(February 28, 2019) Although conservative talk show host, author and creator of the “Prager University” short-form political YouTube videos may be unaware of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), both have been victimized by Wikipedia. Originally Prager was a donor to Wikipedia because he liked the the potential value an open sourced encyclopedia that might be self-correcting as the public edited articles to eliminate errors. But when he learned that the Wikipedia article about him was dominated by hostile writers he discontinued his financial support.
[Learn more about the Civil War & Reconstruction at My Amazon Author Page]
Specifically, when Prager inquired about a number of lies and misleading statements in the article he learned that Wikipedia allowed such accusations as long the cited source was a “respectable” third party. Thus, any Prager-hostile news organization, author or commentator could make untrue claims about Prager and have them repeated in the Wikipedia. Moreover, he has no power to deny the accusations within the article unless a “respectable” third party can be cited as reporting the denial.
Similarly the Wikipedia labels current members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy as racist. The claim is based upon the separate opinions of historian James McPherson and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In response, the Daughters posted the following “Reaffirmation of Objectives” on the front page of their website:
[The UDC] will not associate with any individual, group or organization identified as being militant, unpatriotic, racist or subversive to the United States of America and its Flag.
Attempts to have the denial included in the Wikipedia have been rejected. Thus, today’s Daughters are denied the simple right of a falsely accused to at least say “not guilty.” Consequently, readers might construe the absence of a UDC denial to wrongly imply their agreement with the accusation.
Contrastingly, the Wikipedia articles on Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer quote both men as denying they are white supremacists. But Taylor is quoted as readily admitting he is a “white advocate” and Spencer as wanting America to become a “white ethnostate.” In contrast, the UDC’s denial is unqualified. Today’s Daughters have no desire for a “white ethnostate” nor are they advocates for any race: white, black or other.
The Wikipedia editors explain that they will not allow the UDC’s denial to be included because it has not been reported by a “respected” third party. Yet, it cannot be the fault of the UDC that “respected” news organizations have failed to report it because it has been prominently displayed on the front page of the UDC website continuously for eighteen months.
In truth, the failure of “respected” writers to pick up the statement reveals their own bias and unworthiness to be characterized as “respected.” Similarly, the failure of the Wikipedia to include it is censorship that reveals a wicked agenda-driven bias.
Civil War Chat 
Can you point me to some of the quotes on Texas, South Carolina, and the Confederacy from Wikiquote?
Also, since you brought up Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute do you support or oppose them. I doubt you would be attracted to the alt-right just like me you know.
Of course I do not approve of Taylor or Spencer. Nobody’s opportunities should be restricted base upon the color of their skin.
As for the “quotes” about South Carolina at Wikiquote, note that those sourced from “Crossroads” are sourced from a blog. Moreover, at least some of the “Crossroads” quotes are merely taken from readers of the blog.
Especially with Wikiquote’s pages of Texas, South Carolina, and the Confederacy they refuse to include any opinions contrary to what they put.
Thanks for pointing out Wikiquote. I had no idea that it was that bad. I read the quotes about Texas and South Carolina.
Some are taken from people who merely make comments on blogs. That’s worse that taking quotes from the comments section of online newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Agree with you Phil! Bad that Wikipedia has no basis for calling the UDC racist and arbitrarily requires a “respectable third party” to also say that they aren’t racist when there is no basis to call them racist in the first place.
The Wikipedia quotes historical statements by UDC members that were undeniably racist, especially by today’s standards. But that does not mean that today’s member are racist. The Wikipedia is wrong to smear them as such.
For example, I can find historical quotes from leading Democratic politicians that were racist, but I’m certain that the Wikipedia would never permit an article about the Party that characterizes its present members as racist. Consider, for example, the Alabama Governor George Wallace as a Democrat when he spoke at his 1963 inaugural saying :segregation then, segregation now, and segregation for ever.”
Excellent post, Sir. The hypocrisy and double standards of the left leaves much to be desired in regards to fairness.
If not for double standards the Wikipedia would have no standards.
Maybe if you get an article published in a decent magazine you could refute it via wikipedia. I fear then they would only move the goal posts in the end, but the UDC deserves better. Watching the Left pummel an organization that is low on funds and members is proof that bullying is not a right vs. left phenomena.
The definition of a “respected” magazine needs to be re-examined. The Washington Post, for example, is hugely guilty of false and reporting. The same is true for Civil War publications that were previously respectable.
Today we have six multi-national corporations which control 90% of what Americans read, see and hear and this is quickly extending their tentacles to the internet as well.
I dislike the term “fake” news, but more and more they censor, distort or outright lie about people and events to manipulate public opinion. Nor is this simply a “left-right” issue, for just before the electronic media deleted 800 Progressive news and opinion websites weeks before the 2018 elections, they first went after Alec Jones and made him a “non-person” on the internet to see if they could get away with muzzling the alternative media. I don’t like Jones, but the whole idea of the First Amendment is not about only letting people you agree with be allowed to have their say, but EVERYONE regardless of the political beliefs–which is fundamental to a functioning Democracy. Oligarchies generally hate free speech and try to control what people read and see as much as possible. Guess in which direction the US is currently heading.
Just as Neo-Conservatism bears no relation to genuine Conservatism, neither does Neo-Liberalism have any real relationship to Liberalism as it was practiced by FDR and JFK, but these Corporatists have become expert at expropriating the labels and trappings of existing movements or groups and making people think they are something they are not. This control of the media extends from something as seemingly innocuous as censoring negative fan reactions to the latest Marvel movie to feeding the American public a completely false picture of what is transpiring in Venezuela as a prelude to yet another regime change war (witness how well that went in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Syria), to setting one ethnic, religious or social group against another with staged inflammatory incidents.
The history of the Civil War, I believe, is crucial to understanding everything that has transpired since then in America and as many serious students of the war know, the truth about what happened is often complex and not reducible to simple stereotypes–the hate campaigns against ex Confederate promoters of Civil Rights such as Nathan Bedford Forrest and General Beauregard being prime examples of this.
As another example of how our history has been “redacted”, it is only in recent years that I have come to learn how racist Woodrow Wilson–still the darling of Progressives– truly was, as well as the overt and extensive suppression of political dissent which occurred under his rule (just read the Espionage Act of 1917 sometime to learn how easy you can be tossed in jail). The politician who campaigned for re-election on the slogan “He kept you out of war” dragged America into a war we had no business joining, and in consequence of which all the evils of the 20th Century ensued.
Back to the original point, Wikileaks censorship of facts by its inner clique of administrators is not surprising. It has also been criticized for allowing PR fluff pieces promoting certain politicians and other powerful individuals to be published without any negative facts allowed in to balance the article– the same persons or corporations who also donate large sums of money to the “non-profit” organization. Yes, Wikileaks is also part of the problem and far from objective.