, and including it indicates a bias against the group.

In reading Kristina DuRocher’s book, the behaviors outlined for both the KKK’s children’s groups and the Children of the Confederacy are not the same. The two groups are compared, with the KKK groups making clear overt statements that the white race is superior. The Children of the Confederacy is taught Confederate history, which implies a nostalgic view of the relationship between slaveowners and slaves. The Klan groups were focused on separate of the races in contemporary society. The Children of the Confederacy were focused on the history of their ancestors during the antebellum and bellum periods, with no mention of contemporary race relations. galndixie 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, primarily because there was a mismatch between opening and closing quote marks. This could be fixed, but I am concerned that you are trying to exclude the KKK comparison simply because you have decided it is biased. It is suitably attributed to the author who made the comparison, who makes it in a reliable source, so you probably need a stronger reason to exclude it than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry: I'm not sure I understand why you've removed this change, I have read this book. The change only clarifies the rest of the content of the chapter, instead of using only one sentence out of many. In reading Kristina DuRocher's book "Raising Racist," the section on the CofC and the KKK's children's groups is about 10 pages long. The only sentence that makes the two seem similar is the one that was quoted, which is misleading. The rest of that section of the book talks about the activities of the two. The KKK's groups were actively promoting white supremacy and making statements regarding the superiority of the white race during their meetings and activities. The Children of the Confederacy had no reference to race, or to white supremacy being part of their ideals. Their focus was learning history of their ancestors during a period when most African-Americans were slaves. Any racism in the Children of the Confederacy was related to the promotion of the Lost Cause. The KKK children's groups actively taught white supremacy and taught children their role in a segregated society. Teaching history and promoting racial separation through oppression are not the same. That is the reason that the quote referencing the KKK children's groups should be removed and a more accurate statement about what the Children of the Confederacy should be used. Please reconsider. Thank You. galndixie 13:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, firstly, the quote was malformed. You used three opening quote marks but only two closing ones. Secondly, who has determined that the comparison is inaccurate? If it's you, then that's original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry: I am not at all sure what you mean by "three opening quote marks and two closing ones", and as you can see, I am not very expert at working thru this system. How should it be written so that it is "acceptable"? As I have read thru several books and articles on the KKK, I didn't find any of them that claims any kinship or collaboration with any of the Confederate Ladies Groups, and I haven't found any on the UDC that claims that status. Therefore, I think the KKK mention is misleading, and the book does say the same thing in a more neutral way, since the author of the book made other statements in those 10 pages that accomplish this. Thank you. galndixie 13:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the quote again and you will hopefully see what I mean. A quote should have matching pairs of quote marks; yours has five. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry: galndixie 18:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 18:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)The quotes are not based on original research, but on the same source as the quote comparing the CofC to the KKK. The quotes used to replace Kirstina DuRocher's quote from Raising Racists comparing the CofC to the KKK are also from Kristina DuRocher's book Raising Racists. However, the quote above more accurately reflects DuRocher's depiction of the CofC in Raising Racists. In the book, the only time the two organizations are mentioned as being similar is the single quote that is cited in this UDC article. Using this quote is falsely representing what the source actually says.

I haven't said that the quotes are original research. I have said that you have used mismatched pairs of quote marks and that your assertion that the KKK comparison is inaccurate sounds like original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry: is the quote OK written in this way: The object of the organization included uniting the “children and youth of the South in some work to aid and honor ex-Confederates and their descendants.” The Children of the Confederacy was intended to “indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause.’” galndixie 15:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 15:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That fixes the problem with the quotes marks. I'd like to hear other editors' views about whether this is a better quote than the existing one. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the existing quote that galndixie wants to change:

"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."

I find no merit in Galndixie's argument that because "this is the only time the two organizations are mentioned as being similar" somehow makes the use of it in our article improper. The fact that the UDC and KKK chose similar methods in how to indoctrinate their children seems to be very relevant. The fact that the UDC did not also burn crosses, wear robes, or lynch people is, I suppose, a positive thing for the UDC, but it doesn't mean that less positive aspects of the organization should be ignored.

Equally relevant is the reference to white supremacy. Substituting "indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause’" for white supremacy significantly clouds the issue is a POV manner. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:19, 8 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)

Since no one has voiced an objection to my edit, and Carptalk seems to be in favor of it, may I go ahead and add it to the page? galndixie 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 20:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

There have been several objections to your edit, including mine. I don't see where anybody has changed their minds. Carptrash, as far as I can tell, has only agreed to a small portion of your edit. Perhaps you can list the specific ways in which UDC and KKK treat their children differently. As far as the use of the term "white supremacy", there is plenty of discussion elsewhere on this page in support of retaining the term. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am confused. I have been explaining the difference between the CofC and the KKK's children's groups through out this discussion. The CofC was focused on history based from a Lost Cause perspective. The KKK was training children about the proper role of white adults, preparing them to uphold white supremacy. One group was looking back to a glorious history. The other was focused on training boys and girls for their future roles in a white-controlled society. Those are two fundamentally different things. And, all of this is clearly outlined in Raising Racists.

