Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans

White Supremacy in the first sentence

@PRRfan and 3Kingdoms: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). In the case of an organization we cannot tell this without mentioning its purpose. And this purpose has always been linked with the Lost Cause and with White Supremacy. On the other hand, the fact that they officially disavow racism, doesn't tell us anything about them, since (nearly) everybody claims to be against racism. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with removing "officially disavow racism". PRRfan (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I included the official disavow because it was in a reliable source and thought in the interest of fairness it should be included. Personally prefer my wording regarding the lost cause, but if more prefer the current wording so be it.3Kingdoms (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Let me add that WP is no courtroom, so "fairness" doesn't mean that both sides have to be heard. It means WP:NPOV, that is, we neutrally report what reliable sources say, giving weight to each side following secondary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:BALANCE). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I understand your point. I felt that the source I included that mentioned the disavowal would be considered reliable. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Discussion based on a misunderstanding of NPOV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have we slid back this far, wikipedians? The article reads like something out of the most biased tabloid. This is an organization for the descendants of veterans from a war that happened almost 200 years ago, whose members include prominent and respectable individuals including one U.S. president. It reads like these people are reforming the KKK and trying to lynch African Americans. What happened to neutral point of view? Perhaps not everyone should be ashamed of their great great grandparents because of their involvement in a civil conflict that happened before anyone who is currently alive was born. I politely suggest a re-evaluation of the entire article, and let's not devolve into vitriol-laden political posturing, despite how fashionable it seems to have become in recent years. 2600:6C64:5800:58C:74E5:C5A2:289C:84F1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) I love to hear from a true optimist. There are too many opinionated editors on Wikipedia to have anything like neutrality on articles like this, unless they engage in some serious self-reflection. I fully support your suggestion, and look forward to a return to neutral weighing of sources, rather than treating any and every media or academic hit-piece as a "reliable source". Just look at the thread above this. It was deemed just fine to keep accusations of racism in the article, but let's delete the fact that the organization itself disavows racism. Eastcote (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. The page could use appropriately weighted balance. Can you folks come up with some independent reliable sources which justify your positions? Please list them here and I'll advocate their insertion. BusterD (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I'd love to provide references to say that the SCV is just a group about genealogy and history, but I'm not even going to try. My references would be overridden by countless references that say the SCV is all about white supremacy and racism. Such is the world we live in, where truth doesn't matter in the face of all these folks who see racism and oppression everywhere. They have the weight of "reliable sources" on their side, even though those sources are biased beyond belief. As someone else on this talk page said, Wikipedia isn't about fairness, it's about what "reliable sources" say. I guess that's why I don't play around with Wikipedia all that much these days. Truth matters for nothing. Eastcote (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Eastcote: This is not the place for complaining about WP's guidelines, see WP:NOTFORUM. Do you really call a work like David Blight's Race and Reunion an "academic hit-piece" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Let me add that neither I nor anybody else on this talk page said that WP "isn't about fairness" - you might want to read those comments again. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) The SCV really is this bad, if not worse... I think the article is a fair/accurate representation. The organization is a borderline white supremist group. In recent years their membership has been leaked showing many prominent white supremist, KKK members, and other racists amongst their ranks. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) "Borderline white supremacist group". I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. As for membership being "leaked", that makes it sound as if the SCV is a secret society whose members are sworn to not betray each other to the public. Just about every membership organization, from the Audubon Society to the Boy Scouts, treats its membership list as private information. And as for "guilt by association" because there are "racists" as members, I have it on good authority that there are actually Jews who are members of the SCV. I guess that means the SCV must be some secret Zionist organization as well, huh? I suggest that for this to be a truly factual article that presents its subject from a truly "neutral point of view", that sources using such "guilt by association" biases be reduced in prominence, and that the organization's own charter and by-laws be relied on a bit more. Eastcote (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacy, yet again.

