Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens

message: User:Beyond My Ken: I'm really not sure how this constitutes a whitewashing, so maybe you can clarify what you would like to see here. The first two sentences of the paragraph are not in the source at all - so I don't think there's any justification for restoring that portion of the paragraph.
In general: a group's self-descriptions are not inherently notable, and Wikipedia policies discourage overreliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. We have plenty of reliable secondary sources that describe the CofCC's ideology, and the section in question has been tagged for primary sourcing for over a year at this point - so it seems sensible to excise some of it.  If the goal is to simply note that the CofCC perpetuates white genocide conspiracy theory, we can do that by citing a reliable secondary source like this - we don't need to help them spread their message by uncritically repeating their racists canards. Nblund talk 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Would someone have a look at this edit ?  The edit note says the para was removed for being unsourced.  There are plenty of references in the deleted material. Rhadow (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  it looks to me as though that comment refers only to this (or mainly, I saw a couple of small details that looked unsourced): "Other conservative national and state politicians who refused to denounce, distance, or resign their membership and continued attending meetings and giving speeches remained prominent political leaders within the conservative movement. Former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina remained supportive of the CofCC and consistently won his elections, and support from the CofCC was considered decisive enough that the organization was influential in office throughout his terms in the Senate. Similarly, former governors H. Guy Hunt of Alabama and Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, as well as Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina remained active members and/or gave speeches to the organization.". Doug Weller talk 13:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/primary material 

message: I see this sentence in the article. "Mass murderer Dylann Roof searched the Internet for information on "black on White crime", and the first website he found was the CofCC website." This seems like a very precise claim which, regardless of if it's sourced or not, seems impossible to be knowably true.  Was someone standing there, looking over Roof's shoulder when he searched? On what possible basis can this statement be asserted to be anything other than conjecture? 158.123.57.187 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Roof wrote it himself. "When Roof hit Enter for the search term "black on white crime," the search engine returned a list of websites. "The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens," Roof wrote." Source is here. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  unverified/unverifiable? 

message: An editor is attempting to whitewash this article by removing information supported by reliable sources, and adding "positive" information, like the organization's mission statement (which we generally do not do, as they are WP:Primary sources).  I have advised the editor to stop their PoV editing and discuss their concerns on this talk page, and not to restore their edits until they have a consensus to do so from a discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a trip to the organization's website and then went looking for other information about this group. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall referred to it as the "uptown Klan." I would have a hard time supporting any consensus that would indicate this is anything other than a white supremacist organization. Ifnord (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what was said earlier. Any consensus that this is not a prima facie white supremacist organization is outrageous. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good gracious, User:Etzedek24, can you please review the contested content before you overzealously jump on the bandwagon here?  What's going on around here?  Everybody can sound an alarm, but nobody can bother to read?  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. You're spinning a majority viewpoint into something that seems like the opinion of one organization. Removing the phrase "white supremacist" from the first few sentences of the article is a tell. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is naked nonsense.  This is an encyclopedia.  The first sentence didn't describe the organization, it described what others have to say about it.  I provided a neutral (but indictive, in the context of what "America First" means in the organization's case, a term it uses itself, so it is nothing I am adding to make it look at all  "better"), then immediately followed it with the derogatory assessment of it, appropriately attributed.  What part of that can't you see? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it nonsense, even in italics, does not make it so. Just like calling this organization anything else than a white supremacist one would be less than accurate. Like any subject, the description isn't necessarily what the subject would like to portray but rather how it is portrayed. Acta non verba. Ifnord (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

text: You are correct, every single editor disagrees with you. That is the definition of ..... 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It's obvious. The most notable feature of the CCC is that it is white supremacist and you removed that from the first sentence, favouring its self-description. In doing that you added "Regarded as a white supremacist organ by the Anti-Defamation League" which is misleading, as there are two sources for white supremacism, not just the ADL - you make it look as only the ADL regards it as such. There are numerous other sources that back that up. You added their 14 principles which is simply promotional and not encyclopedic. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not just whitewashing, it is so promotional it appears to be PR work. Jacona (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment I'd like to also draw editors' attention to the Wikiuser100's edits that I just recently reverted at Lester Maddox, who was a charter member of the Council of Conservative Citizens (note that my link to this article in my edit summary was misspelled due to autocorrect). This article is on my watchlist as well, but I saw the Maddox edits first. A lot of the supposed "general cleanup" edits made in that article seemed to me to be piecemeal whitewashing (in my personal opinion), such as attempting to provide alternate "context" as to why Maddox violated the Civil Rights Act as a matter of "states rights", changing a supporting source's wording in which it is made clear it was a completely unsubstantiated rumor that those mourning Martin Luther King Jr. would riot in the Capitol (changing the word "rumor" to "threat", and removing the qualification that it wasn't backed by any actual evidence) and his subsequent stationing of the National Guard there, softening the wording on his pro-racial segregation stances, calling a nightclub act with a black bus boy "integrative" (which I saw as an attempt at false balance), and so on. I'm not sure if it's just the CCC and associated figures, but the edits both there, and here, appear to be clear whitewashing to my eyes. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jacona.  Copy-and-paste from the organization's website is not encyclopedic; it is advertising--or in J's words, PR. Rhadow (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing 

message: I removed the 'Conservatism US' info-box since this article is not (or no longer) listed there.  If this article ever gets added to that list, then certainly the info-box can be added back to this article.  L.Smithfield (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed 'Conservatism US' inbox