I am also confused by your statement that there have been several objections to my edit. Only three people commented, and one of those agreed that the edit was okay. Since I am new to Wikipedia, would it be better to open an RfC or is there another way to come to a conclusion on whether this change can be made.galndixie 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

Glorious history? Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the CofC were taught about the Lost Cause. However your sentence, "The KKK was training children about the proper role of white adults, preparing them to uphold white supremacy", is equally applicable to the CofC. To quote from the Blight book referenced in the article (p. 278), "When UDC took up the cause of history they did so as cultural guardians of their tribe, defenders of a sacred past against Yankee-imposed ignorance and the forces of modernism. They built moats around their white tribe's castles to save the children from false history and impure knowledge." Karen Cox in her book (p.135-6) talks about the realization made after 1910 that as the war generation passed away, it was important to the UDC to indoctrinate their children for both "the perpetuation of conservative class values, as well as a pro-southern version of history" in oder to "creditably fill the place of men and women who have in the past given the [South] both name and fame."

It seems clear that like the KKK, the UDC was preparing itself for a future defending the white supremacist status quo. If you research UDC historian-generals Mildred Rutherford and her successor Laura Martin Rose you will find that both integrated support for the KKK in their education programs. What are article needs is a major expansion regarding both the CofC and the UDC's textbook crusades. Perhaps you can give us an idea of what details, as opposed to your repeated generalizations, are contained in you source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You included quotes from Blight and Cox in your statement. I think either of those would be a better statement on the CofC than the DuRocher quote. Why don't we replace the DuRocher quote with one of those?galndixie 15:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 15:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

If there are no objections, I will change the DuRocher quote to the Karen Cox quote above. It will read like this: After 1910, the UDC realized that the war generation was passing away and Southern children needed to be indoctrinated for both "the perpetuation of conservative class values, as well as a pro-southern version of history" in oder to "creditably fill the place of men and women who have in the past given the [South] both name and fame." (Cox, Karen L. Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (University Press of Florida, 2003), page 135-136.) galndixie 06:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 06:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

The quotes I provided by Cox and Blight support the DuRocher quote and refute your previously stated reason for wanting to delete it. The section can certainly be expanded (and probably should be) and include other sources, but there is no reason to eliminate DuRocher who makes a valid reference to the KKK and white supremacy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom, since the two of us cannot agree on a change, I will open an RfC. galndixie 13:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 13:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

RfC: Introduction neutrality

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is clearly opposed to removal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Subject: The neutrality of this page's introductory paragraph has been questioned by multiple users. Specifically, mention of claims made by various sources and the refutation of said claims by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) on the subject of encouraging, hosting, or tolerating organizational white supremacism is believed to be inappropriate for the lead.

Proposal: Remove the last two sentences of the lead paragraph and relocate to the Criticism section.

_{Proposal opened from previous failed RfC by neutral arbiter. Assume no vote from proposer.} Conservatrix (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Ping users from previous RfC: PaulClark67, Binksternet, Doug Weller, ChiveFungi, BeenAroundAWhile, LoquaciousKraken, The Gnome, Peacemaker67. Conservatrix (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The UDC's connection to white supremacy is covered in the body of the article; it is mentioned in a criticism section as well as the sections "Formation and purpose" and "Current status". There are numerous reliable secondary sources supporting this connection. No reliable secondary sources deny the connection. The only denial comes from the UDC itself. This "denial" does not address its own history of racism that goes back to the 1920s. In fact, the "denial" is less than 2 months old and says nothing about its historic support for the things that it now claims to oppose. Now would be a good time for UDC supporters to come up with sources outside their community that deny the history of the UDC.

Removing any mention of white supremacy in the lead would be a clear violation of the guideline for writing the lead. This clearly states:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".

I haven't seen anyone in these discussion pages argue that this is not a prominent controversy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article must stay neutral, which means that all important points must be present. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section must summarize for the reader the controversy about white supremacy, since it is an important point. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing neutral about the UDC page, starting with the Introduction. There is a refusal to place the objectives of the organization prominently and in clear language. The editors (acting as a cabal) feature unfounded and unproven charges of white supremacy, associations with racist organizations and the KKK. That is slander. In the body of the page, there are multiple charges that the UDC is a racist organization, yet there is no evidence for these charges. The sources the editors have chosen to employ as evidence are extremely biased and opinionated, without fact and substantiation with a goal to destroy the reputation of the UDC. In particular, the use of the Southern Poverty Law Center should be removed. The SPLC is a discredited organization. Review the following: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/12-ways-southern-poverty-law-center-scam-profit-hate-mongering/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9333ead15e01

Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hereditary_and_lineage_organizations . The Introduction sections of other national hereditary non-profits and charities, as listed by wikipedia, do not contain inflamatory and unsubstantiated charges. This is a clear attempt to undermine the organization. Oppose this page as is unless the following changes are made:

1. Remove the page outright

2. Material critical of the UDC should be listed in the body that is created for that material under "Criticisms"

3. Remain unbiased to attempts by other editors to correct the record and add their edits to refute the biasness. Otherwise you deem the UDC racist, which clearly appears to be the goal.

