Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy

Order of information in opening paragraph

Newimpartial recently reversed a change that I made to the order of the information in the opening paragraph. That order currently is the Southern Poverty Law Center's labeling of the UDC as a Neo-Confederate organization in the second sentence, followed by a brief description of the UDC's activities ( I called it their "self description" in my edit note, but it is really our very brief digest of it), followed by historians' summation of the UDC's historical significance. For me there are a couple of problems in leading off with the SPLC's categorization. First, it makes more sense to tell the reader, quite basically, what the organization does first and then go on from there, so our digest of what it does, currently a 25 word sentence, should come first. Second, the summation of the UDC's historical significance by professional historians should come next. They agree, I'm sure, that the organization is Neo-Confederate, but they should be the sources we most rely on to make that designation, not the SPLC. The SPLC's designation could come next though it is not especially important, because it only concurs with sources who know more about the subject than they do. I find it somewhat bewildering to the extent to which editors defer to this organization which has come in for more than its share of criticism and upheaval in recent years. Also, the way we currently word the SPLC's labeling of the UDC is misleading: "It has been labeled neo-Confederate by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, and extremists". One would assume from this wording that the UDC must be one of the "hate groups" that the SPLC tracks. Yet the SPLC explicitly says that they do not consider the UDC to be a hate group. Check the source. Tbobbed (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I have seen no justification for placing the "stated aims" of the organization first: certainly none has been provided here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I see the SPLC's label as something peripheral, which is why I agree its assessment should be placed lower down.

By the way, I don't know why we are following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV by calling the UDC neo-Confederate and attributing SPLC. It's not just SPLC, it's other historians as well. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose because the SPLC's description of the UDC comes up later in the article, but I don't see that it has to be previewed in the intro. Tbobbed (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Looking over the recent versions, one immediate objection I have to your perferred version is that you attribute the consensus of historians (Many historians have described the organization's portrayal of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the Civil War as a promotion of the Lost Cause and of white supremacy, and have asserted that the elevation of the Confederate tradition has been led by the UDC.), but state their self-description without attribution and without even noting that it is merely their self-description (the organization's activities include the commemoration of Confederate Civil War soldiers and the funding of monuments to them). This is inappropriate. If we were going to state either one of those as fact, it would be the consensus of historians (per WP:NPOV, we should not state facts as opinions; and at least based on the sources in the article, the historians cited here are not a biased source, while obviously an organization is biased about itself), but we absolutely cannot state the consensus of historians as opinion while simultaneously giving the organization's self-description as fact - that is to say, if we're going to attribute their Neo-confederate advocacy and support for white supremacy to "historians",we definitely cannot remove the "stated purposes" attribution for their activities, since that self-description is not commonly accepted as definitive by academic sources. Your version incorrectly implies that it is nearly universally accepted that the primary purpose of the organization is commemorating the Civil War and that a few historians demur and say that its purpose is to defend white supremacy, when in fact the reverse is true. --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just re-worded the beginning of the lede, trying to follow WP:Leadsentence and have the most important ideas in the first sentence. Any thoughts ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Aquillion's point, I think including something like "their stated purposes" before presenting a list of them is fine. I'm in a rush now but I'll say a little more later. Tbobbed (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Picking up where I left off: The earlier version of the lead, before Rsk6400's edit, referred to the UDC's "activities", not purposes, and mentioned a couple of the activities it is well known for that are discussed in the article. You can easily get into an argument over whether the UDC promotes white supremacy but not over whether it commemorates Confederate soldiers or funds Confederate monuments. The latter two activities are objective facts. The former requires an interpretation.

