Talk:Neo-Confederates

See also links

Regarding this recent edit [1], instead of just reverting, I wanted to call attention to some inconsistencies. While white supremacy IS already linked, I did not see many of the others, so it may possible this editor accidentally overlooked some of the changes that may indeed have WEIGHT. Thoughts? DN (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

While they’re not present in the text, the page does link to Alt-right, Culture of the Southern United States, History of the Southern United States, Paleolibertarianism, and Politics of the Southern United States as categories (see the bottom of the page). I also removed Eugene Genovese, Mel Bradford, and Woodrow Wilson and race, as it was not obvious to me why they would be more relevant to this topic than other conservative persons – the See Also section doesn’t need to be a comprehensive list of every Neo-Confederate who has an article. My intention is to pare down the See Also, as I don’t think it’s useful to list more than twenty or so links. Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious to anyone but IP editors POV pushing that the see also here is bloated. There's 22 links currently, many of which are essentially repetitive or inappropriate. Would anyone object to the removal of Jeffersonian Democracy, Kinism, List of Fascist Movement, List of Neo-Nazi groups-with regards to the last 2, Neo-Confederates are not some offshoot of nazi fascism but there own distinct extremist movement, moreover I am not proposing that List of KKK orgs be removed. Continuing: List of desig hate groups by the SPLC-essentially already covered. Nativism also seems drifting off topic, Racism Against African Americans in the US is already there so do we really need Racism in the US as well? Richard Weaver was just a conservative southern scholar, prominent in his time perhaps but I've personally never seen anything connecting him with neo-confederate ideology. OgamD218 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OgamD218: Just a reminder, this discussion is a good first step, but you need to be mindful of the fact that you shouldn't be reverting editors that have already reverted your removals. It looks like edit warring. Wait for this discussion to conclude, judge what the consensus is, and then make an edit, if consensus dictates that an edit is needed. Tagging @Darknipples: and @Neutrality:, who also explained why they were reverting you. Wes sideman (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not falsifying an article's edit history is also a good first step though usually not one that is necessary. Please be mindful that tagging uninvolved editors seemingly likely to agree with you based off incorrect claims of their involvement may be interpreted as canvassing, even if done so in error. These links are not longstanding but recent adds of drive by IPs, other editors deleted them previously. You keep re-adding them though without material basis. I've repeatedly given thorough reasons for why they should not be added. I posted this thread over a month ago seeking input, you never participated. I remain fully open to discussing with you/other editors why any or all of these should be added. OgamD218 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

[2] So before we continue this back and forth (which may or may not be likely), could we get some discussion as to the reasons for AND against these changes? Is it WP:MOS related? Please cite or link related policies, guidelines and previous consensus or RfCs...Thanks. DN (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Manual of style is explicitly pretty vague on the topic (see MOS:SEEALSO). I think the reasons for omitting the contested entries are

1. a shorter See also section is easier to use.
2. the specific entries were not very relevant, as OgamD218 enumerated above.

I’m admittedly not sure of the reasons for including them. Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said^. I've long been and still am open to discussion and would prefer to we at least try and avoid cont back and forth. Though efforts to include all ~10 links prev added by drive by IPs seem to have died down, 1 editor continues to re-add here and there. Unfortunately they're rigidly opposed to discussion, claiming instead that that removal of any of these links is just an attempt to distant a topic from NConfed ideology/vice versa. While I agree we need both sides, to run with this pov borderlines on strawmanning (idk any reasonable person agreeing the only possible motive for deleting List of white nationalist organizations from a see also that includes white nationalism on this particular page was to somehow distant NConfeds from white natlsm). A stronger case certainly be made in favor of including some of these links.