At this point there is no desire by the editors to collaborate; currently this is an exercise in destructionhistoricaljohnny (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Paulclark67, it's not that other people here are acting in a "cabal", nor is it the case that nobody is willing to collaborate. What's happening here is that you are asking for changes that are against Wikipedia policy, and others here are telling you as much. As a small example, your suggestion of creating a criticism section, so that all the criticism can be placed into that section and nowhere else (the creation of a "criticism ghetto") is against the suggestions outlined at Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies. If you were looking for changes that were neutral and within policy then you would find people here more willing to work with you. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet,what is not neutral about my edits? Have you read through the edits I tried to place that were immediately removed? I mean within minutes after I made the edits. Does that sound collaborative or reasonable ? Ironically, the criticism and controversy sections were not created by me, so if you say it's against policy, you need to look at the group of editors on this page. If someone hates the UDC so much why don't they write a totally different article on that subject, instead of trying to destroy, discredit and slander the organization. In researching the edit history of the page which goes back to 2003, all of a sudden about 2016, editors wanted to weigh in on some of the controversies in the media that attempt to tie the UDC with white supremacy and the like. And now... there is a push to alter the original Introduction with an extremely leading sentence that immediately infers the UDC as some type of racist white supremacist organization. And you tell me that is neutral?? So when does it stop? Does it stop when you destroy the actual organization because of someone's opinion or perception? (all I have to point to is the southern poverty law center citation) That seems like a very dubious precedent that could affect any wikipedia page or article. This is precisely the reason very few people give any more credence to wikipedia, sadly. I spent alot of time reading through the wikipedia policies and guidelines and there is a consistent call for neutraility and unbiased efforts while using legitimate sourcing and citing. The citations used in the article are very suspect and represent a clear bias, which brings into question why the editors are using such suspect sources. When I checked the Introdcution sections of other similar organizations, as I sent earlier, even those that might be "controversial", those pages/articles are not treated like the UDC. Reminder, the UDC is a non-profit charity which has been accepted by the laws of the U.S. as such. The UDC would not be able to exist if they had a thread of evidence that they were "racist" and represent white supremacy. Editors have tried to set the record straight and have been shut down - and I'm biased?? Unfounded accusations should NEVER be accepted anywhere in wikipedia, unless you have clear proven evidence, otherwise, no one will take the material seriously. historicaljohnny (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit history exclusively focuses on the UDC with impassioned and sweeping demands. Removing the page outright is not going to happen. The SPLC is a politically motivated organization and I would support removing its citation. However, non-profit organizations are allowed to refuse admittance or service on any criteria, unlike for-profit businesses, under U.S. law, and this would not permit the Government to abolish the UDC on grounds of racial bias. The UDC does admit minorities whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy, though this draws from a limited number of late-war black regiments. I am not a lawyer. – Conservatrix (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the lede reflects the article, which reflects reliable sources, so it def belongs in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether an organization is white supremacist or not seems like a very important and notable point. As such, I believe it belongs in the lede. --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LEDE, which specifies that the introduction should summarise the most important content of an article. By the way, the RfC isn't very well formed, because it refers to the last two sentences of the introduction, which can change during the course of the discussion. It would be worth providing a link to a revision with the sentences concerned present. The version at the time of the RfC opening is here and at the time of my comment is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:LEAD, this is not a significant part of the article, and also WP:SENSATION and WP:LABEL -- to not be throwing around exciting headlines and offensive accusations as the primary things. Show a bit more restraint. Markbassett (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Dylan Roof. Charlottesville. Confederate monuments. Pretty significant and notable events and the UDC is a significant part of these events and the neo-confederate movement. WP:LEAD is pretty clear about including significant controversies. White supremacy may seem like sensationalism to you, but the fact is that reliable source after reliable source associates the term with the UDC.

WP:SENSATION actually states, "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." In fact, the sources cited all meet our reliable secondary sources standards. You follow the pattern of several of the newby editors who like to trash all sources in general w/o providing any actual argument on why the sources are "Tabloid or yellow journalism."

Just a guess (but a pretty good one) but most people searching for UDC on Google probably have this controversy on their mind. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:North Shoreman Neither Dylan Roof or James Fields is a 'Daughter' of the confederacy. This is a minor portion in the article so per WP:LEAD should not get elevated above dueweight. And yes, this is both a WP:SENSATION and a WP:LABEL -- which is made all the more obvious by conflating UDC with Dylan Roof, you see? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) belongs in lead. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: suitable for inclusion and support by the article copy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I don't see a criticism section in the article, and information should be in the body before it is in the lead. The second half of the "Lost cause..." section could sort of work as a criticism section, but it sort of hand waves the criticisms, mentioning one established source that criticizes the organization - good - but then uses the phrase "critics such as..." and lists some names without detail on those critics or their criticisms. In my opinion, that section should be split, as the first half is historical information, and then fleshed out. Otherwise, the information in the lead (two sentences) is summarizing the brief mention of criticism (also two sentences+quote). What's even stranger is that none of the five sources mentioned in the lead are reused in that second half criticism section. On this subject, then, there is more content in the lead than there is in the article. Ignoring the content itself, or any controversies there may be, this seems to me to be a clear case for moving the content. ARR8 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead section must summarize important article themes, per WP:LEAD. There is no policy-based foundation for the proposed abandonment of that guideline. And we should not be pushing for a criticism ghetto, where all the negative information is corralled into one section. Rather, the criticism should be relayed to the reader at every appropriate step. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 11 September 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.

