Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Weasel words

Neo-confederate groups are often pro-South and pro-states' rights, and some are accused of practicing bigotry.

Neo-confederate groups are normally pro-South pro-states' rights, and in favor of renewed southern secession.

Are there any Neo-Confedrate groups that are not pro-South and pro-states' rights? Why the qualifier? If a group doesn't stand for those things, then it isn't a neo-confederate group, right? Unless there is an example to the contrary, I think it is correct to write that such groups always stand for those things, not just normally or often. -Willmcw 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reason for the qualifier: not all neo-confederate groups have the exact same beliefs but rather are typified by those beliefs. For example, a neo-confederate group could espouse states rights or nullification theory but not desire to secede even though many do desire to secede.Rangerdude 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, hypothetically. Are there specific groups you are thinking of?

Also, the UDC and SCV uproar over McPherson seems to have been becasue he called them "white supremacists", not because he called them "neo-confederate". I followed the link and there is nothing there about neo-confederacy. Do you have a reference where they deny being NeoCon and complain about McPherson using that term? I think the anecdote belongs in the SCV and UDC articles instead of this one. -Willmcw 23:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He also uses the term "neo-confederate" in the full interview as do the show's hosts many times. I was searching for a transcript online earlier and came across that UDC link. I'll see if I can locate the full thing though.Rangerdude 00:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

McPherson clearly calls them "neo-confederate" in the interview, that is not the question. The issue is have the SCV and UDT denied being "NC" and created an uproar over it. The page you linked to, on a UDC site, does not mention "NC". -Willmcw 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the UDC denounced the entire interview. McPherson clearly used the term in a pejorative sense, which is part of the article here, and thus reason for its inclusion as an example of an episode where this happened. That the UDC was unhappy with the entire interview is also plainly evident, which is the purpose of mentioning them.Rangerdude 01:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Groups Labelled Neo-Confederate

One other thing on the header you just added - most of the groups you listed are NOT identified as "neo-confederate" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think the only ones they track are the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and only the former is described as "neo-confederate" by them.

There is also probably a NPOV problem in putting together a list like that, especially based on the SPLC - which is a controversial organization that espouses a POV of its own. The section should probably mention the League of the South as an example of a well known group that is considered neo-confederate. Some chapters of the Council of Conservative Citizens could possibly be included, but they are more of a segregationist organization and don't particularly have any pro-confederate connection (they were formed out of the White Citizens Council groups that resisted integration in the 60's and the anti-bussing groups in the 70's and aren't a regionally exclusive group like the League of the South).

