Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attempts to insert United Daughters of the Confederacy promotional claims

So, Cjhard and Rjensen have both tried to insert wording to the effect that "Today higher education is a priority of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which collects documents and gives aid to historical researchers and top college scholars."

At first it violated WP:RS's WP:SPS section as it was sourced to the UDC's own website and was needlessly self-promotional material. Rjensen attempted to claim to add a RS for it but Peterson's the testing company is not as far as I can tell any sort of journalistic entity; while it might vaguely serve as a source to reference the existence of specific scholarships, it in no way is a Reliable Source for the wording "Today higher education is a priority of the United Daughters of the Confederacy".

Also as Aquillon pointed out, this is an article on the Lost Cause and while the UDC are purveyors of same, inserting their promotional claims into the article seems highly irrelevant. [1]. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the line treads too close to being promotional. Further sources would be needed, along with a reword if the content in question is necessary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Description of slavery's "racism, brutality and dehumanization"

User:Edward321 what is your reason for reverting my removal of this description of slavery from the tenets section? The tone isn't encyclopedic, and I don't think it's appropriate to debunk the tenets of a set of beliefs when explaining what those beliefs are. Any such criticisms should be in the appropriate section ("Contemporary historians" in this case.). Cjhard (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am watching and pondering.....can see both sides of this edit dispute. It has an analog in the bullets above when Grant is "falsely" described as a drunk. If all we're doing here is listing the tenets of this (abhorrent) belief system, then the word 'falsely' should come out and Cjhard is right about the slavery statement. OTHO if the 'falsely' qualifier stays on the Grant sentence, then the slavery correction should be there also, IMHO. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the "falsely" needs to go too. Cjhard (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole Tenets section needs a rewrite. It's using inconsistent voice, and it should be worded to clearly contrast the tenets (all of which are either outright fictional or gross distortions of historical fact) with reality. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Suggested wording to make consistent:

Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement are:

• Moral posturing: In Lost Cause mythology, Confederate generals such as Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson are portrayed as representing fictional virtues of Southern nobility and as having fought bravely and fairly. Most Northern generals are contrarily characterized as possessing low moral standards; common justifications for this include Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often falsely portrayed as an alcoholic.

• Losses on the battlefield are portrayed as being inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower. Conversely, victories on the battlefield are portrayed as being a result of Confederate generals' moral or intellectual superiority.
• Battlefield losses are also sometimes portrayed as the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg. The Lost Cause focuses mainly on Lee and the Eastern Theater of operations, and often cites Gettysburg as the main turning point of the war.
• Algood identifies a Southern aristocratic ideal, typically called "the Southern Cavalier ideal" in the Lost Cause. It especially appears in studies of Confederate partisans who fought behind Union lines, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, Turner Ashby, John Singleton Mosby, and John Hunt Morgan. Writers stress how the subjects supposedly embodied courage in the face of heavy odds, as well as horsemanship, manhood and martial spirit in a literary mythological tradition of the "knightly hero" that traces to the 17th century and the English Civil War.

• States' rights: Lost Cause proponents claim that defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war. This claim is in direct contradiction with almost every record of the time, including the declarations of secession by multiple states.
• Claims of northern aggression: Lost Cause proponents claim that secession was a justifiable constitutional response to what they deem Northern cultural and economic aggressions against the Southern way of life. Oftentimes phrases as "The War Between The States" or "The War of Northern Aggression" are substituted for the title of the American Civil War.
• Defense of slavery: Lost Cause proponents claim that slavery was a benign institution, and that the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters. Proponents portray northern abolitionists as trying to provoke problems in the South, and minimize or ignore the realities and brutalities of slavery as it existed. Lost Cause portrayals of slavery are also used to make the claim that freed slaves and their descendants remained inferior to whites and could not handle freedom, blaming freed slaves and their descendants for economic and social hardships that were perpetuated through segregation and continue in modern times.

Whatever is done, the sections has to commit to either being exclusively about the views of the lost cause, or also throwing in the actuality of the situation. There is no middle ground in this case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SamHolt6; per my comment above - either make it all one thing or all another. A list of tenets divided against itself cannot stand ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is best for wording to preface each appropriately, to be certain that there is no confusion or implication that the Lost Cause claims are said in Wikipedia's voice. "Lost cause proponents claim", or similar, makes it clear that these are the things claimed by those promoting Lost Cause mythology rather than wording that implies it's a statement-of-fact by wikipedia. That's why I am suggesting the wording above. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We do not pigeonhole criticisms in a separate section. See WP:CRITICISM: In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Claims of The Lost Cause believers may be stated, but those claims have to be presented in context and with balance. It is a historical fact that slavery was brutal and racist. We can and do include claims otherwise, but those claims are a fringe minority viewpoint and we are required to present such claims in context with mainstream scholarship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a separate criticism being a negative. Our writing of this article needs to view the Lost Cause as the pseudohistorical conspiracy theory that it is. In my view, the Tenets section should be renamed Background, moved to be the first section, and reformatted to match Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, with this key phrase at the beginning of the background section: "Lost Cause proponents reject at least some of the following facts about slavery and the Civil War". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The South will rise again

Where should this slogan/wish/promise be mentioned? Anti-demonstrators protesting integration carried signs saying it. (One example at History of Tallahassee, Florida#Desegregation.)

Here’s a ton of them:

[2]

As it is, if you search for South Will Rise Again you are directed to a TV series called Preacher, which used the slogan for title of one episode. It deserves more attention than this.

There is a lengthy blog posting on this, whether reliable I don’t know, at [https://trueleftblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/the-south-will-rise-again-but-as-america-not-dixie/ deisenbe (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Initial thought, a blog posting can't be used, it's WP:USERGENERATED and not WP:RS unless the author is a published expert in the field (which this appears not to be). Not to mention the fact that the blog author appears to be a seriously racist nutjob (per the blog's mission statement which reads in part "We, like all serious anti-Zionists, are aware of the danger posed by Jewish tribalism on the rest of the world."). Morty C-137 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 7#South Will Rise Again. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"pointed out"

"Critics of the ideology have pointed out that white supremacy is a key characteristic of the Lost Cause narrative."

While I agree that white supremacy is a key characteristic of the narrative, I do not agree that we can accept it as a cold, hard fact.

One can "point out" that, for example Meryl Streep was in The French Lieutenant's Woman. I can point out that she was nominated for an Oscar for it. I can point out lots of indisputable facts.

I cannot point out that she is fantastic in the film, adds grace and charm to dozens of films or anything else of the sort. You can tell me she ruined the film. We could discuss that over beers, but neither one of us would be "wrong".

There is no way to objectively state that the narrative involves white supremacy, let alone that it is a key aspect. For comparison: Anyone reviewing all available evidence who disagrees that Streep was in the film would need professional help. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone claiming that white supremacy isn't part of the Lost Cause maybe doesn't need professional help, but they certainly aren't being honest about things. For the earliest days of the Lost Cause, it has been a mix of people telling blatant historical lies (such as how the same people claiming to fight for slavery in 1860 were suddenly fighting for state's rights in 1868) to those who simply believe the comforting lies because it supports their belief in white supremacy. Simply put, not white supremacy, no Lost Cause. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A widely-held, well-defended opinion is still an opinion. Critics of the narrative say one thing. Others disagree. Whatever their feelings about Streep, they agree she received an Oscar for French.... - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. White supremacy is an overt feature, present in (nearly?) every significant early Lost Cause document (consider [3]). Critics point this out so that it is understood. Saying that they state it seems unnecessarily to weaken the sentence. Also, without explaining that the movement was overtly white supremacist, the rest of the paragraph becomes even less clear, as stating that reconstruction could be cast as an attempt to destroy the traditional southern way of life ignores the issue that a large proportion of Southern Americans were slaves just a few years earlier. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The current wording, changed since your original comment, is better ("white supremacy is a key ..."). "Critics of the narrative" include almost every actual Civil War historian, of any political leaning. I'm not sure which "others" you're referring to, and frankly, it doesn't matter. The association with white supremacy is clearly based in RS. Presenting it as just one possible take on the Lost Cause would weaken it unduly, even to the point of misleading the reader.--MattMauler (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The original poster is simply stating that "pointed out" is not a neutral term. This is something that one learns in a beginning journalism class. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We could go for WP:SAY, but more to the point, if we have lots of high-quality academic sources stating it as fact, and no reason to think that that it is contested, we can (and must) simply report it as fact - simply saying "White supremacy is a key characteristic of the Lost Cause narrative." Presenting a fact that no reliable sources dispute as just something "critics say" is another form of WP:POV. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Dixon

@MattMauler: I think it's a mistake to put Dixon under literature. That's saying it, or he's, a reflection or expression of the topic, where really he's a cause of its popularity and success, and a very important one. It's commonly said, and I've got documentation on this if you want, that Dixon, via Birth of a Nation, which he was involved with beyond having written the source novels, is responsible for the rebirth of the Klan, the 2nd Klan, much worse than the first. So I'd like to move it back. deisenbe (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand. What I think would be best, though, is to have an abbreviated mention (one or two paragraphs) noting his influence in the history section, perhaps describing The Clansman and The Birth of a Nation, which I agree are both influential enough to have there. Then the bulk of the discussion of his works should go in literature. Historical impact should be discussed in the history section, but specifics about his works should mostly go elsewhere, i.e., except whatever would be necessary for readers to understand the premise of each work.
For instance, the parts of the Dixon section that note his far-reaching influence and the ideology common to all of his works, discussion of the popularity of Birth of a Nation and The Clansman, etc.--I do think these would fit well in history.
However, deeper dissection of them (his portrayal of Lincoln, of African Americans, The Leopard's Spots, etc.) I still think should be in the literature section. What do you think?--MattMauler (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes you made look good. Thanks. I think it is now easier to find information within the article and the order makes more sense.
The next (comparatively minor) improvement I plan to work on over the next few weeks is the addition of a little more context to the many quotations in the article (these sections particularly). Many of them are informative and useful, but there are a few in which it is hard to determine who is speaking/writing without referring to the citations. Attribution is not always needed when we're using secondary sources and paraphrasing/writing in wiki-voice, but when direct quotes are used it should be clear to the reader where the text is coming from without looking at the footnotes.--MattMauler (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing third paragraph from past to present tense

Using the past tense makes it seem that this is some dead, forgotten ideology, a battle already won, whereas it seems to me very much alive and kicking, especially in North Carolina. I think this should be the present tense. Any problem? deisenbe (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"It portrayed slavery as more benevolent than cruel, alleging that it taught Christianity and "civilization". Stories of happy slaves were often used as propaganda in an effort to defend slavery; the United Daughters of the Confederacy had a "Faithful Slave Memorial Committee," and erected the Heyward Shepherd monument in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. These stories would be used to explain slavery to Northerners. Many times they also portrayed slave owners being kind to their slaves."
I would be in favor--with one caveat. A consistent difference (in Virginia at least) between past and present versions of the Lost Cause is the extent to which proponents will argue for slavery as a positive good. This passage (above) includes some specifics that should stay in past tense. In addition, I think even the first part of the passage should either stay in past tense or make a distinction acknowledging that in the modern day, some Lost Cause proponents would acknowledge slavery as a moral wrong while carefully/creatively disassociating it from the goals of the Confederacy, while others would still actively downplay its cruelty (but stop short of arguing for its positive role in "civilizing" slaves). <--The way I've said it here is awkward, so I'm not suggesting this wording necessarily. in fact, perhaps this could all be accomplished by appending "Particularly in the century following the Civil War, it portrayed slavery as more benevolent than cruel ..." and then leaving the rest of the passage unchanged. It would suggest that the slavery apologetics do continue somewhat, but that this aspect of the Lost Cause was more central in past decades than it is now.--MattMauler (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think now? deisenbe (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I made one small change, but it looks good now--with the first part of the paragraph in present tense.--MattMauler (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The " Neutrality comment" above was mine. I apologize I haven't been available but just refound this article. In the spirit of being some use, I would like to clarify the above statement and the neutrality that, in my mind, it challenges.

While the article does a fantastic job at describing the contents of the "Lost Cause Myth" as a southern narrative, it does a poor job at being objective in the politically biased nature of the term itself.

Some hints at the term's neutrality are clearly found with the following questions.

Who coined this term? How is it used and when? Who benefits from this term being used? Who suffers?

Asking these simple questions of the term itself reveals that there is little objectivity and "real history" to it. Indeed, It is not a historical term, but a political one. It does not appeal to logic, but to authority.

Who coined this? "Modern Historians." How is it used and when? It is a take of the southern perspective of the Civil War by "modern historians." It is used to dismiss the southern perspective of the war, politically demonize the south, and dismiss southern arguments without hearing them.

Who benefits from this term being used? Since it is untenably political, the winning side i.e. the Union benefits greatly from this term, while the actual contents of the myth benefit the south.

Who suffers? As a political tool, the south suffers from this term being used. As for the contents of the myth itself, the north suffers because they come across as aggressive occupiers.

I think it's important for historical accuracy that any article accounts for the perspective of those that bear the most consequence, especially in issues pertaining to war and conflict.

To Sum up: There is no doubt that the contents of what historians deem as "the Lost Cause Myth" are to be found in this article. However, the term itself is political and is not history at all, but does not appear that way in the article. It reads as though the "term" is passing itself as "fact" and we are to believe that southerners are deluded and insane. This is poor history at best, extremely xenophobic at worst, and degrades itself to be the very pseudo-history is trying to prevent. This is why I recommended 'pseudo-history' to be deleted when talking about the term itself, as it implies a political narrative from the northern perspective onto another group of people.