Scholarships

A new section of the article was added about scholarship activity by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Any comments on improving the section will be welcome.Da031053 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)da031053 — Da031053 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The newly added scholarship section makes everything seem positive. It would represent the sources better if the scholarship section was made part of an "Education" section that talked about the education goals of UDC, to inculcate Lost Cause pride in young Southerners. The scholarship section should be presented against that backdrop. It would be very interesting for the reader to know what was the primary racial makeup of the scholarship grantees. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Last time I checked (but that was more than a decade ago) there were no strings attached to the scholarships, so to speak--but I can't claim to have checked exhaustively. I'm looking at a few JSTOR articles now. That the "racial make-up" would be one-sided is to be expected, given that the scholarships are for Confederate descendants. YES I KNOW MILLIONS OF BLACK SOUTHERNERS FOUGHT FOR THE CONFEDERACY (haha)--no, given that stipulation and a century and a half of cultural segregation, I think we know what that make-up would be, though I have no doubt that they'll have a few African-Americans on their list, which they might advertise. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The writers here (not the UDC writers) seem to be trying to pin racism on this club. This is offensive. A black member I understand wrote for the magazine. Not all slaves were w/ each family of the south. And likewise not all families in the north had slaves either. But there were slaves in the north and the south. I visited a meeting and found it's members lovely, Christian, and no way racist. I was welcomed! (No one batted an eye hearing of my bi-racial daughter.) They were working hard to purchase & give gifts for poor families in the area. (BTW, were black families) Why is there all this talk about race? IT's 2022! Our country has come a long way since the civil war. Why nit-pic what may have happened back in the day? These women had family ancestors who fought bravely in the terrible civil war. What do you care? Half the county was South and half was North. And many of both in the middle. So what? What does that have to do with us? Our ancestors most likely were not slave owners. I know mine were not. And none in the family right back to the war between the states. I understand some in the north had slaves too. So what? That's history, and doesn't reflect those now and those who are related to the many on both sides in our country. There's also a Group for the North descendants as well. Are they picked on because some of them had slaves? We are the United States. And everyone has ancestors who fought in that terrible war. And each side lost family members. Why can't each soldier have honor, who gave their life? Enough of this name-calling. I'm neither ashamed of my family fighting in the civil war, or happy, but humbled that we all have learned to respect our fellow man. In this case, wonderful women, who welcomed me as I visited their group. Their generosity to the poor and to the veterans impressed and blessed me. Our ancestors lived the best way they knew how, considering the time they lived it. Soldiers, whether losers, winners, or in-between can be remembered in each family unafraid of judgement or name-calling. God bless our United States of America! 2603:9000:CA02:6B24:D027:3C53:1886:C78E (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate group

The SPLC has listed the UDC as a neo-Confederate group. Some here have questioned whether we can cite the SPLC, but since this particular conclusion made by the SPLC has been cited by many respected scholars, I am sure we can.

But can the UDC be called a neo-Confederate group in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution? If scholars are in agreement on the point, then I think we must.

• Historian Irvin D.S. Winsboro of Florida Gulf Coast University writes that UDC is a neo-Confederate in his 2016 paper "The Confederate Monument Movement as a Policy Dilemma for Resource Managers of Parks, Cultural Sites, and Protected Places: Florida as a Case Study."
• Historian Jonathan Zimmerman writes that the UDC was founded in the belief of neo-Confederacy in his article "A Confederate Curriculum: How Miss Millie taught the Civil War", published in Latham's Quarterly.
• Historian Euan Hague of DePaul University writes that the UDC is neo-Confederate in the book Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction, with the SPLC's Heidi Beirich as one of two co-editors. The other co-editor is Edward H. Sebesta, an anti-neo-Confederacy activist and researcher who co-wrote with Euan Hague the scholarly paper "The Jefferson Davis Highway: Contesting the Confederacy in the Pacific Northwest", published in the Journal of American Studies. That paper writes about the UDC's mission being neo-Confederate.
• Sebesta appears again, teaming up behind sociologist and historian James W. Loewen, in the book The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause' , which describes the UDC as neo-Confederate. Loewen also says that the UDC is neo-Confederate in his book Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (2010).
• Historian Francesca Morgan of Northeastern Illinois University wrote the 2005 book Women and Patriotism in Jim Crow America, which says that the UDC's mission was "to produce neo-Confederate nationalism", and describes this connection in detail. Morgan's book was reviewed favorably in scholarly journals.[1][2]
• Faith Agostinone Wilson, EdD, of Aurora University, writes that the UDC is neo-Confederate in the paper "Neo-Confederate Ideology & History Textbooks – 1860 to 2010", which is reproduced as a chapter in the Springer book The New Politics of the Textbook: Problematizing the Portrayal of Marginalized Groups in Textbooks, edited by Heather Hickman and Brad J. Porfilio, ISBN 9789460919121.
• Historian James M. McPherson told Amy Goodman that the UDC has neo-Confederate motives.[3] McPherson is also mentioned having this belief in the chapter "United Daughters of the Confederacy" in the New Georgia Encyclopedia.
• And of course there's Karen L. Cox, historian at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who describes the UDC as a neo-Confederate group in her book Dixie's Daughters, which is already cited in the article.

