Wikipedia talk:No Confederates

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Endorsers

The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:

— Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andre🚐 21:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is covered by WP:NONAZIS but I still endorse it Loki (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ibid. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jaydenwithay (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I proudly endorse this essay. Great work! PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SnoopyBird (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I emphatically endorse this essay! There's no room for hate. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this essay. Confederates should be blocked on sight. Great job outlining the reasons why! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If confederates try promoting their views or existence in a public arena, the only acceptable response is to run them out of town by any means necessary. The digital commons is no different. Even though open confederacy worship is tolerated in the U.S, there's no reason we should do the same. John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave, but his soul goes marching on! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]
Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 06:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD|Talk 01:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, even though I suspect that the essay is redundant to WP:NONAZIS. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 14:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise this was such a new essay when I came across it just now. Genocide denialism, whatever form it takes, is not conducive to producing an encyclopedia that is meant to be read by everyone, and contributes to a hostile atmosphere. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should go without saying. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is disruptive. NONAZIS, NOCONFED. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the contents of this essay and I don't mind the potential overlap with WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS. I still believe there's value in specifically highlighting the issue of neo-confederates. There's always value in taking additional steps to combat the promotion of hateful and historically revisionist worldviews incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. I can understand some of the criticisms of individual sentences highlighted in the non-endorsers section and the other talk sections, but I believe the contents are overall agreeable enough that it deserves an endorsement. Much thanks to Sundostund, Robert McClenon, and everyone else who worked on it! Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A really good read. Born of Iron (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I have some concerns with the Universal Code of Conduct in regard to language fluency, senility and age, it seems clear to me that advocating for the enslavement of African Americans is a breach of UCOC. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great essay, proud to endorse. I'm riding in on macaroni! SN54129 11:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neo confederates and racists suck, no need to explain. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This essay has my unwavering support. I have zero tolerance for racism and hateful views, and firmly believe that their expression is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Patient Zero^talk 06:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This son of the South heartily endorses this essay and its conclusions. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, it should be noted that my family back in Tennessee gave two of its three sons for the Union. They died as part of the loyal 6th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (Union). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Endorsers

The following editors do not endorse the contents of this essay:

I can't get behind this. WP:NONAZIS is pretty clear-cut in that the very existence of Nazism is predicated upon massacre and slaughter. I'm also not a fan of this phrase: This does not mean that supporters of the Confederacy during the American Civil War were necessarily defending the principle of slavery, any more than Germans who fought in the Wehrmacht in World War II were supporting Nazism. This invokes the clean Wehrmacht myth by implying the German rank-and-file who served in the war were merely fellow travelers, when in fact the majority of them were just as equally perpetrators of genocide just as much as the SS. The people who lied at the Nuremberg Trials, that they were just following orders, knew damn well what was going on. So NONAZIS is extremely unequivocal. This here is not such a clear-cut issue; the support of Confederates and Confederate heritage in the United States is far more complicated than that. I do think that many of those who support this ideology tend to be misled as to the meaning of their symbols, but at that point, the worst thing they have done is display ignorance. I think they have a right to be able to display userboxes on their user page just as much as anyone else who displays political userboxes. The handful of users who show up at WP:MFD to hunt down these symbols cannot and should not be the arbiter of what opinions are valid and allowed to be displayed, much less who is allowed to participate in editing Wikipedia. If there are those that step out of line, we address each issue as it comes about. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an editor believes is irrelevant, as long as they're not trying to push it into articles or promote it on talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no wonder i keep seeing people say wikipedia is leftist 💀 💀 💀 AvailableViking (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Displaying the confederacy in a positive light is wrong, but I don't think it should warrant a block. While all Southern racists fly the confederate flag, not all people who fly the flag are racist. I don't think we should block people for being misinformed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~We don't need this garbage. It is acceptable to be a Confederate and will always be, just like there are Communists and Socialists, and many other leftist ideologies which are present in Wikipedia.~~ --Madame Necker (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor has been indeffed as a WP:NOTHERE troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are specifically questioning the Confederacy in this essay. Furthermore they do not (yet) apply the same standard to indigenous tribes, even if those tribes stood for things near identical to the Confederacy or fought directly for the Confederacy. It is fine to disagree with the Confederacy as there are a buffet of reasons to do so, but to deny individuals the right to appreciate their heritage and display it in a way which is factual is disgusting and abysmal, as an indigenous person it is frightening and horrific, I see what is happening to the Confederates who challenged the Americans, and I think to myself, they will come for my ancestors too because they also fought against the Americans. ANE was Nordic (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 00:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS already cover the racist ideologies of the CSA. I'm not sure this essay provides anything helpful. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This bothers me greatly. There's a lot of political opinions being denounced as unacceptable "Neo-Confederate" positions that are fairly innocuous (e.g., supporting states' rights and traditional gender roles). I personally know some decent people who have expressed qualified support for the Confederacy on certain issues. The idea that an otherwise productive editor could (and should) be tossed out for having a minority political view on a complicated topic like the Confederacy is alarming. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not innocuous. Ask yourself, "States' rights" to do what exactly? The Confederate Constitution mostly just copied the US Constitution. The main significant difference was allowances for slavery. Among other things, the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibited states from interfering with slavery. This shows that it wasn't about "states' rights" even at the time, so making it about that now is misrepresenting history.

