Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials

Ways to possibly shorten article

Obviously, this article is way too long, but we've failed to come to a consensus about how to split this up. Therefore, I propose 2 ways to reduce the overall size:

1. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove descriptions
2. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove inline citations

We're approaching 1,000 inline citations, so removing those for topics with their own articles is one way to reduce the References section without taking away too much from the encyclopedia, since readers can simply click on the monument/memorial link for more information. Same with descriptions -- no need to go into detail about memorials with their own articles. Let's leave the descriptions and citations for memorials without articles of their own. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with 1000 cites or discriptions. If we really want to shorten the page I suggest spinning out the states with the longest lists as seperate pages. Put "Main: List of Confederate monummets and memorials in State X" and a couple lines that summarize the material. Like there are 15 schools, 57 statutues and three roads in State X. °Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m the only one who has actually done anything about shortening, by removing, not without some resistance, the material on former monuments, moving it over to the Removal article.

It’s not clear to me just what the problem is. It’s “way too long”? Says who? Where is the line between “long”, “too long”, and “way too long”? And what is the problem that its length presents? That it takes too long to load or save? That we have to be thinking of those with slow Internet connections? That it’s too big a load on the servers?

If you remove material for monuments that have their own article, then this article will in consequence be full primarily of information about the less important monuments. I don’t think that would leave a good article.

If it has to be shortened, then I’d be in favor of splitting it into states. But I don’t have a problem with it as it is. deisenbe (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I am also fine with how it is, but if enough editors insist on shortening then I suggest spinning out larger states, but not all states. Washington State for example does not need its own page. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere (it may be in the Help:MOS) it is recommended that the maximum article length is 100,000 bytes. Obviously 500,000 is a lot larger. I agree shortening is a problem. I would focus this article on statues and monuments and separate roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc. into there own articles. -- User-duck (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That is just a guide and this is a special case. I do not not favor spitting off non-statues. "Functional memorials" became a big thing when money is tight - name a school, road, park etc instead of spending moey on a statue. Spinning out states would be the way to go, starting with the ones with the largest number of items. But it's not needed. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like having the states together. I agree lists are "special cases" but a list this large should be considered for splitting. Spinning off memorials (roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc.) into a separate article may be the way to go; renaming this article to "List of Confederate monuments and monuments". This may be close to a 50/50 split -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I like the concept of "former" monuments and memorials being a separate article. Has moving the items been completed? -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it’s completed. Not as simple a process as I thought it would be (conflicting information I had to resolve, in some cases). deisenbe (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly Studies?

RE the examples given concerning courthouse monuments. According to Robert Seigler's "Guide to Confederate Monuments in South Carolina" (SC Department of Archives and History, 1997) which gives a detailed description of every monument in the state, only a few were ever originally erected on courthouse grounds. Battlefield monuments only began to appear in the 1960s (Gettysburg, 1963). The majority of private monuments were emplaced either in cemeteries or on main streets in downtown areas. The advent of the automobile and changing traffic patterns saw the removal of monuments to courthouses, since they had the only open green spaces left in downtown areas by the mid-twentieth century. The whole idea that monuments were emplaced to loom over the freedmen to remind them of the superiority of white justice is historically wrong.184.20.96.249 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Battlefield monuments were around long before the 1960s. For example the Stephen D. Lee monument (erected June 1909) or the Mississippi Memorial (dedicated on November 13, 1909) at Vicksburg National Military Park. Mojoworker (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Splitting

I am undoing the splitting done today by @Pigsonthewing. It should be discussed here first. deisenbe (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Another way of doing it is to collapse text into clickable boxes. deisenbe (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that would not fix the problem (in fact, it would make it worse, by increasing the page size further). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to discuss edits before making them. Do you have a valid reason for reverting (albeit ham-fistedly) my edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I liked seeing the content forked. Perhaps ideally all monuments would be on one page, but if can't come to a consensus about how to reduce the size of this page, then I believe we have no choice but to fork some content out to separate lists. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As Deisenbe has not replied (though they have been editing elsewhere), I have restored the changes. Further splits are still needed, to reduce the article to a more sensible size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

