This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

WP:NOCONFED

This page in a nutshell: Confederate or neo-Confederate symbols and viewpoints are unacceptable in Wikipedia.

Members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement marching, carrying a neo-Confederate flag among others. Knoxville, Tennessee, 14 August 2010.

Neo-Confederates are groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy) and its actions during the American Civil War in a positive light.

The Confederacy was formed by eleven slave-holding, planter-dominated U.S. states (nicknamed Dixie) that seceded from the United States in 1860 and 1861, in the aftermath of the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. The secession primarily occurred over the issue of slavery, and directly resulted in the Civil War. Claims that the secession had some other fundamental cause (or cornerstone) than slavery are a historical whitewash.

Various neo-Confederate organizations are designated as hate groups by the SPLC, while the Confederate battle flag is designated as a hate symbol by the ADL.

Neo-Confederate beliefs[edit]

The main (but not only) aspects of the neo-Confederate worldview are:

They exalt (glorify, idealize and even sanctify) the Confederate political and military leadership, personified by Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
They often call the American Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression", implying that the United States (the Union) started a war of aggression against the Confederacy.^[a]
They claim that the conclusion of the Civil War signaled the start of the "Yankee occupation of the Confederacy" by the United States/Union and its military, personified by "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" and opposed by the "Redeemers". Some neo-Confederates claim that the "occupation" continues to the present day. The actual U.S. Army control in the South, along with the Reconstruction era, ended with the Compromise of 1877.
They interpret states' rights by accepting the failed theory of nullification, and continue to advocate the secession of the former Confederate States.^[b]
They espouse nostalgia for the Old South/Antebellum South, typically romanticizing and praising the "culture of honor and chivalry" of the period, as well as socially conservative ("traditional") gender roles.
They claim to be protecting culture and heritage of the Southern United States and White Southerners (supposedly endangered by the values of the New South), while essentially ignoring Black Southerners and African-American culture.
They oppose removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, and support modern display of the Confederate battle flag.
They typically believe in the white genocide conspiracy theory and the Great Replacement theory, and explain white demographic decline by invoking those theories.

Neo-Confederates and Wikipedia[edit]

In Wikipedia, neo-Confederate editors overtly display symbols of the Confederacy, typically portraying it as the "noble Lost Cause". They push pro-Confederate POV in editing and discussions. The Wikipedia community should have no place for neo-Confederates, for the same reasons that there is no place for Nazis or neo-Nazis. Most of what is said in the No Nazis and No racists essays is directly applicable also to neo-Confederates. The display of Confederate symbols in Wikipedia, like the display of Nazi symbols such as the swastika, is incompatible with the core Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, because it asserts a racist ideology of white supremacy.

Confederate symbols in Wikipedia should be treated in the same manner as Nazi symbols. They should be condemned and rejected by the community. They should be kept only for use in related articles, and used for educational purposes only. There is no more place in Wikipedia for neo-Confederate views than for neo-Nazi views.

Neo-Confederates (and other inappropriate discriminatory groups) are disruptive to the community, and not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia; they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki.

Neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis[edit]

Two great atrocities of modern European history were the Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust. Neo-Confederates are denying or whitewashing the horror of the Atlantic slave trade and of Western Hemisphere slavery, just as neo-Nazis are denying or whitewashing the horror of the Holocaust.

There are many similarities between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany in terms of their ideological foundations as racist ethnostates and their war aims, as well as neo-Confederate and neo-Nazi narratives of the Lost Cause and the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, respectively. We should not honor those defeated causes in any way.

Message to the readers[edit]

After you read this essay in full, please feel free to express your thoughts in the Endorsement proposal section of the talk page.

Notes[edit]

^ This revisionist narrative from the Jim Crow era completely disregards the fact that the Confederacy started the war by initiating combat at Fort Sumter.^[1]
^ The theory of nullification is essentially rejected under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,^[2] while any secession would be unconstitutional and an open defiance of the 1869 Texas v. White ruling of the United States Supreme Court.^[3]

References[edit]

^ James M. McPherson (January 19, 1989). "The War of Southern Aggression". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on March 17, 2016. Retrieved October 26, 2022. [T]he South took the initiative by seceding in defiance of an election of a president by a constitutional majority. Never mind that the Confederacy started the war by firing on the American flag.
^ "Supremacy Clause". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved June 4, 2023.
^ "Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 {1868}". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved October 26, 2022.

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard