The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Daughters of the Confederacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For those interested, Lanier is a related topic per [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that most readers in the year 2020 would think of "recent decades" as being the 2010s, the 2000s, the 1990s, perhaps the 1980s, possibly even the 1970s. Almost none would think the 1920s. Yet that was when the only UDC Klan monument mentioned in this article was built. Specifically 1926; 94 years ago. That's 15 Presidents ago during Coolidge's administration, the year before Lindbergh's transatlantic flight, and 33 years closer to the time of the Civil War than to 2020. I think we can eliminate the highly misleading sentence in the lead that "Until recent decades, the UDC was also involved in building monuments to commemorate the Ku Klux Klan". Tbobbed ( talk) 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial recently reversed a change that I made to the order of the information in the opening paragraph. That order currently is the Southern Poverty Law Center's labeling of the UDC as a Neo-Confederate organization in the second sentence, followed by a brief description of the UDC's activities ( I called it their "self description" in my edit note, but it is really our very brief digest of it), followed by historians' summation of the UDC's historical significance. For me there are a couple of problems in leading off with the SPLC's categorization. First, it makes more sense to tell the reader, quite basically, what the organization does first and then go on from there, so our digest of what it does, currently a 25 word sentence, should come first. Second, the summation of the UDC's historical significance by professional historians should come next. They agree, I'm sure, that the organization is Neo-Confederate, but they should be the sources we most rely on to make that designation, not the SPLC. The SPLC's designation could come next though it is not especially important, because it only concurs with sources who know more about the subject than they do. I find it somewhat bewildering to the extent to which editors defer to this organization which has come in for more than its share of criticism and upheaval in recent years. Also, the way we currently word the SPLC's labeling of the UDC is misleading: "It has been labeled neo-Confederate by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, and extremists". One would assume from this wording that the UDC must be one of the "hate groups" that the SPLC tracks. Yet the SPLC explicitly says that they do not consider the UDC to be a hate group. Check the source. Tbobbed ( talk) 04:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Many historians have described the organization's portrayal of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the Civil War as a promotion of the Lost Cause and of white supremacy, and have asserted that the elevation of the Confederate tradition has been led by the UDC.), but state their self-description without attribution and without even noting that it is merely their self-description (
the organization's activities include the commemoration of Confederate Civil War soldiers and the funding of monuments to them). This is inappropriate. If we were going to state either one of those as fact, it would be the consensus of historians (per WP:NPOV, we should not state facts as opinions; and at least based on the sources in the article, the historians cited here are not a biased source, while obviously an organization is biased about itself), but we absolutely cannot state the consensus of historians as opinion while simultaneously giving the organization's self-description as fact - that is to say, if we're going to attribute their Neo-confederate advocacy and support for white supremacy to "historians",we definitely cannot remove the "stated purposes" attribution for their activities, since that self-description is not commonly accepted as definitive by academic sources. Your version incorrectly implies that it is nearly universally accepted that the primary purpose of the organization is commemorating the Civil War and that a few historians demur and say that its purpose is to defend white supremacy, when in fact the reverse is true. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I just re-worded the beginning of the lede, trying to follow WP:Leadsentence and have the most important ideas in the first sentence. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We are saddened that some people find anything connected with the Confederacy to be offensive.(Do they ever think about the realities of slavery such as legalized child abuse ?) They exclude Blacks (not explicitly, but through the "grandfather clause" of "Confederate descent"), and they totally deny Black historical memory. In order to mitigate the wording of the lede, we would really need a good source claiming that they have changed, not just their own disclaimer. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
avoid stating facts as opinions, see WP:WIKIVOICE. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Lot's of virtue signaling going on here. This is not a forum for the general discussion of the article's subject but rather a forum for improving an encyclopedic article. The "promoting white supremacy" accusation in the lead of this article has been attributed to "historians" for years Tbobbed ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC) From WP:WIKIVOICE: * Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Tbobbed ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.We must not do so here. An organization which promotes the belief that the Confederacy's cause was just, that its soldiers died heroically defending that just cause, and that we'd be better off if the Confederacy had won, is inherently and objectively promoting the same white supremacism which underpinned the entire rebellion and the Confederate nation. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump is a racistcannot be said in the voice of WP (i.e. cannot be stated as fact). But the results of historical research are more than simply "opinion". Therefore I think "Trump lost the election" is a better example. We cannot state that as opinion, e.g. we cannot write "Many officials and judges say that Trump lost". We have to say "Trump lost" as well as "UDC are promoting the Lost Cause". -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Tbobbed ( talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Some critics, such as historian James M. McPherson, have accused the UDC of being an organization of white supremacists and Neo-Confederates.
I find it misguided that you would allow use of a reference by at least one antagonist to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (in fact, to all things Southern), as well as someone who, by very nature of the fact that he is from far distance regions certainly does NOT understand the events related to the founding, activities or continuation of the UDC. That is Professor Fitzhugh Brundage, who specializes in POST Civil War history and in lynchings. He is not the proper person to make statements on this page unless you as writers have a hate agenda to do harm to this organization. The fact is, hate speech has already inflamed a mob to violate their building and libraries and to damage their materials. Why do you find it necessary, through means of an online encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective truth to use it as another forum to bring havoc onto an organization which is NOT out there promoting hate or destruction or violence of any kind? LisaRudisill ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Lisa Carol Rudisill
Both are in the article:
"In the early 1900s the organization often applauded the Ku Klux Klan and funded the building of a monument to the Klan in 1926." -or-
"A local chapter of the UDC funded a now-vanished memorial to the Klan erected in 1926 near Concord, North Carolina."
