Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens

Unsourced/primary material

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)

Would someone have a look at this edit [1]? 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)

@Rhadow: 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)

unverified/unverifiable?

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)

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)

Whitewashing

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)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of all those editors who contributed to this page shown above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

I challenge either of you users, and any users anywhere, to show how the edits I made did any such thing as alleged by User:Beyond My Ken in is collective tarring of all as "whitewashing". The Orwellian term he used her to entitle his own summary whitewashing of NPOV edits made in a single instance only to remedy POV bias in the very first sentence - which does not state what the organization is, as it should, it states how it is regarded, which should follow. And did immediately in my edit. Appropriately attributed.

Go ahead. Go look. And look at every other one. They do nothing whatsoever to seek to portray the Council in any unfairly favorable light.

And please justify to me how simply presenting a summary pf the Organization's principles from the very website cited at the top of the lead violates any Wikipedia policy on primary sources - for goodness sakes. It lays them out for readers to read them, and then contrast what else is in the balance of the article - completely undisturbed by me. It is not our job to whitewash or censor, and by no means is presenting them and allowing readers to contrast them with the rest the content of the page advocacy.

There is neither "whitewashing" going on, nor advocacy. Just examples here of overzealous overreaction to simple edits and an encyclopedic presentation of the very principles attacked in the top of the lead for readers to simply read. As indicated, I did not alter or undermine one single criticism, only relocated a paragraph following the above in chronological order. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is nothing but a bunch of zealotry, McCarthyism, not encyclopedic thinking or work. Insisting that it is wrong to describe something as it is (in completely neutral terms) before it is assailed for what others think of it. Which again - though every single user, starting with the one who started this jihad, appears unable to grasp - I did not challenge in the least. I featured it in the very next sentence. And disturbed not a word of criticism elsewhere.

Look at yourselves. This is a shameful display of over-reaction and blindness to your own behaviors. This is an encyclopedia, where neutrality is prized, and you can't see when you are violating it with your own thinking, and censuring it en mass under the guise of undoing "whitewashing". It is shameful.

Where are the defenders of true NPOV here? Obviously asleep, or on other rally-lists than the one the OP rabble-roused to his post. It is obvious this is not worth the candle. Go on erasing, and falsely accusing others. You're not interested in truth. Or even allowing others to determine their own. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Here, look at the revisions here. They do nothing of the sort.

Go ahead. Evaluate each and every single changed word.

And for the record, I was preempted by User:Beyond My Ken before I could find a suitable "pipe" for "America First", as nothing at the disambiguation page America First provides a suitable link to what that effective derogation construes in this context. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

This is not just whitewashing, it is so promotional it appears to be PR work. Jacona (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

removed 'Conservatism US' inbox

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)