Talk:Clyde N. Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old comments[edit]

What exactly is the point of the LewRockwell.com article quote at the end of Dr Wilson's page? It seems to be an attempt to prove that he is critical of the Voting Act of 1965 and is thus a racist. It is awkwardly tacked on to the end of the article and should probably be deleted. Dr Wilson has more memorable and germane quotes. As far as him not being notable aside from his controversial views of the Confederacy, I think this is false as well. He is the editor of the 18-volume Letters of John C. Calhoun, featured writer for Chronicles Magazine, speaker at Abbeville Institute and League of the South functions, and author of several books. SPLC propaganda is a blip on the radar. I'm removing the LRC quote unless someone objects.Atripodi (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very seriously object -- the inclusion of the quote was the result of the lengthy discussion that makes up the bulk of this page. The Lew Rockwell quote is perfectly consistent with the SPLC article -- disissing the SPLC as "propoganda" is certainly popular wth some groups, but the fact remains that news groups throughot the country regularly quote the SPLC when the subject of racsm comes up. I certainly have no objection to you adding anythig you want from Wilson's other wrtings as long as they meet Wikipedia standards. I agree that there is awkwardness in the article -- after all it is just a stubb and that is true of many stubbs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Upon further review, the comments on the Voting Rights Act relate very directly to the preceding quote in which Wilson talks about people forcing integration down the South's throat. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove the comment then, but I still maintain that the quote lacks context within the article. I certainly hold a favorable view of Dr Wilson but I don't think this is clouding my judgment. It is fair to point out that he's been accused of involvement in racist organizations and making racist remarks. But quotes about disliking carpetbaggers and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 don't of themselves support that view. I could cite articles he's written that speak highly of black Southerners, but I don't want to turn his page into a battle over whether or not he is indeed racist or the merit of the term "neo-confederate". Perhaps the solution is a subsection dealing with these claims at greater length.Atripodi (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a comment from the article, as I have no way of verifying that it was actually posted by Clyde Wilson. -- Jim Apple 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another:
  • The quotation attributed to me by the SPLC is a falsehood.
  • Clyde Wilson
If Professor Wilson would like to write an article disputing the quote then we can reference that article. -Will Beback 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the subject need to disprove someone else's remarks. The author of those remarks needs to prove them. The SPLC quote is hearsay - SPLC claims CG claims Wilson said etc. Does this not violate the Biography of Living Persons policy - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word . Furthermore, SPLC is a controversial source. One that many consider less than credible. For the sake of conservatism we should not use this quote. Nospam3333 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation is also printed in Living Blue in the Red States (ed. David Starkey, U of Nebraska Press, 2007), which also quotes him as saying, "The South is a national asset, a priceless and irreplaceable treasure that must be conserved." Perhaps if we include both quotes it would be a better balance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That's odd. On Amazon the publication date for that book says September 1, 2007 which isn't here yet. But it's on sale. I don't think there's any doubt Wilson takes some controversial positions. But pulling inflammatory quotes out of context can be damaging to someone's reputation. The citation from SPLC isn't even the full quote they alleged. It's only a fragment. And I do think that was actually Wilson who made that old entry describing the quote as a "falsehood". I've heard him speak. That's exactly the way he talks. Why don't we just list his publications. The titles will give a fair overview of his work and philosophy. Nospam3333 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on Google Books. Quotations are always excerpts. The article, as it now stands,[1] gives no indication that the subject takes controverisal positions. Frankly, if he didn't take controversial positions we probably wouldn't have this article at all: the average history professor isn't notable. So what's a better way of communicating the controversial nature of the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First by not characterizing him as a racist, which was the clear intent of the SPLC article. I do see other professors listed on Wiki who belong to the same orgs and take similar positions but who have perfectly neutral Bio pages. See Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Donald Livingston, Joe Stromberg. Some of them were attacked by SPLC also, but there is no mention of it here - nor should there be. Nospam3333 08:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has never said that the subject is a racist. If we omit the material about his controversial remarks there's nothing much left. Our basic guidelines on the notability of people set a standard that this article would not otherwise reach. WP:BIO. Are there multiple, non-trivial profiles of him? Has he won any awards? Apparently not. If we only have a dry, insignificant academic career then we should probably nominate it for deletion. That might be the best in any case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Confederate Ideologues and Dominionist activists in the Libertarian Movement?[edit]

Clyde N. Wilson is not the only intellectual to promote Neo-Confederate views in Libertarian circles, a number of authors in the Libertarian's Lew Rockwell site also share cross-memberships with Dominionism's brand of militant Christianity. Take for example revisionist historian Thomas DiLorenzo, he is a member of the League of the South a prominent Neo-Confederate group.