The UDC and SCV have evidently been called neo-confederate by some, but the SPLC does not consider them this and they are normally treated as mainstream geneology associations like the Daughters of the American Revolution. Those who do call them neo-confederate seem to come from the political extreme (e.g. Pacifica Radio) and use the term in the pejorative sense, so listing them as an example of a neo-confederate group is probably inappropriate here.Rangerdude 02:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll re-word it. Yes, the SPLC only identifies the LOTS as NC (along with a couple of little groups). But others routinely call the CoCC, the UDC, and the SCV NC. (whew, too many acronyms!) I was trying to avoid saying that these were all SPLC-labelled groups, but I'll make that clearer, and provide some attributions. There are scores of lists like this on Wiki, which include assigning people or groups that they may not agree with. I don't think there is a boilerplate template for it, but a disclaimer to the effect that all groups may not agree with the label is sufficient. (cf Category:Lists of people). Cheers, -Willmcw 02:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A list is okay in some respects, but we have to be careful. Otherwise we risk creating a variant of McCarthy-style labelling, only the label is neo-confederate instead of communist. The list should not include just any and every group that some kook on the internet somewhere or a heavily biased media outlet labels as a neo-confederate. For example I don't think there are many mainstream sources that would consider the UDC or SCV neo-confederate. Most of what they do is geneological and cleaning up old battlefield, monuments, and cemetaries. I think they both also have policies against espousing political positions, which is a characteristic of a neo-confederate group. Again, the ones that do call them neo-confederate are places like Pacifica Radio - which is on the far left - and people like Sebesta, who is only treated as credible by outlets like Pacifica. Mainstream groups such as the Union Veterans ancestor counterparts and most mainstream media outlets don't consider the UDC neo-confederate. Now the League of the South on the other hand should be on the list because they openly advertise their belief in secession and are known for that in public mainstream sources.Rangerdude 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are (and were) communists. Regarding its definition, does it necessarily include secessionists or not? Earlier I thought you were saying that NC folks often are secession, but not always. If so, a group can be NC without advocating secession, such as the CofCC. We can be sure to say that some groups deny the label. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is true, but there is a difference between identifying real communists and tarring people at random with the label "communist". The reworked paragraph is better but still needs some clarification. The identity of the person who uses the term is important to establishing the credibility of its use. If somebody were to write an article saying "Vladimir Putin has been accused by some who know him of having a hot temper" and the source is Colin Powell it is VERY different than saying the same thing if the source is Louis Farrakahn. Powell is a mainstream source who met Putin and is qualified to make that assessment while Farrakahn is not. Powell is mainstream and Farrakahn is a fringe leader. Since the source on labelling the UDC as neo-confederate is a fringe radio network (Sebesta), a fringe commentator (Sebesta), and comments by McPherson that were received very unfavorably in the mainstream, any identification of the UDC and SCV as "neo-confederate" should be HEAVILY qualified by noting exactly what kind of sources are making the charges. Perhaps moving that paragraph to the section on the pejorative of the term would be a way of resoliving this, since Pacifica, McPherson et al used it in a pejorative sense rather than to simply identify an undisputed neo-confederat group like the LOTS Rangerdude 04:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - I'm still not sure if the CofCC qualifies as neo-confederate. There doesn't seem to be anything that they do or stand for that is explicitly pro-confederacy. Most of their issues are apparently related to affirmative action and opposing desegregation, which are both 20th century issues.

I don't know if the CofCC qualifies as being neo-confederate either. In fact, I don't know if any of these groups qualify. Fortuantely, we don't have to make that determination. We're just saying that other sources have called them neo-confederate. I'll look some more - I think that others beside Institute for Southern Studies and SPLC have used the term. Meanwhile I'll add Institute for Southern Studies. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again that's fine, but we should use a finer toothed comb in screening what other sources we use and how much credibility we give to the sources we do use. Simply posting any and every accusation where somebody called somebody else a "neoconfederate" is irresponsible and reeks of a variant of McCarthyism. It's the difference between quoting William Rehnquist and quoting Lyndon LaRouche - yes, each of them technically say lots of things about current issues but one is credible and the other's a fringer. Same goes for this, and I don't think we should be making a list based on what some nutcase at Pacifica Radio says without making it VERY clear that it's coming from Pacifica radio and being used in the pejorative. I added qualifiers and set up another section to discuss this. The "Institute for Southern Studies" linked to in your source is a far-left organization that, according to its website, includes Cynthia McKinney and Jim Hightower as contributers. It is fine if McKinney and Hightower want to say something in this discussion, but it needs to be noted who these people are and the fact that they are writing with a very strong point-of-view of their own, rather than a mainstream source. Rangerdude 06:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I looked for a site which had a characterization of the Institute for Southern Studies, but didn't find one. "Far-left" is a very POV characterization. If a characterization is required, then "a civil-rights group" would seem neutral. I'm not sure that we need to rely on Pacifica Radio for anything, but if so then it may be well-known enough not to require a characterization, but "progressive" would be a neutral term for it. I don't see any need to add other groups to the list - do you know of any others that should be included? The others on the SPLC list seemed minor. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at their website. It openly says it's purpose is to push a liberal agenda in the south. It also openly promotes far left writers like Hightower and McKinney who are indisputably from the left wing of the US political spectrum. See http://www.southernstudies.org/southernexposure.asp Rangerdude 06:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the entire page you linked to:

While pundits continue to paint the South as a stronghold of conservatism, the award-winning Southern Exposure magazine recently celebrated 25 years of offering "a progressive view of the South" with a special anniversary edition issued. It features 25 leading Southern "change-makers" - including Julian Bond, Chairman of the National NAACP; Texas-based radio host Jim Hightower; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) - offering insights into how the South has changed in the last 25 years, and predicting key challenges for the next quarter century.