OgamD218 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You just removed List of Ku Klux Klan organizations and List of fascist movements from the See also. To address Justin Kunimune's question about including those: Neo-Confederates is literally in the list of fascist movements; that one isn't rocket science. The links to the KKK are well-sourced in the body of the article, and there's no link to List of Ku Klux Klan organizations in the article currently, so that also satisfies the guidelines for the See also section. Wes sideman (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These links are helpful and appropriate, and should remain. Further, neo-confederate movements' ties to racism are not limited to Racism against African Americans, so removing Racism in the United States seems counterproductive. Grayfell (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Neo-confederates is not in the list of fascist movements. It is only included in the see also, the longest most bloated I've ever seen and was added to there by a drive by IP. Re: the KKK nexus, yes exactly, the article body thoroughly covers the topic. The section above the see also practically serves as a stand alone list of KKK organizations. Further all KKK orgs would already be included in the included SPLC list. OgamD218 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If that is "the longest most bloated I've ever seen" you haven't seen very many TBH, and calling a series of IP edits "drive by" edits is silly and assumes bad faith. Redundancy is fine in a see also list, because that is precisely what they are for. They exist to direct readers to other related topics. Grayfell (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop just foaming off at the mouth, you can disagree pedantically and also know what you're talking about. The "longest most bloated" remark was hyperbole, that aside what pages are you hanging out on where 39 see also links is typical? Please follow up on those specific IPs you so blindly defended.... Most importantly, no, it is not fine for the content of any section of an encyclopedic article to be "redundant". OgamD218 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

While a range of 15 may seem higher than average, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to have that number of links. In regard to the List of fascist movements I did not see Neo-Confederates linked or mentioned in the section titled United States (1933–1941). Did I miss it? The lead states...

Neo-Confederates are groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America and its actions during the American Civil War in a positive light. The League of the South, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other neo-Confederate organizations continue to defend the secession of the former Confederate States.

While NC may qualify as a movement, they do not seem to qualify as a type of authority or government, at least explicitly. While their beliefs may fall under the umbrella or spectrum of fascism, I'm not sure that alone qualifies. Any explicit consensus by RS that backs up the claim that NC is considered a fascist movement would settle the issue but I'm not seeing this, and not for lack of searching. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. DN (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of its ideation, the Confederacy was not a fascist state. "Neo-Confederate" is a label more than anything, a catch all noun applicable to a range of views and huge number of people-virtually none of whom support actual fascism but just live in an alternate reality where secession was a just cause and not to preserve slavery. In stark contrast, modern fascists, EG neo-nazis, are very discernible cliques who actually stand by nazism. Neo-nazis are inherent sympathizers of neo-confederatism but this does not alter the fact that the many who sport confederate battle flags/spout lost cause ideology find no common cause with fascism. OgamD218 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Actual fascism" you say? Okay.