So I think we must say in Wikipedia's voice that the UDC is indeed a neo-Confederate group. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet, for that excellent research. Are there any academic sources that say that UDC is not a neo-Confederate group? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The policy explicitly says to not use wiki voice. What we have is an inflammatory WP:LABEL here. This term "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
2. The sources that say UDC is not a neo-Confederate group would be ... almost all of them ? Even a WP:WEIGHT question is not whether one can google up 10 out of thousands of books that use it but whether one can show prominence -- what do the top ten history books say or is said by an authoritative body in List of historical societies or in a legal decision or even a major newspaper. In a simple Goggle, I get 400,000+ hits for "United daughters of the confederacy" - but only 4,770 also had "neo-confederate" or 0.1%. If I do it in Google books, it's an even smaller 0.05% hits. In working with name-calling, you have to face that most sources - especially serious scholars - simply do not go to name-calling because it simply was not something most historians think of as an important historical point or topic. Look, I might Google up 10 books that say the Earth is flat, and the thousand others that say nothing about that ... mean the consensus is *not* the earth is flat, and neither is there external consensus to call UDC neo-confederate. But you can with attribution say it in WP:DUE proportion -- which looks pretty small. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a very clever comparison. Crazy, but clever. We should apply this across the board, and save big on our power bill--we should be able to cut 3/4 of all Wikipedia content. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, we are looking for high-quality academic sources for an historical article, not random counts of Google hits. Are there any academic sources that say that UDC is not a neo-Confederate group? Are there good academic sources that say that the UDC has moved decisively away from advocacy of white supremacy and defense of slavery? Please bring them forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 The policy explicitly says to not use wiki voice. Now ... as an attributed point it just has to prove it has due WP:WEIGHT and so far this has not shown enough to pass WP:ONUS. It has not shown major works or major bodies or large quantities of cites. This has shown only support of 3 books (one written with a SPLC author so of not much more value than just SPLC), 4 odd bits of papers, and 2 verbal remarks. Really now, Google Books has 389,000 books mentioning UDC -- surely there are WP:BESTSOURCES in all those better than the 3 books shown ? Most books look to say nothing at all about neo-confederate anything, but if there is some impressively authoritative works then those are the ones to attribute to, and if one cannot, then I suggest give it up entirely. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the policy stipulates "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Which it is. You are setting the bar for WP:ONUS ridiculously high to ensure that it cannot be met. It has been met.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek WEIGHT has to show Evidence. Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, and simply 3 books, 4 papers and 2 verbal remarks is only enough to show it was said a few times out of hundreds of thousanda -- it needs to put up something major for evidence, to either show a great quantity exists or that some book or group of major prominence had stated it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mark, if you're trying to dismiss scholarly papers as sources then you're missing the whole point. Scholars are our best sources, our defining sources. They are the wheat in the chaff, but you are advocating the chaff. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet - policy says otherwise: textbooks or reviews are better sources than papers is the guidance of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And WP:ONUS says the words must provide Evidence. Just a few minor works out of hundreds of thousands will not serve to prove much WP:WEIGHT. There were a couple of verbals from guess big names mentioned -- now did they put it into their actual scholarly works, or is it NOT in their serious work ? Again ... I think in 300 thousand plus works there should some WP:BESTSOURCES better than what is listed ... and if there is nothing of major note, then just give up the effort. Actually I suspect the effort was not begun by some major book or body means that there is none. But maybe there is and the advocates just haven't found it yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I was asking specifically, Markbassett, if you could provide any high quality academic sources that refute the characterizations of UDC as neo-Confederate. Nobody cares about 389,000 Google hits that you have not personally reviewed, nor should they. Even one specific academic source that says something like "accusations that the UDC is neo-Confederate are false, for reasons A, B and C, and we discuss them here in detail", would be nice. Perhaps a source that explains how the UDCs work and public statements over the years significantly differ from the neo-Confederate ideology. Can you bring forward any such specific sources for discussion here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - again, WP:ONUS is clear that it is the proposed text that has to provide evidence. And note that you are setting a higher bar than the items so far seem to have - they are not providing "reasons A, B, and C and discussion in detail", nor are they the more serious analysis of considering counter-evidence or of being a secondary source reviewing the available corpus of text on the topic. Again, presuming true unless disproven is a logical fallacy and contrary to WP policy. Asking me to provide counter positions would first have to have it be a significant presence in the body of works, and the lack of any discussion seems more to indicate a fringe position is what the case may be. Whether that is becuase most scholars simply did not think of the WP:LABEL as something of scholarly position or that they simply avoid insults for scholarly dignity does not matter if in the end it is that the insut lacks much evidence. Significant cites would be the content from a major textbook or three with that label, or a couple secondary reviews of the corpus for this WP:LABEL, or major scholarly body making official pronouncements with that label. Is any of that in hand or is is not ? If not then just give it up -- going on would no longer be doing just follow the cites, it would be doing goal-seeking OR and cherry-picking. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