State by State is the only logical way as that is already how we have the data divided. A short summary with links to the state list and State section of the Removals Page. We don't need to spin out all the states only the biggest (Southern) ones until we get the page down to some target size. I don't want to see a separate page for Washington or Idaho. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your work here. These splits are imperfect (a few broken references, formatting needed, etc) but overall I think this is a very helpful step towards creating a collection of lists of monuments. Finally, the parent list is not completely overwhelming, and I think over time all of these lists will be improved so they can include more details and pictures. Long term, this having separate lists is better than having one list. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; my pleasure. I thought I'd caught all the broken refs, but a bot should mop up any remaining, shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thoughts on splitting Tennessee and Texas, too? Possibly Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutey. The page is still 374,157 bytes long, so several more sections need to be split. I was using "N public spaces" as a yardstick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever are the longest. I've been against splitting but the opportunity to enhance the new pages with mlre images and refs is compelling. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Yes, I agree. We should not see this as a setback, but rather as an opportunity to make each of these lists better. Multiple better lists > one less-than-ideal list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the target size? deisenbe (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Under 100,000 bytes? Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) there's a big intro. Could that be made into a standalone article, or moved eslewhere? 2) Some of the entries seem unnecessarily detailed. For example:

• Confederate Park. It opened in 1907 as Dignan Park, named for a former chairman of the city's Board of Public Works. In 1914, the park was chosen as the location of the annual reunion of the United Confederate Veterans. The UCV chose the park as the location for a new monument to honor the Women of the Southland, and five months after the reunion the city resnamed the park "Confederate Park."

That text is copied from Confederate Park (Jacksonville). Why not delete this duplicated or overlong text and have only minimal entries? Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

To Do

Reminder to fork out the following:

• Arkansas: List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Arkansas
• Florida: List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Florida
• Tennessee: List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Tennessee
• Texas: List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Texas
• Virginia: List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Virginia

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ghaida adel 2000 /13 April She is from the greatest woman in this world. Ghaidaxx (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken references

I wish whoever extracted articles from this would correct the broken references that resulted. For example (not the only example), List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Virginia#References. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Extreme negative bias

This section supports "Unbalanced" tag upon this article, which displays "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

The current article's introduction and main text, while supported by numerous references, is extremely and obviously biased. It is overtly or implicitly asserting that Confederate memorials are entirely evil, that they spring from evil impulses only, and that all should be removed from public spaces. This is not encyclopedic.

I don't mind that the "anti-memorial" side about Confederate memorials is presented, including that the public display of these monuments may have always been hurtful to some, and in recent years the perception and experience of many has changed. But it reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and it seems out of place and simply odd, that an "anti" side is wholly given, without any treatment of more straightforward reasons that were honestly the motivations of many monument-builders, and were honestly the understandings of most/many of the American citizens that have visited them. Namely, the simpler motivation of daughters and sons and so on to memorialize the deaths of their fathers, grandfathers, etc. Recognizing the war as tragic, or not. With or without judgment about the reasons for the American Civil War. Namely the recognition of the actual heroism of many, and of the military brilliance of Robert E. Lee, etc. As is generally understood for memorials constructed by survivors of all the other wars (see Category:Lists of war monuments and memorials).

Even if your own view is entirely "anti-memorial", and your sole reason for participating is to get the "anti-memorial" side across, you can't do that well if you don't present the explicitly positive side, which is an honest and genuine thing. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The type of scorn heaped on these monuments ("monuments to Jim Crow/white supremacy," etc) was never made when they were erected. It's a modern invention. Even African-Americans supported Confederate monuments back in the day. For proof it's a modern invention- check this article as it existed just a few years back and you won't see a thing about Jim Crow or white supremacy. From May 2017- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=781833332 -Topcat777 23:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In support of the link between Confederate monuments and white supremacy the article cites the Smithsonian Magazine, the American Historical Association, and five professors/researchers from very reputable institutions: the University of Chicago, University of North Carolina (two), and Villanova. If you are maintaining they are mistsken then you need to cite some reliable sources that support you.

Of course the "scorn" was never expressed when the monuments were erected, but that's irrelevant. Few were known outside their local community or at most the state. Locals who opposed them kept silent because of fear of lynching or other violence.

I agree that a sentence or two could be added saying that not every person had white supremacy on his/her mind as a motive in erecting these monuments. Propose language.

