Talk:Knights of the White Camelia

Spelling of name

Can we determine if the organization used one or two l's in 'Camelia?' If both were used at the time, the article should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrovagus (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am surprised by the statement that it ended so early. I was told my grandfather and his brother were members of this group. My grandfather was born around 1914 in Florida (I think Panama City) but would have been in the upper Glades when he became a member. Would he have been part of a the last remains of the original organization, or would his group have coopted teh name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.68.29 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one "l", they say so right on their website. 68.201.124.154 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There are groups that use the name nowadays, but a group that disbanded in 1870 did not have a website. Sources about the original group sometimes use two l's. 99.95.132.114 (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

The TSHA online source needs to be updated please! 68.201.124.154 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Phrasing

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Knights of the White Camelia - I agree with the removal of the phrase. No matter how clear cut it may seem, phrasing like that is generally best to avoid whenever possible, especially when not explicitly mentioned by the source, as mentioned at WP:LABEL. If you disagree, just leave me a message wherever so we can discuss. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above was moved from my talk page. The phrase removed is the bold faced part of this sentence:Like most white supremacist terrorist organizations founded after the American Civil War, the Knights of the White Camelia was founded by a Confederate army veteran. The deletion of the material, IMO, was unwarranted.

In the first place, the "white supremacy" part of the sentence is fully supported by the source cited. From that source, "The Knights of the White Camellia was a secret organization of white men formed in the lower Southern states in the Reconstruction period. Its members were pledged to support the supremacy of the white race, to oppose the amalgamation of the races, to resist the social and political encroachment of the so-called carpetbaggers, and to restore white control of the government."

The terrorist charge is commonly acknowledged by historians. Examples found after a few minutes google work:

From http://www.historynet.com/home-grown-terrorists.htm:"WHILE THE ACTIVITIES of the KGC might have fanned post-war flames, two other Southern secret societies employed outright terror and violence to stoke the fire. Both the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia resolved to reverse the changes imposed on the South and return Southern society to its prewar order, especially when it came to white supremacy."

From http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/white-supremacy/: The title is "White Supremacy and Terrorism". From the article "The Ku Klux Klan (founded in 1865) and the Knights of the White Camellia (1867) were secret groups, while members of the White League (1874) and the Red Shirts (1875) were publically known. All four groups used violence to intimidate blacks and Republican voters. Their efforts succeeded, and with the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white supremacy became the reality of the South."

From http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/knights_of_the_white_camelia: "The Knights of the White Camelia was an American political terrorist organization that operated in the southern United States in the 19th century, similar to and associated with the Ku Klux Klan, supporting white supremacy and opposing freedmen's rights."

Unless the deleters have sources that say otherwise, the material should be added back. FWIW, a similar discussion developed at the Red Shirts article (see Talk:Red Shirts (Southern United States)#Red Shirts (Southern United States) and the RFC directly below it. The "terrorist" references in the article were not contested. You can also check out the Ku Klux Klan article that references both "terrorism" and "white supremacy". Terrorism and white supremacy were active throughout the South during Reconstruction and there is nothing "contentious" about calling it like it was. It would be a violation of NPOV not to include it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and expanded the section with additional sources and quotes to address stated objections. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]