Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials

Article name change? (scope change)

This really should be a List of public symbols of the Confederate States of America

• monuments and statues
• flags
• holidays and other observances
• the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works.

Interesting map of schools named for Confederate leaders http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/public-schools-racist-confederate-names/ Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems there should be some kind of inclusion/exclusion criteria. For example, yesterday there were no monuments listed for Indiana, and now there are 4. However, 3 of those are simply burial sites, or memorials to confederate prisoners of war who died in Indiana whose graves can't be identified. The SPLC has a list of over 1500 confederate symbols, but explains it excluded over 2500 specifically because they were burial sites, etc. https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy#findings It only includes the one Indiana site not marking a burial site Corydon, Indiana User Jtownsle 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtownsle (talk • contribs)

The list-article has long been about physical monuments and memorials, i.e. concrete and stone objects, and it has not covered less tangible memorials like schools named after a Confederate general. One could argue that a book or biography or poem or speech was a memorial, but I hope we will not attempt to list those. I prefer that this list stick with the tangible, physical monuments and memorials and I plan to edit the lede to remove recent changes to cover school names and the like. This list-article can certainly link to any List of schools named after Robert E. Lee or whatever, but let's not too lightly change the focus.

Please consider my removal of schools and park names as following wp:BRD (such stuff was boldly added, I am removing it, and we can discuss it here). --doncram 21:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully affirm limiting the page to "physical monuments and memorials" as you describe them (ie, not schools, roads, etc). However, I'm pointing to the distinction that SPLC makes (referenced above)--eg, the Lee statue celebrating this confederate general, vs. objects placed to memorialize unnamed soldiers. I reference Indiana again (since that's where I live)--on the page now (23:50 16 Aug, 2017) there are three such listings, two for Indianapolis and one for Terre Haute. They are not 'confederate monuments' as such, but they are memorials to unnamed confederate soldiers who died as prisoners of war in a local camp, or whose graves could not be identified. SPLC does not categorize these as Confederate monuments. It seems reasonable not to do so here either--ie, to delete the Indianapolis and Terre Haute memorials from Indiana, and any other such memorials from other states. User Jtownsle 23:54, 16 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtownsle (talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree. Schools, parks etc are discussed in the sources beside the statues and are arguably more noticable because people use a school name much more than a statue name. Now if you wanted to split out Places named for Confederate States of America people that might make some sense but just removing the data is unwise. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am willing/happy to help create a Places named for Confederate States of America people list-article or the like, although I don't presume to say how that should be organized (just schools state-by-state, then other buildings state-by-state, then parks, or however. And I am not 100 percent on board with the notability of such, but probably would go along. But if someone will take on the organization of such, I specifically would be willing to copy every item which I just removed from this list-article over into a relevant new list-article. However, here I want to protect the integrity of a good list-article that has long existed, similar to other list-articles about historic places. Note I opened the corresponding list-article about monuments and memorials devoted to the Union side of things. I don't think that every school named for Ulysses Grant needs to be added to that. This here was getting to be too grab-baggy, IMHO, and to be operating like a "To Do list" rather than as an encyclopedic list, which someone else said in a comment elsewhere on this page. --doncram 22:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your removals go against many editor's additions and need consensus. One editor removing things vs many editors adding suggests there is no consensus for the removals.

Memorials to Union Generals is a false equivalency - in line with Trump's comments about both sides that have spurred outrage across the US. No one finds a school named after General Grant to be racist or problematic or even particularly noteworthyLegacypac (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How dare you. Please don't make assumptions about my political beliefs or other personal matters. As a point of fact, I created this list of Confederate memorials in this edit in 2010, and I created List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials in this edit in June 2017 in response to a suggestion at wt:NRHP, where NRHP editors were noting interest in the Wikipedia articles about monuments in New Orleans. There was no connection to Trump as far as I know. I have just gone over the threshold of creating 10,000 articles, almost all about historic places, mostly National Register-listed places, including a number about memorials. I didn't make any damn false equivalency, and you have no right to suggest that I am racist or whatever you trying to get at. --doncram 22:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I never said you were a racist! I'm discussing the notability of the topics. Confederate based names and statutes is obviously a widely discussed notable topic because many people find it connects to racism. Union based names are not a notable topic. Schools named after Grant are best presemted on Grant's page in a section of stuff named for him. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your saying that, which feels like a change.