If your decent people don't know this, they are ignorant of Southern history. Wikipedia's goal is to inform people, so that isn't a free pass. If they do know this history, they are knowingly spreading misinformation by repeating this bit of myth-making. This is an encyclopedia, so this causes specific harm to the project. Whether or not they are decent to you, personally, is irrelevant to the project. That's why essays like this are useful.

For gender roles, "traditional" is put in scare quotes in the essay because the term is loaded. The term "tradition" implies a lot but is not, by itself, informative. So it's a thought-terminating cliché when used as a defense of neoconfederacy. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowing personal bias and personal research to affect your ability to participate in a neutral fashion, another affront to the rules, regulations, and codes of this site, you should get in touch with the U.S. Civil War Museum or the American Battlefield Trust, two credited institutions with unimpeachably good character regarding nuanced socio-political issues in American history. They unpack these profoundly complex issues with great detail, you would benefit from partaking in their auspices.

Not everyone in the Confederacy was holder of enslaved peoples. Not every soldier in the Confederacy was a die-hard Southern patriot, many were conscripts. The notion enslaved peoples were supporting their own enslavement by resisting invading armies and on pain of death serving the war machine of their enslavement is not only laughable its borderline slander of a people who have already been through enough.

Maybe your heart is in the right place, maybe it's not, I won't judge you, but you should at least give more of an effort to be non-biased, especially on such a widely used site, and making such generalizations to disparage people, whom I suspect you just don't like because of their politics, is unacceptable. ANE was Nordic (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many people were conscripted to fight against their will. That is a tragedy. It doesn't change that they were conscripted to preserve slavery. Pretending that this wasn't about slavery is an insult to those who were forced against their will to fight and die. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you wrote is true but also misses my point. Some people have embraced the Confederacy as a symbol not of slavery but of other, modern political issues: the struggle against federal overreach, traditional understandings of gentlemanly etiquette, conservative social roles. Asking whether or not the Confederacy is a good symbol for these things is about as pointless as asking whether cowboys ever actually existed as depicted in Western movies; the underlying historical reality has little bearing on something's symbolic function. I agree that any white-washed views of the Confederacy are inappropriate for articles and any editors who cannot leave the issue alone should be sanctioned. But this essay suggests that merely using the Confederacy as a symbol should be grounds for an immediate block, regardless of the point actually being made or the merits of that editor's other contributions. That I cannot endorse. Is it tactless? Yes. Would it be wise for an experienced editor to caution them about how other editors might perceive what they are saying? Yes. But jumping straight to sanctions? That goes too far. While many who invoke the Confederacy are vile racists, not all are, and people should be judged by what they are actually claiming rather than the props they gesture at. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that the "symbolic meaning" of the confederacy has a very different meaning to, say, a black American, for example? Anyway, I think you're overselling the text of this essay a bit when it comes to Indefinite blocks and all that. It just says that expressing racist ideas on-wiki will usually lead to a a rapid indef block.( I sure hope it does!) Just like on WP:NONAZIS, the only thing said about displaying racist symbols is that it should be treated as disruptive, which is what is already the norm. Licks-rocks (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to consider why some people embraced this symbol of a racist military movement as a symbol of "modern" issues. There is nothing "gentlemanly" about it. Whether it's out of ignorance or out of malice, the underlying message of that symbol is the same. It's not just about someone's ill-defined idea of "pride", it's about what that flag conveys to everyone else. That is, after all, the entire purpose of flags. They exist to broadcast a simple message to other people. The battle flag was created in defense of slavery and was later popularized as opposition to civil rights.