This is not about the white supremacist ideation of the Confederacy, it is about neo-confederacy. Since this later movement is based on a false history of lies, (much like fascism), the ideology has always been a flimsy pretense, and, also like fascism, it is never going to be particularly coherent. Fascism and neoconfederacy overlap according to many sources, and there is no particular reason to view the two as incompatible or strictly separate. This idea that neo-Nazis are "very descernible" is contrary to most reliable sources I have read on this. Other than the typical infighting of all violent far-right movements, the two groups tightly overlap. That some hypothetical neo-confederates oppose neo-Nazism in some undefined way is is unimpressive and smacks of false nuance. The histories of League of the South, the Greensboro massacre, the more recent Unite the Right rally, and plenty of others, demonstrate this overlap. Grayfell (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Lost cause mythology=Fascist propaganda is a weak correlation. Per the art you linked, fascism doesn't notably diverge from other movements in this re. The overwhelming majority of NCs stand by a fictional CSA defined by qualities most liberals would stand by. On the extreme are groups like the KKK who stand by the actual CSA's core value that african americans should be violently subjugated. Neo-nazis have little interest in core NC myths, the real CSA that went to war to propensiate race based slavery fits well with their POV. As sourced, neo-nazi use of the confederate battle flag is extremely upsetting to the vast majority of NC believers. Further its an uncontested fact the nazi-kkk cooperation at Greensboro stemmed from a shared hatred of communism, not a shared belief in fascism. Per the article, the ideology of the LoS does not include fascism. The Unite the Right Rally is linked-oh and it was called unite the *right, not unite the fascists....... OgamD218 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: To address your question about the link: the neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis (ie, fascists) marched side-by-side at the Unite the Right rally with common stated goals, and that link is well-documented in many sources. @OgamD218: As consensus is pretty clearly against your removals of the See Also links that I've restored, I'd stop edit warring at this point if I were you. Wes sideman (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Marching "side-by-side" and saying NC are "much like" a fascist movement is not RS, let alone an explicit consensus by RS. The only mention of fascism in the article with RS is at the end and includes these cites [3] [4] [5] I managed to find a few academic opinions on my own that made a correlation, but that would require attribution and isn't very compelling. I should also mention I do not subscribe to NYT or WaPo so it would help to share any explicit quotes that include NC and facist movement in the same sentence, paragraph etc...No offense, but this is starting to look like WP:SYNTH, if I'm being completely honest here. I hope you see my point. Best of luck. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're acknowledging that there's 3 reliable sources that link Neo-Confederates and fascist movements, you've found more academic sources that make the same link, but... that's not enough? How many sources do we need? 20? 30? Wes sideman (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No. I'm saying I don't have access to the cited sources in the article, and I asked for relevant quotes. While there may be some similarities from the handful of sources I did find, those are mostly opinion and by no means a consensus of RS which leads me closer the conclusion that this SEE ALSO link may be WP:UNDUE. Now, does anyone care to share material from the links in the article that show ANY mainstream consensus, academic or otherwise, that provide evidence to support a link from Neo-confederate to fascist movements, or not? DN (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I subscribe to NYT and was able to read to the WaPo source-neither contains language asserting that NC is a fascist movement. The WaPo article does not even appear to contain "fascist" as a stand alone word. No one is denying that some NC groups participated in the unite the right rally-which is linked and was not called unite the *fascists. Even the confusing pdf source seems to fail in this regard. The preceding WaPo art actually notes NC's are not nor ever have been notably sympathetic to fascism. All told, the sources cited throughout the article make it clear that any NC-Nazi common ground is in the area of race, not fascist ideology.

We're talking about a See Also link, not some statement in the lead that requires 5 different sources that explicitly state that "NC is a fascist movement" - there is a relationship between the two ideologies, that fact is sourced, and the See Also link is well within appropriate guidelines. Wes sideman (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman What sources, can you share them? I promise I am not trying to take sides here, but without RS to back up the claim that there is a relationship between NC and fascist movements, doesn't that make it WP:OR? I can guarantee that I have nothing to lose or gain either way. I'm no fan of fascism or NCs for that matter, so my only concern is the quality and legitimacy of this article and Wiki as a whole. WP:OR only hurts this article in the long run. DN (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

They are all over the article, and I added two more yesterday. Wes sideman (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@DN I too have no affinity for this backwards movement but this is an encyclopedia and its hard to pretend this editor isn't just POV pushing. If the content they just added to the was truthful my position may be different however in context they so demonstrably misrepresented the facts their edit arguably rises to the level of vandalism. @Wes sideman if we are the ones who are wrong here then please, by all means, reply with a direct quote(s), from an impartial authority, not an editorial, from any of the sources that according to you are "all over the article".....OgamD218 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Truman was a "neo-Confederate" (member of the SCV). Didn't he destroy fascism in WWII? -Topcat777 (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Neo-Confederates are often associated with fascism in the United States" changed to "Critics often associate..."

I'm pretty sure that the only people that aren't "critics" of neo-Confederates are... neo-Confederates. Maybe neo-Nazis too. The cited sources doesn't make such an equivocation. As such, the old wording is fine. Pretty sure WP:NONAZIS can be applied here. I don't know why one editor is trying to soften the image of Neo-Confederates in this article and I don't care about why. I just know it's not a NPOV. Wes sideman (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Is that what the source says? DN (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources associate "Neo-Confederates with fascism in the United States", that is enough. It's original research to add "Critics say that..." as a qualifier. Wes sideman (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope OgamD218 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, OgamD218, I don't think "nope" is going to qualify as discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol touché, I'll give you that much. I hit reply on the App to the last message from @DN and this is how it came out. OgamD218 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Article protected over edit warring