The topic of schools named after Confederate leaders can be a valid topic, but not necessarily for this list article, which has been titled this way since 2015, and which since 2010 has been about Confederate monuments. Note the topic of the list article is probably ALL confederate monuments and memorials, not just ones in public spaces. The recent focus and controversy is about "publicly supported" ones, e.g. ones in courthouse squares whose maintenance is funded by local taxes, etc. This article can equally be about notable monuments in private cemeteries. This article was not created as a non-encyclopedic "To do list", and should not be converted to that, in my opinion. There is an encyclopedic role for this article, in serving the ongoing public debate/controversy, but this should be by our continuing to provide valid encyclopedic type information and by avoiding seeming to be captured for some political end in any way. Covering the controversy is properly done in other articles, such as the new one about removals of Confederate monuments. --doncram 23:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, dude. That's uncalled for. That is vandalism. Do you know how long I spent adding all those listings? If you're gonna make massive changes like that, at least have the courtesy to copy and paste what you removed on the talk page. At any rate, you're wrong. This is a list of "monuments and memorials." A memorial absolutely includes schools, parks, buildings etc. Fluous (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fluous and other editors. Schools, roads, etc should be included and there is no consensus on removal of them from this list.Tomtom284 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, this is a mess. Can people please help restore what Doncram vandalized? Fluous (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was reverted by an editor with edit summary calling my removals "vandalism", which is obviously false. I see there seems to be a temporary local consensus, perhaps, to include the parks and schools, but that is against the long-term consensus of the article editors, as reflected in the article's name. I won't change it back now, however I feel I am strongly within wp:BRD process and that the additions are bold and inappropriate. I have posted a request now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Confederate monuments list to get more attention here. I hope that an earlier version will be restored and that a proper discussion with more participants will take place here; the current mish-mash is not comprehensive and is not appropriate in my view. I may not participate much more here for a while, however. I would like to hear what others think, and I would especially welcome more substantial thoughts than some just expressed above. --doncram 00:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Response:

1. This article was never a comprehensive, complete list of Confederate monuments. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I personally added at least of plurality of monuments myself, just in the last few days. This list was always incomplete. And now, given the events in Charlottesville, with more editors devoting attention to it, the article is becoming more complete.
2. It appears that you're having some kind of definitional problem. That's fine, but what is your argument? "Monuments and memorials" means what, exactly? Does it mean monuments, statues, sculptures, plaques, or grave markers only? Why isn't a road name a memorial? Today in the news, that seems to be how the word is being used. From the article: “Memorializing Confederate generals [with road names] has no place in 2017.” Along the same lines, why isn't a park a "memorial?" From wikipedia: "Popular forms of memorials include landmark objects or art objects such as sculptures, statues or fountains, and even entire parks." It's pretty clear that you're wrong; the definition of "memorial" is broad.
3. It's also pretty clear that the Confederacy has been memorialized in ways other than statues. Say if we did limit the scope of the article (and its name) to monuments only. How do you propose to handle all those other ways the Confederacy has been memorialized? "List of Schools... List of Parks.... List of Municipalities... that memorialize the Confederacy?" With a new article for each category of memorial? Why? Why is that solution (or others) superior to the status quo: having all that information in one place for each (and every) state? Explain. Fluous (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty clear (in my mind) that schools and parks are memorials when named after a particular person. Roads too. I think separating them on our list is good process. I also think that almost any changes to the article beyond adding obvious examples need to be discussed here. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

roads, parks, schools, inhabited places, military bases named for dead people = memorials in my thinking. Even more so than hunks of bronze or stone because people use school, military base, county and road names on their paperwork and addresses etc. I found and added a transit station, which sure seems to fit too. I disagree with spliting off these. Yes I get the article was more narrowly focussed before but also very incomplete. We need to look at what the sources are calling memorials to confederates, which it more then metal and rocks. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rename? (Part 2)

The current article title is confusing to me: "monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America" implies that these were monuments of the CSA, while CSA ceased to exist following the end of the Civil War. Most all of these were established in the 20th century. Does anyone has the same issue?

As an alternative, I would support List of public symbols of the Confederacy; schools are not "memorials", for example. "Public symbols" is sufficiently broad to deal with all instances of the commemoration of the Confederacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Response:

1. I think "of" is fine. It's succinct enough, and if readers have a problem, then the lede clears up any misconceptions. There's only so much you can do with a title, you know?
2. The definition of memorial is broad. A school name (or road name) definitely does memorialize whoever it's named for. That's the whole point of naming it after someone: to commemorate them. To preserve their memory. And that's exactly how it's used. Quote from a recent news article: “Memorializing Confederate generals [with road names] has no place in 2017.” Along the same lines, a park name is also a "memorial." From the wikipedia entry for "memorial": "Popular forms of memorials include landmark objects or art objects such as sculptures, statues or fountains, and even entire parks."
3. At any rate, I support renaming the article: List of public symbols of the Confederacy. There's no reason why "monuments" should take precedence when the scope of public memorials is so overwhelmingly broad. The efforts to commemorate these people were much, much broader than statues and obelisks. The Confederacy was (and still is) honored publicly in so many ways. The article title should more clearly reflect that.
4. Say we did rename the article. How do we deal with private symbols of the Confederacy? There's quite a few monuments and such on private land. I think we can find a way to deal with them, but I don't have any answers right now. List of private symbols of the Confederacy? I don't know. At any rate, private symbols of the Confederacy are clearly of secondary importance as encyclopedic knowledge. People are most interested in public symbols. That's what's driving all the removals of public symbols of the Confederacy in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Private symbols are still important, but we should continue to prioritize public symbols of the Confederacy in any decisions we make here. Fluous (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