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. The UDC as a non-profit doesn't have the resources to plow through the sphere of academia looking for any support. It appears they let their support and charitable actions speak for themselves. The reason we are here is balance wrt the UDC page and honest and fair description of the UDC as it is, notwithstanding the discussion of its history and criticisms, albeit fairly. Go forth and find examples of the works they do, rather than pinpoint your own bias and focus on academic scholars that are lined up solely to disparage an organization. That's low hanging fruit type stuff. I believe the strong point that Markbassett was bringing up with google hits (which by the way is completely pertinent) is to demonstrate how much of a non-issue this neo confederate angle is in the first place. It's a label, therefore why is it included as a source in the first place. Cullen328: Are there good academic sources that say that the UDC has moved decisively away from advocacy of white supremacy and defense of slavery? Please bring them forward. That presumptive question assumes that the UDC advocates white supremacy and defends slavery, which is rejected outright in the first place. Cullen238: Perhaps a source that explains how the UDCs work and public statements over the years significantly differ from the neo-Confederate ideology. The answer is yes, but these sources were reverted off the page. Your pure focus has been the opposite, rather than focus on these works, you focus on the UDCs disparagement.historicaljohnny (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Paulclark67, if you think that it is worrisome that Cullen328 regards academic sources as the best, then you're up against the whole concept of how Wikipedia works. See WP:SOURCETYPES, which explains that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". While such principles can in theory be challenged, there is a strong consensus about this particular view. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Paulclark67, you have "historic" in your signature, so you ought to be friendly to the notion that academic historians are best qualified to discuss and analyze the history of a group that is almost 125 years old. You are a new editor so you may not realize that high quality reliable sources are like gold here on Wikipedia and personal opinions are worthless. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to summarize those sources and that simple fact is not negotiable. So bring forward sources to discuss, or analyze the sources already brought forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, I wholeheartedly agree that most scholarly and academic sources are important and qualified, but some aren't. However, many academics on the subject matter we are discussing here (UDC) can be very biased and cherry picked due to the subject matter. Therefore, all that is asked of all editors is to explore more on the UDC, keep their own perceptions and bias out, and not rely on biased sources that are used in the article against the UDC. And I do completely agree that opinions are worthless. I am making an attempt to discuss and analyze some of the sources that are highly opinionated such as those from the SPLC, an advocacy org that's been discredited and clearly violates WP:NPOV. I'm sure we share the objective to make the UDC page a model of what wikipedia should be doing and casting off accusations that portray the UDC in such a terrible way (and unproven) as to render the UDC irrelevant, the members irrelevant and those objectives and purposes irrelevant. Neutrality is the key and so far I'm not seeing it.historicaljohnny (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

" The reason we are here" - can you elaborate on who this "we" are? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Marek, "we" meaning everyone in this discussion. historicaljohnny (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Paulclark67: You don't seem to understand WP:NPOV well. We have to be neutral, but sources most certainly don not need to be. If a source is reliable, as SPLC and various academics are, and also has a POV, we are perfectly allowed, within the bounds of WP:NPOV to report that this source holds this view. And when a preponderance of sources says something about a group, we are also allowed to assert that perspective as a statement in Wikipedia's voice, albeit with greater restraint than when we identify the statement as coming from somebody else.

Basically, we can say, "Professor X calls the Daughters of the Confederation a bunch of racist anachronisms glorifying slavery." and that's neutral, as long as Professor X is a reliable source for such assertions. For us to say, in Wikipedia's voice, "The Daughters of the Confederation comprise a bunch of racist anachronisms glorifying slavery," there would have to be many reliable sources that expressed that view, and if any reliable sources contradicted that we'd have to mention that dissenting view. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Simonm223 but the question stated for the thread was "can the UDC be called a neo-Confederate group in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution?" Against this, in WP:LABEL The policy explicitly says to not use wiki voice. This term "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So it would have to be attributed -- and has yet to show WP:WEIGHT evidence of it as being in wide usage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mark, Johnny: just waving your hand and saying, "lookit all these Google hits that don't have 'neo-Confederate' in them: there must be a pony!" does not work. You continue to fail to provide one whit of solid scholarly evidence that the modern-day UDC does not still romanticize, and propagandize for, the slaveholder's rebellion. Hellfire, even the scholarships their defenders make such a big deal about, require that entrants' essays use the tag "War Between the States", the favored euphemism of secessionists and their advocates for a century and a half, rather than calling the Civil War the Civil War! WP:LABEL does not trump WP:FRINGE. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the quote in the formation and purpose section

The consensus is against removing the quote.

Cunard (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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 quote from Kristina DuRocher’s book Raising Racists be replaced? galndixie 12:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 12:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)galndixie 03:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 03:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC) We have three possible replacements: “The object of the organization included uniting the “children and youth of the South in some work to aid and honor ex-Confederates and their descendants.” The Children of the Confederacy was intended to “indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause.’” (DuRocher) "When UDC took up the cause of history they did so as cultural guardians of their tribe, defenders of a sacred past against Yankee-imposed ignorance and the forces of modernism. They built moats around their white tribe's castles to save the children from false history and impure knowledge." (Blight) "the perpetuation of conservative class values, as well as a pro-southern version of history" in oder to "creditably fill the place of men and women who have in the past given the [South] both name and fame." (Cox) galndixie 12:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie 12:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galndixie (talk • contribs)

• I would suggest just deleting the quote. In between CoC and textbooks, none of these really add anything and if there is conflux of possibles it seems best to not make one the winner. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously this is a malformatted RfC but yeah, object to removing the quote. Why? How does the quote not "add anything"? That's ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems obvious enough from what I said - the location is between CoC and textbooks, and none of these say anything to either of those that is not already there. Putting in any of the choices is just an odd quote from unfamiliar name that will not give readers any more understanding. If anything, the odd detour disrupts the narrative. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - DuRocher's book is one of the soundest sources we have. (Full disclosure: I'm a Southerner born and bred, whose family gave two of its three sons fighting against the secessionists.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Somebody doesn't like a quote that casts UDC in a negative light. Since the quote is from a widely cited reliable source, we are not going to remove it or replace it for such a trivial reason. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If it is the quote I think is meant, no. It is attributed and she seems a notable expert commenting on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose... It is important to include negative opinions... but we need to make it clear that the opinion is NOT universally accepted. I would include it, but make sure to balance it with other (more positive) quotes... so the reader clearly understands that there is disagreement as to the origin and purpose of the organization. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be fair.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