As for Rsk6400's edit to the lead, it is well written, but I think that it is also too eager to immediately brand the organization as racist. I wouldn't feel this way if we were talking about the UDC of 1921, rather than a UDC which has evolved a fair amount between 1921 and 2021. Tbobbed (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tbobbed: Thanks for calling it "well written". I just finished reading Blight's Race and Reunion, which focuses on the period before World War I, so I certainly view the UDC in the light of their early history. Still, on their website I could not discover any indication that they have "evolved a fair amount". The "History" section ends with the goals of 1919, their "Historical Silver / Gold Medal" is still named after Jeff Davis, the "Statement from the President General" says We are saddened that some people find anything connected with the Confederacy to be offensive. (Do they ever think about the realities of slavery such as legalized child abuse ?) They exclude Blacks (not explicitly, but through the "grandfather clause" of "Confederate descent"), and they totally deny Black historical memory. In order to mitigate the wording of the lede, we would really need a good source claiming that they have changed, not just their own disclaimer. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about all the OR, but yes, we should not take their word for it. We can say (assuming they have actually said it) they say they have changed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's actually worse: I wasn't able to find a single statement on their website claiming that they have changed. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I said it has evolved a fair amount, not gone through a Saul on the Road to Damascus transformation. Here's an example of how it sees itself now [1]. If you go through our article and its sources you'll see that, apparently, its last open defense of the Klan was in 1936. There's not much, if anything, about the organization opposing the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, when, surely, an inveterately white supremacist organization would have been highly active in opposition. How about the funding of NEW monuments to the Confederacy? How much time and effort does it NOW spend in lobbying against disturbing textbooks? Sometimes one has consider the dog that doesn't bark. Tbobbed (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I just took a look at the sources: The connection between UDC, Lost Cause, and White supremacy seems to be well established. I could easily name two more sources, but I think we already have enough. Maybe they have been less aggressive recently, but they are still teaching what they call a "truthful" version of history to their children. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The number of sources is certainly not an issue. The issue is whether or not the UDC's "promotion of ... white supremacy" should be stated as an objective fact or rather as an interpretation of its activities requiring attribution. I would opt for the latter. Tbobbed (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as we have a whole bunch of reliable source stating that UDC is promoting white supremacy, but none stating the opposite, we have to avoid stating facts as opinions, see WP:WIKIVOICE. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No. I think you misunderstand what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia. It means that the source, whether it a be a person, persons, or a publication, is respected enough to be used in Wikipedia. It does not mean that if many reliable sources agree on a matter of opinion; examples: "Trump is a racist", "Reagan was a charming public speaker", "Clinton couldn't control his gonads", we state the opinion, without textual qualification, as an objective fact. Yes, facts should not be stated as opinions. Nor should opinions be stated as fact

In addition, the article had existed for a long time with the idea of the UDC promoting white supremacy stated as the opinion of many, so it is really up to you and those who agree with you, to establish a consensus that it should it should be stated as a simple fact and not an opinion. Otherwise the wording should return to what it was before. Tbobbed (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I firmly disagree - promoting the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology and the idea that the Confederacy was somehow good (because slaves were happy and better off in chains and raped and forced to have kids who would be stripped away and sold at auction like cattle!) is the end of the story here. So long as the UDC celebrates and promotes the existence of a government founded upon the idea that black people were subhuman, they are objectively white supremacist. There is literally nothing about the Confederacy worthy of commemoration - it is deserving only of scorn, oblivion, and solemn remembrance of the victims of its pernicious ideology. The soldiers who died in its uniform died for a horrendous cause, one of the worst in human memory, and just like Nazi soldiers, should simply be forgotten.

If there was a United Daughters of the Schutzstaffel, we'd see this comparison much more obviously. But Germany had the decency to realize its military history is unworthy of memorialization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who promotes the Lost Cause is objectively white supremacist. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Wonderful ! Let me add that they are far from being harmless. What will a child "educated" by them now do after becoming a lawmaker or law enforcement officer in 2061 ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Lot's of virtue signaling going on here. This is not a forum for the general discussion of the article's subject but rather a forum for improving an encyclopedic article. The "promoting white supremacy" accusation in the lead of this article has been attributed to "historians" for years Tbobbed (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC) From WP:WIKIVOICE: * Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Tbobbed (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now we've reached the point where you pull out the phrase "virtue signaling," which in and of itself, is virtue signaling.

There is no editorial bias here. There is no mainstream point of view that the Confederacy was not a white supremacist government. Such a viewpoint is indisputably fringe and rejected by mainstream historical scholarship. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. We must not do so here. An organization which promotes the belief that the Confederacy's cause was just, that its soldiers died heroically defending that just cause, and that we'd be better off if the Confederacy had won, is inherently and objectively promoting the same white supremacism which underpinned the entire rebellion and the Confederate nation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't researched this at all, but can you find any sober quote from the UDC or a principal spokesperson in the last 50 years or so, saying that we would better off if the Confederacy had won? or even that the Union was wrong? Tbobbed (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Incidentally, one of the problems with the body of the article is that it says very little about the organization in the last 70 or 80 years. Tbobbed (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC) [2]