List of memorials to the Confederate States of America? I don't know. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree this really needs to be renamed IF so many want to insist on adding things that are not Memorials or Monuments. No schools or military bases are not memorials. Even going by wikipedia given defintions of Memorial and of Monument. The focus of a school has nothing to do with confederacy, the focus is teach kids. Yes it might be named in honor of, but that does not make it a memorial. Even using the most loose definition a memorial is an object which was designed to preserve the memory, might be able to see inclusion of a school that was specifically built with this intent in mind. However this will lead to issues of those that were renamed later being left off the list and confusion. This will also disclude all military bases. A monument is actually redudant, since that is a type of memorial.

I do however like to be able to find all these in one place and so do like Bases, Schools, etc being on this page, just that it needs changed to reflect it encomposses more. Symbols is much more inclusive as will even includes words (such as naming of things). Even the most often sourced here of SPLC does not list schools, bases or roads for that matter as a monument or memorial. List of public symbols of the Confederate States of America
List of symbols of the Confederate States of America
Depends on if want to disclude private or not on which one to use. Sorry but this just bugs me when people keep insisting on diluting the original definitions of things, and an encyclopedia should be accurate. As a side note someone mentioned SPLC does not list unnamed memorials as confederate ones, which is not true. They may have simply missed those mentioned above. But they do list several others. One example 'Unknown Confederate Dead Monument - Perryville - KY 1862' ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Following the end of WWl, when the USA started into her memorial phase, there was large and heated argument as to whether memorials should be purely symbolic, such as statues, or utilitarian such as parks, auditoriums, stadiums and schools. So there was no doubt that Veteran’s Memorial Stadium and Pershing High School and the many other utilitarian projects were memorials. The same is true about Civil War memorials, though the debate was not as fierce. In fact I would venture a guess that the utilitarian memorials named after Civil War persons or events were mostly executed after WWI. These items definitely belong in this article. Put another way, schools and military bases are memorials. Carptrash (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree and do think all the items should be on this page, just disagree with using term memorials. Notice that the SPLC which was started and is run by solicitors, whom knows the importance of using correct terminology, actually avoids using term memorial and instead uses symbols and/or monument (which is a type of memorial). As stated, the usage of memorial(s) on any wikipedia page should match the definition given on the Memorial page. So if this page is going to use all these other items to be labeled (imho incorrectly) as memorials, than that page needs to be changed to coincide with this and any other wikipedia pages being used to label memorials. Since as you state there has been such controversery of what the definition should be, imho it would just be easier to do like SPLC has done and simply avoid using it and using a more correct word here. There is a difference between 'Memorialize' and 'Memorial'. The act of naming (an adverb / verb) something would be memorializing, but that does not make that something a memorial. Let me use a coin for example:

The US decides to do limited commemorative for civil war on back of a quarter. Picking a dozen people from both sides to emboss bust of on the back. That is indeed memorializing the civil war in honour and in memory of that event. However, it does not make that quarter a memorial itself. It is a coin.

Now if you and others still disagree with my example, and think that coin is a memorial, we will just have to agree to disagree. HOWEVER, than the Memorial wikipedia page needs to be changed so as to coincide with this pages usage of that term, because as it stands now, that definition conflicts with this ones. Not counting the minor issue of the Monument redundancy. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall items

An editor added, in the Washington D.C. section:

Extended content

In the National Statuary Hall Collection, in the United States Capitol, each state has provided statues of two citizens that the state wants to honor. The following Confederate figures are among them, many in Confederate Army uniforms: Joseph Wheeler (Alabama) Edmund Kirby Smith (Florida) (Florida plans to replace this statue, but as of 2017 a replacement figure has not been chosen.) Alexander Stephens (Georgia) Jefferson Davis (Mississippi) James Z. George (Mississippi) Zebulon Baird Vance (North Carolina) Wade Hampton III (South Carolina) Robert E. Lee (Virginia) The following died before the Civil War, but were well known for their strong support of slavery: John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) Both appeared on Confederate postage stamps, and many counties, towns, and streets have been named for each.

This got deleted accidentally in other big edits, and I went to restore this addition, but I hesitate. This seems unsourced, seems like verging on original research, seems off-topic to subject of Confederate monuments and memorials. Up to this point I think all the monuments and memorials have been out of doors, and it seems like adding any and all statues of any Confederate leader is a change. These are indeed likely to be controversial, and worth someone else listing them and providing them as focus for potential changes, but I don't think it is encyclopedia-wise proper to include them here. Specifically, it is quite debatable that statues of persons who died before the American Civil War can be considered Confederate monuments. --doncram 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article National Statuary Hall Collection includes a complete list with a photo and every person depicted has an article. There is a confederate section that has existed for a long time. I don't think indoors vs outdoors matters much. Millions of people go by these statues every year. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a serious mistake to include John C. Calhounand Andrew Jackson and anyone else who was a slave owner or advocated slave ownership in this discussion because this article is not about slaves or the institution of slavery. It is very current to view all these monuments and memorials to be monuments and memorials to the institution of slavery and they were not. They are remembrances of folks who fought and died for a variety of causes, slavery being just one of them. Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the linked names with red links to specific monuments and works of art, to encourage editors to create new articles. I don't think the numerous duplicate links to names of people throughout the article are particularly helpful, and I created a couple new stubs myself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

