Talk:Neo-Confederates

Neo-confederate groups are often pro-South and pro-states' rights, and some are accused of practicing bigotry.

Neo-confederate groups are normally pro-South pro-states' rights, and in favor of renewed southern secession.

Are there any Neo-Confedrate groups that are not pro-South and pro-states' rights? Why the qualifier? If a group doesn't stand for those things, then it isn't a neo-confederate group, right? Unless there is an example to the contrary, I think it is correct to write that such groups always stand for those things, not just normally or often. -Willmcw 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for the qualifier: not all neo-confederate groups have the exact same beliefs but rather are typified by those beliefs. For example, a neo-confederate group could espouse states rights or nullification theory but not desire to secede even though many do desire to secede.Rangerdude 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, hypothetically. Are there specific groups you are thinking of?

Also, the UDC and SCV uproar over McPherson seems to have been becasue he called them "white supremacists", not because he called them "neo-confederate". I followed the link and there is nothing there about neo-confederacy. Do you have a reference where they deny being NeoCon and complain about McPherson using that term? I think the anecdote belongs in the SCV and UDC articles instead of this one. -Willmcw 23:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He also uses the term "neo-confederate" in the full interview as do the show's hosts many times. I was searching for a transcript online earlier and came across that UDC link. I'll see if I can locate the full thing though.Rangerdude 00:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

McPherson clearly calls them "neo-confederate" in the interview, that is not the question. The issue is have the SCV and UDT denied being "NC" and created an uproar over it. The page you linked to, on a UDC site, does not mention "NC". -Willmcw 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the UDC denounced the entire interview. McPherson clearly used the term in a pejorative sense, which is part of the article here, and thus reason for its inclusion as an example of an episode where this happened. That the UDC was unhappy with the entire interview is also plainly evident, which is the purpose of mentioning them.Rangerdude 01:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Groups Labelled Neo-Confederate

One other thing on the header you just added - most of the groups you listed are NOT identified as "neo-confederate" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think the only ones they track are the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and only the former is described as "neo-confederate" by them.

There is also probably a NPOV problem in putting together a list like that, especially based on the SPLC - which is a controversial organization that espouses a POV of its own. The section should probably mention the League of the South as an example of a well known group that is considered neo-confederate. Some chapters of the Council of Conservative Citizens could possibly be included, but they are more of a segregationist organization and don't particularly have any pro-confederate connection (they were formed out of the White Citizens Council groups that resisted integration in the 60's and the anti-bussing groups in the 70's and aren't a regionally exclusive group like the League of the South).

The UDC and SCV have evidently been called neo-confederate by some, but the SPLC does not consider them this and they are normally treated as mainstream geneology associations like the Daughters of the American Revolution. Those who do call them neo-confederate seem to come from the political extreme (e.g. Pacifica Radio) and use the term in the pejorative sense, so listing them as an example of a neo-confederate group is probably inappropriate here.Rangerdude 02:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll re-word it. Yes, the SPLC only identifies the LOTS as NC (along with a couple of little groups). But others routinely call the CoCC, the UDC, and the SCV NC. (whew, too many acronyms!) I was trying to avoid saying that these were all SPLC-labelled groups, but I'll make that clearer, and provide some attributions. There are scores of lists like this on Wiki, which include assigning people or groups that they may not agree with. I don't think there is a boilerplate template for it, but a disclaimer to the effect that all groups may not agree with the label is sufficient. (cf Category:Lists of people). Cheers, -Willmcw 02:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A list is okay in some respects, but we have to be careful. Otherwise we risk creating a variant of McCarthy-style labelling, only the label is neo-confederate instead of communist. The list should not include just any and every group that some kook on the internet somewhere or a heavily biased media outlet labels as a neo-confederate. For example I don't think there are many mainstream sources that would consider the UDC or SCV neo-confederate. Most of what they do is geneological and cleaning up old battlefield, monuments, and cemetaries. I think they both also have policies against espousing political positions, which is a characteristic of a neo-confederate group. Again, the ones that do call them neo-confederate are places like Pacifica Radio - which is on the far left - and people like Sebesta, who is only treated as credible by outlets like Pacifica. Mainstream groups such as the Union Veterans ancestor counterparts and most mainstream media outlets don't consider the UDC neo-confederate. Now the League of the South on the other hand should be on the list because they openly advertise their belief in secession and are known for that in public mainstream sources.Rangerdude 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are (and were) communists. Regarding its definition, does it necessarily include secessionists or not? Earlier I thought you were saying that NC folks often are secession, but not always. If so, a group can be NC without advocating secession, such as the CofCC. We can be sure to say that some groups deny the label. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is true, but there is a difference between identifying real communists and tarring people at random with the label "communist". The reworked paragraph is better but still needs some clarification. The identity of the person who uses the term is important to establishing the credibility of its use. If somebody were to write an article saying "Vladimir Putin has been accused by some who know him of having a hot temper" and the source is Colin Powell it is VERY different than saying the same thing if the source is Louis Farrakahn. Powell is a mainstream source who met Putin and is qualified to make that assessment while Farrakahn is not. Powell is mainstream and Farrakahn is a fringe leader. Since the source on labelling the UDC as neo-confederate is a fringe radio network (Sebesta), a fringe commentator (Sebesta), and comments by McPherson that were received very unfavorably in the mainstream, any identification of the UDC and SCV as "neo-confederate" should be HEAVILY qualified by noting exactly what kind of sources are making the charges. Perhaps moving that paragraph to the section on the pejorative of the term would be a way of resoliving this, since Pacifica, McPherson et al used it in a pejorative sense rather than to simply identify an undisputed neo-confederat group like the LOTS Rangerdude 04:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - I'm still not sure if the CofCC qualifies as neo-confederate. There doesn't seem to be anything that they do or stand for that is explicitly pro-confederacy. Most of their issues are apparently related to affirmative action and opposing desegregation, which are both 20th century issues.