Solution: Break up the politics of the term and the contents of the myth itself. Then we will have something resembling truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

None of this is going to happen because you are, frankly, on the wrong side of history, and the fact that you're questioning that proves it.--Jorm (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out the political nature of the term has nothing to do with history. The fact that you are so confused illustrates my point perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Who coined this? "Modern Historians." That is not true. The term, as far as I can tell, was coined by Southern apologeticists, it shows up as the title of an 1869 painting and also on CSA monuments from 1914 and others from that era. I am not even going to discuss "the wrong side of history." Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Lost Cause" and "The Lost Cause myth" Are arguably different. One comes from the perspective of the south. The other from " Modern Scholars." I I am not debating the contents of the " The Lost Cause Myth." As I said, it is perfectly stated in the article as revisionist history. No one is debating this. What is under debate is the political nature of the term itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So which term is under debate? " The Lost Cause Myth" or just " The Lost Cause?" Carptrash (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, The article doesn't even use the phrase "lost cause myth" or "lost cause mythology" at all (except in 1 sourced quotation). So it is unclear to what you are objecting. Secondly, even if you identified what is problematic, you aren't sourcing your objections. In order to successfully challenge any term as NPOV, anonymous editor, you should bring at least some sources to the table. As it is, the only dispute you have with the article is your own personal POV. Using a personal POV to call an article non-NPOV is, to say the least, futile. Until you can both clearly identify your objection and clearly support with RS reasons for that objection, nothing will be done. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to debate history. We are here to clarify what independent reliable sources say about the "Lost Cause" claim. The IP editor is free to believe what they believe. They can write about it on their blog or anywhere that will publish it. Wikipedia will not publish it; it is original research and does not belong here.

Reliable sources say the "Lost Cause" claim is pseudo-historical and negationist, so Wikipedia says it is pseudo-historical and negationist. Yes, there are those who believe otherwise, but they are a tiny minority, small enough that no reliable sources support their viewpoint. In scholarly sources, it is contrary to established historical reality and is treated as such. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with what Summer says, I think that this part, "Yes, there are those who believe otherwise, but they are a tiny minority," is not accurate. The American Civil War was one in which much of the history was written by the loosers and that perspective, that of the Lost Cause, is believed by a lot more Americans than she gives credit for. Carptrash (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That would have been the case 30 years ago, I am less sure now (certainly form a scholastic perspective). But fringe is not about public perception, but scholarly perception, and yes three she is (I suspect) correct. It is now only a minority of historians that accept the lost cause narrative.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Carptrash, it's a bit like climate change or evolution, then. Regardless of popular opinion, the relevant professional community is pretty much unanimous. Guy (help!) 10:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes JzG, very much like those and I suspect that to find someone who believes in all three, or rather denies all three, would be pretty easy, especially in particular geographic sections of the USA. Carptrash (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What are these "reliable sources" that you are speaking of, or this "overwhelming majority" of scholars? This appeal to authority is baseless. It has no logic or basis in fact. If you would like to cite these scholars and let us take a look, as I have been advised, then by all means. But if you are referring to what is provided below as the caliber of your "reliable sources," then I think it's safe to say there is work to be done. The first two sources, for example, the very ones you lead your case for it being "pseudohistorical," are not historical articles at all, but a polemical essay and an interview. Why would you base the entire claim of it being " pseudohistorical" upon polemical essays unless the article itself is polemical? Your next citation is Gary Gallagher, who next to Nolan is probably the best scholar when it comes to "The Lost Cause," and yet both of their work is among the most contentious, contested, notably political, and controversial out there. The problem here, as far as I can see, is that much like many historians who do not recognize their own bias, the implicit assumption of a value judgment is so fundamental that the writer is not even aware of it. Hence why these articles change with the direction of the social wind. So which is it? Is "The Lost Cause" 'pseudohistorical' or 'polemical' or as I was trying to point out, 'political?' I submit, so far all of the evidence points to it being "political." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Heres one to go on with [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this question addressed to me? I added the two citations after the word "pseudo-historical" after the wording was challenged. The two sources cited there are the ones that I could find that have the exact term "pseudo-history" or "pseudo-historical." The fact that Blight, Foner, Litwack, Seidule, and others might not use the specific term does not mean that the Lost Cause can't or shouldn't be described as "pseudo-history." All of the scholars I just mentioned also criticize the Lost Cause as full of falsehoods, chief among these falsehoods is the claim that slavery was not a major cause of the Civil War.
Additionally, the first two sources were ones I could find *in 15 minutes* and *online only* to support the claim. There are likely more.
STILL if the exact wording is a problem, it can be changed if we have consensus here, as I've said in previous comments. Whatever new wording is substituted will not make the Lost Cause look any more legitimate. One thing that is still lacking in the lead is a short paragraph about the assessment of the Lost Cause by actual historians. The sources necessary are already in the body of the article.--MattMauler (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And again in your comment I see the use of the word "contentious." The fact that non-experts sometimes react against the historical consensus on this issue does not make the issue contentious and does not make that expert consensus somehow biased or untrue. It would be contentious if multiple experts disagreed with one another. Are there expert sources, historians, who would push against the description of the Lost Cause as a skewed or fringe view of history? You have not provided any.--MattMauler (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here is not whether or not the sources are correct. Wikipedia does not do that. Those who wish to discuss whether or not the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS, the Holocaust happened, etc. are at the wrong venue. So, no, it is not an appeal to authority. This article -- as with all articles -- is not about discussing whether or not a particular point of view is "true". It is about summarizing what relevant reliable sources say about a subject. The sources are quite clear here, so the article is quite clear: the "Lost Cause" idea is pseudo-historical and negationist. (Yes, history is written by the victors. But what the losers wrote before they lost makes it quite clear that they were fighting to maintain the right to own human beings.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is clear at this point that the anonymous editor doesn't want to change the article, they want to change the general assessment by the world in general. Well, good luck with that. Changing this article in whatever ill-defined and pseudohistorical way they are refusing to actually put into words won't change anything else. As Summer says NPOV requires us to "describe disputes, but not engage in them." The anonymous editor offers simple disputation to counter the well-documented nature of the Lost Cause and nothing more. This is a polemic that will alter nothing and should be disregarded as disruptive editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this source is an excellent example. Thank you for the post. In many ways, it speaks to essence of the misunderstanding we seem to be having.

From the author: "The book argues that the Lost Cause narrative of the past was not only shaped by lies, but that these lies served to uphold white supremacy and to justify the establishment of Jim Crow. Additionally, the book shows how these lies still influence how the public, and even some historians, remember the Civil War today, and still serve to uphold white supremacist world views."

I read this book and found one glaring issue: The author does not anywhere actually set out what "The Lost Cause" is. There is alot of talk about lies and fabrication and "Lost Cause," but the actual tenets that denote "The Lost Cause Myth" are not actually present, and thus are just used as a prop for his real argument, which is focused on the role that southern myth plays in "white supremacist world views." While this may be relevant to understanding politics today, something I keep reinforcing here, it doesn't actually speak to what "The Lost Cause," which is what the article above is supposed to be about.

MattMauler, as the writer, You might find the following interesting and helpful.

The best example I can find for actual tenents are by the late Edward H. Bonekemper III. ( Don't worry, he's from Yale.)

He does a decent job at outlining "The Lost Cause Myth" right up front:

"The Lost Cause"

1. Slavery was a benevolent institution but was dying on its own before Northern radicals waged war on their own countrymen to eliminate it at once. 2. The protection of states’ rights, not slavery, was the central cause of secession. 3. The Confederacy faced such great odds that it had no chance of winning The War. 4. Robert E. Lee, who nearly overcame those odds, was one of the greatest generals of history. 5. James Longstreet was responsible for the Confederacy’s loss at Gettysburg and thus the loss of The War. 6. Ulysses Grant was an incompetent “butcher” who won The War with brutality and superior numbers. 7. The North prevailed by waging unprecedented “total war” against the South.

- The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won (Regnery History, 2015 ) by Edward Bonekemper

As far as I can find, these are the ONLY tenents of "The Lost Cause" in terms of the Civil War, and best describe what "The Lost Cause" actually is. Everything else seems to come from these ideas.

For Reconstruction, James Loewen, best known for his book, " Lies My Teacher Told Me," gave a series of what he called "Myths" regarding Reconstruction. They are often now attributed to " The Lost Cause," though they have nothing to do with the Civil War, but nonetheless are based on the research of W.E.B. Dubois. These supposed "Myths" are:

1.Since the end of the Nineteenth Century, people had considered Reconstruction to be a failure and an evil which had been inflicted on Southern Whites by illegal governments imposed by the North and supported by Union bayonets. 2. Blacks and Northern “carpetbaggers” ruled the South during the Reconstruction Era 3.Concerns the long-accepted references to Republican politicians constantly waving the “bloody shirt” during the period in order to hide their duplicity and failures by blaming the South for all the death and destruction caused by the War.

- James Loewen

Critics of "The Lost Cause."

An overwhelming majority of Historians agree that the causes of Secession were not merely "states rights" but that slavery, as the economic engine of the South played a central role. [[5]]

An Overwhelming Majority also agree that the "North" did not utilize " Total War," which includes the killing of civilians, but " Hard War," which includes merely the mass destruction of civilian property. This is best illustrated under Sherman's March to the Sea and Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah. Though many historians point out that by burning crops, it would undoubtedly lead to masses of civilians starving to death. Historians such as Mark Grimsley's in " Hard Hand of War, Military Policy towards southern civilians" and Steven Ash's " When the Yankees came: Conflict and Chaos in the occupied south," suggest that the "Hard War policy" was a wanton war against civilians, and was thus by our present standard, a terrorist action against an unarmed population.

An Overwhelming Majority of historians also conclude that slavery was far from a benevolent institution, the most important evidence coming from the often mixed testimony of the slaves themselves. (The Bullwhip Days: The Slaves Remember, An Oral History.)

That is where the criticism begins and ends, with those three points. The rest is pretty mixed amongst historians as far as I can tell, and thus do not neatly fit into the argument that "It is all pseudohistory and negationist." That is simply not true. The three Myths mentioned above are believed today to fit that category, but the others are contested.

In addition, to put the article in it's proper context as to illustrate it's tenets the way it is shown above would help to allieviate confusion. As it is written now, literally anything that illustrates southern culture as benevolent, or was during the antebellum, could potentially be thrown into this article, which is why it reads more as a political piece of propaganda than it does a scholarly text. The current aim of the article is to demonize the south, as many of my attackers have already exposed through their use of attempted intimidation and dismissal of my comments. I want to emphasize that I am merely trying to help, and have a deep interest in the subject, but I do want to claim a grieved status: While I'm grateful to those who have asked me to cite sources and have helped me along to give clearer ideas to help, the intimidation and dismissal of others on here should be noted and not tolerated.

Thanks.

I think you're wasting your time. We have a lot of sources for the existing text and you provide no compelling sources on which we would base any change. This isn't even a case of historyu being written by the winners - contemporaneous documents show that the motivation for seccession was to protect slavery and the motivation for the lost cause narrative was to excuse that. Guy (help!) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know what your comment has to do with reorganizing this page as I've outlined it. Secondly, you keep making this political and are unwilling to admit it. Third, you seem to be so blinded by the winning side of the slavery argument that you can't understand anything else. Of course the South seceded to protect slavery. Nobody argues that. Slavery was literally in the constitution as a protection for the southern states to join. " The Lost Cause" as a political and literary movement, began as a response by an occupied people who had lost their primary economic system as well as their entire means of governing themselves. Slavery as an institution was not abrogated by the south, so why would southerners feel the need to excuse or distance themselves from it? If anything, they missed it because it was the foundation of their economy. "The Lost Cause" takes slavery as a given, but that doesn't make it 'pseudohistorical,' it makes it "political." This is what I meant by the assumptions of this being so foundational that they are not even seen. But hey, if you just want to believe everything southern is wicked and that the American narrative is always benevolent be my guest. But calling this site anything but "pop history" or even " pseudohistory" is a complete farce.

I think you're right. I gave you too much credit. I'm wasting my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.245.202 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is ridiculously racist and one sided how can you racists defend it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

you people cant even read the articles on the same site showing all the other more important reasons for the civil war? read some of charles dickens evaluation or YOUR OWN articles on the taxation issues and how slavery was at best an excuse for the war. this is absolutely racist and disgustingly black washing history to create a story of a fairy tail so people can use racism as excuse to enslave more people with an industrial revolution. if you cant write a fair article then Ill see who i can go to above your head to take care of these issues. one of the articles sited is a racist opinion piece that like a spoiled child just repeatedly attacks reason with victim statements over and over again, providing no evidence, statistics or documents showing any relation to reality. Get over it you have been lied to your entire life so very people can benefit off of delusional lies of some fairy tale. Absolutely disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlsThatLGirls (talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the pseudo-historical, negationist ideology being discussed.

If you feel any of the sources being used do not meet the criteria at WP:IRS, please state which ones and how they do not measure up.

If you feel any of the material in the article does not accurately summarize what the sources say, please specify.

If you feel there is material that is over-emphasized or inaccurately marginaliazed, please explain.

If you feel there are independent reliable sources (meeting the criteria outlined at WP:IRS) that we have missed, please provide that information.

(That Charles Dickens, a novelist, had opinions on the Civil War is not surprising. His opinions, however, are just that. We would not, for example, state that a current prominent politician is a white supremecist based on the opinions of Stephen King.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Right we go with modern scholarship removed from the emotions of the past. As for much of the rest, read wp:npa and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them, either show that they are here to improve Wikipedia or I'll block them. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with the first sentence

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American historical negationist ideology that holds that, despite losing the American Civil War, the cause of the Confederacy was a just and heroic one.

This part of the sentence gives the very strange implication that the "right" side tends to win in war, or that might makes right. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The implication was unintentional, but I definitely I see what you mean. I have changed the sentence. I think it is still important to include a reference to the Civil War in that first sentence for readers unfamiliar with the "Confederacy." I'm not attached to the wording though, and I welcome input if anyone thinks it should be further changed.--MattMauler (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Gods And Generals" versus "Cold Mountain": The Selectivity Of Film Critics?