yes there are too many wikilinks here to obvious stuff. Please Don't link people's names to pages about a statue that is a WP:SURPRISE. See comments below. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and am 'surprised' when I click on a link expecting to be taken to an article about a monument only to find an article about a person. This is a list of monuments, after all, not a list of people. But that's discussed further below... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Tampa Monument

I just wanted to point out that the city of Tampa has raised enough money to relocate the monument in front of the Hillsborough County Courthouse. The Florida Daughters of the Confederacy will be relocating it to a cemetery. Anyone, who is monitoring the Florida section of this page may want to edit as new information comes in?? AppaAliApsa (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I updated the listing with a cite to an article that covers the fundraising and the subsequent lawsuit filed to prevent the statue's relocation. Mcowley (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Highways

There are two national scale highways. Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway. These pages should be expanded with state by state listing of markers. Then link once to the highway page from each state road section. The designations don't fit into city by city listings very well because highways connect cities and states. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure

what the value of this chart is to the list.

Chart showing the number of Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography by year. Most of these were established either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension.

Carptrash (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It shows when the monuments etc were erected? What do you mean "what the value is"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a nice quick visual historical contextualization. The monuments didn't go up immediately after the South lost, and they didn't go up at random times evenly afterwards. This is a large page with a lot of monuments listed--this gives the reader a quick way to see the time frames of construction. Jtownsle (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think it has a rather not-so-subtle political message? The chart is not about when the monuments were erected, it is about why they were erected. Carptrash (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I also find this illustration interesting and relevant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please go to the wikipedia article on Jim Crow laws and see if there is anything in it that suggests that the period 1900 to 1920, the peak of the monument years and the period labeled Jim Crow Era on the chart is any different from when ever Reconstruction Ended until the Jim Crow Era ended in the mid-1950s. I am suggesting that the authors of this just labeled the peak of the monument era and "Jim row era for reasons of their own. Carptrash (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash - well, it is obviously about WHEN the monuments were erected since that is exactly what it shows. Is it also about the "why"? Possibly, but that takes inference from the reader. To the extent that Jim Crow and Civil Rights are mentioned that's actually in the source (and there are several sources that note this peculiarity).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

According to that article the Jim Crow era started in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson). So about right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the end of the Reconstruction Era is usually dated to 1877 and there was no spike in monument construction at this time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case the chart needs reference. Right? Carptrash (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The South had no money to build much of anything for decades after the war. The Confederate money was worthless. The economy was in ruins. The Union Army left much of the infrastructure in ruins. They destroyed bridges, railroads, courthouses, and even whole cities. The Union burned a lot of courthouses, along with them birth, death, and marriage records, and land and tax records. In the last 3 years or so I've visited a lot of historical sites in Georgia, mostly for the NRHP project. Very little was built in the south from 1860-1895, and very little between 1895 and the early 20th century. They didn't have the money. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is again original research territory but for what it's worth, the Southern economy's growth lagged far behind the rest of the country well into the 1920's (it started growing, possibly because of concentrated efforts at eradication of prevalent diseases such as malaria and hookworm) and didn't really start catching up until the 50's/60's (air conditioning actually played a big role). And it wasn't actually the lack of infrastructure - most of the capital stock destroyed in the war was rebuild within something like ten years (I'm doing this from memory so I might be off by a couple years - the point is, it was rebuild quickly). The economic problem for the South in the post war era was not lack of infrastructure, although that was low (it was low before the war too) but rather low labor productivity (in good part due to the share cropping system, also political reasons and Jim Crow itself caused a lot of economic damage). I'd question the contention that "Very little was built in the south from 1860-1895". For our purposes, we'd need sources here and this would probably better fit in a different article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can go through the list of buildings on the state NRHP and see when they were built and break it down by year or decade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

1.The land was in ruins

2.Confederate money was worthless

3.Banks were ruined

4.No law or authority

5.The south's transportation system was in complete disorder.

6.Loss of enslaved workers,worth two billion dollars.