I don't know if the CofCC qualifies as being neo-confederate either. In fact, I don't know if any of these groups qualify. Fortuantely, we don't have to make that determination. We're just saying that other sources have called them neo-confederate. I'll look some more - I think that others beside Institute for Southern Studies and SPLC have used the term. Meanwhile I'll add Institute for Southern Studies. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again that's fine, but we should use a finer toothed comb in screening what other sources we use and how much credibility we give to the sources we do use. Simply posting any and every accusation where somebody called somebody else a "neoconfederate" is irresponsible and reeks of a variant of McCarthyism. It's the difference between quoting William Rehnquist and quoting Lyndon LaRouche - yes, each of them technically say lots of things about current issues but one is credible and the other's a fringer. Same goes for this, and I don't think we should be making a list based on what some nutcase at Pacifica Radio says without making it VERY clear that it's coming from Pacifica radio and being used in the pejorative. I added qualifiers and set up another section to discuss this. The "Institute for Southern Studies" linked to in your source is a far-left organization that, according to its website, includes Cynthia McKinney and Jim Hightower as contributers. It is fine if McKinney and Hightower want to say something in this discussion, but it needs to be noted who these people are and the fact that they are writing with a very strong point-of-view of their own, rather than a mainstream source. Rangerdude 06:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked for a site which had a characterization of the Institute for Southern Studies, but didn't find one. "Far-left" is a very POV characterization. If a characterization is required, then "a civil-rights group" would seem neutral. I'm not sure that we need to rely on Pacifica Radio for anything, but if so then it may be well-known enough not to require a characterization, but "progressive" would be a neutral term for it. I don't see any need to add other groups to the list - do you know of any others that should be included? The others on the SPLC list seemed minor. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at their website. It openly says it's purpose is to push a liberal agenda in the south. It also openly promotes far left writers like Hightower and McKinney who are indisputably from the left wing of the US political spectrum. See http://www.southernstudies.org/southernexposure.asp Rangerdude 06:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the entire page you linked to:

While pundits continue to paint the South as a stronghold of conservatism, the award-winning Southern Exposure magazine recently celebrated 25 years of offering "a progressive view of the South" with a special anniversary edition issued. It features 25 leading Southern "change-makers" - including Julian Bond, Chairman of the National NAACP; Texas-based radio host Jim Hightower; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) - offering insights into how the South has changed in the last 25 years, and predicting key challenges for the next quarter century.

All members of the Institute receive Southern Exposure and deep discounts on Institute reports. For those who want to receive Southern Exposure without joining as a member or who want to order back copies of the magazine, please click here.

"Southern Exposure has exposed people to the good news and the bad news about the South," writes Julian Bond in the anniversary issue. "It's been a wonderful resource for people - from the merely curious, to people who want to know how they can get involved and create change."

I don't see where the webpage uses the phrases "liberal" or "far-left". Bond and McKinney aren't even board members, they're just participants at a conference. Anyway, this article isn't about them, it's about "neo-confederates". We're already saying that defenders of these groups rebut the charges of neo-confederalism by asserting that these groups have an anti-confederate agenda. Doesn't that cover it? -Willmcw 06:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They use euphemistic synonyms like "progressive." Their self identified mission statement is to "provide a progressive view of the south" and their page is covered with traditionally liberal social causes like "environmental justice" and "farmworker justice". They should accordingly be identified as a liberal organization, just as you would have every right to identify a link from the Heritage Foundation as conservative or right wing. There's no need to hide their political perspectives and it deceived the reader if we do.Rangerdude 07:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, "liberal" is reasonably acurate and succinct. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the aforementioned change, and also removed this clause:

...observe that their accusers often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum,...

which I think requires a citation. Who made that observation? -Willmcw 07:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just from a quick google search but here's a pro-southern group that complains of McPherson being anti-south and a political extremist http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20020708.htm

It's actually a fairly common complaint. I'll try and find some others when I have a little more time.

