Talk:Citizens' Councils

Untitled

'Just wanted to say this is a well-written NPOV article about controversial topic. Good job. jengod 21:46, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

''' == I agree this is a well written article. ==' Alsayid: you need to discuss proposed edits before vandalizing this article. You are developing a wiki reputation for vandalizing articles to fit some racist agenda.

Don't call good faith edits "vandalism". Doing so reflects poorly on you. If you have an issue specific then let's talk about it. -Will Beback 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Will. Yes, I make edits in good faith, and try to help to the best of my ability with regard to improving an an article's neutrality and verifiability. My issue with part of the article is that it seems to be speculation that relies on language like "many have suggested." I also searched for the specific description "the Klan with a smiling face," and only links back to Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors came up. I also believe, as this group was clearly segregationist, we should use that term as more accurate than supremacist. I hope you'll agree that this is reasonable. --Alsayid 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC):Will, I'll talk about it. I'm just extremely skeptical of Alsayid b/c he never talks before editing out major contributions to articles, suggesting all edits he disagrees with as "vandalism," etc. But, I'll attempt to be the better person on this issue.

So, Alsayid, based on your comments above, I assume the one passage you have trouble with is the latter half of the fourth paragraph:

"Blacks who were seen as being too supportive of desegregation, voting rights, or other perceived threats to white supremacy found themselves and their family members unemployed in many instances; whites who supported civil rights for blacks were not immune from finding this happening to them as well. Many have suggested that in fact there was a considerable overlap in membership between the WCC and the Klan, with many of the same members participating overtly in one, and covertly in the other, although there were certainly many WCC members who wanted nothing to do with the Klan. It has been called by some, 'the Klan with a smiling face.'"

I agree that the article could user stronger language. But, because of your POV problems on the CCC and Haley Barbour articles, I really don't think your issue is with, to use your words, "improving an article's neutrality." Anyhow, to suit your need for less speculative language, and direct sourcing on the KKK/CCC connection, I've taken the liberty of replacing your frowned upon half paragraph with the following:

Blacks who were seen as being too supportive of desegregation, voting rights, or other perceived threats to white supremacy found themselves and their family members unemployed in many instances; whites who supported civil rights for blacks were not immune from finding this happening to them as well. Members of the Citizens' Council were sometimes Klansmen, and the more influential the Citizens' Council member, the more influence he had with the Klan. In fact, the WCC was even referred to during the civil rights era as "an uptown Klan," "a white collar Klan," "a button-down Klan," and "a country club Klan." The rationale for these nicknames was that it appeared that sheets and hoods had been discarded and replaced by suits and ties. Much like the Klan, WCC members held documented white supremacist views and involved themselves in racist activities, however, they also occupied political positions, which enabled them to legally legitimize discriminatory practices aimed at non-whites. (Neil McMillan, "The Citizens' Council: Organized Resistance to the Second Reconstruction 1954-1964" (1971 book)); Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman: The Struggle for Justice--Cortez3100

Another good source

The Encyclopedia of Southern Culture has a lot of info about this movement; it places its peak powers a little earlier than the Wikipedia article does, in the late 1950s; my questioning of this would be that very little school desegregation had acutally occurred in the Deep South in the late 50s, Brown v. Board notwithstanding. Rlquall 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)'

Fourteen White Democrats

While that phrase is very likely to be accurate, it seems to be irrelevant at best. That phrase was originally put in by an anonymous editor from an HHS department IP in September 2008. I also reworded the first sentence for the formation section.

--RobbieFal (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

influence of the councils

regarding this diff

i agree that it's unsourced material (obviously). i doubt that it's original research. anyway, i'm not going to put it back in until i can rewrite it in accord with sources, but i'd like to leave a record of it here, since there's no question in my mind that (a) it is accurate, (b) that it is sourceable, and (c) that it belongs in the article. (by the way, i have no quarrel whatsoever with the removal of the word "typical" from the the caption of the picture.) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Barbour

This content is unrelated to the "Decline of the movement" as the section is titled. It doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of WCC. It is properly covered in Barbour's article, not here. If there are no objections I'll remove it.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

it seems to me that the fact that barbour was addressing an organization that evolved from a WCC group makes his statements relevant to the decline of the WCC, especially because of this bit: He stated that the local WCC rejected the Ku Klux Klan implying that the local chapter of the WCC was not an impediment to peaceful integration although individuals who petitioned for educational integration were singled out and publicly blacklisted by the WCC. this is relevant to the decline of the movement because it demonstrates the concerns of people who had been in the movement at a time when the movement was declining. the sentence before that, about barbour receiving some criticism, serves to set this up in context. thus, especially given that both sentences are well sourced, i would prefer to leave them in. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

by the way, good call on the scare quotes. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! He wasn't addressing a descendant org. He was being interviewed by the Weekly Standard. Does this in fact "demonstrate the concerns of people who had been in the movement"? The source doesn't think so. The source says that Barbour's recollection was "confused, his memory is faulty." So if the source doubts Barbour's statements as to the WCC, we can't use it. The content is not supported by the source. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

btw love the public domain upload. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

i see, you're right. i hadn't checked. there's no evidence at all in either of those sources for his having addressed such a group. how about if we take out everything from "in recent years..." it's possible that the material does have some place in this article, i think, but (a) where it is now isn't it, and (b) the three sentences as they stand are really misleading and misrepresentative of what the sources say. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done– Lionel ^(talk) 03:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding pd upload: if you haven't done so, it's really worth reading those newspapers at archive.org. it seems impossible to fit the stuff into the article itself without committing the sin of OR (hence the clip, and why i'm glad you changed the caption, even though it was my caption), but they're quite enlightening. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Influences