Our job is to summarize WP:SECONDARY sources, not examine primary sources to see what the group is saying. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tbobbed: I think the most important point here is what NorthBySouthBaranof said about mainstream historical scholarship. As far as I can see, there are no mainstream historians saying that the UDC are not promoting the Lost Cause. I agree with you that Trump is a racist cannot be said in the voice of WP (i.e. cannot be stated as fact). But the results of historical research are more than simply "opinion". Therefore I think "Trump lost the election" is a better example. We cannot state that as opinion, e.g. we cannot write "Many officials and judges say that Trump lost". We have to say "Trump lost" as well as "UDC are promoting the Lost Cause". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Addressing Binksternet's point, I did not recommend that the linked You-Tube interview of the Florida UDC president should be used as a direct source in the article but rather something that editors might take a look at for perspective. What reporters might call "on background". I would note that the only Encyclopedia that we use as a source for the promoting white supremacy accusation, The New Georgia Encyclopedia, says it this way:

Some critics, such as historian James M. McPherson, have accused the UDC of being an organization of white supremacists and Neo-Confederates.

Tbobbed (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I read that article and also "New Georgia's" article on "Lost Cause Religion", which sent me rolling on the floor, laughing bitterly. In spite of a tendency to whitewash both the UDC and the Lost Cause, even they state clearly that UDC worked "to maintain the beliefs of the Lost Cause", and they are not able to produce anybody who opposes the view that UDC are white supremacists. BTW: They also state that "the ideals, activities, and purposes of the UDC remain the same", contradicting your claim that the UDC "has evolved a fair amount". --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet, the claim that UDC currently supports white supremacy is hard to square with the organization’s own official website. What was historically true is not necessarily what is currently true. The description of the organization today seems to be based on citations describing the organization’s history rather than contemporary fact. Bobby Lawndale (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

MAybe, but we would then need RS saying they are not longer it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Which statement is correct?

Both are in the article:

"In the early 1900s the organization often applauded the Ku Klux Klan and funded the building of a monument to the Klan in 1926." -or-

"A local chapter of the UDC funded a now-vanished memorial to the Klan erected in 1926 near Concord, North Carolina."

The UDC organization has hundreds of chapters. -Topcat777 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well both can be, as a local chapter is part of the UDC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Topcat777: Why is it so important to you that it was only a local chapter ? The whole organization has been falsifying history, promoting white supremacy and defending the honour of slaveholders, many of whom were child abusers. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Opening Line

@Acroterion

Hello,

I started to read the above discussion and stopped immediately at the first comment. It says that the SPLC describes this group as "Neo-Confederate." That is not true. The reference that is attached to that phrase in the article does not list them as such an organization. I don't really see what the devate is when the reference doesn't match our article. Putting aside whether or not they are, if the reference does not describe them so, the phrase has to go, right? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The reference explicitly describes the UDC as neo-Confederate. Perhaps you should read it again. Why did you disregard the comment notice? Beyond that, the lede summarizes the sourced article body. Read the entire article, especially the section (with eight references), headed ""Lost Cause" and Neo-Confederate views." The reference is there in the lede because people keep trying to take it out of the lede. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again,

What notice are you meaning? Anyway, I went ahead and re-read the reference article. I still don't see what you mean. One paragraph includes: "groups including the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) of the 1920s." The organization isn't the same as it was a hundred years ago, is it? The same paragraph goes on to describe modern groups that it says fall under that label and the UDC isn't included.

If we were including the attitude of a group a century ago, then wouldn't Volkswagen be listed as a neo-nazi group? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I looked at the section you suggested. It appears to need some work, so thank you for pointing it out. Importantly I found two bad references. The first was an article that allegedly contained a quote from a historian, uttered on a radio interview. However, said article contains no mention of him and no description of the radio interview he supposedly said it on. Come to think of it, are unrecorded radio programs even accepted sources at all? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion

I did. See above. Why did you revert my edit? TanRabbitry (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to gain consensus here, not just revert the things you disagree with. As for the opening line's reference, the reference states that the UDC's neo-confederate views were most prominent in the 1920s. It doesn't state that they have been wiped away since then, just toned down, and still present the Confederacy and slavery as benign and worthy of respectful remembrance, if not actual veneration. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any possible objection to the former change and little argument for the latter. All the same, I will do so. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the problem is that they still glorify their ancestors' views and actions. And this means glorifying slavery and all the unspeakable crimes that came with it. And because the historical reality is unspeakable, they still falsify history. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but the problem is that it's completely a non sequitur. The question is whether they are a particular thing, not what we think of what they stand for/practice/believe. Additionally, (and more importantly) it isn't our role to come to those conclusions. Lastly, (and least consequential) I'm fairly certain your opinion would be disputed by many others.

