Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens/Archive 1

Not a Political Organization

The group may be aligned with some political causes, but it only exists as a white nationalist organization. White supremacy/racism is the only common view held by the group. Terms like "conservative" and "political" are drastic overstatements of this groups identity/importance/intelligence. Have you been to any meetings, talked to any members? Play journalist for while. Join, attend a rally or two. Any veil of legitimacy will quickly be lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.190.212 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not neo-Nazi

this again is not a neo-nazi organization at all. This is not right.WHEELER 17:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's the white separatism in this case. Are you disputing that they hold this view? - David Gerard 19:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not all white supremacists are neo-Nazis, though the reverse would be a different matter. Rock8591 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Council features an article from christogenea entitled The New Weimar Republic. This and other links under the categories heading may clarify what the CofCC believes.--Walker-JB (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Don Black of Stormfront a member?

is Don Black of stormfront a member? No he is not.

At a CCC convention between 1995 and 2002 attendees/members present included:

Mark Cotterill BNP, Not a member of the CofCC or the BNP. Mark Cotterill has his own organization in British called the British peoples party and is not connected to the CofCC or the BNP.

Carl Clifford AFBNP former US Army techie. Now contractor teckie develops battlefield medical tech.

Jeff Anderson? runs seperatist.org Also, not a member.

Annanomous member who's father was (at the time?) the state Majority Leader of the Senante, Mr X had been a White house Press officer, he also had been thrown out of DC's Univeristy Club for bringing his friend Dr. William Pierce there Mr. X sued the club for 6 million for doing that. Also friend of Willis Carto (kind of), has locker next to Pat Buchanan at a gentlemen's club.

Edward "Fisheye" Cassidy . Edward Casidy is not a member.

Don Black creator of stormfront

Multiple Baptist Ministers The CofCC has multiple Baptist Preachers, A Presbyterian Minister, and Episcalpal Minister, a Serbian Orthodox Priest, a Latvian Orthodox Priest, at least one Lutheran Priest, and one Hasidic Jewish Rabbi as members.

Steve Barry, Former Special Forces sergeant & millitary Advisor to Dr. William Pierce. Now runs own magazine for other S.F. guys with similar beliefs. Steve Barry was never any kind of advisory to William Pierce. Pierce made some sort of announcement on his own and was quickly rebuked by Steve Barry. Steve Barry spoke at the 2001 CofCC national Conference, but is not a member.

Gayle Witney a Professor of Psychology at Florida State University anti-gun control, conspiracy theorist and anti-semite. Total untrue slander by someone who couldn't even spell his name. However, before Glade Witney died a few years ago, he was a member.

Peter Gemma, political lobbyist "moderate extremist" former GOP Campaign Manager and fundraiser defected with Buchanan from GOP to Reform Party.

Sam Francis former columnist for the Washington times and friend of Buchanan. Sam Francis, who died recently was the editor of the CofCC newspaper and the author of the CofCC Statement of Principals. So, Duh! he's a member.

My info comes from "into a world of hate"

my info comes from "into a world of hate"

CCC/KKK

This is completely outrageous. The CofCC never has and never wants anything to do with the ku klux klan. And the abbreviation is not CCC, it is CofCC.

The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a American paleoconservative political organization who's name may be a sly reference to the KKK since both groups have a three letter acronym and both "C" and "K" make the same sound.

The added clause draws a conclusion, spoonfeeding the reader. If a notable critic has pointed out that there's a similarity, then we should attribute it in some way. Is it from "into a world of hate"? Otherwise to say that something "may" be true sounds like original research. In any case, it is a bit of trivia that, if true, should be placed in the body of the text rather than the intro. The real activities and goals of the CCC or CofCC are sufficiently interesting that we don't have to spice it up. -Willmcw 22:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sophomoric by all means; the group has always been termed as the "CofCC", never "CCC". Don't create your own acronym in order to make a (weak) joke about an unrelated issue. Rock8591 (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acctually, the CofCC is the successor orginization of the White Citizens Council, a white seperatist orginization known to have firebombed the home of famed anti-racism civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. However, it is not proven to have any relation to the KKK other than the same racist pro-white anti-black philosophy and shared leaders/members. @ Rock8591, your use of the term sophmoric is an example of class discrimination often seen in high schools. It was probbably meant to be a thought-provoking instance, not a joke, as your (weak) comment would suggest However, very good job of catching the use of an improper acronom. the CCC was a public works program launched by FDR. Physicsmike (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current lede

white supremecist and white separatist are slander terms used by those with a political agenda to attack the CofCC and the terms in no way describe the CofCC.

The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a white supremacist and white separatist American paleoconservative political organization.

This text keep getting changed. How is it inaccurate? -Willmcw 06:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC) If you're talking to me I only felt that paleoconservative is a downplayer.[reply]

grazon 07:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

But is it wrong? Some of the people prominently connected to the CCC are known (even self-described) as paleoconservatives, such as Francis and Abernethy. -Willmcw 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also Members of the GOP like Trent Lott.

grazon 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

David Frum, a notable commentator, seems to put the CCC in the paleo camp here, and identifies Francis as a leader: Unpatriotic Conservatives. -Willmcw 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the GOP allows paleoconservatives to join, or used to. Here's an article by Francis on Lott. [1] -Willmcw 08:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The GOP (and the DNC for that matter; see Zell Miller) cannot stop anyone from joining. All anyone has to do is register to vote as a Republican and they're in.

You know, I've got to wonder. They run whites-only schools, they have ads for white supremacist online stores on the front of their website, and they're obviously obsessed with the "white race," so how in the heck can they possibly deny that they're racist? I'm not saying that they don't; I'm just flabbergasted that they'd think anyone would fall for it. Rogue 9 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not to mention, self-assessment is not reputable, just as it is nonsensical to say that because a defendant on trial pleads innocent, that he is actually not guilty. rock8591 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CoCC are self-described as separatists. This characterization is not in contention. As a statement it cannot be reasonably said to derive out of an external POV. 'Supremacists' means someone believes they are superior to somebody else by definition. The organization is concerned that white people not mix with the inferior black race. This seems incredibly obvious and has been demonstrated (the opinion 'slanderous' sure appears to derive from someone's POV and bespeaks an agenda to control the message, nothing neutral about it).Jan civil (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your description does not help prove they aren't supremacists. Characterizing them as not wanting white people to mix with "inferior" black people. That describes them both as seperatist and supremacists. I'm surprised your "superior" white brian didn't realize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supremacist

Racist does not necessarily equal White supremacist.