Please discuss further cross membership of Libertarians, Neo-Confederates and Dominionist

Ref Southern Poverty Law Centre on Neo-Confederates splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=509 --220.239.179.128 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC sourced information[edit]

At this point the original text with the SPLC quote has been restored by three different editors with only Nospam3333 registering an objection. I think it is only fair to restore it until a consensus is reached to remove it. As far as the significance of Wilson strictly as an historian, he is certainly known within the field but his significance is largely limited to the editing of the works of John Calhoun -- a very important task but one that few people would ever come across.

Where people do come across Wilson is in the context of his neo-confederate political writings. A simple Google search will confirm this. Therefore it is important to balance his scholarly reputation, such as it is, with his political views which shape the articles that most readers will have run across. I am restoring the previous edit and am listing below the full text of the SPLC quote on him. It is too long too put the entire section in the article but it does have some biographical information that another editor may wish to paraphrase and include in the article.

As far as the SPLC being a reliable source, you onlyhave to enter the full name on Google News and you will come up with dozens of examples where newspapers treat the SPLC as a reliable source. The following is from http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=846:

Clyde Wilson

History professor, University of South Carolina COLUMBIA, S.C.

Outside of Eugene Genovese (see Little Men), Clyde Wilson is certainly the biggest intellectual heavyweight associated with the neo-Confederate scene.

With a doctorate from the University of North Carolina, Wilson went on to a distinguished career as the editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun, the preeminent states' rights theorist before the Civil War, and has published 18 volumes of that series so far. He has also edited two volumes of the Dictionary of Literary Biography that deal with American historians, and written entries for several encyclopedias.

In 1994, Wilson became a founding member of the League of the South, and he has served on its national board ever since. He also teaches at the League of the South Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History, and is an adjunct faculty member at the libertarian-minded Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

Through it all, Wilson is an unreconstructed neo-Confederate. In 1998, he told Gentleman's Quarterly that Southerners "don't want women in the armed forces. We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats, saying we can't pray in school. We don't want abortion or gay rights. We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

In another interview, with the Houston Press, Wilson said he wished for a South where "we won't have a bit of difficulty telling the difference between a citizen and an illegal alien." Writing about "The Birth of a Nation," a 1915 film that describes the Ku Klux Klan in heroic terms, Wilson said its main problem was being too sympathetic to Lincoln.

In 2000, he led an attempt to keep the Confederate battle flag flying over the South Carolina Capitol. And in his 2002 book, From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition, Wilson rages against what he calls "messianic democratic universalism."

Tom (North Shoreman) 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have three objections to the quote.

You have selected the one sentence fragment from the SPLC text which, taken by itself, is most likely to create the impression that Wilson is a racist. Being opposed to social redesign projects imposed by the government, or believing that the south would be better off as a separate nation does not make one a racist. Neither does believing that elements of the common historical narrative about the civil war and it's aftermath are wrong. There is a secessionist movement in Vermont. Are they racists?

I'm still not convinced he actually, made the quote. It is not sourced to a witness. It's sourced to an article engaging in the weaseling tactic of saying somebody told us somebody else said something. If he gave these interviews to GQ and Houston Press why aren't those articles being referenced directly instead of this SPLC fund raising polemic.

And I could not disagree more about the veracity of SPLC in general. Yes the media have quoted them. The same media have also investigated SPLC and there are articles written by reputable sources that characterize SPLC as an organization that sensationalizes for fund raising purposes. Some of their former employees have made similar charges (I think the entire legal staff resigned en-mass back in the 80's for this reason). SPLC appears to be the original source of the label "Neo-Confederate", and they have now appointed themselves to be the judge of who is and who is not a member of this new hate group classification. None of the organizations targeted call themselves Neo-Confederate as far as I can find. It's a scary word SPLC can use to drum up contributions. The article being quoted appears in a section of the SPLC website titled "The Ideologues". Does that sound like it's going to be dispassionate, scholarly, and factual source of information?