Er, what does that link have to do with this clause? Has the Patriotist been accused of being neo-confederate? - The clause that I deleted said that "many" of these groups (LOTS, CofCC, UDC, SCV, and the Museum of the Confederacy) "observe that their accusers [SPLC and ISS] often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum". "Liberal" is a long ways off from the extreme ends of political spectrum, and McPherson is not the ISS. Since we're only talking about five groups, I'd think that "many" would be at least three. The Patriotist link may be suitable for adding to the McPherson article, but blogs generally have a low reputation as a source. -Willmcw 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Patriotist website, I see that they are running what appears to be a special ad for a LOTS newsletter, their sole ad.[1] In that light, I would say that they are LOTS supporters and can be considered as much neo-confederate as the LOTS are. So, if you want, we can include their comments as those of an allegedly neo-confederate blog. -Willmcw 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edits: I edited the Sebesta paragraph - is every opponent of "neo-confederacy" controversial? That's a POV. How frequently does he appear on Pacifica (I could only find the one appearance, with McPherson)? I deleted the parenthetical disclaimer that the CofCC has anything to do with the Confederacy - look at their website - they display the battle flag and are raising money for a confederate monument. I rearranged the paragraphs in the last section to make for a more logical flow. And I provided an actual quote from Benson, who acknowledges himself as a neo-con. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be safely said that both people who are identified as "neo-confederate" and their accusers tend to be controversial. Sebesta is also one of those types who hails from a political extreme. Many people call him a kook and some of his political causes are very strange (he once called the mayor of Dallas Ron Kirk - who is black - a neoconfederate sympathizer because Dallas City Council wouldn't listen to his request to remove an obscure Robert E. Lee statue from a park somewhere), so we have to be careful in how he is identified and present him as with everyone else, with a full disclaimer. I've heard him quoted on Pacifica several times - that McPherson interview is just the most famous incident and the one that has an online transcript. I still dispute the characterization of the CofCC as "neo-confederate" simply because some of them wave a bunch of confederate battle flags from time to time. We need a higher bar on what constitutes being neo-confederate, because by the same measure you use to include the CofCC you could also theoretically throw in anybody else who ever uses a confederate flag for something - and that could mean anything from the Klan to the guys who wave them at Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts to historical reinactors to your average redneck in a trailer park. Noting that neo-confederate groups are typified by a belief in secessionism, reconstituting the CSA, and certain forms of states rights views (e.g. nullification theory) makes for a rough set of criteria, and I simply don't think the CofCC - which apparently exists to promote segregation - meets those criteria. Anyway, I think there are some serious dangers in the direction this article could be going that may eventually risk it having a POV of its own based on the types of sources it includes and excludes. If that turns out to be the case, a proper tag on the article should be inserted until there is a resolution.Rangerdude 21:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you can find other occasions when Sebesta actually was on a Pacifica show, then we can include them. As I said, I could only find a single referenced occasion, which certainly does not merit a description of him "frequently" being on the network. If you can find a buch of quotes, we could say "he is quoted frequently." From where are you getting your definition of "neo-confederate?" Since it is a term applied by groups on the left, it seems like we'll have to go to one of those groups to see how they define it. Are there specific references that you have a problem with? I think this article is fairly NPOV - please indicate exactly what the problem is. I'm sure we can fix it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, can you please provide some citations for all the Sebesta info you added? -Willmcw 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Going to a group with a strong POV to define the term risks introducing a POV into this article itself. That's why we need a general framework of commonly agreed characteristics that most or all neo-confederate groups share. Since pretty much everybody agrees that the LOTS is neo-confederate, we could base it on what they believe - renewed secession, reconstituting the CSA, and nullification-style states rights theory. Simply saying "they have a confederate flag" though doesn't meet the bar. The Sebesta material I added on Barnes, Bush, Ashcroft, and Kirk etc. is drawn from usenet and his website. Unfortunately his site (www.templeofdemocracy.com) is offline right now preventing a means of linking to it here, though you can retrieve a cached copy of his Kirk article from some of the search engines. A quick google groups search shows that he posted the Kirk article on at least eight different usenet forums. Criticism of his tactics may be found on that UDC page and several others.Rangerdude 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Find them yourself" is not an adequate method of citing your sources. Please provide some links so that the material can be verified. Terms like "frequently" are especally suspect without any indication of actual frequency. -Willmcw 22:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, if "everyone agrees" that LOTS is neo-confederate, then let's move it out of the controvevery over labelling section. Right now, it sounds as if only the SPLC thinks it is neo-confederate. -Willmcw 22:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of searching for them on google groups. Try http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22ed+sebesta%22+%22ron+kirk%22&qt_s=Search+Groups