7.Government at all levels, had disappeared Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In the first few years after the war? Sure. Five, ten years out? Not really (except for #6 but I'm not sure how that's relevant).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, correlation is not the same thing as causation!!! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not, but when you see correlation you wonder if there's causation. It's sort of the first step in establishing causation. There are more steps after that of course but correlation can be of interest in itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It is called the post hoc fallicy. And it is original synethesis to say that it was because of Jim Crow laws. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be if the graph explicitly said it was causation. But it doesn't. And I think you mean original research. However, it would be OR only if synthesized that conclusion myself. But I didn't. The source did. And the sources are permitted to do original research and synthesis. In fact, that's what they're for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's got one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh now I see, "Volunteer Marek, own work" Is that good enough? Carptrash (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that just means I entered the numbers into an Excel spread sheet and pressed the "Insert Graph" button (which is what makes this chart free to use on Wikipedia - not copyrighted). The source for the data is given in the chart.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the graph a short time ago and I rather agree with Carptrash, it seems like editorializing. 1911 has the greatest number of monuments built and that happens to be the 50th anniversary of the Civil War. The graph should also have "Semi-Centennial of the Civil War at the 1911-1915 mark. Dubyavee (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So you added the "Jim Crow Era" and "Civil Rights Era" (or something like that,) tags? Well how about you remove them. I agree that the graph is a good way to show when the various types of monuments were erected, I find the labeling to be commentary that is not needed. This is a list. Carptrash (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that part's mentioned in the sources too [2] [3] [4] [5] (and more).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The schools and Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. The chart shows new schools in gray. Considering schools take several years to plan and name, pretty clear there is correlation between the Brown decision and naming schools after confederates. 90 years after the Civil War and a whole lot of people got the idea to name the neighborhood school Robert E Lee. This is exactly the mind of sourced data the article needs to present to compliment all the raw data on the list. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay so when do you think/feel that the monuments to the Union Cause were erected? When do you believe that the schools named after Lincoln and Grant and Sherman and Sheridan and who knows who else were done? I'm pretty sure it was not in the 1950 and 60s Civil Rights era, but what if a graph of those monuments looks just like the CSA graph without that bump?? I think it will peak a little before the 1910 or so that we see here, but who knows? The people who put this graph, or put the statistics out, did it, (opinion) with out the perfect control group they have at their disposal, the Union monuments. So I am going to start an article (probably not tonight) called List of monuments and memorials to the Union cause, unless someone can come up with a better title because I am not thrilled with this one. But hey, we can always do a redirect if we need to. Carptrash (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If you got the info I'd be interested to see it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Carptrash List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials is calling your name. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

]]@Carptrash: @Volunteer Marek: That information absolutely is relevant. There are about 5,000 sources making the connection that the two greatest waves of confederacy-honoring coincided with (1) the rise of the KKK and the mass-disenfranchisement of black people with Jim Crow laws and (2) the civil rights era. Just read the news. If you want more thorough sourcing, then that won't be a problem. Fluous (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Just read the news. " It gets said over and over and over again. Wikipedia is NOT the news. The KKK went dormant in the 1870s until its second wave. Here is what wikip[edia says about that. "The second group was founded in 1915 and it flourished nationwide in the early and mid-1920s, particularly in urban areas of the Midwest and West." The Midwest & the West, not the South where the monuments were going up. Also notice the date 1915. This is after the peak of the monument building. That was already in decline by then, and as the KKK gets more powerful we are seeing less and less monuments. The problem as I see it is that you all want this to be true, hell, I'd like it to be true but that don't make it so. Carptrash (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's getting attention in the news for obvious reasons right now but that news is digging into some old archival sources. As for the KKK - first, the graph does not address the geographic distribution of these monuments. Some of them may very well have been build in the Midwest and the West where the "second KKK" flourished. From the info itself, we can't tell. Second, I think (and the sources tend to emphasize this as well), it wasn't so much the KKK raising in prominence again, as just the passage of Jim Crow laws and the rise of racial tensions (Tulsa race riot, widespread lynchings, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't do synthesis or original research. If the source is reliable and no changes were made to the data then the graph is valid and readers of the page may draw their own conclusion(s); if the source is not reliable, that's a different question.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a neutral voice on this subject. Their report and chart fail to mention the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War as being a motivation for the construction of monuments. That's a major flaw in their research. SPLC not neutral- https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/08/15/send-letter-its-time-take-down-confederate-monuments -Topcat777 01:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a distraction. The SPLC doesn't have to be strictly neutral in order to be reliable, and regardless, the chart's full sources are thoroughly documented as coming from other reliable places, anyway. If you have reliable sources saying that the 10-15-year spread of time surrounding the Civil War anniversaries was a prime motivator, let's see it. It's plausible, but it's also conveniently close to very specific periods of racial unrest, so just assuming this is a relevant connection is WP:OR. Reliable sources connect this to racism, which is what Wikipedia cares about.