As for banning, I agree that you're over-stating the essay. This is an encyclopedia, and user pages and similar are for writing that encyclopedia. Sharing hate symbols, whether "intentional" or not, interferes with that goal. If good faith editors use that symbol while editing, they absolutely need to be cautioned that it's not appropriate for a collaborative environment. At a bare minimum, they are not following WP:CIVIL and that means they cannot edit. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with GoodDay. Of course, if someone is using Wikipedia to promote the Confederacy, they should be blocked indefinitely, but if they can not be too biased based on their beliefs, there's no reason for them to not be able to help our project. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 00:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nordic on this one among others. If we were going by arguments rather than "Yes of course I agree" votes then there are some issues here that clearly need looking into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the admins the option to ban people for a PoV pushing they might hypothetically do at some unspecified point in the future is just asking for abuse--Trade (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's something akin to arrogance about deciding for other wikipedians what thought is appropriate and what thought is not, based on personal bias, however justified. I urge those throwing stones not to stand in glass houses themselves, because ricochets are inevitable. For my part I contend the WP:MfD process has been used frequently in the last year or so to police the thought of former wikipedians, when a mere courtesy blanking with a strongly worded edit summary would have sufficed and drawn less attention to the "offending" material. With respect to those who differ with me on the merits, it takes little moral courage or energy to remove from public view material of those former editors whose beliefs may deviate from the norm. My primary concern as a wikipedian is just who gets to draw those lines. A secondary concern is that when we choose to remove user thought (what people have said about themselves) from public view, wikipedians who come after us will be starting with a misimpression of how consensus was achieved in the most gruesome cases. The recent exhumation of long dead User:Bedford, his three fingers removed, and body then thrown in the Tiber, was a disgusting display of how to kick a person after they were down and no longer a threat. All this over opinions he had rendered and clearly identified years before. At some point the deciders get around to everybody. One day WP:NOIDIOTS will be policy and I will be liable to indef. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederacy is a historical topic, and is not akin to racism. Certainly there's overlap between the two, and I'd support banning tendentious POV-pushing in favor of the Confederacy; displaying Confederate symbolism in non-encyclopedic contexts should also be banned, since it's highly contentious. But that's as far as it should go. Editing about the Confederacy as a historical topic, even detailing the Lost Cause mythology and pro-Confederate points should be allowed, as long as it's done within proper context (eg acknowledging that these are not mainstream views). Additionally, slavery was not the only issue, but one of three major issues, the others being States Rights vs Federalism and a culture clash between North & South; denying this is flat-out ahistorical. Going through the Beliefs list, most of these are not equivalent to racism: the Confederacy did in fact have better generals (although Grant was good too); the "War of Northern Aggression" is just a different interpretation of events; Reconstruction essentially was occupation, albeit undermined by Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson and the terrorists of the KKK; States' Rights and the debate over them was a major issue as I said; the Antebellum South was in fact a different kind of society, unlike the Union and modern US, which should be apparent to anyone who reads about it; and the removal of Confederate monuments is really about humiliating the White Southerners for losing and scoring points in the culture war, so you can certainly object to it as dishonorable without necessarily supporting racist ideology. In conclusion, historical interest in the Confederacy should not be conflated with racism, and this essay isn't even entirely accurate! Xcalibur (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WaltCip. I enjoyed reading this essay I believe it comes from a good place. As a Southerner I have witnessed Confederate sympathizers who could be put into two groups. One group is clearly racist, but the other group is tribal by nature and basically just ignorant. It can be dangerous to generalize groups of people. Much of the Confederate iconography rose up during the romanticism of the South. The average Southerner doesn't even recognize that the state flag of Georgia is a replica of the stars and bars. For many, the battle flag became a symbol of being Southern, but for others that flag represents the evil of slavery and white supremacy. Over time Southerners are coming to terms with this history as more and more states remove and replace these symbols. I hope further education and empathy will close this ugly chapter in US history. Nemov (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, do not feel alarmed by this uninformed 'proposal' of banning a Member of Wikipedia just because of his Loyalty to the Confederate States of America. The said 'proposal' only represents the twisted notions of a minority of Wikipedians, not the official policy of the Institution. As legitimate it is to show Pride in being a Confederate National, as it is to show that feeling for any other Nation. In the words of Madame Necker, above: "It is acceptable to be a Confederate and will always be, just like there are Communists and Socialists, and many other leftist ideologies which are present in Wikipedia". What is not acceptable is a blatant distortion of the CONTENT of Wikipedia, in the dishonest effort of accommodating that content to one or another doctrine, of whatever sign. However, for as long as an Editor, Moderator, Administrator, Arbitrator, or another Contributor to Wikipedia, perform his duty in an acceptable manner, in compliance with the regulations and correcting his own errors when necessary, he has a legitimate right to keep his ideas and has no obligation of 'disguising' them by removing laudatory symbols or words. If in a hypothetical future Wikipedia might come to establish such coercions as an official policy, then Collaborators would have to decide whether to stay or to leave. Cssdixieland would certainly leave. But so far, a Wikipedian is entitled to the right of keeping his own beliefs and to the duty of RESPECTING the beliefs of other Wikipedians. Dixieland for ever ! Cssdixieland (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above editor has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE, this was their first comment on wikipedia. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to anyone removing this above comment by Cssdixieland from the page. The section creator should have been aware this talk page subsection would draw such comments, and I believe they should remain in this essay talk space. I have zero problems with the entire "Endorsement proposal" being archived and marked as historical. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done with this comment the same thing that was done with an earlier comment of another WP:NOTHERE troll (Madame Necker) – I striked it out, removed it from numbering, and kept the text to be seen here. Of course, something like that should never be done to comments of other editors (not trolls, active and unblocked) who oppose this essay, and identify themselves as non-endorsers. Furthermore, as the section creator, I have no problem at all to see a comment like the one posted by Cssdixieland; I truly believe they are actually helpful to the general aim of this essay, as they really help in unmasking neo-Confederates and showing their true colors. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS. Block users for disrupting articles, we're not here to throw stones at a glass house. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you seriously just link to First they came ... as an argument against this essay? The entire purpose of that prose was to encourage people to stand against oppressive ideologies. Are you, instead, claiming that neoconfederacy isn't such an ideology, and needs to be defended? The same white supremacist ideology which opposes socialists, trade-unionists, and non-white people, including Jews? Who is coming for the neo-confederates in this comparison you're making? Astonishing. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nazis and blatant racists are black and white cases, but people displaying a Confederate flag is a gray area whether you or others like it or not. It's a slippery slope and where do we draw the line? If using the flag in a "I'm from the South" userbox is enough to get blocked, who's to say next is using words like "blockade", "invade", and "occupy" to describe a military operation because it's "pro-Confederate" somehow? ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nemov. Focus on behavior and editing. As Nemov pointed out, there are millions of Southerners motivated more by tribal allegiance than racism. I've never been keen on Confederate stuff but I don't propose a hunt for people who like it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Confederacy was very bad, but this essay in particular has significant overlap with WP:NORACISTS and is specific to the USA (I don't believe Confederate ideals spread outside of its home country, unlike Nazis). After the fiasco that is WP:NOQUEERPHOBES, it is clear that we'll have more bloat essays that will be created unless all of the redundant bigotry essays get merged into WP:HID. To this essay's credit, at least its list of beliefs is reasonable and uncontroversial to call bigotry. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The essay as it stands is mostly assertion (more on that) and there has been a failure to distingush two different types of issue.