Oops. Hit enter too quickly, making a quick edit...

A white supremacist is someone who wants to rule over others... A white nationalist is a racist who wants a homeland for people of their own ideology / race. The two are not the same thing... and adding white supremacist into Council of Conservative Citizens amounts to not keeping a NPOV. Other sources may label them as white supremacists but does that really mean they are? Rchamberlain 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide what they are. We have their self-description and we have the descriptions of them by others. NPOV calls for reflecting all of those viewpoints. Their self-description should be noted, but it is not definitive. -Willmcw 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. but there is still a major world of difference between SUPREMACISTS and SEPARATISTS. Rchamberlain 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is considerable difference between the two ideologies: they can not be compared to each other without fanaticism and total disregard for common sense. The article as of now (December 26, 2005). Has no pretentions for NPOV, it is slanderous and full of misinformation spread by someone with a political agenda. We need to strive to take responsibility and not let our preconceived notions ruin factual information.Zexarious 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 26th? Let's focus on how the article is today, December 22. It doesn't matter to us, as Wikipedia editors, if the CCC is supremacist, separatist, or universalist. We're just here to summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. The CCC is widely described as "supremacist" so we need to say that. It calls itself "separatist", so we need to say that too. If reliable sources call it "universalist" then we'd need to include that too. The meaning of those labels is irrelevant to our project. -Willmcw 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the two ideologies cannot even begin to be compared.

the dictionary definition of supremacist from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com): a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over the black race and the correlative necessity for the subordination of blacks to whites in all relationships

and the dictionary definition of separatist from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com): a belief in, movement for, or state of separation (as schism, secession, or segregation)

now, tell me, does the CofCC fit the first or the second definition? I believe they fit the second Rchamberlain 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For us to make a decision on our own would violate Wikipedia:no original research. We should restrict ourselves to summarizing other sources. -Willmcw 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what you are doing when you leave supremacist in there when by all definitions of the word, they are obviously not. Rchamberlain 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it should say that some "crazy group makes the outlandish CLAIM that this is a supremacist organization" this way it still includes the libel and satisfies the sick desires of those who want it included in there, while at the same time not lending much credence to it.Zexarious 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Zexarious[reply]

This is not neutral in itself is it? The point has been made clearly enough already. If the characterization can be credibly attributed, it's valid under Wiki standards. To argue that modifiers such as 'outrageous' and 'crazy' should be used is against the spirit of this neutrality standard. Jan civil (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the 561 Google hits for ["Council of Conservative Citizens" separatist OR separatism] versus the 28,100 hits for ["Council of Conservative Citizens" supremacist OR supremacism]. It is not a single group that calls them "supremacist", it is a large number of groups, far exceeding the number who call them "separatist". -Willmcw 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is wikipedia about factuality or opinions of sporadic users? i guess its not a real encyclopedia at all, just an attempt to spread personal opinions on a larger scale. Rchamberlain 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting attitude at arriving at the 'truth' and 'factual information' kind of like ask the audience on who wants to be a millionaire. Interesting, but morally reprehensible. Zexarious 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is suggest you both read Wikipedia to find out what this project is about. -Willmcw

is suggested that you read the dictionary Rchamberlain 21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the goals of the wikipedia project and in my opinion the core is objectivity and factuality. Last time I checked making wild accusations based on a personal biased point of view (no matter how much you say otherwise) and presenting them as unquestionable facts is not one of the goals of the wikipedia project, unless I missed the memo in which case let us say the Council of Conservative Citizens members eat puppies and sacrifice baby christians to the goat-horned lord and are responsible for september 11th WTC attacks. I could post this on my blog and wait for google to spider it then it would of cousre be the undeniable truth.. Google says so.Zexarious 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and delete the text 'white supremacist', because Willmcw cannot demonstrate or prove that the group wants to rule over other races. Also due to the consensus reached in this discussion, we've demonstrated that CofCC is not supremacist and that supremacy and separatism are two very different incompatible ideologies. Rchamberlain 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this last edit (5:53 EST) represents reality and factual information the best, as such it is the version which aligns the most with the goals of the wikipedia project. There still appear a few entries whose inclusion in the article does not appear to be entirely NPOV but the tone of the piece is now much more professional and worthy of wikipedia. I would like to thank all involved, we all have a common goal and with every edit we are one step closer on our way to perfection. Zexarious 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you guys can show that the CCC is not called "white supremacist" that term needs to stay. It is a fact that they are widely called that, and it is not a "wild accusation". -Willmcw 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will, why are you changing it again? The consensus has been reached in this discussion, and adding that back proves that you have a biased POV and should not be editing this article. Rchamberlain 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two against one is not a consensus. See WP:CON. -Willmcw 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the article should be objective, none of willmfcs's sources are 'verifiable' and he, being the one who makes the claim should be the one to support it. This is dissappointing that something so simple, a smoke, has to be turned into a fire. Your agendas should stay at home, wikipedia is no place for them. Please revert the article back to the factual and professional version and leave it that way. Zexarious 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say that this organization (and other organizations) are not supremacist just because they say so. This makes as much sense as saying that a murderer and a rapist are innocent victims because they said they're innocent, even though every and each source and evidence proves that they are guilty of these crimes. The same goes for CCC, and other white supremacist organizations. Rchamberlain was making a not about the definitons of seperatism, and supremacy in the dictionary; and one of the words for seperatism can also be referred to as segreagation. Segregation, might I remind everyone, is highly regarded as racial supremacy; as evidenced through out history during Jim Crow in the Southern United States which inspired the Civil Rights Movement, and apartheid in South Africa. --Gramaic | Talk 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gramaic, the ideology of the CofCC is certainly reprehensible, but the fact of the matter is that separatism and supremacism are two opposing ideas. It's not just the dictionary definition. If you want your own land where you can live separate and deluded, then that definitely cannot be called supremacy. They are either one or the other. They either want to rule over other people or they want to live by themselves with no interaction from outsiders. Rchamberlain 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gramaic, explain this on some of your previous edits. It shows that you already have a bias towards ideas such as these. I am a Christian myself and find racism to be morally reprehensible and an incompatible ideology with Christianity, but let's stick to the facts. Your own edits and other user objections show you have a bias concerning this subject.