Roger Ebert slammed Gods and Generals in his review, saying in a scything opening paragraph: "Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy. Less enlightened than "Gone With the Wind," obsessed with military strategy, impartial between South and North, religiously devout, it waits 70 minutes before introducing the first of its two speaking roles for African Americans; "Stonewall" Jackson assures his black cook that the South will free him, and the cook looks cautiously optimistic. If World War II were handled this way, there'd be hell to pay." But when it came to Cold Mountain, he wrote: "...I'm sort of in favor of "Cold Mountain," too -- not because of the noble and portentous reasons you will read about in the ads, but because it evokes a backwater of the Civil War with rare beauty, and lights up with an assortment of colorful supporting characters." If Ebert thought Lott would have liked Gods and Generals, why didn't Ebert say the same for Cold Mountain? Because the latter was a romance/war film and so that somehow made the Confederate setting okay? Is there any way we could mention this sharp contrast between critical reception for two American Civil War films released in 2003? Looking at this logically, movie critics were highly selective when they slammed Gods and Generals as pro-Confederate but praised Cold Mountain, apparently blind to the fact Jude Law was a Johnny Reb, not a Billy Yank, and the film's battle sequence, depicting The Crater, shows a crushing Union defeat.TH1980 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy". It should reflect what independent reliable sources say about the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy".

What you want to add is original research. The only way we would add anything about Ebert's reviews of the films is if another independent reliable sources discussed them as being relevant to the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy". - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but the selectivity of movie reviewers re: whether or not Civil War movies endorse the Lost Cause or not is still a valid point, even if it cannot be discussed here.TH1980 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Dixon, Jr.,'s novels promoting the Lost Cause

I am wondering just why this section is in the article, and I guess that the same is true for the Birth of a Nation paragraph. Those deal with Reconstruction, which is not, I think, a part of the Lost Cause myth. Carptrash (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Birth of a Nation is okay, but not the Dixon stuff. Carptrash (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I could see reducing the focus on Dixon somewhat (particularly reducing the detail in Leopard's Spots to a mention leading up to the more popular The Clansman). I also see how his lectures were more reconstruction-focused, so I would be in favor of removing that as well. I have been very slowly moving through the Dixon sections and reducing them (usually because it gets pretty quote-heavy). It seems clear that his works were a big part of how the Lost Cause interpretation was popularized, though (in North and as well as South). I say "seems" because I haven't read the secondary sources cited there (and there's still a {cn} on a claim about his importance: "No writer did more to establish ...". I think describing the novel on which the film is based, and its popularity, makes sense too.--MattMauler (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia does not deal in "seems." Or shouldn't. If Dixon is to remain some editor needs to come up with a reference that ties him with the Lost Cause. I think most of us editing the article recognize that his writings are, "If only we had not lost the cause because this is where it took us" but that is for a reference to tells us. Carptrash (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

beneficent and ethical

I added two words to a lead sentence as follows:

The ideology endorses the supposed virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the war as a struggle primarily for the Southern way of life, which was beneficent and ethical, or states' rights in the face of overwhelming War of "Northern aggression."

@SummerPhDv2.0: promptly reversed this and sent me a warning about disruptive editing, which I found uncalled for and insulting.

Perhaps he believes that I am the one calling Southern behavior beneficent and ethical, in which case the wording needs to be made clearer. What I was trying to say, and I think it important to say it, is that they themselves, except for some scoundrels, thought that slavery was kind and ethical, that Southwrn slaves were better treated than Northern "wage slaves". There's a pretty big pro-slavery literature, and it's uniquely American — in no other European or Muslim or Jewish culture was slavery defended. (I don't know much about other Asian cultures, or native Americans, though I'm skeptical slavery defenses existed there either.) They thought, some of them at least, that their slaves were better off than those who escaped north, with no way to support themselves except under worse conditions than their slaves. It was Northern abolitionists, they thought, that made their slaves unhappy.

What do others think? deisenbe (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I was watching that myself and found SummerPhDv2.0's actions excessive and uncalled for. You had made two edits in the last week and neither was what a normal person would call disruptive (one longtime regular templating another is usually a bad idea). As to the merits, I agree with the insertion you made and understood the context in which it was intended. I think such wording is backed by the sourcing already provided. BusterD (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The edit was pretty ambiguous. I think I would have reverted it, particularly in the lead. User:Deisenbe you seem to agree, can you suggest a better formulation? Doug Weller talk 16:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be introduced later, along with the appropriate reference, of course. Carptrash (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The wording is ambiguous at best.

How the phrase "which was beneficent and ethical" is two words is beyond me. Were it two words, "added two words" would be descriptive, but not explanatory and I would have reverted on the basis of ambiguity. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done some more tinkering with the wording, see what you think. deisenbe (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MattMauler: "Enslavement of black people was also justified by the fact that they were inherently inferior to white people."[6] Um, no. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0Your edit summary points me here, and you've posted the diff and said simply, "no." Help me out: What I was attempting to do was summarize the several sentence-addition by Deisenbe, which included more detail than necessary. After your reversion, the article still says that a tenet of the Lost Cause is that slavery and treatment of black people was justified by their inferiority, it just uses more words to do it, comparing them to farm animals, etc. Was this your intention? I have removed the recently-added sentences entirely.--MattMauler (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I also should point out for those reading the comments here that my edit does not state that the detestable belief you've quoted is true; it is in the section of the article detailing the tenets of the Lost Cause, and I was summarizing the good-faith addition of another editor.--MattMauler (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As written, the sentence does not say anything is a belief. It says it is a fact. Enslavement was not justified by a fact, it was justified by their belief. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that nearly ALL the untrue beliefs currently bullet-pointed in the "Tenets" section (nine out of eleven) are stated as fact, and have been so for a long time. My edit was conforming to this. I agree with you 100% that it doesn't make it clear or correct for this article, and I apologize for not being clear. They should ALL be changed/rephrased.--MattMauler (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am happy that, in the main, the discussion here has been polite and productive. (Well, mostly polite, but maybe productive as well). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

I think it might be helpful to point out that " The Lost Cause" is a 'political ideology' rather than "an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology," for brevity as well as clarity. The way it is written now sets " The Lost Cause" into stark contrast of an overarching "truth" that happens to be drawn, seemingly by and in the interest of, the winning side. In otherwords, the way it is currently written does not hold to be intellectually honest or fair. Consider the following:

"The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. The ideology endorses the supposed virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the war as a struggle primarily to save the Southern way of life,[1] or to defend "states' rights", in the face of overwhelming "Northern aggression." At the same time, the Lost Cause minimizes or denies outright the central role of slavery in the buildup to and outbreak of the war."

Here we are mostly talking about political value vs. historical fact. Hence, "the Lost Cause" is a 'political ideology.'

We should take a look at this statement as well: "Antebellum foundation The Lost Cause is based on antebellum defenses of slavery (see Proslavery) and of states' rights (John C. Calhoun).[10]"

The way this is worded, we are to surmise that slavery is a 'political' issue first, and an 'economic' issue second, when by any fair view it is the other way around. The foundation for the southern economy was slave labor, and the order of the culture was built on this foundation. The moral question of slavery was widely talked about in the election of 1860 and before, but ultimately it came down to being an economic issue, which is why the slaves were freed by the 'Emancipation Proclamation.' The Proclamation freed slaves only in 'rebelling' states as a war strategy to turn the south's key economic asset against them, as well as topple the foundations of their cultural structure/order. To put it tersely, " The Lost Cause" is a rejection that slavery was more than an economic issue, and asserts it was used as a political tactic to destroy their culture-- Which is true by all accounts.

On few words on the following:

"War of Northern Aggression" One essential element of the Lost Cause movement was that the act of secession itself had been legitimate; otherwise, all of the Confederacy's leading figures would have become traitors to the U.S. In order to legitimize the Confederacy's rebellion, Lost Cause intellectuals challenged the legitimacy of the federal government and the actions of Abraham Lincoln as President. This is exemplified in "Force or Consent as the Basis of American Government" by Mary Scrugham, in which she presents frivolous arguments against the legality of Lincoln's presidency.[83] These include his receiving a minority (and unmentioned plurality) of the popular vote in the 1860 election and the false assertion that he made his position on slavery ambiguous. These accusations, though thoroughly refuted, gave rise to the belief that the North initiated the Civil War, making a designation of "The War of Northern Aggression" possible as one of the names of the American Civil War.[citation needed]

Again this paragraph is asserting slavery as a moral issue rather than an economic one, which adds to confusion rather than clarity. Morally, it is pretty clear through countless speeches that Lincoln was opposed to slavery, though it is much less clear that he was not a 'white supremacist.' "The Lost Cause" challenges the narrative that the south started the war, mainly because from the southern perspective, just as the Americans had separated from Britain, they had left the union and were no longer bound to the Constitution of the United States. It was this act of the economic and political secession that initiated the Civil War, not a moral issue of slavery. In my opinion, at least on this one aspect, the " Lost Cause" has a slightly more fair view of history than the current view.

I hope this helps to ask some more questions and to clarify, though I wish I would have had time to cite sources. But they are freely available, and if you need I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.17.111 (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify: Is there a specific change you are suggesting?
We base the article on expert sources, and the consensus among these experts is that the Lost Cause is pseudo-history. I do not see how the issue of slavery being economic vs. political (or to what extent it was one or the other) changes this.--MattMauler (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reccomended Change: " political ideology," rather than 'pseudo-history.' It is not simply a way of remembering the past, but a political tool used to garner support and drive a culture.

It is political: relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.

It is an ideology: noun 1.a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

I mentioned that slavery is economic first because the way we read it now is in a strange 'reversed Lost Cause' context. Sub out: 'Robert E Lee' and 'Stonewall Jackson' as the saints and put in 'Lincoln' and 'Grant'. Sub out 'South' under the righteous and just cause, and put in 'North.' Sub out " "Northern Aggression and put in " Southern slavery." sub out " Supposed virtues of the antebellum south" and put in: "supposed virtues of the industrial north." this can be done with literally everything under this umbrella, which again, makes it a 'political ideology' rather than historical at all. Idon't have time to go write a book on the matter, but I hope this one small point can be driven home. It's a "political Ideology" with real consequences. It's not just 'pseudo-history.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.17.111 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Without good academic sources this would be original research and forbidden. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I did a search for "lost cause," "pseudo-history" and "confederate" on newspapers.com, and the only combination I came up with was a conservative columnist claiming that it was the liberals who were writing pseudo-history. Really, this lead is so WP:Contentious that it should just be simplified by deleting any adjectives, which I will do. In the interest of amity, I am, sincerely yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The material you refer to is not contentious. It reflects the consensus of experts in Civil War history, who, according to sources already cited in the article, "overwhelmingly" recognize that slavery was one of the main causes of Confederate secession and of the Civil War. Denying this is one of the central tenets of the Lost Cause. "Negationist" is an adequate summary, I think. If no instance of that specific word can be found in secondaries, I could be convinced (if there is consensus on the talk page) to remove or change the word, but removing adjectives entirely would mislead. It's not simply an alternate way of seeing history, it's one riddled with falsehoods according to any reliable source on the subject.--MattMauler (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I do believe you are missing my point, though I may not have made it too well. The fact is that we don't need this definition in the lead because the same paragraph without it would sum up the article quite as well. Besides, the fact that there was a theory of a "lost cause" is not pseudo-history. It is a historical fact that there was, and still is, such a theory. Putting all that pseudo stuff in the lead just muddies the waters. Still, I think we have both had our say, and perhaps we should go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. What do you say? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This thread began with an editor drawing attention to a supposed "neutrality issue," and the reason given for the removal of the two adjectives is that they are supposedly contentious. Both of these concerns are baseless. If it can be rephrased for clarity, that's great, but I would object to removing those two ideas from the first paragraph of the lead.
It's way too early for dispute resolution. Let's give it a little time. I would like to hear what other editors on the page think.--MattMauler (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this thread began only last Saturday (!), so it's too early for a WP:Request for comment, which I think would be the next step if we don't get any more people chiming in here. I've placed a WP:Welcome on the IP's page. He or she also made a comment on the Sherman's March to the Sea article (about objectivity). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A week has passed

It’s been a week since the IP raised his or her point above, and we’ve had just three named editors join the discussion. We need more. I suggest a WP:Request for comment that would be placed in the History and Geography section of the list at WP:Requests for comment#Categories.

It would state:

Request for comment

Should the phrase “pseudo-historical, negationist” be removed from the lead of Lost Cause of the Confederacy or retained there? Please give an opinion, with your reasons under each header below.

• Remove.
• Retain.
• Other.

Please comment on this proposal. I'll go ahead and do it myself if nobody else steps up or if we don't have another idea that is acceptable. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The entire lead (not just the first sentence), as you propose it, would totally eliminate for the reader the very important fact that virtually all current historians totally dismiss the accuracy of the key tenets of the Lost Cause. Your claim made in the previous section, "that we don't need this definition in the lead because the same paragraph without it would sum up the article quite as well" is simply not true. Throughout the article information is provided that demonstrates that Lost Cause beliefs are more often than not based on factors other than proper historical analysis and reporting. The section Contemporary historians most directly puts the Lost Cause in the proper context -- that the Lost Cause ideology is little more than a fringe, outdated rationalization.

A rigidly structured RFC such as you suggest is best used when there has been considerable prior discussion. I think a better use of the process would be to solicit better ways of incorporating the criticism of the ideology in the article lead. MattMauler proposed the possibility of alternative language but you did not respond to this suggestion. Historian Caroline Janney in an encyclopedia article at [7] writes in her first paragraph:

The Lost Cause is an interpretation of the American Civil War (1861–1865) that seeks to present the war, from the perspective of Confederates, in the best possible terms. Developed by white Southerners, many of them former Confederate generals, in a postwar climate of economic, racial, and social uncertainty, the Lost Cause created and romanticized the "Old South" and the Confederate war effort, often distorting history in the process. For this reason, many historians have labeled the Lost Cause a myth or a legend.

Historian Karen Cox in an encyclopedia article at [8] wrote in the 1st sentence of her sentence:

When describing the Lost Cause, historians have employed the terms "myth," "cult," "civil religion," "Confederate tradition," and "celebration" to explain this southern phenomenon.

"Myth" is already used throughout our article in both the text and titles of references. I'm sure others can come up with other words to describe the pseudo-history espoused in the Lost Cause. You state that you found few instances of the use of "pseudo-history" in news reports. However most news reports will describe the negative aspects of the Lost Cause, emphasizing that it must somehow be incorporated into our article lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PS From the lead section of the manual of style regarding article leads at MOS:LEAD, "it should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. More on point further in the article at MOS:LEADELEMENTS it says, "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more."