If this is just about the anniversary, why is this list so much longer than this one? During these time periods, were there also a sudden burst of monuments to the Union? Or to the Emancipation Proclamation, or Lincoln, or Frederick Douglass, or John Brown? That's a sincere question, which I would like to see sources for. Without that context, this wasn't just memorializing the dead, or the tragedy of war, this was celebrating an insurrection in defense of slavery. All this is original research without sources, but the current sources are pretty clear. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources connect this to racism, which is what Wikipedia cares about." It's your opinion they are "reliable." And we all have our opinions. I think author Michael Hardy is more reliable on the subject- http://michaelchardy.blogspot.com/2017/08/no-room-for-nuance-in-nprs-narrative.html -Topcat777 13:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: "why is this list so much longer than this one?" How about because 90% of the Confederate edits were done in the last Month? Perhaps I will spend some time on the other list, get away from this one. And if it gets as long as this one, this proves what? Do you doubt that there are as many Grant & Lincoln schools as there are Davis & Jackson? DO you believe that there are more Confederate monuments than Union ones? No one doubts (I don't think) the reliability of the monument information, but how many sources are there supporting the Jim Crow and Civil Rights peaks? That's a theory that I believe all traces back to one source. Which is, I believe, fairly recent and has not really been subjected to much peer review. Carptrash (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was not my intention to insult you.

Let me try and explain this again a different way. A surge in Union monuments would be an incomplete argument that this was an anniversary thing. This is why it would be useful to find reliable sources.

I say incomplete, because nobody is saying this is 100% anniversary related and nothing else, right? Monuments put up during the anniversary were also put up during the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights eras, regardless of motives. The Daughter of the Confederacy were not totally oblivious to the oddity of putting up monuments to a losing side, much less the slavery issue. Quite the opposite, in fact. The SPLC supports this perspective as a historical matter, not as an opinion, and since I consider them mostly reliable, I think this perspective improves the article. I do think we could consider adding the anniversary dates to the chart, but only with sources specifically making this connection for us.

If there was also a sudden surge of anti-slavery monuments, especially in the South, that would also support that it was an anniversary thing. There is a John Brown statue put up in 1911, but that's in Kansas. I seriously doubt this was a trend, but maybe I'm wrong. As I said, if sources comparing the ratio of monuments to abolition or the Union or similar are out there, I would really like to see them. I'm always surprised at what historians have cataloged, but I don't really know how to find these if they exist.

As for raw numbers, a 1:1 comparison is obviously meaningless, because they were on different side of a war, with different population sizes, resources, attitudes, etc., but my point was that the amount of attention given to these monuments is itself telling. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Chart on the Wikipedia page is not the same as the one in the SPLC report. Even the SPLC does not place a big "Jim Crow" label at the high point of the construction of monuments. -Topcat777 13:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For convenience, here are the links Volunteer Marek provided above which very explicitly make the connection between these monuments, this time period, and Jim Crow: [6] [7] [8] [9]. None of those discuss the semicentennial, but I'm sure there are many more where that came from, and maybe some of them do. From the SPLC report:

But two distinct periods saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols.

The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War[10]

This spike covers a longer time-span than the war itself. The SPLC PDF does briefly mention the centennial, and specifically challenges that as a reason why battle flags have continuously been flown for decades following that event. If you have sources explaining the connection to the war semicentennial and centennial, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

SPLC: "The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws" -they had been enacting them for over 20 years - since the end of Reconstruction (1877). "This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan" -They can't read their own chart. There's a significant decrease in the 1920s compared to the previous decade. -Topcat777 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that as well, but that two-year dip also coincides with the end of WWI (which is mentioned on the chart) and the 1918 flu pandemic (which isn't) after which it resumes and levels-off until the great depression. This could plausible be regarded as an anomaly, not part of the longer trend. If the Semicentennial is important, those two major events could also be important, right? This is why we should use reliable sources to make our interpretations for us, not individual editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

End of WWII should reduce Civil War monument building. People were all adjusting to coming home and emphases would have shifted to monuments to WWII fallen. CNN has an interesting writeup on what other governments have done when a government falls [cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/20/politics/monuments-around-the-world/index.html]. Building monuments to the losing side of a conflict is very unusual. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This chart can't stay, it's bad OR. The labels span the wrong years. Even though SPLC aren't historians their labels are correct, so if anything we should use that. [11] 196.55.2.7 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not OR. It's very clearly based on a sources. Labels are fine, no idea what you're talking about.

And oh yeah, people who make their "first edit" on Wikipedia usually don't cite WP:ONUS in that "first edit". Volunteer Marek  17:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The editors who removed this graph are correct; while the monument stats are sourced to SPLC (not the best source) the labels are entirely WP:OR and inaccurate besides. From the objections above it's clear there's no consensus so start an RfC if you feel strongly but I'll be surprised if the result is include. D.Creish (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I started an RFC below. D.Creish (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "the labels are entirely OR and inaccurate besides"? The second one is just pain false. The first one is also wrong as has already been explained several times - the source, as well as other sources mention these era's explicitly. And WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not "no consensus!". Volunteer Marek  19:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Spirit of the Confederacy + Dick Dowling (sculpture)

Resolved

Should Spirit of the Confederacy be added to the list? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, Dick Dowling (sculpture) has been mentioned in the ongoing discussions re: Confederate monuments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

City renamed his street Emancipation Street in Jan 2017. Evidently noticing he was a Confederate. There are several items here to be added to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Dowling#Memorials_and_Monuments Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Both articles are now linked here, so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dick Dowling (sculpture)

Unresolved

Related to the above discussion, should Dick Dowling (sculpture) be added to Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And can some one please explain what this is about?