The constitutional and political philosophy question of, "Did the North have the right to prevent the Southern states seceeding via war?" is a valid one notwithstanding the genuine injustice of slavery. There is a distinction between moral right and wrong taken on its own and what meets the threshold of just war. (I'm English, so I have no interest in the matter other than as a scholar).

To illustrate the point with a modern example: I strongly oppose female genital mutilation: I think it is a serious abuse. That does not entitle me to advocate or engage in actual war against a place in which it is routinely practiced, with the justification of thereby putting a stop to it. I strongly oppose racism and slavery. I do not think these abuses necessarily entitled people to wage a particular war under particular circumstances on the basis of putting a stop to them.

It is therefore totally possible to defend the right of the Southern states to say that they did not wish to continue to be part of the Union in the context of a particular change of the rules of that Union, without advocating or supporting the injustices they were trying to uphold thereby.

It is important not to label people interested in the constitutional and political and just war issues that surround the matter, "racist and therefore silenced."

If there is a problem with actual current (racist) abuse in breach of wikiettiquete, the abuse should be dealt with case-by-case according to the rules already in place, with free discussions of politics and philosophy left intact.

Finally, there seems reason to object to the way in which assertions have been made in this essay about a group of poltical views, without any referencing. It may be technically permissible not to reference in this space. However, to advocate the silencing of a particular group, apparently upon assertion and the (potentially incorrect) association of their view with the (bad) things going on in the illustrations, seems fundamentally inadequate - one could, I think, with justice use much stronger terms than that, but this post is long enough. Who are these people, and who says they believe the things attributed to them in the article? FloweringOctopus (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wary of methodology, if not ideology