Rather than arguing over which words to use, perhaps we need to add a paragraph to the lead to adequately summarize the critiques of the Lost Cause offered by historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea, yes. The lead includes some of the most important Lost Cause tenets and mentions its ties to white supremacy, but it does not clearly summarize the evaluation of the Lost Cause according to historians, so I agree with you that (1.) currently, removing "negationist", etc., would seriously hinder the accuracy of the lead, and that (2.) a paragraph should be added to summarize scholarly historical views.--MattMauler (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I simply asked for opinions on the wording of a WP:Request for comment. I don't believe such a request is "best used when there has been considerable prior discussion." It really is designed to use when there hasn't been enough comment on any given controversy, which is the case here, with just a few editors taking the time to talk about removing that (to me) objectionable phrase from the lead. I didn't see any objection to my wording, so I am going to go ahead with it. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith on your part. Less than 24 hours ago you wrote, "I'll go ahead and do it myself if nobody else steps up or if we don't have another idea that is acceptable." Well I stepped up and proposed the RFC take a different form. To quote myself, "I think a better use of the process would be to solicit better ways of incorporating the criticism of the ideology in the article lead." Sure sounds like a criticism of your wording to me.

I also suggested several alternative words to use as well as a specific proposal for an additional paragraph for the lead. Another user agreed with this proposal.

Your response? Ignore what was proposed, refuse to address substantive issues raised, and proceed as you've always intended. IMO a bad start to a process that is supposed to facilitate consensus rather than create more conflict. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Tone/Partiality?

Hi there - I landed on this page after looking up Mount Rushmore to Stone Mountain to here. I know that this has been a hot-button political topic recently and was surprised that this topic was flat out stated to be akin to Holocaust Denial in the opening paragraph. I took a look in the history to see if this development was recent due to current events, and noticed the article completely changed in 2018 to it's current version. Before, the article took a stance that this was an "intellectual and artistic movement" and rightly criticized the viewpoint in the article. It came across as much more neutral on a politically sensitive topic.

I legitimately thought the current article was vandalized by how non-neutral it is. I believe an encyclopedia entry should explain to the reader the context of an event - in this case, why was this ideology accepted? Right now, the article reads like this is a crazy viewpoint that only loonies would hold - again, directly comparing it to holocaust denial. However, it was an accepted belief, as demonstrated by the vast amount of media created to support it (the intellectual and artistic movement comment appears to hold true). A prominent modern criticism section would be more than justified to address the recent concerns (and perhaps a new page entirely to reflect the movement of society changing to the civil war being good vs evil as opposed to both sides being celebrated).

Anyway, I'd like to see the article formatted or even reverted to the 2018 version. I believe it does a much better job educating than the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21D0:61E0:BC02:3959:D191:FF8 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Since it is, indeed, like holocaust denial, I don't think we need to alter anything. If you have anything approaching a reliable source that says otherwise, feel free to bring it up, but otherwise we will not do any whitewashing of racist positions.--Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view stating without bias what independent reliable sources say about a topic.

Independent reliable sources say the "Lost cause" idea is pseudo-history sculpted to defend the civil war as something other than what it was: a fight to retain the right to own human beings. Wikipedia does not, will not and should not present a false balance between the two ideas when the academic discussion is so one-sided.

Take, for example, any issue you consider to have two sides, divided between reality and the lunatic fringe (Suggestions: Is the Earth flat or spherical? Did NASA land humans on the Moon? Do germs cause disease? Did the Nazis murder millions of people during WWII? etc.). We have articles that state quite clearly that the Earth is spherical, not "Some say the Earth is spherical, others say it is flat". We do this because independent reliable sources state it as a simple fact, subject to no meaningful controversy.

Similarly, academics in the relevant fields state quite clearly and without equivocation that the Civil War was fought primarily to maintain slavery. The primary documents from the individual states succeeding are abundantly clear.

If you disagree that this is the case, you will need to identify and present reliable sources finding otherwise (noting that the current sources are of high quality). Alternately, you can challenge whether we are properly reflecting what the sources cite say or whether those sources are reliable. That we don't give the pseudo-historical hypothesis a fair chance is a non-starter. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 has far more tolerance for racist pseudo-concern than I. A far better person than me.--Jorm (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, but I notice there's a tag for "Historical negationism". Could it be better to change the name of that category to "pseudo-history"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• You don't make clear which 2018 revision you like, but looking at the version from exactly two years ago [9], I'd say the current one is a distinct improvement. For example, June 2018's version falls for "both-sidesism" and portrays the mainstream historical view as that of "critics of the ideology". Given that "lost cause" pseudohistory is being taught as fact in some schools, it's particularly important not to give a false impression of ambiguity where none, in fact, exists. Yes, it was all about states' rights, but only the right of states to enforce ownership of humans including in states where this was not recognised. Guy (help!) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I support revising the lead and removing the phrase “pseudo-historical, negationist”.

I'm glad to see that there has been so much discussion of this already, because I was quite shocked myself by the tone of this article's lead, and went to the Talk page to comment. I thought I would be the only person to comment, and I'm glad to see that's not so.

I landed on this article based on a link from the page on Edmund Wilson's book Patriotic Gore. What I saw baffled me, namely the direct equation of pro-Confederate views with Holocaust denial. I think that is not only partisan but inflammatory and unhistorical, and on all counts clearly inappropriate for an Encyclopedia.

I agree with the anonymous editors, and with User: North Shoreman and User: BeenAroundAWhile, that the lead in its present form violates neutrality. I also feel that it is not actually true in a historical sense, because it characterizes the Lost Cause ideology in an exaggerated, black-and-white way, on the premise that it must be either totally free from historical error, or else it is pseudo-history and negationism. Science and history just don’t work that way, things are not that black and white.

There certainly are arguments to be made in favor of the idea that the South had a right to secede, just as apparently Scotland has a right to secede from the UK, and the UK from the EU.

No less an authority on the Civil War than Shelby Foote spoke in considerate terms of the opinion among some Southerners that the Civil War was a “War of Northern Aggression”. Foote implied that this was a somewhat childish view, but not one to be condemned out of hand, nor certainly to be regarded as evidence of white supremacy.

I want add on that score that I think the phrase “white supremacy” is being used inappropriately in the lead as it stands, and in some of the Talk page comments above. There are many grades and shades of Southern "patriarchalism" towards Blacks, most of which do not fit the label of "white supremacy", which describes a racial and political ideology akin to Nazism. Here again, the article is taking on an exaggerated, black-and-white tone, which is an injustice to history. The point of view being espoused is basically this: you either have to believe in complete equality, or else you are a white supremacist. That kind of thinking forces reality into a corner, rather like an Inquisitor trying to force a suspect to "confess" to being a witch.

Reality is not black and white, history is not black and white - much as white supremacists and detractors of white supremacists may want it to be. -Wwallacee (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Wallace, don't lie about what I've said. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have stated before that I would be open to rewording the first few sentences, but not removing outright. Tom (North Shoreman) even posed the question near the top of the RFC if there was alternate wording that could be proposed. I don't see where he said that the current version "violated neutrality," though. It seems like he agrees with the majority here that de-emphasizing the LC's inaccuracy would be misleading rather than actually being neutral. I still strongly affirm his suggestion of adding a paragraph summarizing the scholarly response to the LC. Perhaps after that is done, we can look at how that first sentence should sound.
Shelby Foote is a "historian" in that he wrote a history of the Civil War, obvs., but he is not a real historian, in that he is not a scholar. He wrote a massive history of the Civil War by summarizing a single (very detailed) primary source, and he made it very clear that he writes history without using the historian's methods. I don't mean to say that his work is not worthy of some respect or that it's irredeemably inaccurate--It's just like citing David McCullough, though. Burns conferred on Foote a level of public trust that is undue.--MattMauler (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

We will not be softening the language. White supremacy is and was the entire reason for the civil war; we will continue to ensure that the true narrative remains, and we will not be white-washing the content so that modern-day white supremacists feel less bad about their choices.--Jorm (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The South fought the Civil War to defend slavery and the belief that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. That is not an interpretation of sources, that is what the sources directly and unequivocally say. Claims to the contrary are, as the sources say, not "theories" but expressions of pseudo-historical, negationist ideology. "Softening" the language in that direction is not NPOV, it is a false equivalency. Academic sources in the relevant disciplines are not debating this; neither should we. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the phrase “pseudo-historical, negationist” be removed from the lead of Lost Cause of the Confederacy or retained there? Please give an opinion, with your reasons under each header below. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

{Addendum] Is there better language that can be substituted for the phrase? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove.

The wording should be removed. The lead would not suffer by its absence. Removing this phrase would assure the reader that the article follows the Wikipedia policy of being neutral.

In determining whether the lead should or should not contain the three words, one should consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels. as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial_tone. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, the lead will suffer by its absence. Omitting the language will eliminate virtually all criticism of the factual basis of the Lost Cause from the lead. I requested that you discuss this issue before initiating this RFC but you chose to do otherwise. In fact the article itself contains considerable criticism of Lost Cause tenets but a reader will not know this from reading your version of the lead

From the lead section of the manual of style regarding article leads at MOS:LEAD, "it should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. More on point further in the article at MOS:LEADELEMENTS it says, "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The three words don't just "summarize" the criticism or controversy. They state one side of the controversy as an accepted fact, and they use powerfully loaded terms to do so. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious: Isn't the "Lost Cause" a "powerfully loaded" term to begin with? Is it not actually accepted fact that the "Lost Cause" is pseudo-historical? Can you cite one source that is not a neo-Confederate fantastical apolgia that says the "Lost Cause" is historical? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In discussing this RFC, everyone should consider these points from Wikipedia policies or guidelines:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.

[O]pinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. 

Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body,

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 

• Retain.

These words seem to be absolutely required to express the truth, which is neutral, even if a bunch of wanna-be racists would prefer otherwise. The philosophy is negationist and pseudo-historical. Saying otherwise is lying and unencyclopedic..--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My initial thought was that perhaps we could come up with less "contentious" terms while still retaining the criticism, but I spent the last ten minutes attempting to do so, and I just kept coming back to the fact that the Lost Cause truly is pseudo-historical and negationist; these terms are accurate in this case. Attempting to water down the language in Wikipedia's voice only ends up adding legitimacy to it as a valid alternative to the truth as established by an overwhelming majority of historians. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Retain: I already stated my thoughts in the previous section--quoting myself here: "The material you refer to is not contentious. It reflects the consensus of experts in Civil War history, who, according to sources already cited in the article, 'overwhelmingly' recognize that slavery was one of the main causes of Confederate secession and of the Civil War. Denying this is one of the central tenets of the Lost Cause. 'Negationist' is an adequate summary, I think. If no instance of that specific word can be found in secondaries, I could be convinced (if there is consensus on the talk page) to remove or change the word, but removing adjectives entirely would mislead. It's not simply an alternate way of seeing history, it's one riddled with falsehoods according to any reliable source on the subject."
In response to BeenAroundAWhile above, who cites WP:NPOV#Impartial tone: It says, Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Among actual historians, there is no dispute on this particular topic. The appearance of a dispute is manufactured and perpetuated entirely by certain Southern history enthusiasts, antiquarians, amateurs, and other non-experts. I would also direct your attention further down the same page (WP:NPOV) to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, where it states, The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence. Bold/emphasis mine.--MattMauler (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Retain Contrary to the only remove opinion at this time, removing those words is not a neutral action. As MattMauler clearly lays out above, removing those words misrepresents the non-controversial consensus of the serious historical community and therefore obscures the WP:FRINGE nature of the neo-Confederate fantasy. It would actually violate NPOV to make the proposed change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Retain per NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain: that's how sources describe the phenomenon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain Its what it is called.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain the wording. I disagree with the assertion that the "lead would not suffer by its absence". As far as I know, there's no serious dissension by historians that the Lost Cause of the Confederacy is anything other than myth. In addition to the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE section at the WP:NPOV policy page, there's also the WP:FALSEBALANCE section which is applicable here. And I agree that "perhaps we need to add a paragraph to the lead to adequately summarize the critiques of the Lost Cause offered by historians", as suggested by Tom. Mojoworker (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain or modify Few serious historians nowadays think the "Lost Cause" is a good way to view history and is roundly criticized for justifying slavery. Perhaps some equivalent of the word "apologetic" could be used, since the main aim of the Lost Cause's proponents is to portray the CSA and the antebellum system as more honorable than the North? Alexschmidt711 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The term "apologetic" is denotatively accurate but liable to misinterpretation. We can certainly draw very clear parallels between Lost Cause writing and Christian apologia and likely find sources to support that parallel. The problem, thoughh, is that most people don't know the older meaning of apology ("A reasoned argument or writing in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine") and will think it means the modern definition ("A regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure.") This latter meaning is the exact opposite of the intent of the Lost Cause mythology that you point out. The distinction can be explained in the body text but in the lead paragraph it is inappropriate. MOS:INTRO says we should provide an accessible introduction and using an obscure meaning of a common word reduces accessibility for most readers. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Retain in the absence of any better proposed wording. The statement is accurate and necessary, regardless of exactly what words we might choose. Guy (help!) 11:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain anything else would be giving in to revisionist history. Praxidicae (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retain and explain As i read the introduction and article, i have the feeling that all the tenets i must dismiss as outright wrong and negationist or be a white-supremacist. Should not delegitimize that which with other context or framing is open to debate: for instance that the North did not initially fight to end slavery. A difficult task, to explain given the many ways in which we all fail to understand the past, but “pseudo-historical, negationist” and "white-supremacist" or the like are i think necessary to explain the creation of the collective myth. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you think that the article in its present form fails to explain the origins of the myth? Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Other.
• Retain It’s accurate and supported by the preponderance of sources. I don’t know what else to say on this issue. Garuda28 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible sources

A couple of possible hits I haven't reviewed yet for the Song of the South connection to Lost Cause ideology:

