Talk:Edward H. Sebesta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I assert that the UDC are "pro-confederate". They certainly aren't neutral. And no other critics are identified. Therefore, his critics are pro-confederate. Is this not true? -Willmcw 08:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You may personally consider the UDC pro-confederate, implying that they have an agenda, but they don't actively call themselves that nor is it a consensus that they're pushing the agenda you perceive. In fact I believe that most of them see themselves as a simple geneological society or service organization kinda like the DAR. Sebesta OTOH very openly identifies himsef as anti-neo-confederateRangerdude 18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does the same test apply to "controversial"? Anyway, we can describe his critics as coming from the genealogical societies or some such. The point is, they are not widespread critics. The people criticizing him are the same people that he is criticizing. In fact, with only one citation, I'm not sure that the plural "critics" is even merited. Why don't we just say that he criticized the UDC and they criticized him back, and leave out the unnamed critics entirely. -Willmcw 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw - you are rehashing the exact same stuff that I though we already settled on the other discussion. If you don't see why critics should be used in the plural, why don't you take a moment to browse some of his usenet posts including the ones that were linked. He gets hammered constantly for making abusive allegations against people who disagree with him and is considered a kook. That's the simple fact about the guy and it should be noted in a perfectly factual and neutral way in this article. Mentioning it in the context of another group that has condemned him (the UDC) is the best way to address it, as I am not going to go put a bunch of source links to usenet threads in the article text. Quite frankly, will, I'm not sure what your deal is with covering for this guy or others like him who have waded into a very controversial subject matter. One thing that seems consistent though is that you make edits that seem to minimize, downplay, or gloss over material that reflects negatively on any critic of neo-confederates or alleged neo-confederates no matter how factual it may be. Once again that reeks of POV editing practices on your part.Rangerdude 23:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RD, if you want to use the plural "critics", then why don't you cite some of them? If those critics are Usenet users, then we can summarize - "Sebesta has been heavily criticized on Usenet groups such as ..." That will provide users with the info and editors with the validation. Frankly, I don't know that being called a kook on the Usenet is really worthy of mention. Regardless, I object to any sentence in any article on Wikipedia that says "some critics charge". -Willmcw 23:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As noted previously, the plural of Sebesta's critics number in the hundreds, mainly people who have countered his allegations all over usenet. Since Sebesta uses usenet as a major outlet for his anti-confederate activism, referencing his critics there is material to this article. Linking to each and every usenet post however would clutter the article and prove very tedious. Summarizing their criticisms in a simple, reasonably stated, and factual sentence fulfills this role just fine.

Here is a relevent quote from an editor whom I respect:

Again that's fine, but we should use a finer toothed comb in screening what other sources we use and how much credibility we give to the sources we do use. Simply posting any and every accusation where somebody called somebody else a "neoconfederate" is irresponsible and reeks of a variant of McCarthyism. It's the difference between quoting William Rehnquist and quoting Lyndon LaRouche - yes, each of them technically say lots of things about current issues but one is credible and the other's a fringer. Same goes for this, and I don't think we should be making a list based on what some nutcase at Pacifica Radio says without making it VERY clear that it's coming from Pacifica radio and being used in the pejorative. -Rangerdude 06:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) [1]

I think that these words are as true now as when they were first written. If we're going to print accusations from "fringers" and "nutcases", then we need to identify them in some way. Random, anonymous critics on the Usenet simply do not count as serious critics. -Willmcw 00:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why I'm not advocating a dozen links to various usenet threads. It is factual, however, to note that he's widely seen as a kook in the circles he often writes to.Rangerdude 01:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As long as the source of the criticism is properly labelled, then it ceases to be a case of "some critics charge". I've disentangled the sentence to make it flow better. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

It really is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have me listed as Ed Sebesta. And this is a Neo-Confederate attack piece on me. I am leaving it in place so you can see what nonsensical thing it is.

I am published in academic journals such as "Canadian Review of American Studies" at the University of Toronto, "Scottish Affairs" at the University of Edinburgh and "Cultural Geographies" and other academic journals, as well as alternative newpapers. I have a book contract with a university pubisher. My curriculum vitae is online at:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm

I will take a sample of the misrepresentations of me in the following article.