For instance re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_supremacy#Disputed.3F:

I do agree that this article is not neutral, because it describes people as supremacists even when they a) clearly state that they are none and do not want to be classified as such and b) the definition of white seperatism is simply not the definition of white supremacism. Those who ignore fact a) and b) are consciously making a bad name out of white seperatists at the cost of neutrality. Aor

Rchamberlain 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to discusing this article, shall we? Comments about an editor should go on the editor's talk page. -Willmcw 08:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because it's about the same exact subject. It also shows that this user has already made up his/her mind on who is or is not a white supremacist. this breaks the NPOV rule. Rchamberlain 08:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the Wikipedia:neutral point of view. Every editor has a point of view. Our jobs are to show all points of view without judging which is right or wrong. The core Wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V, require that we simply summarize the verifiable information using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires us to call the CCC "white supremacist" because that is what almost everybody calls it. We should also say what they call themselves. That is NPOV. -Willmcw 09:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe: WP:NPOV requires us to report that they are called X, not call them X ourselves, since it's disputed. The current version ("that some also hold to be") seems to report this adequately. --Nectar 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even better. -Willmcw 23:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't dispute the neutrality of this article as long as it is left in tact as it is now. I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV warning if it's kept as it is. I'll put it back up if it's changed again though. Rchamberlain 05:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacist category

This is blatant slander by people with a political agenda.

Per the consensus reached above regarding whether or not to call the CCC a white supremacist organization, I removed the category "White supremacist groups in the Untied States" at the bottom of the entry. This is only fair, and consistent. If the charge is not fact in the main article, it is not fact in the category section. --Alsayid 00:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that there was any consensus. From what appears to be CCC's self-admitted ideology (see CCC in Its Own Words), and b/c CCC's roots trace to the White Citizens' Councils movement, returned CCC to category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". --Cortez3100

No. These guys are objectively white supremacist. READ THEIR WEBSITE. Its *pages* and *pages* of nasty and evil junk about how crap blacks are and so on and so forth. These guys *ACTIVELY ADVOCATE* the inferiority of blacks. This is facts. Just because the CofCC are trying to bomb the article ( http://www.cofcc.org/index.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=& ) with people saying "Noooo we are not white supremacists" doesn't mean it's not true. 58.7.0.146 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about organizations that eagerly spread agenda about how bad whites are? Are they also racist? Is it fair that someone makes a nation-wide fuss over fabricated rape stories and doesn't bother to mention anything about the Christian/Newsom case, only because the victims were white and it doesn't fit the propaganda about how oppressed and poor the blacks are? What would happen, if the victims were blacks ? (we shouldn't rather imagine) Many people obviously learned to take this perverse double-standard as something natural. I read CoCC pages, but I have found nothing scandalous there. So it rather tells me much about your own psychical self-projections. Unfortunately, blacks with their IQ 85 and 9-times higher crime rate won't be beloved anywhere in the world. Centrum99 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP of THIS thread; the previous post above mine, notably the last sentence making reference to IQs needs to cut out on the pseudoscientific nonsense. Rock8591 (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has doubts on whether or not they are white supremacists, then go to their website and then make up your mind. It's clear that they are, because they are very much obsessed with dedicating pages ranting on and on about how inferior the black race is. Rock8591 (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really looking like a propaganda effort to control the article to ensure CoCC maintains a sparkling clean image. I think a generalized discussion of any counter-issue "double standard" is completely off-topic and unhelpful. If a characterization is supportable it should be included. If it can be shown that this organization consistently argues that blacks are inferior, and it can, reporting that a widely-held perception of them is as 'a white supremacist organization' is no stretch at all. The argument that "separatists ≠ supremacists", while IME somewhat disingenuous, seems appropriate per the article to me as well... 'many contend that...'Jan civil (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism category

This is blatant slander by people with a political agenda.

Some editors have been going back and forth over the racism category. While mentioning that someone called it racist in the article is proper, including it in the racism category suggests that that's definately what the group supports. I've noticed that many similar articles avoid this conflict by using a more neutral category instead, like "politics and race." It has been my hope that using this category instead would/will be seen as a fair compromise to the dispute, as it is accurate without being potentially POV. --Alsayid 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Politics and race" hardly suits an organization that the NAACP, SPLC, and ADL all have publicly identified as a racist hate group. Favoring the group with placement there instead of "Category:racism" is a whitewash that won't withstand NPOV scrutiny.

The Category:racism is accurate considering that literally dozens of reputable and respectable groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center say again and again that the Council of Conservative Citizens is racist.

The idea of a "fair compromise" here is a red herring. There's no provision in our policies to provide for avoiding uncomfortable facts just because a few ideological ax-grinders ignore Wikipedia's policies and goals. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, but I ask that you avoid attacking other editors, as it only fosters a combative atmosphere.

Using "Category:Politics and race" is preferrable to using the racism category precisely because it isn't a fact that the Council is a racist hate group. The NAACP, ADL, and SPLC are advocacy groups, and should be treated as sources of opinion. The New Black Panthers, VDARE, MEChA and other articles are not included in the racism category for the same reasons. --Alsayid 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rchamberlain 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add the following, or a summary of the following to this article. Does anyone disagree?

In an article titled (Trent) "Lott Renounces White 'Racialist' Group He Praised in 1992," Washington Post staff writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote on December 16, 1998, in an article the Post published on p. A02:

The CCC, which has strong ties to the old white Citizens Councils, is considered racist by conservatives and liberals. Many of the most prominent figures in the organization are proponents of preserving the white race and culture, which they see as under assault by immigration, intermarriage and growing numbers of Hispanic Americans. [2]

The Citizens Council, many of whose members helped found the CCC, was a segregationist organization. The membership generally included local establishment figures in the South, small businessmen, mayors and other white community leaders.