• Sperb, Jason (June 2005). "'Take a Frown, Turn It Upside Down': Splash Mountain, Walt Disney World, and the Cultural De‐rac[e]‐ination of Disney's Song of the South (1946)". The Journal of Popular Culture. Vol. 38, no. 5. pp. 924–938.
• Sperb, Jason (2012). Disney's Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South. University of Texas Press. Retrieved July 12, 2020.
• Loy, Caroline (2013). Walt Disney World: Marxism and Myth Creation.
• Aronstein, Susan. Pugh, Tison; Aronstein, Susan (eds.). "Pilgrimage and Medieval Narrative Structures in Disney’s Parks" in The Disney Middle Ages.
• Thompson, Craig; Tian, Kelly (February 2008). "Reconstructing the South: How Commercial Myths Compete for Identity Value through the Ideological Shaping of Popular Memories and Countermemories". Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 34, no. 2. pp. 595–613.
• Cox, Karen L. (2011). Dreaming of Dixie: How the South was Created in American Popular Culture. University of North Carolina Press. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll see your sources and raise with:

• Osterweis, Rollin G. (1973). The Myth of the Lost Cause, 1865-1900. p. 39. Not only Joel Chandler Harris and David C. Barrows, Jr., but John Esten Cooke, Allan C. Redwood, and Thomas Nelson Page all made their contributions to the Myth of the Lost Cause in the pages of the last year of Scribner's Monthly Magazine
• Johnson, Ellen (2007). "Geographic Context and Ethnic Context: Joel Chandler Harris and Alice Walker". The Mississippi Quarterly. Vol. 60, no. 2. Harris, on the other hand, romanticized his boyhood home. He also drew upon his experiences there in his writing but he remembers it as a pleasant place, despite the poverty and social stigma he endured as the illegitimate child of a seamstress. By virtue of his birth, he was denied entrance to plantation society. He glorified it nevertheless in his contributions to the mythology of the Lost Cause,...
• Mixon, Wayne (Winter 1977). "Joel Chandler Harris, The Yeoman Tradition, and the New South Movement". The Georgia Historical Quarterly. 61 (4): 308–317. JSTOR 40580412. But no other Southerners did more to nurture the legend of the Lost Cause than the literary plantation romancers (only skimmed, this one seems to be arguing to separate Harris from others, possibly would be against a connection to "Lost Cause" literature)
• Bailey, Arthur (Fall 1991). "The Textbooks of the "Lost Cause": Censorship and the Creation of Southern State Histories". The Georgia Historical Quarterly. 75 (3): 528-. JSTOR 40582363. mostly distinguishes Stories of Georgia from other works, but "...at critical points he did not stray far from the pro-Confederate interpretations." not really about Remus stories but an otherwise good source for the article
• Mixon, Wayne (August 1990). "The Ultimate Irrelevance of Race: Joel Chandler Harris and Uncle Remus in Their Time". The Journal of Southern History. 56 (3): 457–480. JSTOR 2210286. Harris's ambivalence toward the white South caused him to engage only rarely in glorifying the Lost Cause of the Confederacy,... another sympathetic, or in-depth take your pick, treatment from Mixon
• Bernstein, Robin (2011). Racial Innocence: Performing American Childhood from Slavery to Civil Rights. p. 134. This action located Harris within the project of the "Lost Cause" ... culture to become "Lost", but the greater "Cause? could be resurrected, Pollard argued, if writers and artists convinced the nation that southern culture ought to exist free of molestation from the North. Harris accomplished this feat by extracting characters and scenarios from Uncle Tom's Cabin and relocating them to Uncle Remus's cabin...

fiveby(zero) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Song of the South

The article at the moment is very one-sided and has quite poor references on this. I proposed deleting this section all together. If it is to stay, then it has to represent all viewpoints that are justified by sources of a similar quality. I added one from a University-published book and it was deleted as "undue". Given that the references for the other side of the argument are from much less reliable sources, this doesn't seem like WP:NPOV at all.

I'd also like to remind everyone of the WP: Civility policy. The comments from User: Jorm violated this whilst I was making an edit, and will be reported if done again. Epa101 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You added one source giving that writer's opinion. However, you decided that source meant, "Some African-American writers have rejected this interpretation of the film". The source does not say that. Additionally, the review does not discuss the "Lost Cause" pseudo-history in any way and, as a result, it is off-topic for this article.

The existing section cites Roger Ebert, CNN, Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Society for Military History, the Journal of American History (my error, noted below) and others. I fail to see how those are "quite poor references".

No, the section does not have to "represent all viewpoints that are justified by sources of a similar quality". Instead, it should represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:DUE Your interpretation of one film review in a newspaper is not a significant viewpoint.

Finally, I cannot begin to see how Jorm's comments ("Not sure this viewpoint isn't undue" and "Like, I just said this is undue, so you should take it to the talk page!") are anything but civil. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to inject artificial balance. The Song of the South is near-universally acknowledged as part of the Confederate white-washing effect that happened during that period of history. Finding the one or two people who disagree is fringe, and you'll have to work pretty hard to find a group of modern historians who think otherwise. But feel free!

"Like, I just said this is undue, so you should take it to the talk page!" is not remotely uncivil so feel free to "report" me all you like; WP:AN/I is thataway.--Jorm (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I shall report you, User: Jorm. You are being very rude on this subject and violating the rules. The only citations given in the Song of the South section are op-ed pieces from news outlets, and IndieWire is not a very respectable ource of news. There is a judgment here on caution with using op-ed pieces. These are not historians and it is misleading to pretend that there's a consensus on this subject because of four op-ed sources, which would be a very low bar for a consensus. As I said, I favoured deleting the section wholesale. Working on the basis that this is unacceptable, I added in a reference for an alternative view from a book published by a reputable source, California University Press (it was clearly not a newspaper as stated above by SummerPhD, who seems to have deliberately misrepresented what I wrote), which argued against many criticisms of the film. You say that I was overstating it by saying that some African-American writers have rejected this interpretation. OK, fair enough: let's change it to just Herman Hill. You also say that the book doesn't explicitly mention the "lost cause" (although it does discuss the civil war and racism); on that basis, the IndieWire and San Francisco Chronicle references need to be thrown out, as they also don't mention the "lost cause" explicitly anywhere. (I'm willing to accept the CNN reference.) You need to apply the same standards equally to all sources or else you are violating WP:NPOV. Epa101 (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I could not support a reference quoting "Herman Hill" as being appropriate here. You need a reference from an entity with far more weight and credibility in this specific area, given the strength of the content on the other side of the issue (and even Disney's own actions). What you propose would give a false balance from a non-notable entity. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I found a book published by Johns Hopkins University Press that explicitly makes the connection between the movie and the Lost Cause racist mythology. I support keeping the section, and see nothing wrong with Jorm's input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

+1. Britishfinance (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

-1. That creates a connection to Harris's Uncle Remus, far more convincing than the current content for Song of the South. ...reading and family intimacy were key components in the creation and cross-generational transmission of a white racial fantasy of intimacy-within-hierarchy that was at least as important in shaping white supremacist worldviews at the turn of the twentieth century... Joel Chandler Harris's writing performed a political function to the extent that it promoted a Lost Cause view of history. Ritterhouse, Jennifer (August 2003). "Reading, Intimacy, and the Role of Uncle Remus in White Southern Social Memory". The Journal of Southern History. 69 (3): 585–622. JSTOR 30040011. fiveby(zero) 23:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A) I feel - and I think most everyone else will agree - that I'm not being rude to you. You actually opened a dispute, which I feel is frankly ridiculous, but you do you.

B) You can't point to a single rule I've broken, because I haven't.

C) We're not going to let you white-wash this article with Confederate-sympathies.

Go with whatever deity you take comfort in.--Jorm (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A few things here:

Yes, Epa101, I did say that "Herman Hill in The Pittsburgh Courier" was from a newspaper. I assumed that by "Pittsburgh Courier" you meant the Pittsburgh Courier. I fail to see where you got the idea that I "deliberately misrepresented" what you wrote. I did not. If there is another "Pittsburgh Courier", I am unaware of it. (Yes, it was quoted in a book which likely accurately quoted the newspaper (?) article. That does not make "Herman Hill"'s opinion relevant. Additionally, he is certainly not "some African-American writers", that is your expansion on one person's opinion. (I guess that means "some mixed-race academics" disagree with your interpretation.)

I still see absolutely nothing in Jorm's comments that can in any way be interpreted as being uncivil. Deciding that I "deliberately misrepresented" something you wrote, however, is certainly not assuming good faith. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, i don't see the citations to Society for Military History and Journal of American History, are they in a different section? fiveby(zero) 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Right you are. I screwed up. Both of those are in the following section. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a ton of RS saying it is part of the lost cause, we have one that might (but a lot of users are saying it does not, I cannot view the page) say one person disagrees. At best this might be a source for "however Alan Gevinson disagrees".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have a subscription to newspapers.com which hosts a large repository of Pittsburgh Courier editions, a paper written by and for the Black population of Pittsburgh. I could not find any review of the film Song of the South by Herman Hill, nor could I find anybody saying the film was of "inestimable goodwill" for interracial relations. (A few writers did defend the film's racial portrayals. Herman Hill certainly served as a movie reviewer at the paper.) Alan Gevinson and the staff at America Film Institute wrote about Song of the South in their book Within Our Gates: Ethnicity in American Feature Films, 1911-1960, which Epa101 used as a reference. I wonder where Gevinson got his quote; perhaps he found a copy of the newspaper that was never digitized for newspapers.com. In any case, the fatal problem for Epa101's desired insertion is the complete absence of any reference to the Lost Cause, which is not discussed in the Gevinson book nor in the Pittsburgh Courier articles I found that talk about Song of the South. Epa101 was violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I had just got around to writing my response on the request for dispute resolution here WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy. It seems as if the discussion was closed just before I had finished it. I was just trying to put across my argument properly and with the necessary references to policy. As I took so much time to write it, I thought that I might as well post it here. In particular, if the Gevinson reference is a case of WP:SYNTH because it doesn't reference the "Lost Cause" explicitly, then the IndieWire and Newsweek articles are too, because they don't mention it either. It is a shame that I didn't manage to post this in time before the discussion was closed, but I have a full-time job and I didn't realise that I'd be given little more than 24 hours to make my case. Epa101 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a case. There's nothing to put together. Everyone except you sees that.--Jorm (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, since civility clearly doesn't get enforced here at all and since you're not interested in what I spent an hour writing with reference to policy, I might as well say now that you are a complete bastard and have an ego the size of a planet. Epa101 (talk)

Lead image

George Washington Custis Lee (1832–1913) on horseback in front of the Jefferson Davis Monument in Richmond, Virginia on June 3, 1907, reviewing the Confederate Reunion Parade

I propose that the earlier image (right) be restored. The Lost Cause was a proactive ideology that was at its most aggressive and visible around the turn of the 20th century. That is best shown via the parade/monument image, rather than a sad painting, as in the current version. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Frankly, the change from that image to the current one was done on January 10, 2020 with no meaningful explanation[10] and no discussion.[11] As such, I don't see much standing in the way of changing it back.

Yes, the current painting does have the name "Lost Cause". That said, it was completed 3 years after the war, before the pseudo-history had been fully developed. The earliest date we currently have is for it "becoming a key part of the reconciliation process...around 1900", nearly 40 years later. The date of the proposed image, 1907, during the nadir -- one of the peeks of "Lost Cause" cheerleading -- is certainly more appropriate. The general event, a Confederate reunion parade, also fits.

A perfect image would be a specific event with a person where both the person and event are directly tied to the "Lost Cause" is probably too much to hope for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whilst a nice paint g (in terms of execution) I always wondered how it exactly depicted the lost cause. I think we should restore the old image.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I like the painting as it is specifically about the topic ("lost cause"), and the painter is notable. The photograph is a mostly militaristic view of the "lost cause" topic (which is important), but the painting captures the broader economic collapse (as well as reflecting the military angle given he is a solider), of the south from the loss of its slavery model, which is core imho Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like the composition of the parade photo, and prefer the painting, but that's probably not a good reason to object. Maybe a Ladies' Memorial or Daughters of the Confederacy image?. Also like this advertisement clipping. Here are a couple [12][13] items at LOC. fiveby(zero) 14:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• I replaced the image, and added the second one, depicting UDC: diff. The painting seems a bit misplaced, as noted above: it was completed 3 years after the war, before the pseudo-history had been fully developed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the two historical photographs but I think the painting still has a place. Specifically, in the History > 19th century section. It magnificently illustrates the text: "The defeat of the Confederacy devastated many Southerners economically, emotionally, and psychologically." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the section seems appropriate. I added it there: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Costume of the KKK

From the article as of 11 July 2020 "The Klan's use of hooded white robes and the burning of crosses, which did not occur in the original Klan, are innovations of Dixon and are seen in the illustrations of the first edition. "

This is incorrect regarding the hooded white robes. See illustration from Harpers Weekly, 1874. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.12.72 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"This ideology furthered..."

As we know:

"The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology which advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one."

Now we have the beginnings of an edit war over whether

This ideology furthered the idea of a jeffersonian style of government where the central government is limited to commerce and defense.

or was it

that slavery was just and moral, under the ruse that it brought worthwhile economic prosperity. The ideology was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.

While I have little doubt that supporters of the pseudo-historical, negationist ideology would like to argue that it furthered some non-debate about the style of government, it did not. As sourced, the Lost Cause sought to support slavery -- the cause of the Civil War -- claiming it was somehow just and moral because it made money. Further, it was supporting the growing racism in the United States.

This is very solidly sourced. You are certainly free to disagree with the source and discuss nonsense about states' rights, limited government, etc. Please do so on your blog.

Yes, supporters of the Lost Cause certainly made lots of poorly supported arguments that were willingly accepted by an audience that wanted to believe. This section, however, is not about the claims made bay supporters, which varied over time and by place. This is about the ideology and what it supported. "This ideology furthered..." is not "Supporters of the ideology said..." The first is central to the topic. The latter is detail. - SummerPhD ^v2.0 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe:, could you please comment here? You keep changing this section of text and its not clear to me how or if it is supported by the Domby source. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think that Domby says that the Lost Cause tried to argue that slavery benefited the enslaved or that this argument is a defining feature of Lost Cause ideology generally. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I've never looked at the Domby book that I recall. In the edit you reference, I was not trying to change the meaning, just express it better. I think "belief" is more appropriate than "idea". deisenbe (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe:, Thank you for the explanation. I believe that you have substantively changed the meaning, however inadvertently it was. Slavery being a source of worthwhile prosperity does not equate to slavery benefiting the enslaved. In any context I have seen the Lost Cause held up as bringing prosperity, the status of the enslaved is ignored or excluded. I think that this edit is not merely grammatical and should be reversed but I will hold off until others have had a chance to weigh in. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Take it out if you want. Slavery as a positive good was fellow traveler with the Lost Cause, but I don't have a cite and I'm not going to go looking for one. deisenbe (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I took out that last part but added a link to the positive good article you linked here so that article can present a fuller discussion of the issues to an interested reader. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Holmes McGuire's book

The book might say "slavery [was] not the cause of the war" and that "the North [was] the aggressor in bringing on the war".