TanRabbitry (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The question is what academic sources say. My opinion was formed by authors such as David W. Blight. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS says. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

First Proposed Change

The first proposed change is the removal of references 50 and 51, as well as their corresponding derived sentences. The former contains no quotation of any historian named McPherson or any mention of a radio interview that he participated in.

The latter is an alleged quotation of said historian from a radio interview. Once again, the reference article doesn't mention the historian at all.

Is there any objection to the lines' removal?

Here they are:

More recently, historian James M. McPherson has said that the UDC promotes a white supremacist and neo-Confederate agenda:

I think I agree a hundred percent with Ed Sebesta, though, about the motives or the hidden agenda not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several Southern states.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

James M. McPherson has won a Pulitzer for his work on the Civil War, slavery, their relationship, and modern neo-Confederacy. He is an eminently reliable source. Why do you think he should be removed? The reference (51) is to an interview with McPherson, and an absence of a link is not disqualification of the reference. It would be nice to find a transcript, that's all. Calling it "alleged" is an inappropriate assumption of bad faith.

Reference 50, which is to a reliable source, appears to have been misplaced. That doesn't mean the reference to McPherson's scholarship needs to be removed, it just means that the references may have parted ways from the statements they're meant to support.

If you're serious about improving the article, tidying the refernces is vastly preferable to removing the views of one of the pre-eminent scholars on the subject. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

35 and 36 are unrelated. I made a mistake while typing.

Putting aside his qualifications (there is an entire section on his page dedicated to "activism" in this field; it seems that he is pretty biased), most importantly, we have no evidence he said the quotation anyway. The reference does not contain the quote. Additionally, the quote itself is not a statement about history, only a rather strong, highly subjective personal opinion.

As far as the second point, where is the evidence that the interview even took place? I was not aware that a unrecorded radio program is a suitable source. If it were, you could invent any statement by anyone and put it down as being said on a radio show. It seems that the interview was supposed to be quoted in the source, however no mention or quotation from same appears. Therefore I do not think it is appropriate to mention it.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be opinionated. And no, we assume good faith for things like books that aren't linked. The burden is on you to show us that McPherson is not to be trusted (good luck with that), and that the interview never took place. Better to find a transcript or recording. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the interview, a quick search shows that it has been acknowledged by partisans in favor of neo-Confederate views, who really don't like what he said, and there are many other references to the interview. I'm sure a little digging will produce a transcript. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A book makes sense, but a radio interview is little more than a conversation. However, I think you're missing the point; the source has to be removed because it does not contain either the quotation or a mention of where the quote was supposedly said. It is unsourced information. Reference 51 was dependent on 50. If a source can be found, than we can form a consensus as to the lines inclusion. As of now, we have no evidence that he ever said that at all and it is essentially hearsay.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It requires either a direct transcript or reliable source's coverage of same. Secondhand commentary of dubious quality isn't proper.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RS/QUOTE&redirect=no.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're awfully eager to get rid of it. We don't do it that way, and no it doesn't have to be removed (you keep asserting that, but we'd lose half the encyclopedia if that were true). We just need to update the cites, and to apply a measure of good faith, which you seem to be lacking here. There's no reason to call it "dubious." See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go find the quote. A Confederacy apologist website certainly thinks it exists, and gives a link to the Democracy Now audio, which is now dead, in order to complain about McPherson. When it was added, it was sourced. Linkrot happens. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The "dubious" source I mentioned was the "Confederacy apologist" (I'm not sure what that means, but the way you worded it, the source seems highly biased, so it's irrelevant).

In my opinion, under the verifiability principle, and especially in a contentious and controversial subject like this, unsourced information really shouldn't be here. In particular it shouldn't be under the section that is universally critical of the organization.

Your evidence as to the quote's legitimacy seems convincing to me personally, but it doesn't meet the standard. I mean, under these circumstances, I could write the exact same reference (changing the date) and make up a quote from McPherson recanting the alleged earlier one. It has to have a direct quotation or at least coverage by a legitimate source (assuming the quote should be included at all) or it's unreliable. Don't you agree?