And if that doesn't fit your demands, try this - http://web.archive.org/web/20021230174437/www.templeofdemocracy.com/RonKirk.htm

Add LOTS to the top section as an example if you wish, but leave them in the labelling section as well as a basis of comparison between groups to show what the SPLC considers neo-confederate versus what others do. Rangerdude 22:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link on Ron Kirk does not include Sebesta calling Kirk a neo-confederate. He calls Kirk a "pro-confederate". Do you have another link or are they the same thing? (PS, I've added that the SPLC doies not consider the SCV, etc, to be Neo-confederate). Also, I cannot find the page on the LOTS site where they aly out the platform that you describe above. -Willmcw 22:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta seems to use "pro confederate" and "neo confederate" plus a few other synonyms interchangably. The article also describes the event Kirk attended as a "neo-confederate program" and characterizes his "monitoring" of Kirk as part of the "research" he does on the "neo-confederate movement"Rangerdude 23:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he didn't call them "neo-confederate" then we shouldn't include it here. It sounds like he criticized them for supporting Confederate causes, but those accusations belong in other articles. Let's just write what he says, not what we think he means. -Willmcw 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for cites to support Sebesta allegations. Let's not go beyond what can be verified. I've "remarked" out the paragraph while we work on it to avoid an edit war. This article is not about Ed Sebesta, so only a short comment characterizing him is necessary. -Willmcw 23:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta uses the terms interchangably and he DID call Kirk's 1997 event a "neo-confederate program". Use a little common sense and it's very clear that he's making the connection - you are grasping at straws and obfuscating through semantics by suggesting otherwise. I'm also beginning to suspect that you may be pushing an agenda or POV of some sorts here. Your discussion has been polite and I thank you for that, but the way you are editing material on Sebesta seems directed toward downplaying the controversy surrounding him and and excluding factual material about him such as the media outlets he has interviewed with. I'm currently trying to keep the language used in this article as close to the NPOV guidelines as possible and hope that you are doing the same, but also without removing pertinent material. Sebesta is one of the main users (some would say abusers) of the "neo-confederate" term and interchangable synonyms in the pejorative sense, and thus belongs in a discussion of them. A single paragraph on him is not excessive by any means. If you cannot accept or acknowledge that Sebesta's opinion on what constitutes a "neo-confederate" is, to put it mildly, a good deal out of the mainstream and properly qualify his comments to the reader by noting this, I will be forced to tag the article with a POV header, and I don't believe that either of us wants that. Thank you for consideration Rangerdude 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Sebesta criticized Kirk for attending a neo-confederate event, then that is what we should say. That is different from calling someone a "neo-confederate". To assert that he uses the term interchangeably with "pro-confederate" is original research, unless you can demonstrate that others have said so. A paragraph on Sebesta's use of the term "neo-confederate" is not excessive, but it should not be devoted to criticizing Sebesta. A detailed critique of his credentials and prejudices belongs in an article about him. That's the same as for any critic of any movement or person. Your issue about whether Sebesta's definition of neo-confederate is mainstream or not hasn't come up before. Have we even figured out what a "mainstream" definition of "neo-confederate" is, much less what Sebesta's definition is? If you can show that his definition is not mainstream then I have no problem with the article saying so. But right now it comes across as an unreferenced smear on a critic. If you would like to add a NPOV tag then that is your right. However I do not understand which issue you are raising it over. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta Paragraph

Here is what the current paragraph reads

Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [2]. Sebesta frequently applies the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. He has labelled several well known figures in politics and academia as "neo-confederates" or "pro-confederates" (terms he uses interchangably) including President George W. Bush, controversial former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University) and Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas (on account of attending a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]]).[3] Though these allegations have earned him a reputation for abusively using the term, Sebesta has been quoted as an "expert" on the "neo-confederate movement" by several media outlets on the political left such as Pacifica Radio and Salon.com.

Please post what, if anything, you think needs to be added or changedRangerdude 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused by unnamed critics of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [4]. In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]].[5]. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson.

Sebesta frequently applies has applied the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. who? He has made some unknown references to others on unknown occasions, including President George W. Bush, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes.