Yeah, I mean... of course, no confederates. It's disruptive. So, I don't think I have anything against the essay ideologically, but I'm a little spooked by a talk page strawpoll about this kind of thing; a strawpoll that has been subject to canvassing, no less. I'm not overly involved in vandal-fighting, but is this a debate that needs to be happening? Is there a real rash of confederates causing problems? I feel like we're taking what's already an implicit consensus and making it vulnerable to people who want to squabble on flash-points. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This came out of the discussion on the NONAZIS page and the discussion that happened involving the block of User:Bedford Andre🚐 21:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification – my only intention was (and will be) to draw the attention of users to this essay and its existence, having in mind those users who might possibly be interested in its content and topic, nothing more than that. I am sorry if it may appear as canvassing, since it certainly isn't my intention. I see it as a simple "invitation" and suggestion, and, if you want, as a way to "advertise" the essay. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Sundostund's defense, while he did notify me about this discussion and I did in fact endorse the essay, I feel that their invitations have been sufficiently random for it to not seem like canvassing as I haven't really encountered Sundostund on the encyclopedia in quite a long time; I'm honestly a little surprised to have been on the list of people they thought to contact. And of course, it was always possible for me to have opposed the essay, as I did find that some of the oppose votes had fairly understandable reasons. I believe he was acting in good faith here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to Vanilla Wizard, I myself was notified of this essay on my talk page, but have never had any contact with Sundostund in the past...and honestly, I found it to be a good read. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place for learning, and I see this essay as that, just with the added ability to sign on in support of the message. Born of Iron (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interestingly, a July 2021 Politico-Morning Consult poll of 1,996 registered voters reported that 47% viewed the confederate flag as a symbol of Southern pride while 36% viewed it as a symbol of racism.[1][2] You can read into this any way you want though, as past polls have showed a majority see it as a symbol of racism. The point I have is that this continues to be a very divisive issue which Wikipedia is wading into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think acknowledging an existing issue is fairly characterized as 'wading into' it. Disruptive neoconfederate editing isn't new, even if the essay is. The modern history of the flag isn't decided by a poll of registered voters. For one thing, the history itself is clear, regardless of opinion. For another, registered voters are not a random sample in this situation. For another, Southern pride is another euphemism; is the battle flag commonly used as a symbol of Black southern pride? Clearly not, so calling this "Southern pride" is at best incomplete. Finally, the survey's actual question is "Do you, yourself, see the displaying of the Confederate flag as more of a..." This specifically frames it as personal, not general. "You, yourself" is ambiguous here, as this isn't necessarily asking people what they think other people mean by the flag. I strongly suspect that a different phrasing would prompt a dramatically different result, which is common with surveys like this. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally, the question also presents this as a binary when it isn't. It can be both a racist symbol and a symbol of southern pride. Licks-rocks (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must question if a section of endorsements is a good idea. I can't think of another essay where this has been done, though if I'm wrong, please link me. Its a magnet for disruption, and I'm not seeing the actual benefit. Essays are generally of mixed support and non-support; many express somewhat controversial, or personal views. I suggest this section be removed, or at least archived, as not actually improving the project. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding precedent: I think this section was probably modeled after the one at WP:NONAZIS, where the oppose section is, for obvious reasons, completely absent. Other than that I think I've seen a few of these on essays here and there? I could swear I remember one where there was an endorsers section embedded in the article itself, though I couldn't for the life of me remember where. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the NONAZIS section started when it was a user-space essay, so it made a bit more sense for individual editors to mention their endorsement. Are these sections any more disruptive than anything else on the talk pages? Many of the more disruptive comments have also, ironically, demonstrated why these essays exist. These views exist whether people explicitly endorse them or not, so giving people a chance to be open about it seems helpful, and not all disagreement is automatically disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate another regular ACW editor chiming in here. I'm totally cool with Wikipedia having an essay like this, though I don't generally agree with it. Unfortunately, IMHO some of the folks who created this essay are familiar with adversarial processes and perhaps decided that this page would become more acceptable if it demonstrated a list of supporters, like an RFC or RM. Like CaptainEek, I see this as a source of disruption and not in line with normal essay formatting. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As already pointed above, the section of endorsements was modeled after the one at WP:NONAZIS. That was the exact source for my idea to add it here, as a closely related essay; I have also seen similar sections on some other essays as well. IMHO, it is a necessary and helpful way for editors to express their opinion on WP:NOCONFED, after they have read its content. It would be hard to imagine some other way to measure support/opposition for this essay, and its general relevance and importance. That could be an even bigger issue in the future, since this essay can be expected to be cited in related discussions, as is the case with other essays of similar nature. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Do we really need an essay against every single far-right ideology out there? I'm inclined to believe that any reasonable editor would recognize publicly supporting slavery as disruptive, even without an essay. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, and as is echoed in many of the oppose !votes, in principle I do not disagree with the notion that neo-Confederacy carries a racist bent and frankly is dangerous to society in that it promotes pro-secessionist ideals. There is no doubt that this attitude persists throughout a good chunk of the Southern U.S.; I just saw a bumper sticker yesterday that all but called for an armed insurrection in 2024. But again, the "heritage" angle is also shared among many Southerners who perhaps might not be as deeply informed as to the history of the Confederacy or some of its worst atrocities. Many of them may find themselves possessing some of the beliefs that are listed in this essay's Neo-Confederate beliefs section, but if queried about racism, secession or the White genocide conspiracy theory, they would retreat from such principles as either nonsense or over-the-top.

Therein lies my issue issue with the essay, in that it is not sparing with its withering judgment: Neo-Confederates ... are disruptive to the community, and not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia; they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki. In those instances in which it is clearly identifiable that someone's actions are uncivil, disruptive, or utterly non-conducive to Wikipedia's purpose, then yes, blocking is appropriate, as is the removal of any of their disruptive content. But it does not include a provision on first communicating with and educating those who fall into the latter camp I mentioned above - those who may reminisce about the Confederacy without possessing extremist tendencies - and there are many individuals who fall within that camp.

If you want to use a WP:NONAZIS parallel, consider the concept of ~~fellow travelers~~ Mitläufer. In the Western parts of occupied Berlin after 1945, the goal was not to immediately seek retribution against those who were Nazi Party members, but rather to attempt to rehabilitate them within reason as not all of them were raging antisemites or S.S. officers. The lack of that messaging within this essay, and its usage to expunge content that even remotely whiffs of Confederate rhetoric, is why I have been unable to support it. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for positive endorsements

User:Sundostund left notes requesting positive endorsements on these user talk pages:

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Sundostund or any of the endorsers are bad people. I sympathize with many of their values and opinions even I disagree with them on this particular proposal.