Work it out on talk, please. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

This may be the first time I will suggest RSN over a SEE ALSO link. Clearly, there are no explicit sources that back up the claim that NCs are considered a fascist movement. Does "overlap" count? I honestly don't know. I think recent history, ie the Unite the Right rally, possibly signifies a shift for NCs, but without explicit sources, it's just OR in my opinion. These editors are in serious need of guidance, so I will leave it to you to decide what is best, and which of them is or is not acting in the best interest of this article. Feel free to ping me as an involved editor anytime. DN (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If the above discussion achieved anything at all it affirmed that no source backs the claim in controversy. @Darknipples, my understanding is a greater nexus than "overlap" alone is necessary. Considering sources are in agreement that: NC is not fascism, a notable minority of NCs "overlap" with fascists and, said "overlap" stems entirely from shared support for racism/white nationalism, it would seem "incorporating fascism by overlap" would not be an improvement. OgamD218 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no section titled "controversy". What are you talking about here? Wes sideman (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Fully protected for another week, as there is no talk-page progress. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Well, there's no progress, because OgamD218 has basically resorted to just reverting to their preferred version of the article, even though there was a long-standing stable version before they came along. They haven't offered any meaningful reasons for their removals besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wes sideman (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lectonar: An issue throughout is Wes's strategy of ignoring Talk and just making things up re the page's edit history. They're aware that their changes are recent, in fact very recent and only went to Talk after being called out by Bishonen for incorrectly claiming other editors than themselves were restoring their changes. At Talk they failed to gain consensus and stopped participating altogether once the 1st protection template was put in place. Since then they've edit wared and posted false info about the situation on this thread and to the Talk of editors they believe likely to side with them but continued to ignore the Talk discussion. OgamD218 (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen ? Doug Weller talk 14:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's honestly difficult for me to know exactly what Ogam is talking about at any particular time, given the amount of attacks they've visited upon me. He has already been blocked by Bishonen for such personal attacks in the past. I'm trying to resolve this with RfC's because it's clear they're just going to continue edit warring, as they did right after page protection expired last time. The first one can be found below. Wes sideman (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, Doug, I don't have much faith in the RfC below, honestly, although I appreciate Wes sideman's attempt to do something. Two editors are disagreeing, and up to now neither of them has done anything much to resolve it, or to bring in outside eyes. As the unsigned Oppose (?) says, RfC's should only be started after some discussion. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC, and that has not been done. Wes Sideman, what do you think of closing the RFC as premature, and instead using the Wikipedia:Third opinion system, which is simpler and less onerous for everybody? It's intended for just such a situation as this. I suppose nobody wants the article protected indefinitely over this. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC).

I disagree that there's been no discussion - the section above is huge. OgamD218, judging by their near-automatic reversions and personal attacks, is clearly not interested in anything short of their exact version of the article being in place. They have reverted every change I've made to the article, full stop. I'm choosing to tackle one issue at a time, per WP:RFC, and I picked this well-sourced paragraph as the first one. Wes sideman (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree, a discussion was had and the weight of it was against incl of WS's NPOV unsourced edits. Every discussion thread fizzled out after WS refused requests to specify sourcing for their claim NC is inherently fascist-an assertion contradicted by multiple sources actually cited in the article. From the start WS has pursued a strategy of edit warring, making things up and begging Bishonen to intervene for them-in fact they only came to talk after multiple attempts at this failed. OgamD218 reverted every change I've made to the article, full stop I haven't even touched most of their edits, not to mention reverted. WS's refusal to stop making things up and engage in a good faith discussion has hindered substantive progress. EG I fixed a sentence to accurately reflect sources and state *critics of NCs often label them fascists, but any alteration to their npov edits is unacceptable to WS, according to whom NCs are considered fascist by apparently anyone who isn't a Nazi. The RfC proposal is no exception, as in the talk discussions, WS restated their NPOV, claims are either absent in the sources or completely stripped of relevant context, when asked where the content is contained in the sources they again outright refused and once the protection tag expired immediately restored their NPOV edit, falsely claiming consensus. OgamD218 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of a paragraph mentioning Seward Collins and The American Review

Should the following paragraph be included in the article?