Here is the revision that I suggest, I recommend omitting the second paragraph entirely. Can we find out what he called Bush, Ashcroft, and Barnes, and when? Once we have citations for those we can add them back. The lead sentence needs a specific critic who has made this accusation. The fact that he is quoted on Salon is just not relevent to describing him. If you want to apply the weasel-word controversial, then it'll have to go on just about every person and organization named in this article. Let's just leave it off and, if necessary, show the controversy rather that say it. In Sebesta's case, I think that the UDC quote is sufficient to show there is controversy. Unless we lay out what the synonyms of Neo-confederate are we should not make a reference to them in this paragraph. Maybe when we get back to improving the definition of "Neo-confederate" we can include a list of synonyms. -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, we seemed to have difficulty paraphrasing the Benson declaration so I made it into a straight quote, which is shorter anyway. Being cited on a website isn't exactly a "link", so let's just call it "being cited on a website." Cheers, -Willmcw 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A couple comments regarding your proposed changes-

1. I believe it is fair and accurate to describe Sebesta as controversial. If you have another suggestion that is more particular to his case, by all means let me know. Not having a qualifier of some sort would be deceptive to the reader though because he is pretty far from being a mainstream source and, as the subsequent portion of the paragraph indicates, has made lots of controversial statements that have caused him to be criticized. It's not like we're saying "The New York Times says..." where everybody knows who the New York Times and what they think of it. Sebesta is less known, and pertinent facts about the controversy surrounding him need to be stated. Use a little common sense here - agree with Sebesta or not, you have to admit that he's making some pretty far fetched claims. Think about it. He basically accused a Black mayor of Dallas of being a secret confederate sympathizer and he's made similar charges against about half the U.S. government up to and including the President of the United States! Are we going to have to wait until he starts accusing them of being in the illuminati, freemasons, and a secret martian UFO alliance as well?

2. It would appear strange to add in a phrase about his critics being "unnamed" when the very next sentence names a specific critic of Sebesta, the UDC, and quotes one of their criticisms. This makes the paragraph choppy, disconnected and internally inconsistent.

3. I am content to leave it at only "using the term neoconfederate" and added the synonym phrase because you complained that in some cases he used "pro-confederate." But either way, I'm fine with it.

4. Barnes, Ashcroft et all are on the same cached website I linked you to for Kirk. He's got a page called "Elections Web Page" that is described as "All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate." The specific individuals he lists as neo-confederate are Barnes, Ashcroft, Kirk, Senator Lindsay Graham and Pat Buchanan. It's also got a link to his Election 2000 article , which links to several different pages where he makes all sorts of charges against Bush. One of them is archived here http://web.archive.org/web/20030106013427/www.templeofdemocracy.com/BushBackground.htm

5. To say that Sebesta appeared once on Pacifica on the basis that a google search doesn't show other appearances of him is factually misleading. I've heard him more than once, but if you doubt that I won't press for "multiple times" or something like that. A neutral phrasing does need to be in there though. That's why I proposed listing media sources that have used him as an expert, be it one or many times. That includes both Pacifica and Salon, and they need to be mentioned to show that despite the controversy surrounding sebesta, he is fairly widely quoted on the issues. Rangerdude 00:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. It would be fair and accurate to describe Ashcroft, the SCV, the Museum, and Barnes as controversial too. Applying that term selectively does not improve the accuracy of the article.

Then come up with an alternative that properly and accurately qualifies Sebesta's biases to audiences who are unfamiliar with him.

2. The UDC does not accused Sebesta of "using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents." Some unnamed critics do that. Either those critics should be named or the sentence should be re-worked or deleted.

No. The UDC accuses Sebesta of maligning his political opponents in general. One of the main ways he does that is labelling everything he doesn't like with accusations of being neo-confederate.

3. Thanks. I do not agree that pro-confederate is a synonym. Another editor was recently calling for raising the bar on the definition, not lowering it. Let's simply use whatever term Sebesta used.

Then you're denying the obvious of his own page. In one paragraph he accuses Kirk of being pro-confederate and a few paragraphs later he describe's Kirk's event as a neo-confederate program. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you are either trying to hide the dirty laundry of a POV on this topic or perhaps even shilling for that POV. Again, I appreciate your civility while doing so but your editing has a very strong underlying POV that it seems to be pushing. I will designate the article to reflect that shortly.

4. The page you link to talks about "George W. Bush and His Support for Confederate Organizations". Don't tell me that supporting confederate organizations is the same as being a neo-confederate if you are also arguing that the CofCC is not neo-confederate despite raising money for a confederate monument, etc. We can write that Sebesto has criticized Bush for supporting Confederate organizations, because, as far as your citations show, that is what he has done.

--4a. I looked around the website and found the Ashcroft page, but the term "neo-conservative" doesn't appear anywhere. [6] The Barnes page is blank. [7] I did find a page where he pretty-clearly calls Patrick Buchanan a "neo-confederate", so we can add that. [8] Anyway If you want me to see a cite, I'm afraid you'll have to give me an exact URL to find it. 01:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws and playing semantics games again. Look at the title page on elections, which I quoted for you previously.

"All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate."