I am posting this to point out this page may not reflect a true sample of our community's thinking.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: As I already pointed out in this section, my only intention was to draw the attention of various users to this essay, to somehow "advertise" its existence, and precisely to get a sample of the community's thinking, as representative as possible. I understand that it may appear as canvassing, and that the messages I sent to others were written in a non-neutral way. That understanding was exactly the reason why I stopped doing that for awhile now. I truly apologize; I was simply carried away by my own opinion about this essay. Anyway, in the period when I stopped contacting individual users, I added this section to the essay's main page. It is written in a fully neutral way, and simply invites users to state their opinion on this talk page, once they read the essay. That opinion may be endorsement, non-endorsement or something between those two opposite views. And, as the final clarification – I am not saying that any of the non-endorsers are bad people, nor I ever said something like that; I simply disagree with their views, nothing more than that. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And as a non-endorser (but not pro-Confederate), I certainly didn’t feel any approbation here. I just want to call attention so that people might understand the seeming consensus is a bit tilted.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning here, trust me. I myself would be very, very glad if its possible to "advertise" the existence of this essay to as large number of users as possible, and get the most accurate sample of the community's thinking – without the dangers of sliding into canvassing, and avoiding the solicitation either for endorsement or non-endorsement. As I saw, even the post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) isn't the most appropriate way to do that. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only here because I've noticed a pro-confederate agenda, involving the number of articles about the South and the Civil War. 2601:600:C700:3840:B5DE:8C78:A104:25F6 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to name those articles here? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was, by definition, support of the principle of slavery

This does not mean that supporters of the Confederacy during the American Civil War were necessarily defending the principle of slavery, any more than Germans who fought in the Wehrmacht in World War II were supporting Nazism. But we should not honor those defeated causes.

We certainly should not honor those causes, but this paragraph seems counterproductive at best. The Confederacy was intentionally created to defend the existence of institutional racial slavery. Any support of the Confederacy, then or now, is support of slavery, by definition. Dancing around this simple fact is accommodating a dangerous myth. Yes, some people use these symbols out of ignorance (and some people just use that as an excuse when called out) but that (supposed) ignorance only serves to legitimize the neo-confederate ideology. That's not an accident.

Since it seems like the point of this essay is to say that people shouldn't be allowed to use Wikipedia to support pro-slavery politics like neo-confederacy, including this bit of neo-confederate myth-making undercuts that message.

Likewise, Germans who fought in the Nazi Wehrmacht were physically supporting Nazism, by definition. That some of them were pressured or forced into supporting Nazism doesn't invalidate that support. At best this comparison is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I can understand why you see the quoted paragraph as something controversial, and I can agree that it needs some changes, or to be removed. Its never positive nor desirable to whitewash the Confederacy and its supporters, in any way. Same goes for all those who fed the Nazi war machinery. Of course, the creator of the essay, Robert McClenon, should say his opinion before any changes to the text, IMHO. —Sundostund (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is a concern about this paragraph. I am avoiding condemnation of the dead. War is a tragedy, and people fight for nations for any reason or no reason. Specific causes of wars may be atrocities. There is a difference between the Confederate politicians who seceded, and those who fought under them. If someone wants to change it, they can go ahead, as long as they do not make it an actual condemnation of the (long-dead) who fought in the Confederate uniform. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment of this essay, but I ask you to consider why this point is important. Part of the tragedy is that people were forced to support these racist ideologies, whether they wanted to or not, and for many it cost them their lives. Again, they were forced to support and defend these causes. To say otherwise is incorrect.

Not to be too confrontational, but another way to put it is this: neo-confederacy is condemning the dead by mockery. To include this in this essay would is to repeat that mockery. Tacky bumper stickers trivialize this racist ideology by reducing it to evasive euphemisms. This is far less respectful than an honest explanation of why they fought and died.

Part of the lost cause myth, and the clean Wehrmacht myth also, is to downplay these racist causes and present these wars as tragic abstractions that were outside of their control. This dehumanizes these solders and simultaneously makes the causes seem vaguely 'noble'. All those bland monuments to confederate soldiers in confederate uniforms, mostly put up in response to civil rights movements, were put up to honor "the uniform" as a proxy for slavery itself. There are rarely designed to honor any specific dead person, even if they bear that person's name and superficial likeness. The goal of neo-confederacy is to ignore those individuals and instead try and make their death seem justified as part of this euphemistic lost cause of slavery. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I appreciate your thoughts on this, and I have no desire to see an condemnation of the long-dead ordinary Confederate soldiers. We just need to make this essay acceptable to as many users as possible, avoiding elements that can be interpreted (correctly or wrongly) as whitewashing the Confederacy or Nazi Germany and their war aims, which had slavery and racism as their cornerstones, without any doubt.

@Grayfell: This essay is a rather new one, and can certainly be seen as something that is still under construction – things will be added/changed/removed, not just when it comes to the paragraph you see as controversial. As for that paragraph, I would say that you are free to change it into something more acceptable to you, just without turning it into some kind of condemnation, as per the creator's thoughts.