TanRabbitry (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No. There is ample evidence that McPherson said this in a 1999 interview. It really upset Lost Cause partisans, especially the UDC. The quote is mentioned in many Lost Cause fora, including the date and medium, along with in at least one case, a dead link. I just won't advocate for linking to that kind of forum as a citation. The existence of the interview and quote is not in doubt. McPherson is probably the most prominent authority on the subject of the memorialization of the Lost Cause, and in general is the single most significant scholar on the Civil War now living, and to omit his views would be a disservice to readers. I'm looking around for better attribution, preferably from within the show's archive, but it's a bit of work, so that the reference can be better formatted for date, etc., but offline sources are perfectly fine. There is no "controversy" concerning the statement's existence. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived interview linked from the show's website: [3], audio [4]. Quote at 42:36. I will fill out the reference once I get the particular cite format to work the way I want it to (and have some time to fuss with it). I trust this puts this issue to bed. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, for clarity: the way you phrased the fifth sentence (in the first comment) sounds as though there was a possibility for using a forum as a reference. Under WP:UGC, there isn't any question of it being allowed. Such a source is unacceptable.

The controversy I referred to is the subject of the article, not the existence of the interview. I had already stated that you had convinced me it was genuine.

Now as far as the second statement, I congratulate you for finding the source. Also, I trust you are meaning only that the matter of the quote being real is settled, correct? Obviously, it remains in the air whether to include it or not. In my opinion, this should be treated as the addition of any other potentially disputed statement would be, that is, by a consensus.

TanRabbitry (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am amply acquainted with sourcing policy. And no, I was always going to find the archive. Please explain why you think that the relevant views of one of the foremost scholars on the Civil War and the Lost Cause should not be included. As far as the other statement goes, I will see if I can figure out where it belongs. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you are familiar with it, but saying you wouldn't "advocate for," is quite different than saying something isn't allowed.

Where what belongs? I am confused as to what you are referring.

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion

I will explain my perspective on the inclusion of his quote, but can you explain what you meant? TanRabbitry (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've filled in the McPherson reference, which is the preferred way of dealing with the issue you raised, and moved the Encyclopedia of Georgia reference to the discussion of UDC review of textbooks. You will need to offer significant reasons to exclude McPherson. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the reference, but I still don't understand your comment. What does "As far as the other statement goes, I will see if I can figure out where it belongs," mean? Did you mean the other reference? Why did you call it a statement if it isn't a quote? It's just a footnote.

TanRabbitry (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved the misplaced reference that didn't seem to be related to McPherson, as I told you I would. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as opposition to McPherson quote, I have already noted that he appears to be highly biased in some respects. In particular, his opposition to even the laying of a funeral wreath at the Confederate section of Arlington Cemetary seems pretty outrageous and I think it was extremely correct of President Obama to ignore the professor's objection. However, as you said, sources are allowed to be opinionated, even those with gross or objectionable views.

Much more important is the content of the remark. In general, it isn't our place as editors to judge these kind of statements' propriety. The issue here is that while McPherson may be a qualified historian and an award-winning expert in his field, that does not mean that his every statement matters.

The fact is that his statement happens to be entirely idle speculation on alleged hidden motives behind this organization's activities. It is based solely on his opinion, unrelated to any careful study of history, as he does not link their past with their present, but rather opines on unknowable motivations of others. I believe it is highly inappropriate to include in the section. At best it could in a "criticism of the UDC" section, but it isn't right where it is. Imagine if there was a quote on the history section of the Anti-Defamation League and it contained a quote of someone saying that they had a hidden agenda of Jewish supremacism. Now, even if that was something some people actually believed, wouldn't it be ridiculous to include that anywhere except the criticism section?

I suggest either removing his statement, or adding a new category, but I find it really rather improper where it is currently. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have been completely answered by Acroterion, whose patience I can only admire, but I really suggest you drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My question was never answered, but I don't suppose it mattered.

I do not appreciate being accused of such things when I have done nothing of the kind. If I was so intent on having only my voice heard, would I wait nearly an entire day to reply? No. Instead I give anyone the courtesy of answering clearly, honestly and thoroughly.It is quite uncivil and impolite to accuse someone without any grounds. I did not respond to your earlier charge, lest I be accused of coating the page in replies to every comment.

I don't think it is helpful to accuse others of such extremely subjective charges. If you are impatient that I have written a significant portion of this section, I would remind you that a large amount was simply trying to figure out a problem with sources, which editor Acroterion was able to do. Only afterwards have we actually gotten to discuss the merits of including the quote. I do wish that there were more participants.

Now, can we continue with the discussion in a friendly manner and without any more baseless accusations? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you lost us at "unrelated to any careful study of history." Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel that you must not have read beyond that portion of the sentence, then.

The key line is, of course, "as he does not link their past with their present." If he had qualified his assertion with a statement connecting their past with their presence, then his opinion would at least be tangentially related to his field of expertise. Instead it is an apparently baseless assumption of intention and I don't think that the fact he may be a celebrated historian allows him the ability to peer in to the minds of others anymore than anyone else can. Is it typically to include such judgements of character and motivation?