In the 1930s, self-described fascist publisher Seward Collins provided an avenue for white supremacists and neo-Confederates to advance their ideology in The American Review, a literary journal openly sympathetic to European fascism. The connections and overlap between white supremacist, fascist, far-right, and neo-Confederate ideologies have persisted and remain in place in the present day.

Wes sideman(talk) 13:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Oppose All we have on Seward Collins is a stub with the label "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source" and even then his connection with fascism is by association and that from statements made at a time when no one knew where it (fascism) was going and when it had a suprising number of supporters. Communism was the big fear at the time and look where that went. Any association with Facism that might be pertinent to this article is summed up by the existing line "Critics often associate Neo-Confederates with fascism in the United States". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs)

BTW...There has been no discussion (apart from the bit below from the initiator) about this so why the RfC already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs)

• Yes The first sentence is sourced to a book titled Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction and published by the University of Texas. Clearly relevant and reliably sourced. The second sentence is also reliably sourced to the 2014 book Racial Formation in the United States and explicitly connects Neo-Confederates to white supremacy, racism, and fascist movements. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman, where in these 2 sources did you find substantiation for the claims being asserted? Please provide specific quotes from each respectively. OgamD218 (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

First off, they're not "claims", they're simple statements of fact. Second, you can read a reference just as easily as I can, so surely you can see the page numbers in those references. Wes sideman (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps Neo-confederate may be more closely compared to "Neo"-fascism? I haven't done much research to see if there is much RS that makes that connection, but it could be worth looking into. DN (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest longer RFCBEFORE. Based on my review of this talk page, the prior discussion concerned see also links. A lot, though concededly not all, of that discussion concerned the length of the see-also section at the time, with a few editors saying that the section was already long enough. But those arguments don't apply to this proposed addition of prose to the article. Other portions of that discussion concern three different sources—a NYT article, a WaPo article, and a paper by Niall Munro. But these sources are entirely distinct from what's proposed here! If forced to choose now, I'd say there's nothing wrong with the proposed addition and would support inclusion, but I'd really like to see more discussion of the arguments in favor and opposed to the suggested prose (and the sources used) before I commit either way.<--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per arguments put forward by Wes Sideman Jack4576 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons I gave above-NPOV pushing of unsourced content by proposer who repeatedly failed to achieve talk consensus. Idt I'd obj necessarily if the content wasn't historically inaccurate. The American Review was only in circulation from 1933-37. Collins had sought contributions from several intelectual schools of conservatism but "NC and white supremacists" were neither specifically recruited or represented. A circle of 12 Vanderbilt poets, called the Southern Agrarians known for their defense of rural southern culture did participate. Though not generally associated with NC, SAs did hold NC sympathetic views but were open ardent opponents of fascism, joining with most other AR contributors in immediately ending all affiliations w/ the journal after Collins came out in support of Euro's Fascism in 1936, forcing AR to close soon after. SAs were amongst Collins' harshest critics thereafter. OgamD218 (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. That a conservative magazine in the 1930s would be sympathetic to fascism is not such an extraordinary claim that we need kid gloves, weasel words, and an extra helping of sources to justify this. The current sources are sufficient for a single paragraph. This is a historical thread and this single paragraph explains it succinctly and neutrally. As always, it is up to sources to provide all this context, not editors. That includes the opposition of the Southern Agrarians to fascism. Other opposition to this, as presented above, is neither policy-based nor impartial. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for that openly NPOV opening sentence. As was detailed in the discussion below, even these cherry picked sources do not actually affirm the claims being asserted. The 2nd source is a thesis by sociologists, that even still fails to support the specific content being pushed (the editor refused to cooperate when asked to state where support for his changes could be found). That among the dozens of writers from across the ideological spec invited by SC to contribute to his short lived journal included a clique of poets from Vanderbilt does not create a nexus between fascism and NC, especially since after he came out as a fascist they publicly condemned him and cut ties w/ AR. As both you and Seward Collins acknowledged, the SAs were in fact opponents of fascism. OgamD218 (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding this RfC, editors should take into consideration that the citations provided after both sentences, do not affirm the preceding claims. According to actual sources in article, outreach attempts by fascist in 1930s and 40s were resoundingly rebuffed by Neo-Confederates, starting in the 1970s neo-nazi groups again tried appealing to NCs by adopting symbols such as the Confederate battle flag, which was generally met with derision by NCs. Though some more extreme NC groups have found common cause with fascists, sources widely agree this is rooted in shared support for white supremacy, not fascism. Editors may also want to review the above discussions and edit history. OgamD218 (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the source you provide is "At the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville over the weekend, marchers carried Confederate and Nazi flags side by side". Thanks for supporting more links between today's neo-Confederates and Nazi fascism. Wes sideman (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I made my comment before I saw Ogam's claim, so I thought I'd check out the sources myself. I do think there's some issue with the sourcing, but not as pervasive as Ogam suggests.