The CCC has been barred from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). David Keene, head of CPAC, said "we kicked (them) out of CPAC because they are racists."

A number of the leaders of the CCC describe their views as "racialist," and adamantly reject portrayal as white supremacist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/lott16.htm

In that same article, The Washington Post quoted "Jared Taylor, a Washington area leader of the CCC and publisher of the magazine American Renaissance, from an essay Taylor wrote:

"It is certainly true that in some important traits -- intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease -- whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be 'superior' to whites. Is there someone who believes that there are probably genetic reasons for this a 'yellow supremacist'? . . . AR expresses an unapologetic preference for the culture and way of life of whites. It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs to the creators of European civilization will carry that civilization forward in a meaningful way."

Skywriter 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-supported and relevant, I'm not opposed to it being included. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has doubts on whether or not they are white supremacists, then go to their website and then make up your mind. It's clear that they are, because they are very much obsessed with dedicating pages ranting on and on about how inferior the black race is. --Rock8591 07:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead

Alsayid and Doktor Faustus:

Please explain your edits removing White Citizens Councils from the lead of the CCC. Since you both are so fond of "heritage" why are you removing the "heritage" from the CCC in the lead? Also, why are you replacing "racist" with "controversial." CCC opposes racial integration in public school. I'd say the current lead is milquetoast. I think you both have POV issues. A more neutral lead would be to revert it to:

"The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of White Citizens' Councils. The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools and intimidation of black voters. Apologists refer to CCC as an American paleoconservative political organization that supports European and White Heritage. CCC is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, and its most active chapter is in Mississippi. Other states with active chapters include Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and New York. Sporadic CCC activities occur in other parts of the country as well."

Folks, I'd like a discussion on this. Who else approves of the lead proposed above as apposed to the whitewashed 'CCC is a controversial org' that the 'extreme political left orgs label a racist org' yada yada yada.

FeloniousMonk, The subject is already covered in article in a more a more neutral way. If you already think the article proves your point; why are you adding more?-Doktor Faustus

I think FM is heading in the right direction. The CCC is well-known to be the successor to the WCC. Their agendas are clearly racial to the point that they fit the definition of "racist". Saying that it is "controverisal" is conveys litle meaning - it's better to say why it is controversial. -Will Beback 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about whether this view point should in the article, it is. It is about keeping the first paragraph neutral. Southern Poverty Law Center view point is covered in the article.-Doktor Faustus 2 August 2006

Pretending that this organization is merely a bland "American political group" by eliminating credible, sourced criticism from the lede is not NPOV, it is whitewashing. Also, linking to the 'grassroots' article is absurd (if you actually read the grassroots article), and in any case white supremacy is _not_ a "localized grassroots cause" but a global ideology (feel free to read the White supremacy article for more on that). Matt Toups 15:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doktor Faustus: The first paragraph is not neutral when attempts are made to remove any language suggesting CCC as the successor of white citizens' councils. Further, inserting "SPLC viewpoint" in the lead is only relevant in so much as the lead for National Socialist Party in Germany ought to include the Anti Defamation League's "opinion" that the holocaust was anti-semetic. History proves the holocaust was racist in design.

This is an encyclopedia--not a recruitment poster for your hillbilly racist agenda.

signed: not FM

PS To the WikiGods: Jay Gatsby 67.166.145.63 is a vandal. Do not trust his editing. He is agenda driven.

Attacking other editors like this is entirely out of bounds, so please stop. People can debate the SPLC statement in the opening paragraph, but I believe most have shown they'd rather keep the rest of the intro paragraph over your preferred edit.--Alsayid 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alsayid: Your POV attacks are enitirely out of bounds. How about addressing some of the points made above?

The CCC in its own words

FeloniousMonk:

I question your framing of the lead as a mere "SPLC viewpoint" that the CCC is racist. Let's take a moment to look at the CCC in their own words.

The CCC in Its Own Words

According to the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website (www.cofcc.org, 12/98), Abraham Lincoln was "surely the most evil American in history," while Martin Luther King was a "depraved miscreant.” On the other hand, for the CCC’s Citizens Informer (Summer/94), former Georgia governor Lester Maddox, an unreconstructed racist, was the "Patriot of the Century.

"Each of the three major races plays a distinct role in history. . . . The whites were the creators of civilization, the yellows its sustainers and copyists, the blacks its destroyers.” (web site, 12/98)

"Western civilization with all its might and glory would never have achieved its greatness without the directing hand of God and the creative genius of the white race. Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself." (Citizens Informer, Fall/94)

"Our liberal establishment is using the media of television to promote racial intimacy and miscegenation…. All of the news teams on the major networks have black and white newscasters of opposite sexes." (Citizens Informer, Fall/98)

“Is it racist to say that it is legally and morally wrong for government to force a mixing of the races to produce a mongrel?" (Citizens Informer, Spring/97)

"The Jews' motto is 'never forget, and never forgive.' One can't agree with the way they've turned spite into welfare billions for themselves, but the 'never forget' part is very sound." (Citizens Informer, Winter/97)

"The presence [in Congress] of even one white person with our interests foremost in his mind is simply unacceptable to the issues-obsessed conservative race traitors. Texas Governor George Bush and his brother Jeb in Florida have manifested their self-hatred by embracing Hispanics ahead of whites. Somehow we must find a way to relieve whites of their self-hatred." ("Open Letter to White People,” website, 12/98)

"If we want to live, white Americans must begin today to lay the foundations of our future and our children's future.... Start today, fellow white Americans. Look at the faces around you: Find the faces like yours, and see them as your brothers and sisters. Find the fair-skinned babies and see them as your children." ("A Call to White Americans," website, 12/98)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1451

If anyone has doubts on whether or not they are white supremacists, then go to their website and then make up your mind. It's clear that they are, because they are very much obsessed with dedicating pages ranting on and on about how inferior the black race is. Moreover, nobody would actively admit that they are white supremacists. --Rock8591 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alsayid's POV vandalism

Alsayid: I would like you to use the talk page. I use it extensively. You bulldoze edit then threaten me repeatedly on my talk page, without even the benefit of discussion going into your reverts. You are abusing your priviliges. And from looking at the history of this wiki entry, and others, this seems to be your modus operandi. I think of your reverts/edits without discussion as simply POV vandalism. I am trying to discuss all points of view, hence the addition of the "CCC in Its Own Words" entry. Why don't you attempt to discuss this entry before deleting it several times within the next 24 hours?