Why should such an opinion, unrelated to his field be included?

TanRabbitry (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I read it all. It is in fact the business of historians, celebrated and otherwise to discuss and interpret history and to relate it to the present. There are few people better qualified to make such statements. We are not concerned with whether you like it, we go by the consensus of scholarship, which extensively detailed, and of which McPherson is the most prominent example. He is not a lone voice, and interpretation of the UDC's history doesn't require clairvoyance. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Second Proposed Change

I would recommend adding this quote after the other by Greg Huffman in the same section. As it is written now, it seems he has a totally negative view of the organization, which contrasts with the following:

However, in describing the UDC of today, Huffman wrote, "The UDC of today is different than that of the Jim Crow era. Its members are committed to preservation of Southern and Union history, both black and white. They still raise funds for civic and charitable causes. They accept blacks as members. They have deeply held convictions and views regarding the Civil War, its causes, and the South in general.  They zealously defend their monuments as honoring history and heritage and not racism, while making no apologies for the actions of their ancestors." (Words not contained in quotation marks are mine.)

This makes the article slightly more balanced.

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

On this, Huffman does go on to state that the UDC has toned it down. I would hardly say that he now views the UDC positively though, only that there is a difference in intensity. It is worth finding a way to incorporate that change of tone. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A contrast with "wholly negative" is not necessarily positive. I did not suggest that he is a proponent or fan of theirs now, but the present quote is highly out of context from the rest of his article. I am pleased you agree, but I do think that saying the group is a different organization today is a bit more than saying that they have "toned it down." That is, the change is a difference in kind, rather than intensity. TanRabbitry (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Propose some wording. Acroterion (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought I did?

"However, in describing the UDC of today, Huffman wrote, "The UDC of today is different than that of the Jim Crow era. Its members are committed to preservation of Southern and Union history, both black and white. They still raise funds for civic and charitable causes. They accept blacks as members. They have deeply held convictions and views regarding the Civil War, its causes, and the South in general.  They zealously defend their monuments as honoring history and heritage and not racism, while making no apologies for the actions of their ancestors."

TanRabbitry (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Huffman is NOT saying the UDC is not neo-Confederate. He is instead saying that the new UDC contains "complex, fascinating contradictions, some of its aspects wonderful and new, and some ugly and old", maintaining in fact the ugly old white supremacy of their origin, despite less hateful elements of the group pushing in new directions. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your comment. In the first place, I didn't say that he denied they were "neo-Confederate." However, I didn't see that term used in his article, either. That is putting aside that there doesn't appear to be a clear definition of the term anyway. Wikipedia has the hilariously low bar definition of portraying the CSA "in a positive light."

There is no indication in the article that the author claims the organization maintains white supremacy. It seems pretty clear with lines like, "Its members are committed to preservation of Southern and Union history, both black and white. They still raise funds for civic and charitable causes. They accept blacks as members," that he does not believe that. What he may be saying is that they advocate the memory of people who did believe in that. What he is certainly saying is that the organization did believe in white supremacy a hundred years ago.

In any event, what does that really have to do with anything?

TanRabbitry (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking from Huffman, who clearly thinks that UDC is still in the business of white supremacy. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. "Being in the business" is really quite different from defending or even celebrating people who believed that. I think he has something less than an all-or-nothing view. If he believes what you are saying, why did he write "After the rioting in Charlottesville in 2017, the UDC issued statements rejecting racism and white supremacist groups?" That is a statement of fact. His assertion afterwards (which was provided by the editor below) is preceded by a qualification; if the UDC asks that people from earlier eras not be judged according to modern day morals, then it is his opinion that they are excusing and justifying their practices. That is a question of ethics and the concept of justification. It is wholly opinion and, in my opinion, we ought to include the statement of fact already in the article and the contrast of the modern UDC statement of fact quote which I included. There is more than enough subjectivity in that section; let's leave aside his thoughts on the morality of what he may see as the logical conclusion of some of their claims.

Aside from all that, should the quote be included? That is the real question here. It certainly wouldn't imply that he's a big fan of theirs (which you seem to be concerned about), but the current edit is wildly out of context.

TanRabbitry (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it should not be included. And please drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

From the same text, just a few lines after the quote you want to add: "It means that, even today, the UDC is excusing and justifying slavery. It also means that the UDC is excusing and justifying the past actions of the Klan. And they are asking us all to do so." Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)