Saying those statements are a significant aspect of the book and that the book, therefore, "suppor(ed) the Lost Cause tenets" is synthesis. One source says A. Another source says B. An editor believes A + B = C and reports C, which neither source on its own says directly. If this is a significant piece of the history of the Lost Cause claim, independent reliable sources will certainly discuss it.

Additionally, I'm struggling to see the book credibly claiming it "quickly sold out and required a second edition." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a "Preface to the Second Edition" which claims that the new edition was because of the "...favor with which the first edition was received". I suppose that could be interpreted as evidence for the statement about selling out. This interpretation is undercut somewhat as that part of the Preface goes on to say: "...evidenced by the many letters from prominent Confederates, as well as readers, not Confederates, in other sections of the country." [emphasis added] So we actually don't know that it sold out, quickly or slowly. We also do know that the reasons for a second edition were not directly tied to sales but instead to privately-expressed approval. In other words, the claim is not credible, as Summer notes. I suspect that the statement was included by Deisenbe to provide a reason why this book should be included in the article (although please correct me if I'm wrong). The inclusion of this book at all is, in fact, the real problem, not implied sales figures. What is truly needed is a source that characterizes McGuire's impact on the development of the Lost cause mythology, not mere popularity. It is clear that the book was prepared after the Lost Cause was a well-established idea, since it has an entire section titled: "The Northern Cause will be Finally Adjudged the 'Lost Cause'". It is also mostly the work of two men: McGuire and George Llewellyn Christian, neither of whom were prominent during the war and whose prominence afterwards seems limited. At most, this book appears to be a reflection of how the Lost Cause was developed by others and accepted by Southern veterans. Unless good quality scholarly sources that identify this book as having contributed to the development of the Lost Cause are found, there is no reason to include it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Actual things they believe?

There is nowhere a clear breakdown of what the "Lost cause" stands for and why each point is factually wrong. Can we please add that?

I don't support the confederates but this article is biased and liberal Marcopieterse (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a section called "tenets" where the beliefs are laid out, but you're right, it is missing "why each point is factually wrong." Regarding your "liberal" label, it's sad that today's liberalism means sticking to truth while the new conservatism means false ideas and reactionary rollbacks. I remember when conservatism just meant slower, more deliberate progress. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for replying. I did not pay focus to the tenents as I should have, sorry about that. About your "false ideas" response to my "liberal" label (haha :D), I should have elaberated more. I meant to say that for a hisorical article is contains an unacceptable amount of adjectives. If the truth that your sticking to is that, for instance, slavery is unmoral and unjust then I would say that there is no truth in that. One cannot say that the "truth" is that slavery is unmoral or unjust, that is your opinion. There is nothing factual about calling a cause "bad" just because it differs from what you consider to be "right". By liberal I mean that the article is written more like an opion piece rather than something that makes the reader wiser. I am just an amateur historian that believes that historical literature should be kept as factual as possible and that it is up to the reader to add his/her own views/adjectives when thinking or discussing it. And totally agree with "conservatism just meant slower, more deliberate progress"!

Slavery is not unjust or immoral? That is (I am going to say) very much a minority opinion (read wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that is because RS make it clear there is no clear breakdown of what the "Lost cause" stands for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

pseudo-historical, negationist ideology

I see that Wikipedia again cannot write in an unbiased style, but promotes a progressive point of view. --2A00:CA8:A1F:B0AE:D805:779D:5241:A063 (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

If you mean we reflect what RS say, yes we do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Song of the South?

I see that there was an earlier discussion about whether a paragraph or two on the Disney film Song of the South was appropriate for this article. Perhaps such a section is appropriate, but as currently written it's quite a stretch. About half of the section is taken up by a quote which incorrectly assumes that the film is set in the pre-Civil War South rather than the post-Civil war South. Nothing in the paragraph (nor in the movie itself, I suspect, though I've never seen it) talks about the Civil War, the causes of the Civil War, or the politics of either Reconstruction or racial segregation. In short, other than presenting a sanitized, goody-two-shoes, version of the past, which movies, and particularly Disney movies (Johnny Tremain, the Adventures of Davy Crockett, Pocahontas, etc.) tend to do, what does it have to do with the Lost Cause of the Confederacy? Anything in it that suggests that secession was a noble cause, or that it was a shame that the Confederacy lost? Tbobbed (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. It features African-American sharecroppers, a Georgia plantation, and a storyteller narrating folktales. Dimadick (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. What it has in common with sympathizers of the Lost Cause is a view of plantation life (or at least life on one particular post-War plantation) as cozy and comfortable. However, that's a long way from advocating for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Tbobbed (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is one of the arguments used by it, that slaves did not want or desire freedom.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no slaves in the film. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but there are (it has been suggested by RS) characters we are meant to take as people who were slaves and were contented with their lot, happy and joyful and full of wisdom. Uncle Remus can be seen (and this is what RS imply) as a post bellum Uncle Tom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but Uncle Tom was the title character of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the most famous, and consequential, anti-slavery book ever written. Harriet Beecher Stowe was hardly a proponent of the Lost Cause. The fact that a few sources posit a connection between Song of the South and support for the Lost Cause does not obligate us to feature that in the Lost Cause article. I would suggest that most scholars who've written about the Lost Cause haven't spent much time connecting it to Song of the South and that most critics who've written about Song of the South haven't spent much time connecting it to the Lost Cause. Tbobbed (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Well its controversial views on race and the South have led Dinsey to (in effect) ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? Nobody is claiming that it presents a realistic view of early post-Civil War race relations. It was designed to be a "family movie"; in other words, a movie for kids. That's not the same as saying that it's propaganda for the Lost Cause of Confederacy. Tbobbed (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

True, but it can be (and much-lost cause narrative was) both. This is (I believe) the accusations about this film, it seeks to present a sanitized version of the South, aimed at children.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean "present a sanitized view of the South". Of course, movies for kids tend to present a sanitized view of every place and time period they are set in. By the standards of presenting a sanitized view of the South we'd be tying tons of stuff into the Lost Cause, which doesn't just mean racism or sanitized views of the South but actual support of secession and the continuance of slavery. By those standards we could accuse George Gershwin of advocating for the Lost Cause in composing Swanee and Louis Armstrong of advocating for the Lost Cause in making Sleepy Time Down South his theme song. Tbobbed (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes We could, but its RS doing it with this film. Anyways its time for others to chip inSlatersteven (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay Slatersteven, I guess no one else is interested in chipping in. I'll just summarize. The article's Song of the South section is weak. It doesn't really show the movie as promoting the Lost Cause, but only certain ideas and sentiments that tend to go with it. Nothing about the Civil War. Nothing directly political. The "reliable sources" aren't particularly strong ones, mainly film critics rather than historians. The one long quote in the section comes from a critic who doesn't know that the story setting is after the War not before it. I recommend scrapping the section. Tbobbed (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the discussion above #Song of the South, I believe that the Song is connected to the topic and the material should be kept. Britishfinance (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Britishfinance What specific points in #Song of the South convince you that this Disney movie "advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one"? Tbobbed (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tbobbed, we had a discussion on whether to keep this section or not above (#Song of the South). The points made are listed there. If you want to revisit, then run an RFC (or just ping the participants above) for participation. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:Bold, revert, discuss

Off-topic discussion about the use of article talk pages, which is not appropriate here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

An unnamed editor posted the following on this page: This article does a disservice to those who want to understand this history This is a completely distorted and oversimplified version of the Civil War and American history/politics. It is a transparent attempt to fit that history into today's political narratives, and such content has no place on wikipedia. I am shocked this article has not been taken down in its entirety already. Slavery AND states rights, and lots of other things, caused the civil war. This is a really complicated, nuanced, and important part of our history and this article makes a mockery of it all. The above was deleted on 7 June at 15:10 by User:Praxidicae with the Edit summary "not a forum." I restored the comment on 7 June at 18:05 with the comment "The previous editor was actually writing about the article and not the comment, so I am reverting his or her edit." User: Jorm deleted the selection on 7 June 2021 at 18:06 with the Edit summary "Yeah, but we're still not a forum for shit like this." I invite others to help decide whether this comment should be retained or deleted. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC) this isn’t a forum for non specific grievances and revisionist history. But by all means continue on a pointless edit war to restore nonsense. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I agree, and I'd emphasize the "non-specific". The post contained no suggestions for improvements. Per WP:TALKNO: "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." I posted a note at the IP's talk page letting them know they're welcome to try again with an RS-based, specific suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I'm really interested in the value that you think that comment provides to the encyclopedia, because in my experience these types of comments a) provide nothing actionable and b) serve only as a dogwhistle for others to come and claim 'bias'. The comment itself is filled with falsehoods. So please tell me why you think there's value? Jorm (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Should be deleted, since among academic historians there is consensus that the Civil War was about slavery and not about states' rights. There are enough forums on the Internet where proponents of fringe theories can post their views, but WP is no forum. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) The statement does read like wp:soapboxing, and does not really contain any concrete suggestions. Nor does it seem to address THIS article, as this one is about a specific version of the lost cause narrative that sought (and seeks) to downplay the role (if not outright eliminate it) of slavery from the history and causes of the American Civil War (which is what our article says). If there is another version that acknowledges the role played by the desire to preserve slavery I would be interested to see the sources discussing it (rather than trying to claim that it was about everything but slavery).Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC) From WP:Soapboxing: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." I can't see that the above contested statement is disruptive in the slightest. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I also can see no "statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Soap also says ". However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject", and that is what the OP reds like to me, a personal statement on this article perceived "distorted and oversimplified version of the Civil War and American history/politic".Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I agree, WP:NOTAFORUM. The comments were correctly deleted. This discussion is also off-topic. If anyone wishes to discuss, in general, how article talk pages are used, or a change in that policy, I suggest starting a discussion elsewhere, perhaps at WP:VPP. In the meantime, this discussion is not about improving this article, so I shall be collapsing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Keep. I agree with BeenAroundAWhile. The above statement should be removed only if it appeared in the article, but this is the "talk" page. I disagree with censoring the comment and making it disappear. (Perhaps I feel this way because I just finished reading this [14], but that is another conversation). The heading at the top of this page states that this is a controversial subject. With that in mind, I would expect strong feelings - one way or another - regarding The Lost Cause. I see nothing gained by deleting the comment from the Talk Page. Why not this: just remove the heading that says this is controversial subject and then go ahead a delete all the comments you don't agree with. HedgeHogPower (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Restoring the Talk. The conversation is about 'this edit to this WP:Talk page, not about Talkk pages in general. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Regarding the original complaint, it behooves every editor to take steps obviating any suspicion that because "This is a really complicated, nuanced, and important part of our history . . . this article makes a mockery of it all" Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I posted a notice about this Talk controversy at User_talk:Steven_Crossin#Deletion_of_opinionated_comment_on_a_Talk_page. I hope to get the underlying issue settled. If Steven Crossin decides not to help, I'll go to WP:Request for comment. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Regarding the underlying reason that the comment was deleted: (1) One editor called the comment "shit," which indicates a non-neutral attitude toward it and (2) a second editor wrongly stated that the comment was "off-topic," when it plainly was on the topic of whether the article does or does not make "a mockery of it all." Regarding the "hiding" of the comment, this action really goes against the core principle of Wikipedia, which is that "anyone can edit" it, even without a name. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure whether I should write this here, since this is also WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, but I feel that you, @BeenAroundAWhile: deserve a better answer than just the closing of the discussion. Some of the editors who supported the removal / hiding of the IP's comment, including myself, have experienced that sort of comment much too often. Talk pages related to American racism regularly get trolled by IPs or even registered editors supporting fringe theories, like Slavery AND states rights, and lots of other things, caused the civil war. Academic scholarship rejects that "AND". The only reason why some people stick to the theory of states' rights and other things having caused the Civil War is racism. Read any professional historian on the Civil War, on Lost Cause, on White supremacy, they all tell you the same thing. Things were not really complicated, nuanced. Black people are not inferior, slavery was no "positive good", the Civil War was not fought over states' rights, and the Lost Cause ideology was not the "truth". Between academic consensus and fringe theories, WP is not neutral, but takes side with good academic scholarship. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Well, I'll accept this decision inasmuch as I found this bit of advice at WP:Talk page guidelines: The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. The unnamed editor should have made a solid suggestion instead of just complaining about it. Still, it makes me feel queasy when a comment is hidden from public view, as in a dictatorship or censorship during a war. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I feel like you owe everyone an apology for wasting our time. Jorm (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Prepositions

I implemented this change a few minutes ago, but it was reverted, so let's discuss.

The current phrasing is "the belief that slavery was moral, because the enslaved people were happy or even grateful, and that slavery brought economic prosperity".