SlaterSteven and Binksternet: The quote that is wanted replaced is only one of many made regarding the same subject by the same authors. One of your editors, on your side, has offered two quotes from the same two cited references and authors that clarify why that statement is made, and do it in more neutral language while conveying the same information. I think either or both quotes would be better. I don't understand why either or both of those would not be more appropriate and more informative. galndixie (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no editors, and I am not sure who made what suggestion given the state of the original RFC. As far as I can see none of the suggested alternatives (offered by you as far as I can see) say the same thing. She is specifically talking about the promotion of white supremacy, and not some lost causeism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no good reason to exclude the quote other than that it situates UDC as a racist org - which they are. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I am sorry, I did not mean to imply 'your personal' editors, I meant Wiki editors for this page. The suggestions I made came from another wiki editor who opposed the original change, and the quotes I suggested were his choice as a suitable replacement. He did agree that the original statement needed to be clarified and expanded, he offered those two quotes, but no one will agree to add them. Both quotes are from the same books and the same authors that are cited as credible references for this page.galndixie (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You have not asked to add them, but to use them to replace the quote. As I said they do not say the same thing. Can I ask the ed who made the suggestions to say what he suggested?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Galndixie is not telling the truth when they claim that I suggested anything as a "suitable replacement." Galndixie, in an attempt to eliminate the KKK comparison, had said, "The CofC was focused on history based from a Lost Cause perspective. The KKK was training children about the proper role of white adults, preparing them to uphold white supremacy."

The Blight and Cox quotes were provided to refute this claim. What I in fact said, after providing the quotes, was:

It seems clear that like the KKK, the UDC was preparing itself for a future defending the white supremacist status quo. If you research UDC historian-generals Mildred Rutherford and her successor Laura Martin Rose you will find that both integrated support for the KKK in their education programs.

After Galndixie responded with their current proposal, I said the following which in no way can be honestly interpreted as arguing for replacing the sentence in question:

The quotes I provided by Cox and Blight support the DuRocher quote and refute your previously stated reason for wanting to delete it. The section can certainly be expanded (and probably should be) and include other sources, but there is no reason to eliminate DuRocher who makes a valid reference to the KKK and white supremacy.

In regard to your exchange with Blueboar regarding "disagreement as to the origin and purpose of the organization", it should be noted that the stated purpose by the UDC is already included in the article. What I don't believe can be added, because I don't believe it exists, is material from reliable secondary sources that question the white supremacist basis of the UDC. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose My reasons are stated above as well as in the section immediately above this RFC. It should be noted that an RFC recently closed below showed a consensus to retain references to white supremacy in the article lead. Since this required a higher burden of proving the significance of the characterization, it seems like this current RFC is frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 21 September 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.

Another Kali Holloway article

It briefly alludes to this Wikipedia page: [4]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the Wikipedia article petition be mentioned in the article?

This is a bit meta, but given that the UDC's petition to have this article reworded has received coverage in a secondary source, should we mention the petition in the article? We could also mention the Encyclopedia Virginia case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A one line mention in one source seems a bit thin for inclusion here IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

However, I don't see that we include their denial of white supremacy in the article and a paragraph on that could include the Encyclopedia Virginia thing and mention Wikipedia in that context. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No I fail to see what relevance it has.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would wait until more mainstream sources have picked it up. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I have jumped the gun a bit, but it did seem notable to me that the group appears to be engaged in a concerted attempt to rewrite history through lobbying encyclopedias. I've since found some more coverage, such as this, this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Er, isn't that about the Encyclopaedia Virginia? Guy (Help!) 16:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - the title of this section is rather too specific. The point is that it appears to be that they are targeting several encyclopedias - or at least two that have been reported about. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Still not seeing the relevance, in fact seeing less of it now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Generally more coverage means more relevance, so I'm not sure I understand your point (although I understand if you feel that the coverage is not significant enough)? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what us reporting this adds to the article that we need. I do not see why them trying to get us to remove an accusation they do not like is relevant to an article about them. Of course they want it removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, because secondary sources have discussed this and we should reflect what sources have to say about a topic. Similarly, where it has been reported extensively that subjects have attempted to edit their own articles, we cover that (see, for example, Grant Shapps#Allegations of Wikipedia editing). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not have to include everything. Nor is "other stuff exits" a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The listed sources are new-ish or too-local or activist-based. I'd like to see coverage from something more established and national. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, sure - I'm more convinced by the argument that the coverage isn't significant enough at present. I'll come back to this if and when it gets written about in scholarly and/or national media sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

This section is mostly one long quote, it needs to be in-text attributed or paraphrased. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed this quickly here, but further improvements would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! If I could edit, I would add some sort of who? to Greg Huffman, perhaps "lawyer" [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And more should be added, such as material about the erection of a monument or publishing promotional books [[6]] or bieng apologists for them [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Add to Category:Stone Mountain. UDC founder very involvedin this project. deisenbe (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy's project to "fix" Wikipedia