The first sentence says: "In the 1930s, self-described fascist publisher Seward Collins provided an avenue for white supremacists and neo-Confederates to advance their ideology in The American Review, a literary journal openly sympathetic to European fascism."

That sentence is cited to page 29 of Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction. That page says: "Openly sympathetic toward European fascism, the American Review provided a venue for the Southern Agrarians to advance their ideology, attack those whom they envisioned as critical of the South, and vigorously defend white supremacy." That sentence has a footnote attached to it, and it says, "See, for example, the unattributed editorial from 1933 (although the editor of the issue was Seward Collins) ... which argued that Hitler's rise to power ended 'the Communist threat forever' and that the persecution of Jews 'if ... true' was a 'negligible' aspect of the Nazi regime."

@Wes sideman: I am a little apprehensive about using this source to say Collins provided an avenue—Collins seems to be an afterthought in this text: he's only tied to one issue in the text, and the purpose of that reference seems to be to have suggested that Collins wrote an editorial openly sympathetic to European fascism. In other words, the text never says Collins provided an avenue; it says he was the editor of one issue of a publication that provided an avenue. I think that raises a WP:V (maybe WP:SYNTH) problem, and given that Collins is only mentioned in a footnote of the article (in fact, a parenthetical in a footnote!), I have some WP:DUE/WP:MINORASPECT concerns about mentioning Collins at all.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: I'm open to seeing what alternative text you would use in this paragraph. Wes sideman (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh man, I appreciate that you'd seek my input!, but I have to admit I'm a little apprehensive of my ability to draft anything given my lack of background knowledge. Having reviewed the second source, I'm also a little concerned it doesn't perfectly support the second sentence. Ideally, I think, you'd have something like this:

There have long been ties between Neo-Confederacy and facists.^{[Needs a source]} In the early 20th century, The American Review, a literary journal openly sympathetic to European fascism, served as a forum for white supremacists to advance their ideology. And ... (two / three more examples).

The problem is, it's not so easy to find a source for the first sentence. I mean, I did find a law-review article by Mary Anne Franks that called neo-Confederates a "fascist movmeent" [6], but other than that ... it doesn't seem that that many publications have made the direct connection. I think that more research is needed, and absent such sources, we probably should avoid the claim.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

WikiProject banners

I removed the unexplained addition of the WikiProject Terrorism banner as I think this article is outside scope of that project. Article does not discuss terrorism in relation to Neo-Confederates, or even mention the word. Nor does it mention any terrorist or criminal acts of violence to bring about political change. While the American Civil War was a military action, this article appears to be about a post-Civil War revision of the history by the losing side for political reasons. If terrorism is involved, it is not apparent from this article. If somebody can sensibly explain the inclusion rationale, I will be happy to have the banner added back. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)