There have been many attempts to remove from this article the notion that the SCV "promotes...white supremacy". These edits have all been reverted, usually with an explanation that the claim of white supremacy is "reliably sourced". However, I have read through the sources, and none of them states categorically that the SCV promotes white supremacy. Most of the "sources" don't even mention the SCV at all. A couple of them do, but these are best described as opinion pieces, rather than news reports or scholarship. The insertion of "white supremacy" in this article seems to be based on "synthesis" of the sources by various editors. I.e., the SCV commemorates Confederate soldiers, commemoration of the Confederacy is part of a "Lost Cause" narrative, the "Lost Cause" narrative is connected with white supremacists....therefore, the SCV promotes white supremacy. I suggest that those editors who want to keep the white supremacy claim should go out and find better sources. Sources that point-blank state that the SCV is a white supremacist organization or that the stated purpose of the SCV is to promote white supremacy. Otherwise, this back-and-forth deletion/reversion will go on forever. I myself would prefer that the claims of "white supremacy" be put clearly in a section about "criticism", rather than stating in "Wiki-voice" that the organization espouses it, as if the claim is factually true. It is a claim, and needs to be clearly labelled as such. Eastcote (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The "Lost Cause" is NOT about "commemoration of Confederate soldiers", but about deliberately distorting history. The SCV still claim that their ancestors fought for freedom (imagine the cynicism of that !). In our "Purpose", the connection between SCV and White Supremacy is explained according to rock-solid sources. I'd really like to know which of them can be called an "opinion piece". For the rest, please see the comments at #Alleging White Supremacy. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly on the SCV website or in any of it's published documents does it advocate white supremacy? Just a reminder this isn't a forum so I'm not interested in a discussion, just the links please. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies favor following what reliable sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. I would be surprised if SCV self-identified as a white supremicist organization, but that has little to do with how reliable sources describe the organization, which is what Wikipedia is based on. (Also, to forestall objections, since you seem to have a somewhat tortured view of what makes a source reliable: this is how we determine what constitutes a reliable source here.) --JBL (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Because the SCV is a Confederate history/advocacy group its implied that it is a white supremacist organization, which is just following wikipedia guidelines. That's all very neat and tidy, but I didn't ask what about what "reliable sources" think of the SCV or what the SCV thinks or promotes itself to be. I asked where are the sources that demonstrate that the SCV has de facto, as an organization, committed acts or issued documents that can directly link it to white supremacist ideologies or advocating that ideology? I have gone through the list of references and I hope you are not suggesting that those demonstrate the SCV is a white supremacist organization because they seem to be more editorial then actual reporting. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The description currently in the article corresponds well to the description of SCV given in reliable sources. For everything else, please see WP:NOTFORUM. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's not a forum nor is it supposed to be an editorial site. This article is very weak in facts. If your going to accuse SCV of white supremacy in the first paragraph you need to cite a source immediately. I'd put one in, but I can't find one. Thus my original question. 67.177.104.125 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Sources for Several Statements

This topic is a recurring one. The article has several statements that are either not sourced or sources do not substantiate summaries that are written here. I suggest we remove the page in its entirety as it is simply a ground for propaganda on all sides (which is what I thought I was doing - I’ve never removed a page before, only edited). As much as I agree with the statements written, we simply cannot have unsourced opinions constantly posted and reverted to once removed. It makes us, as editors, look petty, immature, and stupid and makes Wikipedia look biased and anti-factual, perpetuating the ban by school systems to use Wikipedia as a source for essays and research papers. MRJ 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)