• • National

Commemorations by the federal government

What does the phrase "Commemorations by the federal government" mean? Right at the beginning of the article? Is it about the National Statuary Hall Collection? [User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

an attempt a lede for the National section which includes various things. Maybe I don't understand the question? Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The National Statuary Hall Collection is not the Federal government commemorating anyone. It is each state commemorating whom ever they wish, and many Southern states wished to remember the heroes of the Lost Cause. Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

and Congress controls which statues are accepted. Congress can remove statues too. It's being debated. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's finish transcribing the SPLC report

Can we get more eyeballs and typing-fingers on the job of transcribing listings in the report, "Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy" by the Southern Poverty Law Center? This is the gold standard of reports; it forms the basis of most of this article. There's still plenty of listings left to add. Fluous (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can post states that are finished vs unfinished? Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "finished" and "unfinished"? This is not a checklist. Also, does anyone here have a close connection to the SPLC? It seems a little excessive to call their report "the gold standard."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about any connections and I yeah, "gold standard" is a bit excessive, but it sure is a good source. There's a lot of other very useful info in the report, like for example the geographic distribution of the memorials which if I had more time I'd also make into a Wikipedia-usable chart.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't their report copyrighted?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: No. Fluous (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the copyright status, but just in case this is why I created my own version of their chart rather than just take screen shot of it and put in here. Regardless, even if the SPLC report is copyright, the information in it is not - can't copyright mentioning the fact that such and such a monument is in such and such a place. But if we were to use any of the charts - if they are indeed copyright - we just have to make our own version of them based on the underlying data (which can be a bit tedious without access to their original data files, though someone could just ask them) Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

By finished I mean "has everything listed in SPLC report under say Alabama been added here?" By unfinished I mean "about half of the listings for X state still need to be added." Ultimately this page should include every item on the SPLC report PLUS every item located via RS not listed in the SPLC report MINUS any errors amd duplicates. Watch for articles about Confederate memorials in the media for specific areas. Also watch for circular reporting, as I've seen media working from this page, which may contain errors. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm in total agreement with @Legacypac:

Fair enough. Perhaps you could create McNeel Marble Co.? See this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be CSA plaques in the garden area of the James K. Polk Ancestral Home. (They have plaques for their donors.) However, I doubt they would want to remove them!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

• Alabama  Done
• Alaska
• Arizona  Done
• Arkansas  Done
• California:  Done
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware:  Done
• Florida  Done
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho  Done
• Illinois  Done
• Indiana  Done
• Iowa  Done
• Kansas  Done
• Kentucky  Done
• Louisiana  Done
• Maine  Done
• Maryland  Done
• Massachusetts:  Done
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi  Done
• Missouri  Done
• Montana  Done
• Nebraska
• Nevada  Done
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York:  Done
• North Carolina  Done
• North Dakota
• Ohio  Done
• Oklahoma  Done
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania:  Done
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina  Done
• South Dakota
• Tennessee  Done
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia  Done
• Washington  Done
• West Virginia  Done
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming  Done

Transcription issues

From the doc, Georgia A-L are listed (although not all with dates) with two exceptions:

• Hazlehurst's Jefferson Davis Memorial appears to be Hazlehurst's Jefferson Davis Bust.
• Irwinville's Jefferson Davis Memorial appears to be Fitzgerald's Jefferson Davis Monument at Jefferson Davis Memorial Historic Site. Searching on either town leads to the historic site which the state lists as having an address in Fitzgerald.

Maybe it's me, anyone want to give it a go? Mcowley (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

One more. The only mention I can find is in an old planning document.

• Stone Mountain, Valor Monument at Memorial Plaza, 1977.

Other than the three above, all of the doc's entries for Georgia are listed. (That's not to say Georgia doesn't need attention.) Mcowley (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep

I changed my mind and decided that this is the place to deal with my issues. Keeping in mind that editing wikipedia is not done for therapy. So I removed this "The monument misspells Gettysburg and says the battle occurred in Virginia instead of Pennsylvania. " from Tallahassee because the article is arguably already too long and adding stuff such as this just makes it longer. If you want to include this tid bit, write and article about the monument. I think it gets included here because it reenforces our stereotypes of Southerners as illiterate, uneducated clods, giving us another chance to point fingers and laugh at them. I would not be surprised to be reverted, please respond to me when you do. Carptrash (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I added that info sourced from a Florida newspaper. Never even crossed my mind there was any such stereotype (never heard of it) and it seems unlikely the newspaper is insulting their readers. I've been trying to add a little info to listings so it's not just "City: Confederate Monument (19??)" and trying to source correct monument names and locations. If a monument listing gets long enough, perhaps because there is a debate about removing it, a spin out would be warranted, but two sentence articles are not useful. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also a possible DYK Atlanta, Idaho was named for a reported Confederate victory at the Battle of Atlanta. By time the settlers way up in Idaho learned the truth, the name had stuck. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

References

@Legacypac: A "Confederate victory at the Battle of Atlanta". Did you read the article? It was a Union victory. Did you never see Gone With the Wind (movie)? Carptrash (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think he's saying that Southerners who had previously moved to Idaho received false reports (fake news!) about the battle which erroneously called it a Confederate victory. They named their town after the battle and since information traveled slowly, by the time they got the accurate info the name had stuck. It's just an interesting tidbit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What Volunteer said so well. Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with naming a town after a rumour. Carptrash (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another one

Cut out of some state.