I'm taking the quote back off. I don't want to get banned again, but the policy on biographies does oblige us to be conservative with people's reputations. I think it's only fair to leave it off at least until it can at least be substantiated, both as to fact and as to relevance.

As to Will's point that we can't find a better biography of Wilson to reference: that of course does not justify keeping this quote if the quote does not fairly represent him. And I don't want to delete the page since it might just get re-added. I'd rather watch it. Nospam3333 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we keep the article? What part of the WP:BIO or WP:PROF standards does this subject meet? If we exclude the SPLC profile there's nothing to show that this subject is notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are right. I can't argue to keep it on those grounds. I just wanted to watch it for a while since we have had a run of counter revisions. I disagree with Tom about the significance of Wilson's academic career, but I don't find a better biography to point to either.Nospam3333 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the burden of proof on this. We should not be removing properly documented information simply because it is the unsubstantiated opinion of a few editors that they don't like the source. I suggest you wait for some sort of consensus before again trying to upset the status quo that existed before you got involved with the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have the burden of proof? And what is it I am supposed to prove? You are the one restoring a quote that the subject denied making, a quote that is damaging to the subject, and one that comes from a source many responsible people including journalists consider to have unethical motives. And what exactly does a consensus look like? It seems to me you just keep at this until all of your opponents go away. And status quo just means no one was interested for a while. Those are not arguments. Nospam3333 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the burden of proof because you claim that Wilson denied making the claim. Do you have a reliable published source that says he denied the claim? Do you or he deny his relationshipwith the League of the South? If so, put it in the article. To be considered a reliable source it is not necessary for there to be unanimity on the quality of the source. Any source that primarily documents something as controversial as racism is going to draw enemies from the conservative crowd. The only way to achieve balance is to provide all sides. These efforts to discredit the SPLC has been going on in any number of other Wikipedia articles and have largely been unsuccessful. I don't think considering the pattern and quality of your initial edits that you should be lecturing ANYBODY on how to conduct themselves on these boards. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have now added a quote directly from Wilson's own writings in which he criticizes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that is perfectly consistent with the GQ quote.Tom (North Shoreman) 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No. This is a biography of a living person and you have the burden to prove the authenticity and relevance of the quote. Since you seem to be an old hand perhaps it has been a while since you read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP policy.

Here's a quote: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Tom the very fact you raise, that SPLC has been challenged in other articles, demonstrates that they are controversial, and are on that basis alone a poor source for this disputed and harmful citation.

Now would you please remove the quote - I think I'll get banned if I do it again today. Nospam3333 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (David)[reply]


reply to PS... Did you actually ready the entire article you snipped that new quote from? It's a polemic against Rudy Guiliani, Strom Thurmon, Republican immigration into South Carolina, and the fact that Republicans carry the state now. It is not a criticism of minority voting - which is what you are trying to imply. Nospam3333 01:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) David[reply]

It is perfectly possible to criticize Rudy Guliani without also criticizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It says a lot about Professor Wilson that he used the opportunity of a political piece written about events in 2007 to criticize what is arguably the most significant accomplishment of the Civil Rights era. It squares completely with the quote in which Wilson criticized racial integration. If Wilson's own words create a negative impression of his racial attitudes, so be it. You of course are perfectly free to scan the writings of Wilson and present his writings promoting civil rights. I haven't been able to find any.
As I said, the issue of the SPLC as a reliable source has been addressed before in Wikipedia. When you make statements like, "SPLC are extortionists and should not be quoted or referenced as a credible source" it shows a serious lack of objectivity. It also calls into question your concern for how Wikipedia treats living people. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (North Shoreman) 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to grant the respect due a living person to an organization? Can we also grant the same to this actual living person? The Voting Rights act was justified on the basis of an interpretation of the 14th amendment which was controversial and arguably unconstitutional. The fact that the issue is considered settled by the courts now does now mean that everyone stops talking about it. And the article you clipped the comment from really was about republicans, not minorities. And, once again, why should the subject have to write articles refuting someone else's slander? At least we are making some progress. You seem to be admitting now that it really is your intent to characterize Wilson as a racist. If you want to argue further on the SPLC page or on the LOS page fine let's go there. But let's please keep the tabloid fund raising tactics of the SPLC off of this biography of a living person page. Nospam3333 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC) David[reply]