Which of the 64 references do you challenge, and which statements do you assert are unsupported? Bear in mind that the lead paragraph is a summary of the sourced content in the body of the article. As for deletion, that's extremely unlikely to happen. Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As stated, I will compile a list later in the day. This issue gives grounds for a user to watch Janet Osseburg videos on Rumble and use them as a source to cite something as baseless as Obama being involved in child trafficking and sacrificial eating. We are allowing behavior like that if we continue to allow statements to be posted without proper citation. MRJ 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. No it doesn't give grounds for any article to ignore our policies and guidelines. And schools and universities don't forbid students to use Wikipedia. Just as Wikipedia itself says, our articles are not reliably published sources. But they are extremely useful in finding good sources, and Universities at least run courses on how to do this, working with editors here who advise them. It's not possible to have this page deleted, it would have to go through WP:AFD where you would have to prove that the subject isn't notable, which clearly it is. Looking at your edits, it looks as though you didn't like the criticism and removed it without checking the sources. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's tackle these questionable sources used to support the claim of “white supremacy” in this article.   We'll start with: David W. Blight (2001). Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory.  Blight discusses events of over a century ago.  The only place I could find the SCV mentioned was in a footnote about an SCV meeting in 1895, one hundred twenty-nine years ago.   This book does not support the statement that today’s SCV “promotes white supremacy”. The book makes the connection between the “Lost Cause” and white supremacy, and says that various organizations such as the UCV and the UDC were part of maintaining white supremacy in the South.  But, EVERY institution and organization in the South over a century ago was part of maintaining white supremacy:  schools, courts, local governments, churches, even the county road commissions.  It was ingrained in the culture until the 1960s.  Take, for instance, the Southern Baptist Convention, today the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.  It was created in 1845 when American Baptists split over slavery, with the SBC being in support of preserving slavery as an institution.  In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, it was certainly part of the fabric in the South that maintained white supremacy.  But we are a hundred years on from all of that, and the SBC has moved on, to the extent that the SBC includes many African-American members and elected an African-American to head the Convention in 2012.   Times change, and organizations change along with it.  To cite a footnote from a source that discusses how things WERE in 1895, to support claiming that the SCV of 2024 “promotes white supremacy” is a poor use of sources. Eastcote (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Blight footnote is attached to the claim that the "Lost Cause" is linked to White Supremacy. It is not used to support any claim about the SCV. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in how Blight is being used, but Blight is being used incorrectly. The Blight footnote is being used to INFER that the SCV "supports white supremacy". Actually, it's being used to do more than infer it, as it is used to justify the claim. Wikipedia specifically prohibits synthesizing material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The first several sources are there to say that the SCV adheres to the "Lost Cause Myth". Then Blight's book is used to say the "Lost Cause Myth" supports white supremacy. Therefore...we get the synthesized conclusion that SCV supports white supremacy. This conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any source" cited in this article. The Blight citation, and the "white supremacy" claim, should be removed from the article until someone can come up with a reliable source that "explicitly states" that the SCV supports white supremacy. See WP:SYNTH. Eastcote (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've added to the Links with extremist groups section a better quote of Beirich on p. 291 in "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction" that explicitly states the SCV supports white supremacy: "In March 2000, the scv [sic] participated in a Confederate flag rally in Montgomery, Alabama, organized by the LS. Just over a year later, in April 2001, the scv held a joint rally in support of White Supremacy in the 21st Century." See here. Carlstak (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: "LS" refers to League of the South, "an American white nationalist, neo-Confederate, white supremacist organization that says its goal is "a free and independent Southern republic"." Carlstak (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Claims of White Supremacy unfounded

I reviewed the materials in SCV article and spent two days in the SVC museum in Columbia, TN, reviewing the SVC publications. I found no mention of white supremacy or racism in any of the SVC materials on display. The article as written lacks credible evidence racial bias. Instead, I found factual based historical content within the SVC publications some of which contradicts the political and revisionist views so prominent in the opening paragraphs of this article.

As such, this article is slanderous and amounts to character assassination. It is written under the presumption that all displays of of flags or written material commemorating the thousands of Americans who fought for the Confederate flag are unacceptable. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech which includes opposing views and facts not properly represented in this article. This article and those like it attempt to suppress the civil rights of the descendants of Americans because of their ancestors' beliefs. Articles like this one attempt to suppress a portion of our country's great history. The SCV has the right to display flags and other materials describing factual history of our nation.

Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits. I advise that this article be carefully reviewed for unsubstantiated content and political bias. In the meantime, I will advise the SCV of this article and my efforts to set the record straight.

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” GEORGE ORWELL Mockingbird73 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think that could be perceived as a WP:THREAT. What do you think ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

NLT blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A "threat"? Seriously? Where is the threat? Eastcote (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Publications and authors are liable for violations of civil rights and are open to civil suits" is enough of an implied legal threat to be disruptive. See WP:NLT. WP:NOTFREESPEECH also applies. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And of course I've told them how to get unblocked. It's trivial, you just say you don't intend to take legal action or encourage others. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I noted that Wikipedia has failed to make the change. Why is that? I likewise read the SCV literature from their website and see no substantiation of Wikipedia's claim. This is not the only topic I have found them to be incorrect. 67.2.194.255 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

WP doesn't go by what people say about themselves, but by what realiable sources say about them. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)