All members of the Institute receive Southern Exposure and deep discounts on Institute reports. For those who want to receive Southern Exposure without joining as a member or who want to order back copies of the magazine, please click here.

"Southern Exposure has exposed people to the good news and the bad news about the South," writes Julian Bond in the anniversary issue. "It's been a wonderful resource for people - from the merely curious, to people who want to know how they can get involved and create change."

I don't see where the webpage uses the phrases "liberal" or "far-left". Bond and McKinney aren't even board members, they're just participants at a conference. Anyway, this article isn't about them, it's about "neo-confederates". We're already saying that defenders of these groups rebut the charges of neo-confederalism by asserting that these groups have an anti-confederate agenda. Doesn't that cover it? -Willmcw 06:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They use euphemistic synonyms like "progressive." Their self identified mission statement is to "provide a progressive view of the south" and their page is covered with traditionally liberal social causes like "environmental justice" and "farmworker justice". They should accordingly be identified as a liberal organization, just as you would have every right to identify a link from the Heritage Foundation as conservative or right wing. There's no need to hide their political perspectives and it deceived the reader if we do.Rangerdude 07:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, "liberal" is reasonably acurate and succinct. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the aforementioned change, and also removed this clause:

...observe that their accusers often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum,...

which I think requires a citation. Who made that observation? -Willmcw 07:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just from a quick google search but here's a pro-southern group that complains of McPherson being anti-south and a political extremist http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20020708.htm

It's actually a fairly common complaint. I'll try and find some others when I have a little more time.

Er, what does that link have to do with this clause? Has the Patriotist been accused of being neo-confederate? - The clause that I deleted said that "many" of these groups (LOTS, CofCC, UDC, SCV, and the Museum of the Confederacy) "observe that their accusers [SPLC and ISS] often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum". "Liberal" is a long ways off from the extreme ends of political spectrum, and McPherson is not the ISS. Since we're only talking about five groups, I'd think that "many" would be at least three. The Patriotist link may be suitable for adding to the McPherson article, but blogs generally have a low reputation as a source. -Willmcw 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Patriotist website, I see that they are running what appears to be a special ad for a LOTS newsletter, their sole ad.[1] In that light, I would say that they are LOTS supporters and can be considered as much neo-confederate as the LOTS are. So, if you want, we can include their comments as those of an allegedly neo-confederate blog. -Willmcw 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edits: I edited the Sebesta paragraph - is every opponent of "neo-confederacy" controversial? That's a POV. How frequently does he appear on Pacifica (I could only find the one appearance, with McPherson)? I deleted the parenthetical disclaimer that the CofCC has anything to do with the Confederacy - look at their website - they display the battle flag and are raising money for a confederate monument. I rearranged the paragraphs in the last section to make for a more logical flow. And I provided an actual quote from Benson, who acknowledges himself as a neo-con. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be safely said that both people who are identified as "neo-confederate" and their accusers tend to be controversial. Sebesta is also one of those types who hails from a political extreme. Many people call him a kook and some of his political causes are very strange (he once called the mayor of Dallas Ron Kirk - who is black - a neoconfederate sympathizer because Dallas City Council wouldn't listen to his request to remove an obscure Robert E. Lee statue from a park somewhere), so we have to be careful in how he is identified and present him as with everyone else, with a full disclaimer. I've heard him quoted on Pacifica several times - that McPherson interview is just the most famous incident and the one that has an online transcript. I still dispute the characterization of the CofCC as "neo-confederate" simply because some of them wave a bunch of confederate battle flags from time to time. We need a higher bar on what constitutes being neo-confederate, because by the same measure you use to include the CofCC you could also theoretically throw in anybody else who ever uses a confederate flag for something - and that could mean anything from the Klan to the guys who wave them at Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts to historical reinactors to your average redneck in a trailer park. Noting that neo-confederate groups are typified by a belief in secessionism, reconstituting the CSA, and certain forms of states rights views (e.g. nullification theory) makes for a rough set of criteria, and I simply don't think the CofCC - which apparently exists to promote segregation - meets those criteria. Anyway, I think there are some serious dangers in the direction this article could be going that may eventually risk it having a POV of its own based on the types of sources it includes and excludes. If that turns out to be the case, a proper tag on the article should be inserted until there is a resolution.Rangerdude 21:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you can find other occasions when Sebesta actually was on a Pacifica show, then we can include them. As I said, I could only find a single referenced occasion, which certainly does not merit a description of him "frequently" being on the network. If you can find a buch of quotes, we could say "he is quoted frequently." From where are you getting your definition of "neo-confederate?" Since it is a term applied by groups on the left, it seems like we'll have to go to one of those groups to see how they define it. Are there specific references that you have a problem with? I think this article is fairly NPOV - please indicate exactly what the problem is. I'm sure we can fix it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, can you please provide some citations for all the Sebesta info you added? -Willmcw 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Going to a group with a strong POV to define the term risks introducing a POV into this article itself. That's why we need a general framework of commonly agreed characteristics that most or all neo-confederate groups share. Since pretty much everybody agrees that the LOTS is neo-confederate, we could base it on what they believe - renewed secession, reconstituting the CSA, and nullification-style states rights theory. Simply saying "they have a confederate flag" though doesn't meet the bar. The Sebesta material I added on Barnes, Bush, Ashcroft, and Kirk etc. is drawn from usenet and his website. Unfortunately his site (www.templeofdemocracy.com) is offline right now preventing a means of linking to it here, though you can retrieve a cached copy of his Kirk article from some of the search engines. A quick google groups search shows that he posted the Kirk article on at least eight different usenet forums. Criticism of his tactics may be found on that UDC page and several others.Rangerdude 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Find them yourself" is not an adequate method of citing your sources. Please provide some links so that the material can be verified. Terms like "frequently" are especally suspect without any indication of actual frequency. -Willmcw 22:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, if "everyone agrees" that LOTS is neo-confederate, then let's move it out of the controvevery over labelling section. Right now, it sounds as if only the SPLC thinks it is neo-confederate. -Willmcw 22:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of searching for them on google groups. Try http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q="ed sebesta" "ron kirk"&qt_s=Search Groups