I hope you'll agree that many if not most of the monuments were pro-Confederacy.deisenbe (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"the article cites the Smithsonian Magazine [Dec 2018], the American Historical Association [Aug 2017], and five professors/researchers from very reputable institutions: the University of Chicago [Sept 2017], University of North Carolina (two) [Aug/Sept 2017], and Villanova [Aug 2017]." Like I said- it's a modern invention. Where are the articles that consistently say these things over the decades? -Topcat777 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Beware of false balance, something explicitly forbidden by the Neutral point of view policy:

• "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."
• Which scholarly source disputes that the memorials were motivated by the Lost Cause of the Confederacy ideology, as propagated by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy? Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Since no reliable sources have been brought forward and no alternative language has been proposed, I've removed the Biased template. deisenbe (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Since nothing has been changed or proposed I've removed the biased template again. If you feel the section is unbalanced then change it using reliable sources. deisenbe (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Until that is done, don't we need to show that it is unbalanced? -Topcat777 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Why the excessive quoting from people and organizations (Smithsonian, AHA, Dailey, Cox, Leloudis, Giesberg, etc) that say basically the same thing over and over? Shouldn't that be trimmed a bit? -Topcat777 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

@Pigsonthewing: (in the case of material I (and others) contributed which was moved to List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Mississippi), and Deisenbe (in this diff for example), plus whoever else did splitting from this article without following WP:CWW – as a result of these moves, I and other editors have lost the attribution we had for our copyrights to the material we added to this article which are now in other articles with the editors who performed the moves claiming the added material as their own. This has created multiple copyright violations which should be fixed ASAP. Some can be fixed in a straightforward manner (as I just did on this page and at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Mississippi), but I'm afraid some of this may be tedious to repair (with many, many notices needing to be added to the talk page header) and so guidance from the WP:COPYPROB noticeboard may be in order. If the material had not been moved piecemeal from this article to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials for example, it would be much easier to repair the attribution. Mojoworker (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

My memory is very imperfect, but all I remember is moving removed monuments from the List (I had nothing to do with the sublists or splitting, I argued unsuccessfully against it), to the Removed list, with a new source documenting the removal. deisenbe (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I'll see if I can explain. In this diff for example, was the text you moved from this article (List of Confederate monuments and memorials) to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials text that you yourself had originally contributed to this article? If so, there's no problem. If not, the text: In 1986, the UDC, who oppose memorials to John Brown, erected at the entrance to the Jefferson County Courthouse a bronze plaque "in honor and memory of the Confederate soldiers of Jefferson County, who served in the War Between the States". The local newspaper, Spirit of Jefferson, and a group of local African Americans called for its removal would require attribution to the original Wikipedia editor who added it to this article, however, if one looks at the history in Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, your edit summary of that addition "Wisconsin: adding West Virginia" provides no attribution to its author or link to this article, so it currently appears that you came up with the wording and added that text to that article as your own copyrighted contribution to Wikipedia. Per WP:ATTREQ: Contributors to Wikipedia are not asked to surrender their copyright to the material they contribute. Instead, they are required to co-license their contributions under the copyleft licenses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Both of these licenses allow reuse and modification, but reserve the right to attribution. It's the missing link in the attribution "chain" from Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials to the original contribution in the article history here that is the problem. Mojoworker (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The text you quote I'm pretty sure (memory again) I wrote originally. No one else mentioned Spirit of Jefferson. But even if I did wrong, it's not practical for me to go back and trace the history of everything I added to that article.

In 5 years and over 30,000 edits I never heard of this policy. How was I supposed to know it existed? WP does not train on such things. It's not in WP The Missing Manual. WP does a pretty poor job of training new editors, at least in my experience.deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: You're making a very serious allegation, without any basis in reality. I suggest you retract, and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I'm not questioning anybody's GF, but from the final sentence of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright: If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. I'll ask at WP:COPYPROB to see if I've misinterpreted the requirements. But, I fixed the one case of WP:CWW concerning the majority of my contributions which had lost attribution. As to fixing the other instances, I'll leave that to other editors. Mojoworker (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any cases in which I have done this. If you know of any, let me know and I'll fix them. deisenbe (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I said nothing about you "questioning editors's good faith". I said that "You're making a very serious allegation, without any basis in reality". You've now done so again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias in the section about the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue in Nashville, TN

The section about private monuments in Tennessee shows a significant bias against the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue. It only mentions anti statue viewpoints and presents a lot of the poster's personal opinion. I suggest that this section be edited to a more neutral viewpoint.