There seems to be longstanding controversy in this article as to whether CCC is "racist," or merely "controversial." This is a theme of many of the edit wars within this wiki entry. In fact, this is a theme of the present edit war in our collective efforts to construct a neutral, and accurate, lead. There are clearly CCC apologists, and non-racists, trying to hammer out an agreeable lead.

Is the reason you want to completely remove "CCC in Its Own Words" because such an admission of racial bigotry from the CCC itself might tip the scale towards wiki consensus that CCC is "racist" as opposed to "controversial"?--Cortez3100

First, you can stop calling me a vandal (or worse). You should also not make personal attacks against other editors, as you have done with Doctor Faustus and Jay Gatsby. I have politely asked this of you more than once, which you have chosen to ignore. You vandalized my user page, to which I left the appropriate template on your talk page. You quickly deleted it, to which I left the appropriate template against deleting legitimate warnings, as well as notifying you of the three revert rule. This is considered the appropriate way to notify you of actions you have taken against Wikipedia policy. As far as "bulldoze edits" go, look at your own edits in this regard. You have reverted everyone else who believes your preferred edit is POV, not just here, but on the Haley Barbour page as well. Now, if you can remain civil, I will attempt to engage you regarding the "In Their Own Words" edit.

Jay Gatsby is a bot. Or at least he is running an editing script. There is nothing unprofessional about insulting a script. As for "vandalizing" your user page, I thought I was messaging on your talk page...which, you apparently feel free to do to mine. But, you remove my comments off your page and throw tissy warning if I attempt to remove your comments off of mine. As for the Haley Barbour page...well, I await your response to my suggestions on the talk page there.

I do not have a problem with a sourced quote. However, you simply copy-and-pasted a series of excerpts from a piece you found at Fair.org. Does anyone else think that's professional, or reasonably succinct?

I confess on the first edit I did copy and paste (w/o thinking) from the fair.org article. However, after your first revert I rewrote the passage. Please be mindful that there was VERY little to rewrite and rearrange b/c most of the edit is CCC in Its Own Words. These are quotations, all of which are attributed to the CCC, not the fair.org article. So, take a different push poll rather than "does anyone think plagiarism is professional?" How about, "Does anyone else consider these quotations evidence of CCC's racism"?

As to the opening paragraph, changing it to say "apologists" refer to the CofCC as conservative is not neutral. That holds true regardless of the "racist" description. Secondly, saying that the group supports "European and Southern Heritage" is accurate. Replacing the word "Southern" with "White" makes the sentence somewhat redundant, and less accurate. Finally, it is also redundant to call the group racist, and say that the SPLC calls it racist in the same paragraph. --Alsayid 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word apologist would be best removed, seems it might be an uneccesary flamethrower...but why in the world should the word "racist" be removed from the lead? CCC is clearly and unapologetically racist. Maybe a compromise would be something along the lines of "...CCC is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of WCC. The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools and intimidation of black voters. CCC members refer to themselves as an American paleoconservative political organization that supports European and Southern Heritage...." If we agree to maintain "is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of WCC" in the lead then maybe using "Southern," as opposed to "white," heritage is a good compromise. (I think we could source either stmt). I agree it is redundant to call CCC racist and then in the same paragraph state the "SPLC viewpoint." I propose the "SPLC viewpoint," represented elsewhere in the article, should be removed from the lead.--Cortez3100

I agree that "As to the opening paragraph, changing it to say 'apologists' refer to the CofCC as conservative is not neutral." I dislike the CCC, but I certainly agree that it is paleoconservative! I added "opposes multiculturalism" to the first sentence, which serves the purpose of calling it racist without actually saying "it's racist." It is indisputable that the CCC opposes multiculturalism, but it is debatable that it is "racist." I believe it definitely is racist, but my views are irrelevant as to whether it is neutral to label it as such, without attribution, in the first sentence of the article. This version of the intro paragraph, I think, is accurate and neutral. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the racism self-evident from the selected quotes, if nothing else? The organization's mission was white supremacy. To euphemize white supremacy as opposition to multiculturalism is bad writing at best, but closer to obfuscation. I say that with all due respoect to your NPOV intentions, which I don't doubt.Verklempt 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-amnesty ?

In the text :

"The South Carolina CofCC held the largest anti-amnesty rally in the nation with over 1,000 in Greenville, SC on April 29, 2006"

The term "anti-amnesty" isn't explained in the text, nor seems there be an Wikipedia article to link to. Should there be an better term like "anti-immigration amnesty" or a link to a relevant article, or a link to a new article about the "anti-amnesty" movement? Being European, I like to hear some US opinions, or Wikipedia precedents.

Erik Van Thienen 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I've changed the text to indicate the rally was opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. -Will Beback · † · 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little mention of their position against "mixing"

The statement of the principles of the Council of Conservative Citizens lists the fact that they "oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind." But we have almost no reference at all on the main page to this; the talk about racial views and so on seems to include just (comparatively more mainstream) opposition to affirmative action. In fact, other than the mention that it was formerly headed by segregationists, there's almost nothing on what their racial views are. Any objections to me adding this in? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be incomplete without direct mention of their views on race and related cultural issues. OTOH, we don't want to make this a polemic. The article should treat their principles as neutrally as any other groups, but likewise should be frank when the information is verifiable. I've added that the group supports "white separatism", because I think that is more accurate and neutral than either "white supremacism" or "white nationalism". They use the term "European", at best it means "European-American" and more likely it is a polite variation on "White". Given the above quote from their manifesto [3] it seems "separatism" is a logical application. Finally and most importantly, it's used both by CofCC board memmbers[4] and by critics alike.[5] Any better suggestions? -Will Beback · † · 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Since we had a footnotes section but no footnotes in it, I'm going to go about changing all the current bracket references to cite tags; should happen today. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line says something about the CCofC being against racial integration which leads to a link that is just the CCofC homepage. In its principles it does not say it is against racial integration. Also, the term within Wikipedia is very tenuous..." Although widespread, this distinction between integration and desegregation is not universally accepted. For example, it is possible to find references to "court-ordered integration" [5] from sources such as the Detroit News[6], PBS[7], or even Encarta.[8] These same sources also use the phrase "court-ordered desegregation", apparently with the exact same meaning;[9] [10] the Detroit News uses both expressions interchangeably in the same article.[6]