And if that doesn't fit your demands, try this - http://web.archive.org/web/20021230174437/www.templeofdemocracy.com/RonKirk.htm

Add LOTS to the top section as an example if you wish, but leave them in the labelling section as well as a basis of comparison between groups to show what the SPLC considers neo-confederate versus what others do. Rangerdude 22:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link on Ron Kirk does not include Sebesta calling Kirk a neo-confederate. He calls Kirk a "pro-confederate". Do you have another link or are they the same thing? (PS, I've added that the SPLC doies not consider the SCV, etc, to be Neo-confederate). Also, I cannot find the page on the LOTS site where they aly out the platform that you describe above. -Willmcw 22:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta seems to use "pro confederate" and "neo confederate" plus a few other synonyms interchangably. The article also describes the event Kirk attended as a "neo-confederate program" and characterizes his "monitoring" of Kirk as part of the "research" he does on the "neo-confederate movement"Rangerdude 23:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he didn't call them "neo-confederate" then we shouldn't include it here. It sounds like he criticized them for supporting Confederate causes, but those accusations belong in other articles. Let's just write what he says, not what we think he means. -Willmcw 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for cites to support Sebesta allegations. Let's not go beyond what can be verified. I've "remarked" out the paragraph while we work on it to avoid an edit war. This article is not about Ed Sebesta, so only a short comment characterizing him is necessary. -Willmcw 23:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta uses the terms interchangably and he DID call Kirk's 1997 event a "neo-confederate program". Use a little common sense and it's very clear that he's making the connection - you are grasping at straws and obfuscating through semantics by suggesting otherwise. I'm also beginning to suspect that you may be pushing an agenda or POV of some sorts here. Your discussion has been polite and I thank you for that, but the way you are editing material on Sebesta seems directed toward downplaying the controversy surrounding him and and excluding factual material about him such as the media outlets he has interviewed with. I'm currently trying to keep the language used in this article as close to the NPOV guidelines as possible and hope that you are doing the same, but also without removing pertinent material. Sebesta is one of the main users (some would say abusers) of the "neo-confederate" term and interchangable synonyms in the pejorative sense, and thus belongs in a discussion of them. A single paragraph on him is not excessive by any means. If you cannot accept or acknowledge that Sebesta's opinion on what constitutes a "neo-confederate" is, to put it mildly, a good deal out of the mainstream and properly qualify his comments to the reader by noting this, I will be forced to tag the article with a POV header, and I don't believe that either of us wants that. Thank you for consideration Rangerdude 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Sebesta criticized Kirk for attending a neo-confederate event, then that is what we should say. That is different from calling someone a "neo-confederate". To assert that he uses the term interchangeably with "pro-confederate" is original research, unless you can demonstrate that others have said so. A paragraph on Sebesta's use of the term "neo-confederate" is not excessive, but it should not be devoted to criticizing Sebesta. A detailed critique of his credentials and prejudices belongs in an article about him. That's the same as for any critic of any movement or person. Your issue about whether Sebesta's definition of neo-confederate is mainstream or not hasn't come up before. Have we even figured out what a "mainstream" definition of "neo-confederate" is, much less what Sebesta's definition is? If you can show that his definition is not mainstream then I have no problem with the article saying so. But right now it comes across as an unreferenced smear on a critic. If you would like to add a NPOV tag then that is your right. However I do not understand which issue you are raising it over. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta Paragraph