Sundostund (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the comment would make it more acceptable. If other editors disagree, I do not object to removing it. I would rather not try to revise it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell and Robert McClenon: I pretty much neutralized the controversial paragraph, with the latest change of the text. Of course, the new text/paragraph can be further changed, if its necessary in your opinion. —Sundostund (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support under duress is not a tacit admission of support, especially in the case of conscripts, of which there were innumerable in the case of both The Wehrmacht and The Confederacy. To demand someone face prison or worse for the actions of a country they had no hand in producing or else be punished for the crimes of said country is utterly repugnant and you only give credence to racists and bigots who see this type of binary thinking and imagine themselves in good company. This also suggests you claim to know their hearts and thoughts, for those I have mentioned you have no idea what they thought, German or Southerner, all we have are actions and voiced opinions, many of which as I said were under extreme duress and the demands of the time. Wikipedia should be neutral and fact based, not you speculating what the actions of those with no choice 'really' reveal about their thoughts. Total nonsense!

You seem to know a lot about these 'groups' of various bigots, you're not one yourself right? You made a post which is about as ignorant as they are, I am sure you were only speaking out of turn. ANE was Nordic (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You either did not understand what I was saying at all, or you chose to misinterpret it to prove a point, and in doing so, violated no personal attacks. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming good faith and misunderstanding is not in violation. Your tone is aggressive because you feel I stepped on your toes. Your efforts to do better are appreciated. ANE was Nordic (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is "aggressive" here is your use of pseudo-civil language to accuse me of bigotry while ignoring most of what I actually said. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off-topic, therefore my last reply.

Nothing I said was factually incorrect.

Your efforts to do better are appreciated. ANE was Nordic (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A number of East Tennessee Unionists were marched literally in chains 100 to 200 miles to be thrown in the Confederate Army. These were men that openly opposed the Confederacy (other Unionists were imprisoned in Knoxville or just hanged). ::::::--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

@Robert McClenon: I have done some changes in recent days, especially by modifying some aspects of the lead section, and adding some material to it (and to some other paragraphs). I hope that you, as the creator of the essay, support those changes. I am certainly interested in hearing your input on this – I wouldn't perform those changes, without asking for your opinion about the results. —Sundostund (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this line (and some other thoughts on this essay)

They falsely claim that the conclusion of the Civil War signaled the start of the "Yankee occupation" of the Confederacy by the United States/Union and its military, personified by "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". Some neo-Confederates claim that the "occupation" continues to the present day.

Perhaps it's just a lack of precision here, but the above doesn't make much sense to me. The South was indeed occupied by U.S. military after the Civil War (except Tennessee), and this statement seems to imply that that did not happen. Calling it a "Yankee occupation" is a derisive and reductionist assessment (and I'm sure a good handful of people who would unironically call it that these days probably have some a few unenlightened views on Reconstruction) but isn't exactly an objectively false statement, especially when considering that most of the federal forces were non-Southerners at the end of the war and that politically the federal government was controlled by non-Southern states for several years since most Southern states had to pass the 14th Amendment before they were allowed to send their own delegations back to Congress. Also "scalawags" were by definition non-Yankees... Maybe the above could be reworded or just removed, because it seems to imply that someone who acknowledges the basic historic reality that federal troops were stationed in the South for about 10 years after the war is somehow supporting a neo-Confederate ideal (these troops who were, among other important things, arresting the KKK and protecting the rights of freedmen to vote on election day, we wouldn't want to not recognize that would we?).

They falsely claim to be protecting culture and heritage of the Southern United States and White Southerners, supposedly endangered by the values of the New South.

This one is perhaps more idiosyncratic, but I recommend removing the word "falsely" here. This issue of "heritage" and whatnot essentially cuts into personal identity, and to say someone is "falsely claiming" to be protecting one's own culture and heritage would be to imply that they are being insincere, which I do not think is an accurate description of this phenomenon. Neo-Confeds or just one group of Southerners don't get to claim a monopoly on determining what is objectively culture and heritage for all other Southerners, but likewise, Wikipedia editors don't get to claim a monopoly on deciding what objectively constitutes a culture and heritage either. Neo-Confeds and other misguided souls like to shout "Heritage, not hate" and others argue with them "It's not heritage, it is hate." In my white Southern mind, NeoConfeds are indeed defending a certain part of our heritage: the hateful aspect of it. Racism and hate and other negatives can be and are parts of cultures and heritages. "Culture" and "bad/toxic stuff" are not mutually exclusive categories. It's not all banjo music and collard greens down here, much as I wish it was.