Needs Major Work

For the longest time this article was basically a stub with a few out-of-context quotations to make Professor Wilson look bad. Now someone has added a lengthy, arguably too long, biography with no sources and with serious NPOV problems, but this time in praise of Professor Wilson. Will this article ever obtain NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.133.249 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde N. Wilson[edit]

The GENTLEMAN'S QUARTERLY article referred to by the $PLC appeared in Nov. 1998. Anyone is free to read it. I do not have the article and do not remember what it said. However, is it likely that I would have been foolish enough to make such a statement as is attributed? As I recall it was a group interview and I discussed what I always discuss with reporters---the need for devolution of power in the U.S. and the need to preserve the positive aspects of Southern culture. I suggest comparison with an interview recorded in George Will's column of about the same time. Clyde Wilson 72.251.44.157 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has been hijacked[edit]

Although the dubious edits here are not as extensive as for the entries of Chronicles Magazine or Thomas Fleming, someone - probably the same person - has also "hijacked" this entry. For instance, simply because one of Wilson's articles has been translated into Spanish we cannot infer he is weak on immigration or pro-diversity. One will need to provide an article by Wilson where he says he is pro-immigration and pro-diversity.--CM732 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC[edit]

I don't believe the Southern Poverty Law Center's opinion of Professor Wilson is relevant; but if you insist upon it, I will insist on balance which addresses, very simply, SPLC's credibility. We are instructed to assume good faith. How can one assume good faith when you claim, disingenuously, that a simple quote from SPLC research director is an "attack." What an exaggeration. Your highly selective editing, quotations and tactical reverts (and arbitrary proxy blocking) violates the NPOV policy. No good comes from such efforts. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: North Shoreman's editorial note as originally posted "removed quote that has nothing to do with either neoconfederates or Clyde Wilson -- this is not the place for general attacks on the SPLC" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom North Shoreman proxy reverting through Will Beback your irrelevant material without balance. Make a choice leave it with balance, or take it out. Your biased agenda will not go unchallenged. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In article discussions please remember to focus on the content, not the contributor.
The material you added about hate groups is a non sequitor. Beirich of the SPLC was asked about the criteria for the hate groups list, not for why Wilson was called an ideologue. If there's something critical about the SPLC article on Wilson then that would make sense to include. This article is about Wilson, not his critics.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If SPLC has no formal written criteria about who it labels as a hate group, or individual who hate, an area in which they pretend to be experts; why would anyone give credence to their "ideologue" or "neo-confederate" label? It looks like a political smear. Many people already question SPLC's motives and practices. See e.g., The Montgomery Advertiser's (its hometown newspaper) expose on the SPLC, for example. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W. Beback: Thank you for your editorial compromise. The quote goes to SPLC's credibility. SPLC's opinion is irrelevant. What's next? An entry on the Obama page that states: "The Donald Trump Foundation considers Obama a foreign-born President"? Funny thing--I did not find any of the numerous published criticisms about the SPLC mentioned on their Wikipedia page. Not one negative comment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC article should include all of the significant criticism of that organization. But we have to be wary of making ad hominem attacks on Wilson's critics as rebuttals in this article. Their statement is actually pretty mild. "Ideologue" is defined by M-W.com as "an impractical idealist" or blind partisan.[2] They don't label him a hate-monger, or anything like that. Years ago we often described the SPLC as "controversial" in citations like this, but the Wikipedia community moved away from using those kinds of epithets for neutrality reasons.   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob tells Jim that Roy has a great affinity for young children" is also a "mild statement" with potentially nasty and libelous implications. Such a statement would be inappropriate, especially when Roy denies it and Jim is proven to have ulterior motives and thus, questionable credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there is an ulterior motive that's relevant then it would make sense to include. "Smith, who works for a competing firm, says that Jones is a liar" is OK, but not "Smith, who has been divorced three times, says that Jones is a liar" would not, unless the divorces were the topic. I don't think anyone has asserted that the SPLC has an ulterior motive or conflict of interest in its coverage of Wilson.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ulterior motive (fundraising) has been asserted long before I arrived (see above), and is found in published articles about the SPLC. This ground has been covered before. Again, thank you for the compromise edit and enjoy your evening. 74.192.7.135 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clyde N. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clyde N. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clyde_N._Wilson&oldid=1206053867"