I argue that "because" should be "that". If we simplify the current version, we get:

"the false belief that X, which is predicated on Y"

This construction does not necessarily imply that Y ("enslaved people were happy or even grateful") is false, and can in fact be read as Y being true. Remember: although a false premise leads to a false conclusion, the inverse is not necessarily the case. With my version, however, we would have:

"the belief that X, that Y, and that Z."

which more clearly indicates that all of these premises are merely things which were falsely believed. Always take alternate parsings into account — especially those that can be used to perpetuate bad-faith arguments. DS (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the whole point is that the argument it was moral was because they were happy and grateful, which benefited the black person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That's my point, and at the same time it's the opposite of my point. The argument was that it was moral because of the slaves being happy. But the slaves weren't happy. Which I really shouldn't have to say. The current phrasing can be read to mean that the slaves were happy. Any argument predicated on X (X="slaves being grateful for being enslaved") is de facto a bad faith argument (which, yes, includes the entire Lost Cause). We do not want to imply that X. We want to imply that the Lost Cause argued that X. Would anyone really parse the sentence to mean that Wikipedia is saying X? Would anyone really be either that stupid or that intellectually dishonest? You know damn well they would. DS (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

NOI, but they claim is they were they key is in the part you leave out "This ideology has furthered the..." it is what they were trying to say, that does not mean it was true.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see your point and I agree there is some ambiguity. I also think Slatersteven is right to want to preserve some reference to the causal link between the two false points. How about "enslaved people were happy or even grateful, that therefore slavery was moral, and that slavery brought economic prosperity"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What about "that slavery brought prosperity, that enslaved people were happy or even grateful for slavery, and that therefore slavery was moral" ? DS (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, any objections? DS (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No, seems OK, if I disagreed I would have said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Disgusting historical revisionism.

These efforts to portray the South as a historical anomaly that the North fought to restore to its European roots should stop. When you are in the right, you should be able to justify your cause without resorting to any such ahistorical explanations. 88.100.176.55 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The South fought to preserve slavery. This is an undisputed historical fact. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how much it was about slavery. Maybe the North made it about slavery to prevent England from supporting the South, but the fact is that the North used the victory for a wholesale replacement with its new culture. 88.100.176.55 (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a particular suggestion for a change to the article, backed up by a reliable source? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to:

1. Remove the recent revisionist quotes and sources
2. Rewrite (or revert) the article to describe the North as promoting its reforms in line with historical reality, instead of implying the opposite.

--88.100.176.55 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can link or cite to sources that we can work from, we don't have anything to go on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone managed to write scholarly sources to dismiss something so recent, about a topic that not many people outside the US care about. You need to better vet the sources and keep the falsehoods out, that is all. 88.100.176.55 (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The article is based on scholarly assessments.Scholarly sources are the best sources available. We will not be replacing the best analysis by the best sources with someone's random suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are not scholarly sources, but political writings, I guess for the purpose of some current political movement in the US that do not belong to an encyclopedia. 88.100.176.55 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Nailed it. 72.193.242.86 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So a book by a scholar is not a scholarly source? what is then? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

1. @88.100.176.55: None of your suggestions have been specific enough for anyone to take action on. You claim that this is "revisionist" and not in line with "historical reality", but I have know idea what exactly you think is revisionist or out of line with historical reality. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War is not a scholarly source, how about William C. Davis, Look Away? Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Adam Domby and other external links

@Beyond My Ken: "Discuss" is no valid reason for a revert. Since the external links were added very recently, WP:ONUS applies. @Chrismartin76: I removed the external links you added after taking a look a the panel discussion. I lost patience, because I first had wait until I could skip the ad, and then I had to wait for the audience to take their seats. I think, many of our readers will share the same feelings. Adam Domby doesn't have his own article. I take this as a first hint that he is not very notable. Adding his book is of course totally OK, but to add two talks about it really seems too much. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Your reasons for removing the added ELs are not supported by WP:ELNO. Unless you can provide a reason that is valid under that policy, please do not remove them again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the book talk; it feels a bit promotional to have it in the article. I would keep the panel discussion; I had no problem skipping through the commercial, and the content is relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

OK,, I'm good with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The basis for judging someone should not be whether they are notable but whether they have done pertinent research. There are only a few living historians who are notable but there are numerous historians who publish peer-reviewed books in academic presses. If their work is relevant to a historical article, they are appropriate for an external links sections. Also note that C-SPAN is a nonprofit organization so these talks are not linked to promotional sales.Chris (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Lost Cause of the Confederacy → Lost cause of the Confederacy – This is a phrase that has been coined to describe a particular social phenomenon. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS is applicable since it may be considered a term of art or phrase used academically to convey a particular meaning. It does not appear to meet the threshold to be capped as an article title per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, in that it is not consistently capped in a substantial majority of sources. This n-gram refers - noting that n-gram results are inherently skewed toward capitalisation because they don't distinguish running text from other uses where title case would be commonly used. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As a term of art, it may be appropriate to italicise the title IAW MOS:SIGNIFCAPS and the first instance of it in the article text. This would be a second consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do not move = It is a proper noun phrase, and the cap is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Do not move, over 80% caps according to ngram, and trending higher, suggests that the current title is appropriate per MOS:CAPS. Firefangledfeathers 03:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nominator's own linked N-gram shows a substantial bias toward capitalization in the past 40 years - 4x or 5x as common. Which isn't surprising, because very old 1920-era use might have been blandly referential (i.e. the literal outcome of the Civil War), but around the 1960s & 70s it specifically became a term for the post-war "movement", and this article is about the latter capitalized meaning. I wouldn't even place that much emphasis on ngrams though; any check of the relevant literature shows that it's consistently capitalized when discussing the "movement". Examples from 2021 from running text, not article titles: NYT (the propaganda narrative of the "Lost Cause," - quotes theirs, not mine), WaPo (heart of the Lost Cause ethos), WSJ (The celebration of the Lost Cause, in short, provided a way to experience a simpler, idealized past). This is not cherrypicking, this is simply taking the first result from a Google search on the past year, it always shows capitalized use. SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

SnowFire, that it appears in quotes only tends to support that it is a term of art per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Considering the last 40 years, the n-gram evidence shows capitalisation going from about 50% to 60% over the first 30 years. Without discriminating use in running text, it rises to about 80%. To some extent, it begs the question to what extent this relatively sudden increase is citogenesis or in this case, orthogenesis, where WP is influencing RW capitalisation of the term. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it's citogenesis. From personal anecdote, I learned about the Lost Cause from dead-tree books before Wikipedia existed, and it was capitalized in the books I read. Here's an example published in 1988 (Lost Cause capitalized in running text, not merely the title): [15]. Here's a Google Books search on 20th century literature: "Lost Cause" Confederacy. I only see capitalized versions on the first two pages of results, no non-capitalized versions, and these are all pre-2000 books so no citogenesis here. SnowFire (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's capitalized in nearly all the sources used by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources write "Lost Cause" as a proper noun. It is essentially its own thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose All the sources I know of have "Lost Cause". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enormous amount of quotes on this page

I see the application and reversion of the overquote tag today. It cannot be denied there's a superabundance of quotation here. Quotes occupy (by my reading) roughly 20-30% of all non-citation content. That's seems very unusual for a non-literary page. The quotes appear to be well-chosen, appropriately connected to text, and well-cited. To prevent edit warring, I've started this thread for discussion. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the tagger, actually, that the article needs work and that the quotations need to be reduced. Most are relevant, yes, but some could still be shortened, others moved to a different section. Some of historians' quotations (Gallagher, e.g.) seem like they are commenting on the movement broadly, but the quotations are in the 19th century section for some reason. One of the clearest examples of a quotation not fitting entirely is the very first one, by a journalist waxing poetical about losers writing history, speculating on the reasons why this was possible "perhaps". It's an interesting irony, sure, but should be de-emphasized for tone reasons, especially relative to actual historians.--MattMauler (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, though. I was considering reverting and replacing the tag, but would rather figure it out here. I also would rather fix than tag generally (to Capn's credit, he mentions that his own time limitations are part of the reason for tagging, which I totally get).--MattMauler (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as I placed the tag to begin with, I do think the fact that the page is nearly 1/3 quotes is not a good sign. While judicious use of quotes can be useful, overuse of quotes is counterproductive to the reader. Now, I certainly like some of the quotes. But I think much cleanup is necessary:

• Starting with the quote from Mick LaSalle is actually a pretty good move, I don't think we could state it better in WikiVoice.
• The morass of quotes from historians in the 19th century page could easily be incorporated into prose and would honestly read better.
• I've read the ""Annual Meeting of the Virginia Division", October 29, 1875" quote 5 times and I'm still not sure what its saying. Therein lies the danger of primary sources: without an RS to explain, readers are left to easily competing and incorrect interpretations.
• I like the quote from Jeff Davis, enlightening as to the view of a true confederate
• "Dixon insisted that the novel was based on reality:" and the following quote...no idea what that is adding to the article besides giving Dixon, KKK darling, an UNDUE defense
• First quote in Gone with the wind section is good. The second one...I think could be cut down a bit or at least given some more context in wikivoice
• Koeniger's criticism of Gallagher gives UNDUE emphasis on what seems to be a dispute between historians, and trys to use it to make a broader point. In general, the contemporary historians section probably needs work and some more voices. For example, nowhere in the page is there a citation to James McPherson, who I would say is the most comprehensive civil war scholar. One of the books I have from him goes into the lost cause idea, I'll see if I can't find it...

In conclusion, many of the quotes could be better covered with prose. I very much doubt such a quote heavy article would ever be awarded FA, over-quotation reflects poorly on authors in almost every field. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Article’s Primary Premise is Unsourced

The following claim is unsourced:

“Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery.”

I am not claiming that the statement is wrong, simply unsourced and stated and thus of undetermined factualness. Few would argue that slavery was not a major cause because a lot of evidence exists showing that it was. There were others, however. As a cursory search of Books published on the subject will reveal, there are volumes of books written with contrary premises, one particularly popular one claiming that the north profited more from slavery than did the south. A somewhat somewhat less controversial position shared by at least some ‘mainstream” historians posits that, although not having slavery, northern states were still incredibly racist, and the notion that most Union soldiers were willing to die for black rights is laughable at best. US Grant himself owned slaves, as did many Union soldiers. An overwhelming minority of Confederate soldiers owned them (since most were poor estimates range from 2% - 9%), and the notion that they were willing to die so the rich could owned slaves is controversial. I make no opinion with regards to the accuracy of any individual claim, but as someone who has done a great deal of Civil War research research over the last 30 years (I am an amateur and not a historian and claim no greater knowledge than anyone else), I am, however, aware of the huge diversity of opinion on the subject amongst authors that would be considered somewhere in the realm of mainstream. Given the current political climate, they certainly aren’t on the circuit promoting their opinions, but the books published through the 20th century reach quite varied conclusions. Taken as a whole, the published body of work on the subject published over the last 100 years probably runs close to 50/50 admiration/hostility toward the confederate army. Of course, there is much evidence pointing to slavery as a primary cause of the war. You also have works by the generals themselves (like Longstreet) who vehemently deny that slavery was their primary motivation, and these were published during times where it there was no great pressure to say this. Therefore, a source would be quite helpful as there are certainly there are at least some qualifications to the statement (ie. The definition of “modern” historian). Thanks for listening. Opie8 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please start discussions at the end of this page. The lead shall summarize the body of the article, so it is OK if it is supported by the article which in turn has to be supported by reliable secondary sources. There is no need to give a reference to each and every claim in the lead. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

See wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh yeah that's great and all that the rest of the claims are absolutely true but that doesnt mena you throw one in there that is at best subjective and more realistically split down the center and then say "Nope absolute truth, 1-7, 9-13 are all true so 1-13 are all fact" Then again this is Wikipedia and this is, to some, a politically charged article. Making sure the points are displayed in a sympathetic light because you hold the keys to the castle?Not like that's ever been a controversy, or documented endemic problem, around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:80:4DA0:0:0:0:5B8B (talk • contribs)

If you're making shit up and adding it to Wikipedia like this, then your argument here is undercut. You didn't bother to cite a contradictory source that would be considered the equal of the mainstream sources, so we don't really have anything to talk about. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a mythology

@B. M. L. Peters and BeenAroundAWhile: As far as I know, scholarly consensus says that the Lost Cause is a myth / mythology. (If I'm wrong, please correct me and I'll be happy to learn something new.) Scholarly consensus can and should be reported in the voice of WP, that's why I removed the word "considered". Additionally, "considered" provokes the question, "by whom" ? And finally, we should not retreat before an IP who writes in their edit summary, The South did objectively prosper under Slavery, and that fact alone doesn't mean that Slavery was good, but that there were objective goods that Southerners experienced as a result. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS cosnsider it not a myth?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It definitely is a myth! I was just trying to make the phrasing seem less accusatory or biased, but now that you suggest keeping "considered" out because it creates more questions, makes a whole lot more sense! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the phrase ignores the fact that upwards of three million Southerners were living in slavery.DS (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ref Ul1222

By request I created a Talk topic on this item...I had moved this citation to support the lengthy quotation in the first graf of the Symbols-Confederate Generals section, whereas it was (and now is again) at the end of the graf, which would suggest it supports both the Victor Davis Hanson comment and the claim about Stonewalled Jackson's death on Day One of Shiloh arguably leading to the battle outcome. Ulbrich's book on page 1222 simply says nothing about either of these items (i.e., beyond the quotation), and the citation's placement at the end of the paragraph is simply wrong - A citation for an entire paragraph should support the entire paragraph, and this one doesn't. The final claim requires a source to support the argument re: Jackson. Ulbrich's may do so, but not on that page. It may be a well supported claim, but requires support nonetheless.

I re-reverted the part of the change to correct the spelling of Hanson's name - it is not Hansen (see his personal page at victorhanson.com). Huskerdru (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Johnston's death, not Jackson's. Huskerdru (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Yesterday I tightened up the lede section to reduce repetition and improve readability, not making any changes to POV or sourcing. However I was first reverted by Binksternet who came to my talk page, and after a misunderstanding over my intentions suggested the restoration of a couple of points on Reconstruction and chivalry, which I did.

I have since been reverted twice by Rsk6400 and Slatersteven for not having that discussion on this page specifically. I didn't choose my talk page as the venue but alright, there can be a discussion here if anyone has further feedback to the actual content of my changes. PrimaPrime (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You changed a first-sentence wiki-voice descriptor, “pseudo-historical”, to “historians generally describe” in the second sentence. This was a NPOV-affecting edit. What’s your reasoning? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I figured the work of actual historians that debunks Lost Cause-ism should be attributed, and calling the ideology negationist in wikivoice was sufficient. I'd drop "generally" and if it's felt that any attribution is too equivocal then fine, put it all back in wikivoice. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We are stating it as a fact in wikivoice because it is a fact that is not in dispute. We do not need to qualify it, or the opinions that support it, because it is clearly without doubt.