Here is what the current paragraph reads

Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [2]. Sebesta frequently applies the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. He has labelled several well known figures in politics and academia as "neo-confederates" or "pro-confederates" (terms he uses interchangably) including President George W. Bush, controversial former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University) and Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas (on account of attending a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]]).[3] Though these allegations have earned him a reputation for abusively using the term, Sebesta has been quoted as an "expert" on the "neo-confederate movement" by several media outlets on the political left such as Pacifica Radio and Salon.com.

Please post what, if anything, you think needs to be added or changedRangerdude 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused by unnamed critics of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [4]. In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]].[5]. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson.

Sebesta frequently applies has applied the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. who? He has made some unknown references to others on unknown occasions, including President George W. Bush, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes.

Here is the revision that I suggest, I recommend omitting the second paragraph entirely. Can we find out what he called Bush, Ashcroft, and Barnes, and when? Once we have citations for those we can add them back. The lead sentence needs a specific critic who has made this accusation. The fact that he is quoted on Salon is just not relevent to describing him. If you want to apply the weasel-word controversial, then it'll have to go on just about every person and organization named in this article. Let's just leave it off and, if necessary, show the controversy rather that say it. In Sebesta's case, I think that the UDC quote is sufficient to show there is controversy. Unless we lay out what the synonyms of Neo-confederate are we should not make a reference to them in this paragraph. Maybe when we get back to improving the definition of "Neo-confederate" we can include a list of synonyms. -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, we seemed to have difficulty paraphrasing the Benson declaration so I made it into a straight quote, which is shorter anyway. Being cited on a website isn't exactly a "link", so let's just call it "being cited on a website." Cheers, -Willmcw 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A couple comments regarding your proposed changes-

1. I believe it is fair and accurate to describe Sebesta as controversial. If you have another suggestion that is more particular to his case, by all means let me know. Not having a qualifier of some sort would be deceptive to the reader though because he is pretty far from being a mainstream source and, as the subsequent portion of the paragraph indicates, has made lots of controversial statements that have caused him to be criticized. It's not like we're saying "The New York Times says..." where everybody knows who the New York Times and what they think of it. Sebesta is less known, and pertinent facts about the controversy surrounding him need to be stated. Use a little common sense here - agree with Sebesta or not, you have to admit that he's making some pretty far fetched claims. Think about it. He basically accused a Black mayor of Dallas of being a secret confederate sympathizer and he's made similar charges against about half the U.S. government up to and including the President of the United States! Are we going to have to wait until he starts accusing them of being in the illuminati, freemasons, and a secret martian UFO alliance as well?

2. It would appear strange to add in a phrase about his critics being "unnamed" when the very next sentence names a specific critic of Sebesta, the UDC, and quotes one of their criticisms. This makes the paragraph choppy, disconnected and internally inconsistent.