Now unless you are arguing to me the absurd proposition that Sebesta classifies Ashcroft, Kirk, and Bush as "anti-confederate and anti-neoconfederate" officials, that leaves precious little differentiation over what he is accusing them of and it is either affiliation with or sympathy for the so-called "neo-confederate" movement.

5. Lots of people are quoted on Salon and Pacifica. Shall we also mention that Bush and Ashcroft are quoted there? Trying to characterize a critic of the neo-confederate movement by saying that he was quoted in some unknown articles on a mildly liberal news site is simply not verifiable or relevent information for this article. -Willmcw 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being intentionally tedious. You know very well that the purpose of mentioning those sources was to give examples of the types of media outlets that give Sebesta a voice, and also demonstrate their and his political affiliations on the left.Rangerdude 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6. here's a revised version with unnamed critics taken out and Bush added in.

Ed Sebesta, a self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", uses the term frequently. In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in 1997.[9]. He has criticized President George W. Bush of supporting Confederate organizations, on account of Bush's offer to raise funds for the Museum of the Confederacy. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [10].

Further Documentation on Sebesta

Given your unusual and selectively applied stringency on documenting matters pertaining to who Ed Sebesta has slapped with the pejorative slur "neo-confederate", you should check out the following links to google group discussions where Sebesta has done exactly what I said of him previously. Sebesta is the poster known as "crawfish" per his own website.

1. Sebesta post labelling John Ashcroft a neo-confederate entitled "John Ashcroft: Neo-Confederate" [11]

2. Sebesta post labelling Trent Lott "a leading figure in the Neo-Confederate movement" [12]

3. Sebesta describing Ron Kirk's involvement in the Confederate Heritage Day speech part of his "research into the Neo-Confederate movement" [13]

4. Sebesta calling Frank Vandiver a neo-confederate [14]

5. Sebesta calling Pat Buchanan a neo-confederate [15]

6. Sebesta stating the the sole purpose of his website, where all those articles on Bush, Ashcroft, Kirk, Barnes and the others appear, is to track the "neo-confederate movement" [16]

7. Sebesta claiming that the Republican Party and about a dozen or so of its officials are neo-confederates [17]

If you don't see a pattern by now, you are either blind or do not wish to see.Rangerdude 02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dude, chill out. I can't see cites that haven't been provided. Thanks for these, I'll take a look. PS, what happened to the NPOV flag? Cheers, -Willmcw 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're not exactly difficult to find if you had any inclination to do so. My point is that you're being selectively stringent in the documentation you are demanding for Sebesta's often bizarre and even paranoid allegations, yet you'll post just about any and every little left wing group who has labelled somebody "neo-confederate" without asking any significant questions about their own biases or POV's. The product has been incredibly tedious semantical disputes and edits that remove factual material or defy common sense. Also - I inadvertantly deleted the tag by cutting and pasting a version for edits. It's back now.Rangerdude 03:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(As I recall, you're the editor who brought Sebresto in, so I'm not sure why you're blaming me for his "paranoid allegations.") Anyway, now that you mention it, this article has become very skewed towards the critics of neo-confederates, but it barely covers the topic of the article: the neo-confederate movement. But hey, the article is getting better and I'm sure it will continue to grow and improve. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I brought in Sebesta as an example of the pejorative use of the term and to diversify the number of people who categorize others as neo-confederates beyond what it was at the time (the SPLC list). Anyway, you are right and it does seem that the critics are pretty much covered now from all angles so it's time for other stuff. If you're satisfied on the sources etc. I'll pull the POV tag.Rangerdude 05:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait to pull the NPOV tag until we've cleaned the pro-confederate bias out of the article. Also, have any of the groups accused by McPherson or Sebesta actually denied the label? I can't find any, but you might know of a citation. If not, then we should say that the charges haven't been denied. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using the criteria of whether or not a group has denied the label is a bit of a problem in circumstances like these because it has political consequences. After all, we can't exactly expect George W. Bush to issue a statement denying that he's a neo-confederate because some crackpot on the internet called him one! If all the politicians and groups who were called neo-confederate by Sebesta or somebody else responded with a denial it would dignify the original attack more than it is worth. It's like answering the proverbial "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Spme of the groups and people who have been attacked, however, have fired back their own criticisms of their accusers - a roundabout way of addressing and rebutting the issue without dignifying the original slur. That's one of the things that the UDC link does. Also, you mention "pro-confederate bias" now. I'm not certain what you are referring to there. Could you state some examples?Rangerdude 06:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to whether the SCV, UDC, LOTS, the Museum of the Confederacy, or the CofCC had denied it. If the UDC goes out of their way to say, "no, we're not white supremacists" but they don't also go out of their way to say "No, we're not Neo-Confedarates either" then that would count as a missed opportunity. There was a sentence that said "Many groups have denied this," which I pulled waitig confirmation. If they did then we should be able to dig up a couple of denials. Right now there really doesn't seem to be all that much controversy over the term itself. The controversy seems to be that the groups get called other names at the same time. The "Pro-confederate" bias of the article is that this article has mostly attacks those who criticize the "pro-confedarate" movement, rather than discussing the phenomenon of the neo-confederate movement. Now that the critics have been dealt with, maybe we can move on to the main topic. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not incumbent upon the UDC to respond to or disprove every single little charge that is lobbed in their direction, especially when it comes from elements on the political extreme. A blanket denunciation of their attacker and the gist of his charges more than suffices and to do anything more would dignify a slur. It's also obvious that the UDC et al for the most part aren't running around yelling "look at us - we're neo-confederate!" as it's certainly not a term of endearment. I also disagree with your analysis of bias, as virtually every attack on the critics of neo-confederates/pro-confederates/whatever you want to call them is in response to those attacks themselves, which are also given ample space. If you think for some reason that they are not, then by all means add a quote or something to the paragraph from the SPLC website similar to the way that the Benson quote was added. My object here is to list and give examples of the attackers but also to qualify their biases where present and also make note of the counterattack made by the target groups in response. That's the only way both sides will ever be represented. It's also evident that within the range of attackers some are more credible than others. The SPLC for example has a defined list of groups and a reasonably methodic approach to identifying them, whereas Sebesta is closer to the conspiracy fringe and quite literally seems to be picking out any politician who has ever been seen within 100 foot radius of a confederate flag, reinactor, or statue.Rangerdude 06:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that this article currently suffers from an overall bias. It implies that "neo-confederate" is simply a slur and discusses that aspect at length, while largely ignoring the "neo-confederate" political movement. That's changing as we add more material, but too much space is devoted to "use of the term" instead of stuff like "History of the neo-confederate movement" and similar material. -Willmcw 17:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS you referred in your [03:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)] comment above to "...edits that remove factual material..." Have we removed any factual, verified information that is relevent? I hope not. Can you post here the factual material that you think should not have been removed? If it's more info about the shortcomings of the critics then maybe we could create a section for that so it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. Apparently there are many shortcomings! Cheers, -Willmcw 06:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think its all back now. I think I was referring to the politicians Sebesta had targetted but were removed from the list.