Language that does not indicate this will be reverted. It's that simple. Jorm (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Are there any other issues? PrimaPrime (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert you for discussing in the wrong place, but for the same reasons mentioned already by Firefangledfeathers and Jorm. An additional (minor) trigger for the "POV alert" in my mind was that you didn't use an edit summary for your last edit. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your revert summary didn't mention POV, just the talk page and unexplained edit (which consisted of splitting a run-on sentence). I appreciate the POV concern and agreed with it; I was the first to remove the undue bothsidesism when I last edited the lede a few years ago, and my only aim revisiting it now was to further improve readability. Sorry for any misunderstanding on my end. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A edit summary does not have to list everything that is wrong, that is why when reverted it should be taken here, where everything that is wrong can be talked about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery" "request that "slavery" be demoted or removed from the causes of the war"

The generalized summaries in this article, as well as the statement on this talk page (quoted below), are conflating two different things together. "The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery" may be true, but that is not the same thing as saying that slavery was the primary cause for the war. Secession to be a separate country, and then a war being waged to force the country back into the Union, are two different things. This should be stated more clearly in the article. It is implied from the information in the body of the article, but not in the generalized summaries provided by Wikipedia editors.

This statement below is contradictory - it's talking first about the causes for secession, then second, about the causes of the war, as if they are the same thing:

The Confederate states seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery This is the consensus of historians, scholars and other reliable sources. The Southern states believed that the institution of slavery, the underpinning of their economy, was under attack from abolitionists in the North. This is re-inforced by the statements made by many Confederate leaders at the time of secession, including Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. It was only after their defeat that "states' rights" was cited by the South as the primary reason for secession. This is also the consensus of the editors on this talk page, where the issue has been discussed numerous times. Please do not request that "slavery" be demoted or removed from the causes of the war, your request will be denied, and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so. Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery was the primary cause of secession, and secession lead inevitably to war - in fact, the Confederacy first the first shots, so they provided the causus belli. There is no reasonable or logical separation between the two, and attempting to pretend that they are different things is not only extremely pedantic, it would be a terrible disservice to our readers. Historians are clear on the facts, and no mainstream historian -- as far as I know -- professes that secession and war were not intimately connected. Slavery will not be "downgraded" from being a primary cause of the war, please don't ask again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood my remark, I was not making any request. Those statements were in quotes, they were from the talk page banner I was pointing out that the article is contradictory. Reputable historians don't say that the reasons for secession and the reasons for the war are the same. And if they did, there is no reference for that in the article. There is no quote by a historian in the article that says that "slavery caused the war". Historians may imply that it caused secession, but that is completely different from saying slavery caused the war. Historians differentiate between the two. Where is there a quote in the article by a reputable historian specifically saying that the cause of the war was slavery? It's not there. Not differentiating between the two creates a muddled article that a historian wouldn't endorse. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the topic Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War doesn't say anything like that. Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood nothing, I simply reject your premise as being utterly pedantic and wrong-headed, and contrary to the collective opinions of historians familiar with the subject. You're wasting everyone's time here attempting to split hairs that have no need of splitting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we could find a series of citations which directly make such an assertion, we'd be better prepared to deal with editors whose views and verbiage vary even slightly from our own. It's not a totally unreasonable thought. Such could certainly be provided. BusterD (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

As much as I detest sourcing in leads, I've gone ahead and sourced that sentence so that should fix the issue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I went a bit ballistic there, but I have no tolerance for attempts to sneak in aspects of the Lost Cause myth into Wikipedia under the guise of "balance" or whatever. To me it's tantamount to claiming that Hitler had nothing to do with the Holocaust because there's no piece of paper saying "Kill all the Jews. (signed) A. Hitler". Historians have disposed of that, and they've disposed of this as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The beginning of the article says that the cause of the war was slavery, whereas the end of the article says the cause of secession was slavery, and the cause of the war (as stated by Lincoln) was "to preserve the Union". It's important to differentiate between the two (as the end of the article implies). The argument for the Lost Cause looks confused because the article is not distinguishing between them. The Lost Cause is simply, from a Southern perspective: 1)The States had a Constitutional right to control slavery, 2)The States had a right to secede if their Constitutional rights were violated, 3)Being forced back into the Union was a violation of States rights. This isn't allowed to be expressed clearly in the article because the article confuses between causes of secession vs causes of war:

Beginning of article: "Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery."

End of article: "Contemporary historians overwhelmingly agree that secession was motivated by slavery. There were numerous causes for secession, but preservation and expansion of slavery was easily the most important of them. The confusion may come from blending the causes of secession with the causes of the war, which were separate but related issues. (Lincoln entered a military conflict not to free the slaves but to put down a rebellion or, as he put it, to preserve the Union.)"

Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If A is B, and B is C, A is C. If secession was caused by slavery, and the war was caused by secession, the war was caused by slavery. All the body text does is explain that in detail. Such a level of detail is inappropriate in the lead. Secondly, does all of that really come from Stampp on page 59? I rather doubt it. Especially the section in parenthesis. My guess is that it was an unsourced addition that didn't get spotted when it was added, because the parentheses of entire sentences is a very un-Wikipedia approach. Though if someone has access to Stampp that'd be helpful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

When I get on my pc I’ll check with I wrote that. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Here is where Stamp was added.[16] Doug Weller talk 14:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Doug. All the way back from 2007! Those halcyon days of Wikipedia. Anyway, I broke it back into its own paragraph, which makes it a bit obvious now that the first paragraph there is a bit of a summary of the rest of the paragraph. When I have time I'll try to work on that section a bit. McPherson has some good stuff to say about the lost cause and he is surprisingly not mentioned here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying, if someone separated from someone they didn't like, and the second person forced them to join them again, it was the first person separating that caused the second person to force them back. No matter what side you're on, it's not fair to describe it that way, especially when talking about the Lost Cause. Alexander Stephens is saying that secession was caused by one thing (violation of Constitutional guarantees), while the war was caused by another (North forcing South to re-join). Mentioning Alexander Stephens in one sentence (in the intro), and then in the second sentence saying "Modern historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, noting that the central cause of the war was slavery", as if Stephens and Jefferson Davis were somehow too dumb to realize the obvious, is simply not an accurate characterization. The reason the article does this, is because it's ignoring the truth, which is what the historians that are actually quoted in the article imply, that the causes of secession and causes of slavery were different. That's why that should be spelled out, at least in the context of defining the Lost Cause, at the beginning of the article. Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Jeff Davis was dumb - just look at what he wrote about Black people. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If angry white racists are going to continue this vandalism, they should be banned.

WP:BLUDGEON with a side of incomprehensible Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what historical records you've read, and it doesn't matter what people hundreds of years ago said or did. The experts at the most prestigious universities have said it didn't happen and that is fact. Dig up whatever "sources" you want, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) What vandalism are you referring to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) and read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) That obviously doesn't apply to people who are openly nazis. Vedisassanti (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) @Vedisassanti This is not a forum for the discussion of the topic. This a page for discussing how to improve this page. If you have concrete suggestions as to improving this page, in a "change X to Y" format, that would be very helpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Okay, how about this: This article should be under protected status, so white supremacists cannot vandalize the page any further. Vedisassanti (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) WP:Page protection is for pages actively under some sort of disruption and this page has five edits in the last month, none disruptive. If you have a specific issue you'd like us to address, you should tell us when and where such disruption caught your attention. BusterD (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) The entire Religious Dimension section is an attempted justification for this confederate myth, and it needs to be removed. Vedisassanti (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Your dissatisfaction is noted. You'll need to make more than assertions and demands. You'll need to make a case. By my reading the section says what many scholars say on the subject, mostly in those sources' voices. What should the section say, and which sources need to be added? BusterD (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) The section should say that those assertions are unequivocally false, and make strong use of terminology that is not vague. I'm certain this goes without saying, but a source shouldn't be required to tell the truth that racism is a bad thing. Vedisassanti (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC) For what its worth, this page is already semi-protected. As to the religious section: do you have a suggested wording, cited to a reliable source, in mind? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Hunting for sources isn't my forte, but having a section where the crimes of the confederacy are justified by religious reasons isn't a good look for Wikipedia. The wording should be strong and affirmative so as to leave no mistake that the confederacy rallied behind slavery and that slavery was an atrocity. And to be quite honest, a source shouldn't even be required to state that. Vedisassanti (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I think you perhaps misread the section? The article is saying that the Lost Cause was a myth. Part of that myth was its religious dimension. Its not somehow justifying the Confederacy? Its explaining just how far Southerners were willing to take the myth. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) That is how white supremacists will interpret the article, and with everything going on in the world, the last thing Wikipedia needs is to embolden racists. It's better if there are no justifications or any line of reasoning that can be construed as a justification. Don't be part of the problem. Vedisassanti (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence revision.

Another instance of WP:BLUDGEON Rsk6400 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentence of this article reads as follows: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery. I think this could be revised for clarity. In its current state, it implies that the claims under discussion (that the cause of the Confederate States was 'just, heroic, and not centered on slavery') is pseudohistorical and a 'myth' (in this context presumably meaning a belief which is inaccurate). Now, of those three stated claims, one of them (that the cause of the Confederacy was centered on slavery) is an objective claim, and thus can meaningfully be described as pseudohistorical and inaccurate. The other two (that the cause was just and heroic) are simply opinions, and thus cannot be either pseudohistorical or historical. They are not assertions of fact, but purely subjective. It seems to me the article would benefit from having this cleared up. Something along the following lines would perhaps make sense: The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an American political-historical ideology, the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery. 90.255.80.187 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Missing the point here I think. If the “RS” is making subjective claims out to be objective, it’s not as reliable as you’re making it out to be. I agree a rephrasing would be prudent, though by no means would I call it important. “Slavery is unjust” is about as objectively true as we can get about a subjective claim. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:44BD:30D2:6862:1DC7 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) They are RS because we assume they are reliable for what they say. This is not the place to question the reliability of sources, that is either are wP:rsn or WP:NPOVN. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) That’s begging the question and a terrible intellectual policy for an encyclopedia that ostensibly wants to ensure its information is reliable. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) What that information has to be sourced to reliable sources? How else do you ensure it is actually reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC) The point is that there is no amount of data or evidence that could make the claim they pose true, there’s a philosophical explanatory gap. It’s a moral claim that slavery is unjust, not an objective one. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Then take it to RSN and challenge their status as RS, prove they are incorrect there, not here. My last comment here, as you have been told what to do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC) No. It’s a bad policy. They’re self evidently incorrect. You’re telling me to go prove 2+2=4, it’s ridiculous. If this is how Wikipedia operates, it’s getting no more of my donations in future. It can die on the vine. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Leaving aside the "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality, the IP editor's argument is not wholly without merit: "just" and "heroic" are subjective statements (although arguments about whether slavery is unjust are de facto bad faith). What if we rearranged the order? "is an American pseudohistorical negationist myth that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was not the perpetuation of slavery, and instead was just and heroic" ? DS (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Dragonfly: I'm not seeing what that version does that the current one doesn't, and it makes the sentence more complex. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here - the descriptions 'just' and 'heroic' are subjective and so cannot be meaningfully described as pseudohistorical. These are not historical concepts. The reliability of cited material as a source for historical information may be beyond dispute, but this does not mean the same cited author's ethical beliefs must be stated as fact. My point is amply supported by the Wikipedia guidelines: Rules on NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Rules on reliable sources: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. 90.255.80.187 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether the sources are reliable or not, that's really irrelevant here. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE, which deals with NPOV. You're proposing a deletion from the article on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say, or what conclusions reputable academic sources and historians have drawn. We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC) I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) What “consensus of sources” state that the lost cause’s “heroism/justice” are pseudohistorical? Does one of them explain how a non-historical concept can even be pseudohistorical? It appears to me these reputable academics have simply made claims outside their field of expertise. Frustrating you seem to be unable to understand that. 2001:56A:FE18:2400:9CD5:2667:4C14:1805 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC) You're proposing a deletion from the article... No, I'm not proposing any such thing - I am proposing that the first sentence of the article be reorganized for the sake of clarity. If you bother to read the suggested revision I gave earlier, this will become obvious to you: ...the adherents of which claim that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just and heroic, as well as promoting the pseudohistorical belief that secession was not motivated by a desire to protect the institution of slavery As you can see here, nothing is deleted, the information given is exactly the same, it is simply more coherent. All three claims in the current version are mentioned (the Civil War being just, heroic and 'not centered' on slavery), but only one of these, the last, is described as pseudohistorical. ...on the grounds that you don't like what a consensus of current sources say Not true at all. I happen to agree that the cause of the Confederate States was unjust, unheroic and chiefly motivated by a desire to prevent the abolition of slavery. That's not the point. The point is that 'just' and 'heroic' are ethical judgments, not empirical historical arguments based on fact, and so are neither historical nor pseudohistorical and should not be described as such. Again you just haven't bothered to read what I wrote. We don't water down sourced statements or assessments for the sake of demands for a fallacious appearance of neutrality - that goes against NPOV. Again, my proposal is not watered down, only clearer and more accurate. Regarding the 'false balance' guideline, that simply doesn't apply here. I quote from that paragraph here (emphasis mine): While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. 'The Earth is flat', 'the moon landings were faked' and the rest are all empirically verifiable, objective claims, which can demonstrated to be true or false with evidence. The statement 'the Confederate States were motivated by a desire to protect slavery' falls into this category. This is conclusion of a majority of historians and so the opposing view does not deserve to be given equal weight. That is the purpose of the rule. 'Just' and 'heroic' on the other hand do not fall into this category - they are personal, ethical judgments, not historical arguments and so it is simply wrong to describe such judgments as 'pseudohistorical'. It's just bad English, a logical tautology. I cite again the rule on NPOV (emphasis mine): Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. The statements 'John Doe is the best baseball player' and 'the Confederate cause was unjust' fall into the same category. They are just opinions. Whether you or I or any number of historians agree with this opinion doesn't matter - it should not, according to the rules of this site, be stated as a matter of fact. I am equally unimpressed by your attempts to water down the content at American Bison. Oh dear. Well hopefully I'll manage to sleep tonight knowing how 'unimpressed' you are with me. 90.255.80.187 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)