Russell Kirk was a contributor to the notorious "Southern Partisan" and was on the masthead of the publication.

Pat Buchanan was also on the masthead of the "Southern Partisan" and contributed articles to the magazine and was headlined on the cover of "Southern Partisan" as a "Confederate-American."

I never express contempt for Southerners or Southern states.

For Frank Vandiver I suggest the reader read http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/summer01/02CONFED.HTM and Vandiver's threats of race war at http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/sept01/11.HTM.

My theory about Neo-Confederacy and its impact is summarized in my paper at this link. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm

There is a lot of other rubbish in this article but I think if you visit my web page you can find out what I am really doing. Also, my blog http://newtknight.blogspot.com.

THE FOLLOWING IS A NEO-CONFEDERATE HACK OF ME.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.206.126 (talk • contribs) 16:08, December 28, 2005.

[edit] Usenet

I'm sorry for butting in but you just deleted just about every single thing I edited. Please try to be more collaborative and friendly. Usenet isn't reliable for outside information but that's not what I linked to Usenet for at all. All of the things I described with Simpson and Epperson are about events that happened on Usenet itself with Sebesta. All three of them post there all the time. Simpson and Epperson are always criticizing Sebesta, and Sebesta always uses Usenet to do his political campaigning. He is rather (in)famous for all the stuff he does on Usenet. You can even email Sebesta, Epperson, or Simpson and they'll tell ya the same stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crawfishboil (talk • contribs) .

Be that as it may, you used the Usenet as the reference. The Usenet is not reliable, nor do we know that those who claim to be certain people are actually those people. -Will Beback 08:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, where does he call McCain an "neo-confederate"? -Will Beback 08:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Epperson and Simpson post on soc.history.war.us-civil-war This is a moderater-controlled Usenet group (Epperson is one of the moderaters) so you can verify who their postings are. They block impersonaters to the non-moderated ones, and all the posts I gave match the UNIQUE logins and isp's used by Simpson and Epperson on their moderated group.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crawfishboil (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet says, in bold letters:

• Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

The Usenet is not acceptable as a source under any circumstances. -Will Beback 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that link says its only a guideline "which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy." Obviously there must be certain circumstances where linking to Usenet is okay such as articles about Usenet and events that happene there. Come to think of it you keep censoring these facts about Sebesta's activities on Usenet even though you don't dispute that they are true and you haven't shown that they aren't true. If it is true it should not matter where the link comes from. Removing something that's true just because you don't like the link even though you don't dispute it is just censorship - almost like you support Sebesta or something.

There's no way of knowing if they are true or not, which is why the Usenet is not a reliable source. Furthermore, there is the matter of whether they are notable critics, even if it is all true. What does a mathematician on the Usenet have to do with anything? I'm not opposed to including notable critics, but Epperson is no more notable than any other Usenet correspondent. Lastly, the article seems to have a strong "anti-Sebesta" POV already. Piling on criticisms from marginal sources hardly improves the article. -Will Beback 10:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is a way of verifying it. Did you not read what I told you the other day? Epperson and Simpson belong to soc.history.war.us-civil-war - a closed and MODERATED Usenet board. They control who posts to it and block impersonaters. Epperson is also one of the moderators who runs it. And marginal sources? Simpson is a well known Civil War historian. He's even been quoted in some of the same articles as Sebesta. Epperson is a published academic in math, but he's also an amateur historian & he's written a lot on the civil war. Come to think of it both Epperson and Simpson are more credible sources on anything than Sebesta is. At least they both got degrees. Sebesta is just an angry Usenet activist who picked a topic and rants about it. And strong anti-Sebesta? Not! The only criticism of him other than what I added is that the United Daughters of the Confederacy said negative things about him. I added two short quotes from two credible and scholarly credentialed Usenet users who know Sebesta from their encounter of him on Usenet (did you know that Usenet is where Sebesta does most his stuff?). One is a reputable Civil War historian. The other is a credible academic who runs the main moderated Civil War discussion board on Usenet. That board is one Sebesta often tries to dump all his rants on and we have a hell of a time sifting through the trouble he causes. For some reason you keep censoring anything negative about him on false pretenses to give him more credibility than he actually has in real life. So what's your part in all this? Do you know him or something? Back his political agenda?