Subheaders etc.

Willmcw - I don't know exactly what your angle is in editing this article, but I'm still detecting it in your constant tweaks of the sections on the use of the term. A couple issues: First off, the subheaders were there for a reason and should not be tossed out. They contextualize and correspond with the article on political slurs, which mentions that particular use of neo-confederate for disparagement. They also differentiate the different types of critics of neoconfederates rather than lumping them all together as if they were of equal credibility. It should be plainly obvious that Sebesta and the SPLC are in different leagues, the latter despite its own controversies being a more responsible and credible source. Sebesta also intentionally disparages groups and political figures with the term as a slur that (to put it mildly) he seems very loose about using, whereas the SPLC - at least in theory - is referring to it as a movement with defined characteristics. Differentiating the two also bolsters the credibility of the SPLC in light of somebody like Sebesta and distinguishes the two so that the fringe guy doesn't "poison the well," so to speak, of the watchdog group.

Second, your edits keep removing plainly evident facts and undisputed descriptive terms that, for whatever reason, you believe to reflect unfavorably on something (i'm beginning to think your own POV in the matter). Nobody disputes that Pacifica Radio and Salon are media outlets that write and broadcast from a liberal perspective - they are both open about it themselves! Nor has Sebesta gained much of a media audience outside of these and a few other liberal outlets (the SPLC, by comparison, has). It is also plainly evident from the material in the article that the term's use is controversial, so there should be at least something of an overview sentence stating that much! Nor is it a big secret that Sebesta extends his allegations of neo-confederate-ism well beyond persons who are formally associated with an openly pro-southern political position or movement. I don't recall Bush, or Roy Barnes, Ron Kirk, or Lindsay Graham ever advocating secession, nullification theory, or anything even remotely resembling the reconstitution of the CSA, yet Sebesta has labelled them all as neo-confederate sympathizers! I guess my question is why you keep editing out and attempting to hide the obvious. If it quacks like a duck, call it a duck. Hedging around the pertinent political biases of media organizations, figures, and sources that are being cited is deceptive - especially when it is done in a one-sided way (you have made every effort for example to point out that Benson etc. are affiliated with various southern nationalist causes and biases, and that is fine by me. But it's a double standard to do that and to simultaneously delete, hide, or downplay the causes and biases of the other side). Also - quotation marks referring to Sebesta. The phrase "expert" on the "neo-confederate movement" is what those sources identified him as on the air and in print. Removing them suggests that he has some sort of expertise or special credential to comment, and he doesn't. His claimed expertise is NOT universally recognized, and a great many people like the UDC consider him a paranoid kook for that matter! The most neutral way to address it, then, is to refer to him in quotes the way that he is referred to by the media outlets that use him.Rangerdude 07:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

particular issues

The second sentence has a clause that I don't understand the reason for:

Neo-confederate groups are pro-South pro-states' rights (particularly nullification), and in favor of renewed southern secession.