I'm not sure how to include it, but I feel like one of the real troubling tell-tale signs of the worst of NeoConfed ideals is the complete lack of consideration for what black Southerners thought and did during these times or writing them off with things like the happy, loyal slave narratives (similarly, the ignoring of the fact that there were quite a few white Southern Unionists). That goes more directly after the NORACISTS crux this seems to be aiming for, so maybe something should be said along those lines. Things like showing the Confederate battle flag or opposing monument removals have become so banal that there are many Southerners who do this but do not think that they are being racist. Ignorance and active hate are good partners for each other, but they are not always the same. So I think there is a variability in problematic views among people who are ok with the Confederate flag whereas people who are cool with the Nazi flags are 99.99% of the time going to be anti-Semites. I say this to suggest that NOCONFED and NONAZIS aren't quite the same; it might be worth asking someone with a Confederate flag userbox why they put it there, if they might consider how offensive it can be, and if they'd take it down. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, "occupation" pretty strongly implies that the north's presence was illegitimate. There are other ways to interpret that word, but the claim as presented by neoconfederates is that northerners were (and still are) somehow foreign, and therefor had no legitimate right to "occupy" the south. The underlying assumption here is that the Civil War was not a civil war, it was a revolution. This is propaganda. It's possible to frame this in just the right way so that it is technically accurate, but this is playing a rigged game. The goal of neoconfederate propaganda isn't historical accuracy or precision, instead superficial accuracy and precision are tools which are used and abused to lead people to an emotional goal. In the same way that scientific racism is pseudoscience, this is pseudo-history. It seems plausible, but it's built on misconceptions and lies, so calling it "false" is appropriate.

Regarding the second point, again I think "falsely" is accurate and important in this context. It is at best misleading to call slavery and white supremacy "culture and heritage". The neoconfederate use of the term "heritage" has become a euphemism. It's become kind of a cliche, as in the jingoistic claim the flag is about "heritage not hate". Who's "heritage"? Why is a previously obscure pro-slavery battle flag part of anyone's heritage and why is this heritage worth killing other people over? How is it respectful to anyone's "heritage" to whitewash a symbol which is still actively used for intimidation and violence? This essay should not legitimizing this idiosyncratic definition of the term heritage.

As for the third, content on the Black southerner's perspective would be very welcome. As for white ignorance and white defensiveness, even setting aside the pragmatic issues, this is an encyclopedia. Our starting position has to be facts, such as the fact that the confederate battle flag is a hate symbol originally used by people who killed and died in defense of racism and slavery. It has since become closely associated with multiple very high profile terrorist murders. If people want to claim ignorance of this history, they have to *actually* claim ignorance of this history. We shouldn't bend over backwards to assume that people don't know what they are doing. Wikipedia already provides many, many resources for people who wish to learn this history, including this essay itself.

Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to For the first, "occupation" pretty strongly implies that the north's presence was illegitimate. This view stands in opposition to the fact that the U.S. Army and modern historians ([3][4][5]) seem perfectly fine with calling it an occupation. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording mentions the "Yankee occupation" of the Confederacy. The confederacy was dissolved by then. A dead government cannot be occupied, so this neoconfederate claim is wrong. It is accurate to call that claim false.

To expand on this, obviously Federal forces physically occupied the South, but that's not really what's being said. The claim made by neoconfederates is that northern outsiders were illegitimately occupying territory that politically belonged to a separate government of white southerners. This only works if we accept the neoconfederate position that the Confederacy had legitimate control of that territory, and also that it remained a legitimate political entity that could logically be militarily occupied after the Civil War ended. Both of these assumptions are false in different ways. Even accepting the modern take that Reconstruction was a terrorist insurgence which lead to eventual capitulation from the US government, the Confederacy itself was dead as a political entity. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To more clearly illustrate your point, I'd recommend changing "Yankee occupation" of the Confederacy to "Yankee occupation of the Confederacy". -Indy beetle (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and updated it to use that quotation format and I also added a note that the US army occupation of the Southern states ended in 1877 with the Compromise of 1876 Andre🚐 01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well... During the Civil War, the Confederacy was illegitimate even when it was in power. How is it possible to "occupy" a fake country? I'm concerned that this wording still implies that non-confederates 'invaded' and that the confederacy formed out of self defense, which is another part of the neoconfederate myth. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: I share your view and concern about this; the Confederacy must not be presented as a legitimate entity, in any possible way. At the same time, as can be seen, I have done some purely "cosmetic" changes to the current wording, namely added some wikilinks. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am in no way trying to imply the Confederacy was real, that's why it's in scare quotes, but the troops did "occupy" the Southern states until 1877. Please feel free to change the wording. Andre🚐 22:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply anything about your motives. It's tricky because 'occupy' has multiple meanings, and neoconfederates are happy to exploit that ambiguity. The current wording isn't technically correct. Obviously the US military is still present in the South. That's very relevant to this issue, even.

I guess "control" could replace "presence" but this is still implying that the US government lost control of the South. There's some historical truth to that but it seems too simplistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article says the withdrawal of federal troops from the Southern states. So we could just say that. Andre🚐 23:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced "presence" with "control". Of course, this could be subjected to some further changes, if deemed necessary. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]