The UDC organization has hundreds of chapters. - Topcat777 ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
United Daughters of the Confederacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For those interested, Lanier is a related topic per [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that most readers in the year 2020 would think of "recent decades" as being the 2010s, the 2000s, the 1990s, perhaps the 1980s, possibly even the 1970s. Almost none would think the 1920s. Yet that was when the only UDC Klan monument mentioned in this article was built. Specifically 1926; 94 years ago. That's 15 Presidents ago during Coolidge's administration, the year before Lindbergh's transatlantic flight, and 33 years closer to the time of the Civil War than to 2020. I think we can eliminate the highly misleading sentence in the lead that "Until recent decades, the UDC was also involved in building monuments to commemorate the Ku Klux Klan". Tbobbed ( talk) 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial recently reversed a change that I made to the order of the information in the opening paragraph. That order currently is the Southern Poverty Law Center's labeling of the UDC as a Neo-Confederate organization in the second sentence, followed by a brief description of the UDC's activities ( I called it their "self description" in my edit note, but it is really our very brief digest of it), followed by historians' summation of the UDC's historical significance. For me there are a couple of problems in leading off with the SPLC's categorization. First, it makes more sense to tell the reader, quite basically, what the organization does first and then go on from there, so our digest of what it does, currently a 25 word sentence, should come first. Second, the summation of the UDC's historical significance by professional historians should come next. They agree, I'm sure, that the organization is Neo-Confederate, but they should be the sources we most rely on to make that designation, not the SPLC. The SPLC's designation could come next though it is not especially important, because it only concurs with sources who know more about the subject than they do. I find it somewhat bewildering to the extent to which editors defer to this organization which has come in for more than its share of criticism and upheaval in recent years. Also, the way we currently word the SPLC's labeling of the UDC is misleading: "It has been labeled neo-Confederate by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, and extremists". One would assume from this wording that the UDC must be one of the "hate groups" that the SPLC tracks. Yet the SPLC explicitly says that they do not consider the UDC to be a hate group. Check the source. Tbobbed ( talk) 04:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Many historians have described the organization's portrayal of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the Civil War as a promotion of the Lost Cause and of white supremacy, and have asserted that the elevation of the Confederate tradition has been led by the UDC.), but state their self-description without attribution and without even noting that it is merely their self-description (
the organization's activities include the commemoration of Confederate Civil War soldiers and the funding of monuments to them). This is inappropriate. If we were going to state either one of those as fact, it would be the consensus of historians (per WP:NPOV, we should not state facts as opinions; and at least based on the sources in the article, the historians cited here are not a biased source, while obviously an organization is biased about itself), but we absolutely cannot state the consensus of historians as opinion while simultaneously giving the organization's self-description as fact - that is to say, if we're going to attribute their Neo-confederate advocacy and support for white supremacy to "historians",we definitely cannot remove the "stated purposes" attribution for their activities, since that self-description is not commonly accepted as definitive by academic sources. Your version incorrectly implies that it is nearly universally accepted that the primary purpose of the organization is commemorating the Civil War and that a few historians demur and say that its purpose is to defend white supremacy, when in fact the reverse is true. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I just re-worded the beginning of the lede, trying to follow WP:Leadsentence and have the most important ideas in the first sentence. Any thoughts ? -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We are saddened that some people find anything connected with the Confederacy to be offensive.(Do they ever think about the realities of slavery such as legalized child abuse ?) They exclude Blacks (not explicitly, but through the "grandfather clause" of "Confederate descent"), and they totally deny Black historical memory. In order to mitigate the wording of the lede, we would really need a good source claiming that they have changed, not just their own disclaimer. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
avoid stating facts as opinions, see WP:WIKIVOICE. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Lot's of virtue signaling going on here. This is not a forum for the general discussion of the article's subject but rather a forum for improving an encyclopedic article. The "promoting white supremacy" accusation in the lead of this article has been attributed to "historians" for years Tbobbed ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC) From WP:WIKIVOICE: * Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Tbobbed ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.We must not do so here. An organization which promotes the belief that the Confederacy's cause was just, that its soldiers died heroically defending that just cause, and that we'd be better off if the Confederacy had won, is inherently and objectively promoting the same white supremacism which underpinned the entire rebellion and the Confederate nation. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump is a racistcannot be said in the voice of WP (i.e. cannot be stated as fact). But the results of historical research are more than simply "opinion". Therefore I think "Trump lost the election" is a better example. We cannot state that as opinion, e.g. we cannot write "Many officials and judges say that Trump lost". We have to say "Trump lost" as well as "UDC are promoting the Lost Cause". -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Tbobbed ( talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Some critics, such as historian James M. McPherson, have accused the UDC of being an organization of white supremacists and Neo-Confederates.
I find it misguided that you would allow use of a reference by at least one antagonist to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (in fact, to all things Southern), as well as someone who, by very nature of the fact that he is from far distance regions certainly does NOT understand the events related to the founding, activities or continuation of the UDC. That is Professor Fitzhugh Brundage, who specializes in POST Civil War history and in lynchings. He is not the proper person to make statements on this page unless you as writers have a hate agenda to do harm to this organization. The fact is, hate speech has already inflamed a mob to violate their building and libraries and to damage their materials. Why do you find it necessary, through means of an online encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective truth to use it as another forum to bring havoc onto an organization which is NOT out there promoting hate or destruction or violence of any kind? LisaRudisill ( talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Lisa Carol Rudisill
Both are in the article:
"In the early 1900s the organization often applauded the Ku Klux Klan and funded the building of a monument to the Klan in 1926." -or-
"A local chapter of the UDC funded a now-vanished memorial to the Klan erected in 1926 near Concord, North Carolina."
The UDC organization has hundreds of chapters. - Topcat777 ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)