Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:46, 4 September 2006

old comments

Is this external link really necessary in the article? I don't exactly see how relevant that is to the content of the article. The person quoted was not part of the national organization, but rather a state branch of SCV. One can find incendiary remarks from members of any group, but that doesn't mean that they should be given an external link on their wiki page unless it somehow deals with or interferes with official organizational policy. His comment was not part of SCV policy. Is there any objection to removing this? --BWD 03:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection. Morris is not "a member", he is the division officer of Ohio as well as commander of a camp. Further, the message was sent to an SCV mailing list, so it's not as if it was just an off-hand remark to some drinking buddies. Has the national SCV repudiated his views? Fired him? Rather than a bare external link, it'd be better to discuss it in the text, so that we can explain that Morris was a state division commander rather than the national staff. -Willmcw 10:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the context of the link. There's nothing in the main article about this individual. It's just a blind link at the bottom of the page. Although I'm not a member of SCV, I do know a couple of members and I know enough about the organization to know that they are not filled with racist bigots. Sure, there are fundamentalist idiots in any organization you go to; SCV is no exception. However, that doesn't mean that this wiki entry deserves a blind link at the bottom of it discussing some random bigot. His comments are not representative of SCV, and I wouldn't know if SCV has repudiated these remarks.

The blind link at the bottom smacks of trying to push an agenda. If it's there to show racism in the organization, why not start a new section explaining this racism? Why put a random link to some website at the end of the article? It needs more explanation and justification, in my opinion. Putting a new section in the entry explaining the percieved racism in the organization would give people here a chance to refute it or at least make it balanced. An external link doesn't do that.

I say either remove it or give it context. But what do I know? I'm new to wikipedia. --BWD 10:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should have context. I'll work up a sentence or two. There have been reports of a shift in the SCV over the past couple of years, depicted even as a battle for the group's soul. A chunk of poorly written, POV, and unsourced material covering that change was properly removed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sources availabe for a properly written, NPOV, and sourced paragraph on internal struggles within the SCV. It's on my to-do list. If anyone has reliable (i.e. newspapers, etc) sources for the SCV please add links. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the factional infighting in SCV, see the SPLC Intelligence Report, available online. This publication is in no way NPOV, but the information is generally reliable.Verklempt 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violated by excessive external links to the SPLC, etc.?

Why does there need to be 5 links to highly biased SPLC articles? (I realize this issue is somewhat related to the discussion below, but i am making the case that the totality of the external links violates neutrality). It's obvious that the SPLC views the SCV to be only a white supremacist organization. I don't see how the overall article benefits from having their message repeated over and over. Balance is in order. Jcpaco 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are to provide more information for those readers who want to learn more. We are not currently using them as sources for the article. Such external links do not need to be NPOV. The SPLC covers the SCV more than most media outlets do, so they are one of the better sources available. -Will Beback 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs work

The recent factional split and ideological shift in the SCV needs addressing.Verklempt 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend some articles to use as sources? -Will Beback 08:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC Intelligence Report (online) has many informative articles on this ongoing factionalization. While this publication is clearly opposed to the SCV's new ideological turn, its reporting seems to be factual and reliable.Verklempt 05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree but others (see above) feel there are too many SPLC references already. Unfortunately, there are few others who report on the SCV. -Will Beback 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the opinions of some, this article ("Sons of Confederate Veterans") is not a sub-page of the SPLC website.Fix Bayonets! 22:44, 31 Aug 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::::Contrary to the opinions of some, this article ("Sons of Confederate Veterans") is not a sub-page of the SPLC website.[[User:Fix Bayonets!|Fix Bayonets!]] 22:44, 31 Aug 2006 (UTC)
-== NPOV problems ==
-The <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> tag I placed in this article has been removed twice now by [[User:Fix Bayonets!]].  Though I clearly pointed out one (of many) examples of [[WP:NPOV|non-neutral]] language used in this article in my second edit summary, I was ordered to take my concerns to the talk page.  Though I found the remark to be entirely [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]], here I am.  The article is clearly non-neutral.  The first sentence is a good example, "SCV is a historical and patriotic honor society and non-political fraternal organization dedicated to preserving the history of the American Civil War . . . ."  First of all, no modern organization should be described as "patriotic" in the first sentence of its article.  Second, the "dedicated to preserving the history of the Civil War" bit is perhaps non-neutral, given that some groups argue that the SCV is dedicated to preserving only its particular view of said history.
-Also, I note that every external link critical of the SCV has been removed from the external links section.  Actually, the article has been wiped of almost all criticism of the SCV.  The only reference in the "Criticisms" section of the article actually spends more time attacking the criticising person than it does on the content of any criticism of the SCV.  Obviously, the article should not be overcome with criticism of the SCV.  However,  presenting almost no criticism at all is a huge mistake as well, and is clearly not neutral.  A NPOV tag is clearly warranted, and editors to this article would be wise to read Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy. &middot; <font color="#013220">[[User:Jersyko|j e r s y k o]]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]</font>'' &middot; 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-:This is your chance to engage in discussion here about the neutrality of the article.  Plese stop removing the NPOV tag (I see that [[User:Quothe the Raven]] has removed it without explanation now). &middot; <font color="#013220">[[User:Jersyko|j e r s y k o]]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]</font>'' &middot; 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-:A brand new user, [[User:Cave quid dicis]], has now removed the NPOV template, and none of the users that have removed it have bothered to respond to my post here.  I suspect that there is [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]] going on here. &middot; <font color="#013220">[[User:Jersyko|j e r s y k o]]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">[[User talk:Jersyko|talk]]</font>'' &middot; 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)