3. I am content to leave it at only "using the term neoconfederate" and added the synonym phrase because you complained that in some cases he used "pro-confederate." But either way, I'm fine with it.

4. Barnes, Ashcroft et all are on the same cached website I linked you to for Kirk. He's got a page called "Elections Web Page" that is described as "All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate." The specific individuals he lists as neo-confederate are Barnes, Ashcroft, Kirk, Senator Lindsay Graham and Pat Buchanan. It's also got a link to his Election 2000 article , which links to several different pages where he makes all sorts of charges against Bush. One of them is archived here http://web.archive.org/web/20030106013427/www.templeofdemocracy.com/BushBackground.htm

5. To say that Sebesta appeared once on Pacifica on the basis that a google search doesn't show other appearances of him is factually misleading. I've heard him more than once, but if you doubt that I won't press for "multiple times" or something like that. A neutral phrasing does need to be in there though. That's why I proposed listing media sources that have used him as an expert, be it one or many times. That includes both Pacifica and Salon, and they need to be mentioned to show that despite the controversy surrounding sebesta, he is fairly widely quoted on the issues. Rangerdude 00:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. It would be fair and accurate to describe Ashcroft, the SCV, the Museum, and Barnes as controversial too. Applying that term selectively does not improve the accuracy of the article.

Then come up with an alternative that properly and accurately qualifies Sebesta's biases to audiences who are unfamiliar with him.

2. The UDC does not accused Sebesta of "using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents." Some unnamed critics do that. Either those critics should be named or the sentence should be re-worked or deleted.

No. The UDC accuses Sebesta of maligning his political opponents in general. One of the main ways he does that is labelling everything he doesn't like with accusations of being neo-confederate.

3. Thanks. I do not agree that pro-confederate is a synonym. Another editor was recently calling for raising the bar on the definition, not lowering it. Let's simply use whatever term Sebesta used.

Then you're denying the obvious of his own page. In one paragraph he accuses Kirk of being pro-confederate and a few paragraphs later he describe's Kirk's event as a neo-confederate program. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you are either trying to hide the dirty laundry of a POV on this topic or perhaps even shilling for that POV. Again, I appreciate your civility while doing so but your editing has a very strong underlying POV that it seems to be pushing. I will designate the article to reflect that shortly.

4. The page you link to talks about "George W. Bush and His Support for Confederate Organizations". Don't tell me that supporting confederate organizations is the same as being a neo-confederate if you are also arguing that the CofCC is not neo-confederate despite raising money for a confederate monument, etc. We can write that Sebesto has criticized Bush for supporting Confederate organizations, because, as far as your citations show, that is what he has done.

--4a. I looked around the website and found the Ashcroft page, but the term "neo-conservative" doesn't appear anywhere. [6] The Barnes page is blank. [7] I did find a page where he pretty-clearly calls Patrick Buchanan a "neo-confederate", so we can add that. [8] Anyway If you want me to see a cite, I'm afraid you'll have to give me an exact URL to find it. 01:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws and playing semantics games again. Look at the title page on elections, which I quoted for you previously.

"All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate."

Now unless you are arguing to me the absurd proposition that Sebesta classifies Ashcroft, Kirk, and Bush as "anti-confederate and anti-neoconfederate" officials, that leaves precious little differentiation over what he is accusing them of and it is either affiliation with or sympathy for the so-called "neo-confederate" movement.

5. Lots of people are quoted on Salon and Pacifica. Shall we also mention that Bush and Ashcroft are quoted there? Trying to characterize a critic of the neo-confederate movement by saying that he was quoted in some unknown articles on a mildly liberal news site is simply not verifiable or relevent information for this article. -Willmcw 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being intentionally tedious. You know very well that the purpose of mentioning those sources was to give examples of the types of media outlets that give Sebesta a voice, and also demonstrate their and his political affiliations on the left.Rangerdude 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6. here's a revised version with unnamed critics taken out and Bush added in.

Ed Sebesta, a self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", uses the term frequently. In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in 1997.[9]. He has criticized President George W. Bush of supporting Confederate organizations, on account of Bush's offer to raise funds for the Museum of the Confederacy. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization [10].