It looks like you're trying to say that WCC caused black unemployment. Without a source saying that WCC in fact caused that, and your source does not, this is original research WP:OR. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

you're right. i've rewritten the sentence to reflect the information in the source. more to follow. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A glance at the source seems to indicate it is talking about Black leaders, in particular "leaders of the two major black protest organizations, the NAACP and the RCNI." Note I am looking at snippets, not full pages. Anyway, we should be specific. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

no, it specifically says "registered black voters, school desegregation proponents, and NAACP leaders across the state fell victim to Citizens' Council tactics" (p.48). now, i can see how the source doesn't specifically say that members of the NAACP who weren't leaders and who also were neither registered black voters nor school desegregation proponents were subjected to these tactics, but that seems like splitting hairs. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

redundancies

i realize by now that this article is in kind of bad shape and contains some serious repetition. i'll try to trim it down tomorrow, but if anyone would like to hack away at it before i get to it, please feel free. we can sort out the details as we go. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The name of the organization

The name was "Citizens' Councils," not "White Citizens' Councils" - as evidenced by the logo displayed with the article. "White" was added by its opponents. 173.21.65.42 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A masochist organisation?

...such says the first line of the article. Is that really the case or was that an error of some type? 4.254.84.8 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. That was vandalism yesterday. I'm surprised it remained so long (and that I didn't spot it). Fixed now. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White Citizens' Council/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I'm no expert in this subject, but this looks like an interesting article, and I'd be happy to review it for you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally good, but could do with a few improvements to better fit Wikipedia's standards. For instance "the influence of the WCC had waned considerably" doesn't really need the "had". In another instance, it states "that school segregation was unconstitutional" but those unfamiliar with the U.S. civil rights movement might not be aware what form of segregation that was; you must clarify that it is racial. Assume that your readership knows nothing about U.S. history.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with being more comprehensive; it does not for instance state the name of the founder, and in the first sentence notes when the Council was founded, but is not clear if it is currently active. Other problems here include the "School segregation and the demise of the councils" section, where sentences are left isolated, and could be brought together under a single paragraph.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some sentences do not have references; either references need to be found for these statements, or they will have to be expunged.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In instances such as the following "Numan Bartley wrote, "In Louisiana the Citizens' Council organization began as (and to a large extent remained) a projection of the Joint Legislative Committee to Maintain Segregation."[19]", Wikipedia policy means that we should not use direct quotations, but rather summarise what the author has said.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are a few unreferenced sentences; are these original research ?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	There's been some good work done here so far, but it's not quite GA quality. I'm putting it temporarily on hold, so that the nominator can make the sufficient changes needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No changes to the article since the review, so closing. Wizardman 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

History

Although the article is fairly lengthy, it actually says almost nothing about the organization, apart from saying that "during the 1950s and 1960s, when it retaliated with economic boycotts and other strong intimidation against black activists, including depriving them of jobs.". Did it even exist after the 1960's? When was it wound up? There must be more information available. Incidentally the Council of Conservative Citizens, founded in 1985 or 1988 is not "the successor organization to the White Citizens' Council". It is the present day equivalent.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And a rewrite

The formation of the Citizens' Councils is well documented. Its demise, not so well. This reflects most of the available descriptions of the organizations. The relatively complete CC collection at Old Miss [1] has works only until 1968. Without venturing into original research, it would be valuable to highlight demise of the CC and transition (or succession or whatever) to Council of Conservative Citizens. This would allow prompt resolution of minor content disputes like this one [2] with David O. Johnson. An event in 2015 blamed on the CC was deleted. An event in 1996 was left in. Without some more detail, there is no reason to believe that there was a CC after 1984, the founding date of the Council of Conservative Citizens. Anyone with me? Rhadow (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A critical reading of the article, its structure, and review of the references show many to be dead or deficient. The article conflates CC and CCC. Bundling the whole article under History doesn't make much sense. That can be fixed easily. The references need to be searched and repaired manually. Rhadow (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens' Councils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804231655/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817070615/http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC16/150629806/presidential-candidates-give-away-cash-from-council-of-conservative-citizens to http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC16/150629806/presidential-candidates-give-away-cash-from-council-of-conservative-citizens
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425022715/http://www.citizenscouncils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=newspaper to http://www.citizenscouncils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=newspaper

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Other Citizens' Councils

It has come to my attention that there are, outside America, other kinds of organisations called Citizens' Councils. (e.g. see https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RD-Note-Austria.pdf ) What's a good process for integrating them into Wikipedia? Would there eventually be a disambiguation page -- and (despite the past controversy over the name) could this one have a disambiguating parenthetic addition? If there is a general consensus on how to proceed I'll relay that to those interested. Thanks Simon Grant (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)