When the two terms are confused, it is almost always to use integration in the narrower, more legalistic sense of desegregation; one rarely, if ever, sees desegregation used in the broader cultural sense.". So I will remove that part of the first sentence and the link as it is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does say it opposes integration:

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.[6]

I'm restoring the deleted material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thank you Mr. Beback I looked over it too quickly I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No citations

This article lacks citations all around. After reading a news article about the CCC, I came here to learn a little bit more. I don't feel anymore educated on the CCC because there seems to be all kinds of claims with no citations. It doesn't matter what the writer's views are on the CCC, Wikipedia, as an information source, needs to provide facts with support if it wants to be a respected information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.199.217 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There is no citation for calling CCC a supremacist organization. The leader claims, "We have Jewish members. They're just like any other Southerners," said Baum. and also, "We have two American Indian chiefs who belong to the organization." http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001582.php These claims would contraindicate against the label supremacist. Jmegill (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a few that state it directly:

[7] Washington Post, [8] The Associated Press/New York Times, [9] The Nation, [10] Salon, [11] SPLC, [12] ADL, [13] FAIR., [14] Media Matters..Pick which ones you want. Brimba (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you didn't reconcile "supremacist" with accepting members who are not European Christians. How can an organization by "supremacist" if it accepts people of different religions? My POV objection has not been answered. Jmegill (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) One does not have to be anti-Semitic to be a white supremacist, if there is any question on that point see Jared Taylor. 2) Your argument violates Wikipedia:No original research, while the sources listed above meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, and so can be used. That they may have two none white members does not change who they are -we have no way of knowing who the individuals are, or what their status is. Are they paper members to deflect criticism? We have no way to tell, so we fall back on what we can verify. Its strait forward; its not for us to make a judgment. We simply report what we can verify. Brimba (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay 71.2.160.93 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's keep in mind that NONE of these terms are synonymous to each other. White supremacism /=/ neo-nazi /=/ anti-semitic. For example, radical Muslims are likely anti-semitic, though they are not white supremacists. rock8591 08:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

White separatism

I added "white separatism" to the main positons of the group in the lede, because that is what they are notable for. As I noted a year and a half ago, at #Little mention of their position against "mixing", that term is used by by both a board member and a critic. [15][16] There are sources for other terms, like "white nationalist" and "white supremacist", but those are less neutral for the lede and, as a practcal, those terms tend to get deleted anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi CofCC campaign against poverty

Mississippi CofCC has been campaigning against white poverty in Mississippi. It also has held rallies against NAFTA and Globalism according to their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources, most likely newspapers in this case, that report these activities then we can summarize those. Will Beback talk 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no news links because the news avoids reporting on the CofCC unless they can report on something negative.

However, I did check their site and found their following articles.

http://msccc.wordpress.com/war-on-poverty/

http://msccc.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/pictures-from-tea-party-at-the-tippah-county-courthouse/

http://msccc.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/protest-against-free-trade-and-illegal-immigration-report/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 08:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at elast two problems I see with this material. 1) There is a strong preference on Wikiedia for secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. Primary sources, like those links, should only be used to support what can already be found in secondary sources. 2) This food drive seems to be in the future. There is tendency to limit material on future events, both to avoid the appearance of promoting them and to avoid discussing things that don't end up happening. Perhaps during the November food drive it'll get some newspaper coverage and then concerns would be addressed. Will Beback talk 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People & Power Documentary

According to a documentary that aired on Al Jazeera English's People & Power program in January, the Council of Conservative Citizens has links to the tea party movement. Does anyone have anything more substantial on this than the brief mention the documentary gave it? --136.159.72.2 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCC

The CCC has had ties to white hate groups in the past denying this is pointless. And it should be labled far right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange that the NAACP article is positively skewed but this one is negatively skewed when they are equal orgs.

Dunnbrian9 (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully neither article is biased either way: all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. If you have specific problems with this or another article, please state them. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of members or supporters?

List of members or supporters? Is there any reliable source that can give detail for such a thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.2.226 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal discussion

An IP editor has twice removed these categories from this article:

Category:Racism in the United States
Category:Far-right politics in the United States
Category:White supremacist groups in the United States