On the basis of off-wiki evidence, it seems that the United Daughter of the Confederacy may be conducting an editing campaign in regards to this article. Specifically, the Virginia division of the organization has posted on their website a PDF file named ProjectFixWikipedia. The vaudc website requires login credentials to access, but the title of the document can be seen on the division's website through certain verbatim searches [8]. From these searches (and this tweet [9], the text of which can also be traced to the vaudc website with a google search, such as [10]) it seems the UDC takes issue with mentioning of white supremacy on this article; this is in keeping with the goals of the fairly recent Change.org petition created in regards to this page. Wikipedia seems to not be the only encyclopedia the UDC has taken an interest in, as in this article [11] a writer for the Encyclopedia Virginia notes that the Virginia division has repeatedly asked that mentions of white supremacy be removed from the UDC's entry in that encyclopedia. I will take this time to note that editors with a conflict of interest in regards to the UDC must disclose said connection and such individuals are strongly discouraged from directly editing UDC's article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Thanks. The EV page was fascinating--thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @SamHolt6 and Drmies: great catch, would it be a valid EL? And maybe the article needs epc. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't need epc. AP talk page notice though perhaps. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Daughters of the Confederacy is a relevent read. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The United Daughters of the Confederacy is NOT a white supremacy group.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy is NOT a white supremacy group. We have members of color. Our objectives are history, education, patriotism, memorials and benevolence. We promote fair and balanced history. We give scholarships. We give a lot of money and morale support to veterans and active-duty military. We have built monuments in memory to our fallen soldiers as well as to the men and women between 1861 and now (about 5 wars or conflicts since the War Between The States). In the area of benevolence, we support a multitude of charities. The ladies who belong to this organization are ladies indeed. Anyone can ask the hotels where we have held conventions, and staff there will tell you that we behave with utmost decorum. My source: I am a long-time member and the Oklahoma Division President. Please check out the official website for the truth.2600:8803:FF00:0:9019:D317:6718:9086 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable, third-party, WP:SECONDARY sources, not expressions of opinion from people who comment on talk pages. If you want to have any leverage about what this article says, you will need to cite some high quality published sources that support your stance. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

“But it’s also true that since the UDC was founded in 1894, it has maintained a covert connection with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, in many ways, the group was the de facto women’s auxiliary of the KKK at the turn of the century. It’s a connection the group downplays now, but evidence of it is easily discoverable — you don’t even have to look very hard to find it.” Heidi Christensen, past President Seattle UDC. [12] Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• The United Daughters of the Confederacy are definitely a white supremacist group and I'm bored to tears of racists trying to defend their lost cause nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Stone Mountain

Does anyone agree, or disagree, that UDC should be in the new Category:Stone Mountain? They had a lot to do with it, see Stone Mountain#Confederate Memorial. Admiistrator won't do it without support here. deisenbe (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

They had something to do with it, so can I see a reason why this is inappropriate?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The southern cross

What is its legal status? do the UDC give out any other decorations? Why is this decoration relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Note it being their highest honour does not mean it is a high honour to receive it, just that they have no higher award.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: To answer the question What makes a medal given out by racists an "honour"...probably a great one to other racists  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. And Raul's Brick o' Common Sense is the highest honour bestowed by Raul, but I doubt we'd give it much of an endorsement here (though as a recipient I will admit a certain fondness). Guy (Help!) 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And if (in an article about him) we said "it was the highest award he bestowed" we would not be "endorsing" it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

See this afd [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• That's not relevant. The point is that we are calling it, in Wikipedia's voice, the "highest honor UDC bestows". UDG is a white supremacist group, this is a thing they give out but it is at least as much a badge of infamy as an honour. We absolutely should not be saying in Wikipedia's voice that it is an honour of any kind, and the fact that it is the "highest" honour "bestowed" by a group that is not generally recognised as any kind of authority means we should not say that either.

And we do not need to. Everything that needs to be said is already in the second, sourced, sentence. And even that is questionable since the source is a book on the organisation written by Ruth Jennings Lawton, chairman of the group. That is not in any way a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, the entire bloody thing is POV and based solely on a book by a chairman, which is seriously problematic. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not saying it is a high honour, just the highest they give. Of course it is the highest honour they give (ironcaly you are half right, its not an honour, its an award), though it may also be the only one (which would make the claim moot). Now the issue of it not being recognized as an award by anyone else is a better argument, (see the AFD).Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Should've looked here first. Saw the AfD, saw the section here with no sources, and added a very brief detail along with two secondary refs. The tone of one of the refs seems a little informal, but they seem fine for what they're used for. FWIW I agree with the opinions above that we generally shouldn't be citing someone associated with the group for anything more than the most basic facts. Certainly nothing like this that I now see in the history: "The UDC is the only patriotic organization in America that bestows such an award." (as though the award weren't intended to be a southern version of the pre-existing, better-known, recognized awards). I don't have a big problem with "highest honor" given the context, but it's simpler and indeed less flowery to just say it's an award [to honor/which honors/honoring...]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed the text to read, "The Southern Cross of Honor was a commemorative medal created by the United Daughters of the Confederacy for members of the United Confederate Veterans." Most of that is borrowed from the linked article. Feel free to revert or edit if it's not an improvement. Mobi Ditch (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Addition of press release quote

If we are going to quote the UDC Press release we need to include this line

"We are saddened that some people find anything connected with the Confederacy to be offensive."

Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

References

If we're going to include the press release we need to burn most of our content policies. This is a self-serving self-published primary source. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)