You are asking me if I am biased, when you have a username which directly attacks the subject? How do we know that Epperson and Simpson "also consider themselves against the neoconfederates"? May we have the source for that please? -Will Beback 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being pedantic and you're avoiding the real issue. What I added about Sebesta's critics is factual and you haven't shown otherwise. Only tried to censor it out of the article based on narrowly construed rules and technicalities. Read the moderated Usenet forums where Simpson and Epperson post. Or email them for that matter. Their position is an openly admitted one. But unlike Sebesta, at least they're credible with academic reputations. And you're right that I openly dislike Sebesta. I've dealt with him on Usenet too and he's a few cards short of a full deck - no, make that many cards. But my bias doesn't change any the truth about any of the stuff I added about him. And I added it without disrupting or removing any of the positive stuff. You're taking away and censoring anything critical about him because you apparently like him. See the difference?

No, I don't "like" Sebesta. I've never dealt with him nor have I read most of his material. The only reason I've ever been involved in this article is that from time to time editors have sought to highlight the negative aspects of the subject in ways that don't conform to Wikipedia policies. As for this current matter, we don't even quote the subject, so quoting his critics at length is excessive. I think we can suffice with summarizing their comments by saying that he is active and controversial on the Usenet. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and quote Sebesta (if you can find him saying something coherent for once.) The two quotes are less than a sentence each. And they're valid criticisms. Simpson points out as a fact that Ed Sebesta has no credentials. Epperson says his behavior is erratic and crazed, which it is. That isn't lengthy...unless you're trying to find an excuse to remove the quotes entirely. Quit being pedantic.

For the Nth time, the Usenet may not be used as a source. -Will Beback 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And that's a recommended guideline - NOT a hard rule. There are some places where Usenet is inherently appropriate such as something about event on Usenet. This is one of them. You don't even dispute that it's true - you just hide behind a guideline as an excuse to delete something critical about your friend. Quit being pedantic.

Show me the exception in the guideline that says it is inherently appropriate. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please explain why there is a "(see race baiting)" aside in the article. -Will Beback 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You're posting more pedantic requests, but still not disputing the truth you wish to cover up. Why do I have to show you a "guideline" that by its own definition is NOT an enforcable rule? If the guideline was a rule you'd have a point. But it isn't. For race baiting see what Simpson said about him: "tactics much like the white supremacists he deplores." Race baiting is the opposite end's equivalent tactic of what the racists do.

So no one has actually accused him directly of "race baiting"? If so, we should certibnaly not include that info. Regarding the Usenet material, it's too long and it isn't reliable. Unless there is a good reason to ignore the guideline, we should follow it. -Will Beback 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being pedantic again. You know as well as anybody that Simpson was accusing your pal of tactics that are collectively known as race baiting. You remind me of the old David Dinkins quote - "I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law." Same thing here. Sebesta has been accused of tactics that are obviously associated with race baiting but you want to censor that out because the exact word isn't used. Try being constructive for a change and quit trying to prop up Sebesta. - Crawfishboil

There's no policyt, or even guideline, against "being pedantic". let's not make up things and add them to the article. If no one accused the subject of "race baiting", then let's not do so ourselves. There are policies againsdt doing that. -Will Beback 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you're even being pedantic about your pedantry, and that is not okay for an encyclopedia because you are using it as an excuse to censor this article in favor of Edward Sebesta. Crap always stinks no matter what you try to call it, so hiding behind pseudopoliteness isn't changing the reality about what you have been doing here. Nobody made anything up either - it's called summarizing the critique of Sebesta that Simpson and others have made. They say his tactics prey on racial issues to stir up division in ways similar to what groups like the KKK also do in the other direction. When the KKK does it to incite hatred of black people because of their race it is called racism. When somebody like Sebesta does it to incite hatred of the south or various confederate things on account of racial divisions its called race baiting. - Crawfishboil

Nonetheless, our job is not to decide what they mmight have said if they got around to saying it. There is nothing in either quote that even mentions race. -Will Beback 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)