I think they are appropriate and should stay in. Thoughts? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last of those three seems clearly appropriate at first glance; for the other two, you need to review WP:CAT and the concepts of hierarchical organization. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that and I understand the "concepts of hierarchical organization" and I don't think they apply. Why don't you explain your point instead of (a) leaving me to guess which part of the guideline you think applies and (b) assuming that there are some objective "concepts of hierarchical organization" that we both agree on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part that says articles should be included in the most specific appropriate sub-categories to the exclusion of the less specific broader parent categories. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no reason other than that a guideline says so? This seems to me to be a case of articles where "some are simply subsets which have some special characteristic of interest" and so this should be included in the parent category of Racism in the US as well. Why do you disagree? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel it is necessary to overload the parent category with all members of its subsets and to overload the article with category listings that are clearly shades of the same thing? Why do we not also list "Film producers from Los Angeles" under "People from Los Angeles", "People from Los Angeles County", "People from California", "People from the United States", "American film producers", and "People"? What is special about this set except that maybe it's your special area of interest? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you either ignore my arguments or produce straw men to fight against. Who cares about your chain of film producers etcetera? It's not obvious to anyone which category the racism category is a parent of, so it's obviously not duplicative. Is it White supremacist groups? Not everyone knows that white supremacists are racists, so having it in the racism category adds information. That's what's special about it in the sense of the guideline which you told me to read but which you don't seem to feel any great need to discuss. It doesn't prima facie support your position. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does prima facie support my position; it is up to you to make a convincing case that circumstances here are so special that the site-wide guidelines should be ignored. Assuming that some people are ignorant of the fact that white supremacy and white nationalism are forms of racism is no more a valid reason than assuming that some people are ignorant of the fact that Los Angeles is in the United States. As to addressing your points, I have seen no points beyond a personal belief that there is something here deserving of special emphasis. That's known as undue weight and a non-neutral point of view. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the chain of categories? Category:White supremacist groups in the United States < Category:White supremacy in the United States < Category:History of racism in the United States < Category:Racism in the United States? Is there some shorter chain? Why are either of those first two even in History of racism in the United States? What do they even have to do with the history of white supremacism as opposed to racism per se? The guidelines do not prima facie support your position. Did you see the example about tollbridges and bridges? How is this even close to as trivial as that? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that is a good approach, try going to categories for discussion with the suggestion that Category:Racism in the United States be designated as a non-diffusing category. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I do that? I have no opinion on the diffusingatude of the category except in the case of this one article. The appropriate venue for that discussion is this talk page. Obviously you and I aren't going to convince one another. You kept reverting the category back out even though it was at D in BRD because you think your theories and guidelines trump actual discussion, so I suppose there's nothing to do but wait and see if anyone else cares and then, if not, ask for more eyes. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New start regarding Category discussion

You might take a look at the discussion here: Category talk:White supremacist groups in the United States. The specific reason that this group also needs to be in Category:Racism in the United States is that this group advocates for many racist positions which are unrelated to white supremacy, e.g. they are opposed to interracial marriage. Thus, as is discussed on that category talk page, classifying the group merely as white supremacist doesn't capture the sole defining essence of the group. They are racist for other reasons than their belief in white supremacy. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation

"The group's website was cited in the manifesto of accused mass murderer Dylann Roof as awakening him to what he perceived as media bias in the reporting of racial murders.^[1]"

The "manifesto" didn't cite the groups website as "awakening" him to anything. It says, "The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case." You're switching out the website for the Trayvon Martin case. That's completely POV, not supported by the source. This violates wikipidea's rule on libel. It should be fixed or removed immediately.24.12.6.25 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the manifesto: "But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words 'black on White crime' into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?" That entirely supports the prose in the article and is in no sense defamation, as it's true. Dyrnych (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one thing, then saying another. They're not the same thing. Put in a direct quote and this will be resolved. Right now it's dishonest and represents a POV.24.12.6.25 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the word "awakening" seems to be the confusing part, how about revising it for this article, and saving the quote mentioning Trayvon Martin for that article? His internet search brought him first to the CCC's website, and "I have never been the same since that day." -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Last Rhodesian". Retrieved June 20, 2015.

I agree that "awakening" is misplaced. So is "media bias". Roof learned about some crimes on the CofCC web site, and some Trayvon Martin info from Wikipedia. He came to his own conclusions about media bias. That is all I get out of his manifesto. Roger (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that Roof "came to his own conclusions about media bias" from viewing the website of an avowed white supremacist group whose explicit purpose in posting stories about black-on-white violence is to expose purported media bias? Dyrnych (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous argumentation. Neither if these are misplaced, and in any case we should follow the sources which overwhelmingly make the connection. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am against using the quote at this point because we need to show that the connection is important to people writing about the CCC, not just Roof. Lots of alleged killers have claimed inspiration from the Bible for example but we do not add them to articles about the Bible. If sources on CCC do mention it, at least we will be able to provide a neutral description of the supposed influence, rather than citing Roof's essay. The relevant policies are weight and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. TFD (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you think that there's no connection between (1) Roof's statement that the CoCC exposed him to media bias regarding black-on-white violence and (2) the CoCC's statement that Roof was correct in drawing the conclusion that there is media bias regarding black-on-white violence. As far as weight, we provide basically a couple of sentences in the article regarding Roof. I can't imagine that there's an actual controversy here. Dyrnych (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my comments when the only mention of the CCC was in a quote from Roof. It is not that I thought there was no connection, but that any connections must be sourced to secondary sources, not made by Wikipedia editors, per synthesis. Note that we now have reliable secondary sources and the advantage of them is that they are able to interpret what Roof said, provide a reply from the CCC and comments of third parties, such as the SPLC. TFD (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern was that there was only a single source, it—by definition—cannot be synthesis. It might be original research, except for the fact that we were citing the Roof manifesto for its claim, not making an interpretation of its claim. In any event, it seems clear that the quote belongs in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it bad practice however to select a quote from Storm's "manifesto" and add it to this article before any reliable source has commented on it. We could have avoided this discussion if you had bothered to wait a couple of hours so that your edits would be consistent with policy. TFD (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you're crediting me with the edit despite the fact that I didn't make it. Would you say that's bad practice as well? Dyrnych (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is confrontational. Try being collegial and you will find that more editors may cooperate with you. TFD (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt school?

We say: "They consider the American Civil Rights Movement and the Frankfurt School as elementally subversive to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution". Do we mean the Frankfurt School as it sounds like an odd thing to single out. I'm sure they don't like critical theory but is this a different US Frankfurt School? Secretlondon (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they mean the Frankfurt School as we know it, linked to Columbia University.[17] Doug Weller (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military rank of Robert Patterson

Robert Patterson was a Command Major Sergeant which is an enlisted rank, not a Major which is a commissioned officer. He received the Medal of Honor which is great but doesn't commission someone. http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3380/patterson-robert-martin.php I am confused why someone keeps editing his rank to be a major when this is not the case. TodayIsMyBirthday (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may come as a surprise to you, but names are not unique, partial names and nicknames even less so. The original cited source says that "Maj. Bob Patterson" founded the original Citizens Council organization in 1955, and identifies him as a former provost of Berlin. Your MoH bio identifies the subject as having been born in 1948, which would make him seven years old when the Citizens Council was founded. That would make him a rather remarkable prodigy. Far more likely (though still not reliably confirmed) would be Robert D. Patterson, who can be Googled to online histories of the 82nd Airborne, as having been a captain in the 82nd during World War II and later provost of Berlin. Promotion from captain to major is not unheard of. 2600:1006:B112:31C6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it's been removed pursuant to WP:CREDENTIAL. TodayIsMyBirthday (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misquote

The article relies on the SPLC quoting the NY Times saying that CCC is a "thinly veiled white supremacist organization." However the actual NY Times editorial said that someone denied knowledge "of the C.C.C.'s thinly veiled white supremacist agenda." Even if these mean the same thing, the article should not be endorsing a quote we know to be wrong. I think that it is better to just remove the claim. Roger (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Here is the NY Times editorial that I think is the correct source. [18] Roger (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, are you suggesting? It's certainly not a logical leap between an organization espousing a white supremacist agenda and a white supremacist organization. Dyrnych (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting accuracy, not logical leaps by editors about third-party opinions. Roger (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Council of Conservative Citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for cofcc.org/shelby.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cofcc.org/extras/june10ci.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623220005/http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/06/media-interviews-with-the-cofcc/ to http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/06/media-interviews-with-the-cofcc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate grievances

These recent edits [19] [20] misrepresent the source. The source says: In his statement, Taylor said the manifesto outlined "legitimate grievances" without specifying what those grievances were. "In his manifesto, Roof outlines other grievances felt by many whites," Taylor said. [21] So it is not that Roof personally had grievances against black people. It would be better to just quote what CCC says, not some blog's distortion of it. Roger (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "blog" (which is actually a reported piece, whether or not you personally like the source) provides an analysis of the statement, which—not unreasonably—concludes that the "legitimate grievances" in question are the litany of anti-black statements that precede the term. What you appear to be trying to do is to substitute your own analysis for that of the piece and/or delegitimize it by calling it a "blog" (which, as noted, it isn't) or a "tertiary source" (which is also incorrect, as it is a secondary source for the statement). It unambiguously states the precise language that you keep trying to whitewash(no pun intended) out of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say that the TPM blog is a tertiary source because the Roof statement is the primary source, the CCC statement is a secondary source about what Roof said, and the TPM blog is then tertiary. So the TPM blog has marginal value. But I do not have any disagreement with the TPM blog, so I think it is acceptable to cite it, as long as you cite it accurately. And you are not doing that. I quoted above what the TPM blog says. In particular, TPM talks about unspecified grievances, and other whites. Roger (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're being obtuse. (1) Again, it's not a blog, no matter how many times you say the word. (2) We're not citing the TPM article for what Roof said, we're citing it for what the CoCC itself said regarding the Roof shooting. And the TPM article is very, very obviously a secondary source for that. (3) The TPM article's literal first sentence is the following: "A white nationalist group that may have influenced the suspected gunman in last week's massacre at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina said Sunday in a statement that it believes he had 'legitimate grievances' against black people." Look! There! The precise language that you're trying to exclude from the article! Dyrnych (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP calls Talking points memo a blog. Regardless, just read on and it says: In his statement, Taylor said the manifesto outlined "legitimate grievances" without specifying what those grievances were. "In his manifesto, Roof outlines other grievances felt by many whites," Taylor said. Please do not just cherry-pick the sentence you like, especially when it does not agree with the primary source, the secondary source, or even the tertiary source a few paragraphs later. Roger (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roof's manifesto consists of a list of grievances against black people. The CoCC offers a litany of claims about black people, then says that Roof had some legitimate grievances. You're correct that the statement doesn't identify which specific grievances articulated by Roof that the CoCC thinks to be legitimate. But it would be totally unreasonable to conclude (and, in fact, the source does not conclude) that it isn't referencing grievances about black people, because they are the entire content of Roof's manifesto. You're trying to claim an inconsistency where none exists. Dyrnych (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CoCC calls them grievances, so I have no quarrel with that term. But what are they? The WP text you support implies that Roof personally had these grievances against black people. Roof has complaints about black murders, and about the news media, but not about things black people did to him. (Please correct me if I am wrong. I have not looked at this recently.) We are talking about a WP article's respresentation of the TPM blog's representation of CoCC's representation of Roof's manifesto, and all of these are confusing and possibly contradictory. At any rate, we should not imply that Roof claimed to have personal grievances against black people unless he said so. Roger (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Yes, absolutely Dylann Roof had "grievances against black people" as a class. He's an avowed white supremacist who supports segregation and believes that blacks are "stupid and violent." By his own admission, he wanted to start a race war. It is honestly baffling that you believe that there's legitimate dispute about this point. As to whether he's been personally aggrieved by a specific black person, that's utterly irrelevant to this issue; it's just another example of you moving the goalposts to elide the actual issue.

You continue not to grasp that the TPM source (which, again, you seem to delight in disparaging as a "blog") is being used for the CoCC's statement, not for the manifesto. Did the CoCC and TPM synthesize other reports in issuing their respective pieces? Likely. Does that make them any less reliable or more confusing? Absolutely not. And the notion that the CoCC wasn't referring to grievances against black people—when it literally preceded that statement with a list of grievances against black people—continues to be laughable. Dyrnych (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why argue? Just way what CoCC said. I am not disparaging a blog. I write a blog myself. There is nothing wrong with a blog. But you should not be distorting CoCC by cherry-picking a line from a blog. Sure, there are grievances. I do not dispute that. Just say what CoCC said about them, if you want. If you like the TPM blog so much, why do you delete the other things that it said about those grievances? Roger (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be cherry-picking, the line would have to be inconsistent with the rest of the source. And, as noted above, it isn't. But I agree: why argue? You don't have consensus for your edit and, frankly, I doubt that you have any chance of convincing anyone that your version is an improvement. Dyrnych (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council of Conservative Citizens. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040102200149/http://www.cofcc.org:80/ to http://www.cofcc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Council of Conservative Citizens. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cofcc.org/foundation/reparations.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=103
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040102200149/http://www.cofcc.org:80/ to http://www.cofcc.org:80/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council of Conservative Citizens. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

BAn 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 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Last Rhodesian". Retrieved June 20, 2015.

[1]