Talk:Neo-Confederates

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

text: Nope OgamD218 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, OgamD218, I don't think "nope" is going to qualify as discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Neo-Confederates are often associated with fascism in the United States" changed to "Critics often associate..." 

message: Work it out on talk, please. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There is no section titled "controversy". What are you talking about here? Wes sideman (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Article protected over edit warring

message: *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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject banners