Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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" [1]

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

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

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

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

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" [6]

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

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. [8] 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. [9]

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)

In keeping with the topic's controversy, several conservatives have responded to SPLC "Intelligence Report" articles on "neo-confederates" by accusing the SPLC of slander and guilt by association tactics. Myles Kantor of FrontPage Magazine described the report as a "web of falsehood."[10] Marcus Epstein of the Von Mises Institute compared the report's claims to McCarthyism[11].

RD, I looked at both pages. I searched for neo-confederate. I found nothing. They do not rebut the neo-confederate series, they respond to other articles by the SPLC. If you believe that these linked articles "respond to...articles on "neo-confederates"", then please post here the quotes where they do so, because I'm just too blind and stupid to see it. The Intelligence Report is a magazine, so referring to it in 2003 is not the same as referring to a specific series or article in 2000. Let's keep looking. Maybe they rebutted the article elsewhere? As I've said, a specific reply to the SPLC "neo-confederate" designation would be appropriate to include. And finally, I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am promoting a POV in this article. If you review the edit history, you will see that all I have been doing is asking that unproven assertions be removed. I have not called the reasoning of those edits into question. Let's stick to the task of making a good Wikipedia article on the topic of "Neo-Confederate", and leave aside questioning motives. We've both spent too much time already writing in this "talk page" - not the most productive Wikitime. Anyway, the article is much better than it was just a few days ago. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw - It's all plainly there if you take the time to look at the links. They are both in response to an issue of Intelligence Report that had a followup section on neo-confederate movements that names pretty much the same conservative groups and people. It is found here [12] in the very first sentence:

"As the neo-Confederate movement grows more aggressive, 'Honest Abe' Lincoln is depicted as evil personified"

I found that with a mere two clicks and do not see why you are having so much trouble doing the same. Once again, there is something seriously wrong when any and every addition to this article by somebody other than yourself is immediately subjected to an inordinate amount of skepticism to the degree that even obvious pertinent material is denied and removed. Wikipedia is an open-editing medium, not a medium where everybody else has to submit their proposals to Willmcw and demonstrate to his personal satisfaction why he should allow them to be included. You've been polite and I'm happy we're getting somewhere with this article, but you're still gatekeeping and that is a problem.Rangerdude 20:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's what we can do. The Rockwell blog is on the 2003 "Lincoln Reconstructed" article, not the 2000 neo-confederate series. I'll add a line or two about the Lincoln article and put the rebuttal after that. Then everything lines up. Sorry for asking you to cite your sources, but it's a part of wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added that plus the "Gods & Generals" review info. The citations now fit into the context better, I hope. -Willmcw 05:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)