Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bumpusmills1 (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 13 December 2005 (The New SCV is killing Southern Heritage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is this external link really necessary in the article? I don't exactly see how relevant that is to the content of the article. The person quoted was not part of the national organization, but rather a state branch of SCV. One can find incendiary remarks from members of any group, but that doesn't mean that they should be given an external link on their wiki page unless it somehow deals with or interferes with official organizational policy. His comment was not part of SCV policy. Is there any objection to removing this? --BWD 03:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Morris is not "a member", he is the division officer of Ohio as well as commander of a camp. Further, the message was sent to an SCV mailing list, so it's not as if it was just an off-hand remark to some drinking buddies. Has the national SCV repudiated his views? Fired him? Rather than a bare external link, it'd be better to discuss it in the text, so that we can explain that Morris was a state division commander rather than the national staff. -Willmcw 10:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the context of the link. There's nothing in the main article about this individual. It's just a blind link at the bottom of the page. Although I'm not a member of SCV, I do know a couple of members and I know enough about the organization to know that they are not filled with racist bigots. Sure, there are fundamentalist idiots in any organization you go to; SCV is no exception. However, that doesn't mean that this wiki entry deserves a blind link at the bottom of it discussing some random bigot. His comments are not representative of SCV, and I wouldn't know if SCV has repudiated these remarks.

The blind link at the bottom smacks of trying to push an agenda. If it's there to show racism in the organization, why not start a new section explaining this racism? Why put a random link to some website at the end of the article? It needs more explanation and justification, in my opinion. Putting a new section in the entry explaining the percieved racism in the organization would give people here a chance to refute it or at least make it balanced. An external link doesn't do that.

I say either remove it or give it context. But what do I know? I'm new to wikipedia. --BWD 10:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should have context. I'll work up a sentence or two. There have been reports of a shift in the SCV over the past couple of years, depicted even as a battle for the group's soul. A chunk of poorly written, POV, and unsourced material covering that change was properly removed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sources availabe for a properly written, NPOV, and sourced paragraph on internal struggles within the SCV. It's on my to-do list. If anyone has reliable (i.e. newspapers, etc) sources for the SCV please add links. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The New SCV is killing Southern Heritage

It is important to realize that the movers and shakers in "The New SCV" are ruining any chances of the organization ever being taken seriously again. It has had a long history of protecting the graves and sites of the WBTS. It has had a long history of sharing, not forcing, the heritage of those who fought for the Confederacy. I personally had ancestors who fought on both sides and they were pawns just like our troops are today over in Iraq and elsewhere on Mother Earth. My Confederate ancestors fought in the Eastern Theater under Stonewall Jackson, the Western Theater under Joe Johnston & Bedford Forrest, and in Indian Territory under Stand Watie. My Union ancestors fought under McClelland and Lew Wallace.

The New SCV does not represent my ancestors nor me. Frankly, my ancestors would be ashamed at the way they're acting. In those days a mans honor and his good word meant everything. Without good ethics and integrity a man was nothing.