Why "(particularly nullification)"? On what basis are you including that as a "particular" aspect of the neo-confederate movement?

Nullification theory is a particular and more extreme form of "states rights" beliefs, which technically includes such benign policies as federal block grants and state jurisdiction control of federal program entitlements. There's very little if anything "neo-confederate" about supporting block grants. Nullification, however, has a material connection to the CSA.Rangerdude 17:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, but which neo-confederate groups have that as their particular cause? Which CSA? Why is it phrased that neo-confederates are particularly pro-nullification? I see that LOTS includes nullification on their list of issues, but it's not at the top. [18] Also, the neo-confederate sites I've been looking at all mention Christianity, often before political issues. Should we include something about that? -Willmcw 17:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SPLC List

I'm not certain this is accurate in its current form:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group headed by Morris Dees, is the principal group watching the "neo-confederate" movement. Groups that it lists as part of the neo-confederate movement are: The League of the South, the The American Renaissance, Confederate Society of America, Confederate States of America, Council of Conservative Citizens, The Edgefield Journal, Heritage Preservation Association, Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southern Legal Resource Center, Southern Military Institute, the Southern Party, and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. [19]

Those are the groups that are said to be neo-confederate by a single SPLC contributer in an issue of their magazine last year. This falsely gives the impression that his views are the same as the SPLC's views on its official list. Yet his list differs substantially with the official list of the SPLC itself, found here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=13&m=2

The official SPLC list includes only the LOTS plus some minor local groups. The official SPLC list also classifies the CofCC as "Other" http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=15&m=2 Rangerdude 17:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the same mistake. What you are referring to as the "official list" is their list of hate groups. LOTS is the only group it lists as a "neo-confederate" hate group. It apparently does not consider the Southern Party, et al, to be hate groups, just part of the neo-confederate movement. The link that has the listing I added is part and parcel of the website - it's official. We can say that " A special "Intelligence Report" on the "Neo-Confederate movement listed these groups:..." if that would make you more comfortable. -Willmcw 17:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but the article you quote is still not the SPLC's list - it is a list by one of their writers in their magazine. It also conflicts with their hate group list, which DOES NOT list the CofCC as neo-confederate. If you want to include it identify the author and describe the difference (and inconsistency) from the official SPLC hate group list.Rangerdude 17:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see an author listed, which in most publications means it is that much more official. I'll reinstate the paragraph and make it clear that it also lists LOTS and CofCC as hate groups, but not the others. -Willmcw 17:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The author is Mark Potok - the main writer of the "Intelligence Report" magazine. For some reason the online edition doesn't have any names listed at the beginning of the articles individually.Rangerdude 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Potok is apparently a regular employee of the SPLC, so it is not as if they were publishing an article by an outside writer. I think the article can be viewed as an official SPLC product. -Willmcw 18:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes - he's the editor and main author of "Intelligence Report" - a newsletter they do. His name should be mentioned though, because it looked as if Dees had written it in based on the existing wording.Rangerdude 18:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I do not object to listing his name, I would strongly object to anything else being added. We've gone into denigrating the "critics" quite enough. -Willmcw 18:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A direct rebuttal of SPLC report is appropriate. General complaints about the SPLC are not. Reminder: this article is about the Neo-confederate movement. -Willmcw 18:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neither article that you linked rebutted the SPLC report - they were both just attacks on the SPLC.

You aren't checking the links very closely. Both are direct responses to anti-"neo-confederate" articles in the SPLC's Intelligence Report. The FrontPage Magazine article specifically identifies Intelligence Report by name in the second sentence. The Von Mises one mentions it by name in the first sentence of its second paragraph AND links to the SPLC Intelligence Report website. I honestly do not know how you could've missed this on both of them and once again I'm beginning to believe that you are trying to control this article toward your own POV. There's something seriously wrong when an editor constantly screens out and deletes even the most simple and pertinent additions to the article that don't conform 100% to his own views on the subject. There's also something wrong when other's can't add even the most basic, straightforward information (such as a simple link that clearly and prominently identifies itself as a response to the SPLC's Intelligence Report magazine) without you misidentifying it, removing it, and demanding a lengthy discussion to "prove" its relevance when you are the one who made the error in the first place. I don't know any other way of saying it, Willmcw, but you are acting as a gatekeeper on this article to exclude material that doesn't conform to your political viewpoint and that is a clear violation of wikipedia policy.Rangerdude 19:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)