• Dixie County (1921), named after the term for the states that comprised the Confederate States of America.
  

The song Dixie originated in the blackface minstrel shows of the 1850s. Forget the blackface bit if you wish,, but "Dixie" as a term for the South PREDATES THE CIVIL WAR. It is not, as wikipedia used to claim, a "term for the states that comprised the Confederate States of America." This article has been here for 7 years. About 90% of the edits in it have been done in the least few weeks. What is the hurry folks? Or shall we just drop all standards and publish whatever we want to the 50,000 or so people who are visiting the site every day? This is a list. Supposedly an accurate one.Carptrash (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if this is to be included it needs a specific reliable source which states that it was named after the states and not the song or the regional term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't misconstrue the nature of the edits here. About 90% of the edits came in the last week. And about 90% of the listings are verifiable from the SPLC report. At any rate, "Dixie" is not listed in the report. There's probably less support for it than other entries. I didn't personally add it but I still favor its inclusion. "Dixie is a historical nickname for the Southern United States, especially those states that composed the Confederate States of America." (emphasis added). This is good enough for me, and this is probably good enough for the majority of editors here. Fluous (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC) (Pinging @Legacypac, Deisenbe, Another Believer, Mcowley, and Bubba73:)

We are not tied to only what the SPLC report lists, it is obviously incomplete and says so itself. I added a couple places named Dixie to Idaho. My sourcing was very specific that (in these cases) Dixie, Robert E Lee Creek, Atlanta, Idaho and Greyback Gultch were all named by Confererate settlers to commemorate the CS. I'm not familiar with the origins of the term "Dixie". This page does not take a moral stance or advocate for removal or decided what is objectionable. Rather it reports what was named for CAS and its leadership. Arguably some items are not objectionable to anyone. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe I added Dixie County to the Florida listings and assumed that the information in the county's article was sufficient. (I have quite a bit to add to it when time permits.) This 1937 account of Dixie County's history[12] makes clear the link to the Confederacy: "Though the line of Mason and Dixon is a vanished legend, yet to every true American, the name of 'Dixie' evokes sacred emotions." Mcowley (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What BS!. The emotions stirred by the name "Dixie" could just as easily, in fact MORE easily, be describing feeling about the Ante-bellum era than the Confederacy. QUIT PROJECTING! (yes, I am yelling, after saying the same thing repeatedly in a quite voice. Or am I the only one who feels this way? Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Please respect the talk-page guidelines. Fluous (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the first paragraph of Dixie and note ante-bellum was specifically a slave based economy, which the Civil War ended. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. That ante-bellum article redirects to a page literally called the "Plantation Era." Fluous (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That is sort of my point. Dixie = ante-bellum or Plantation Era or even "Slave Era" if you prefer, and all of that = before there was a CSA. Things named Dixie are being named for something that existed before there was a CSA, therefore should not automatically be considered to be monuments to it. And thank you @Fluous: I will be more careful with my respect for talk-page guidelines, and my cut & pasting. Carptrash (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. It's a great point. But I personally feel there's enough of a strong connection between "Dixie" and the "CSA" to merit its inclusion here. Again, you made your point. It's a really good point. Going forward, we have to be careful about what gets included here. After all, it's a list of certain things; not other things. Fluous (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A clearer statement of intent in the naming of Dixie County, FL is unlikely, particularly because at the time it was named the area's booming economy depended heavily on debt-peonage and convict-lease. Until an unequivocal statement is found, it's best not to include it. Mcowley (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Against "Former" subsections

I'm against adding a "Former" subsection for each state. We can just add "removed" at the end of those listings, but keep them all together. Is there no consensus for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How much good this is doing

Today, I had the pleasure of adding a missing monument in West Palm Beach, Florida, learning of its existence from a newspaper article motivated by its removal.

Note the local historian says this is the only one south of St. Augustine. So even someone to some extent knowledgable about history doesn't know how wifespread these were and still are. This is documentation we're assembling, and it's available, in its entirety, nowhere else. Note the conflicting statements about it.

I didn't know how to cite the Sun/Sentinal correctly; it's their app on sn iPad.

(I lived in Tallahassee 22 years and never learned that Tallahassee had been the center of Florida's slave trade. (I wrote History of Tallahassee, Florida#Black history.). deisenbe (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Military Bases: "neutral" language

This doesn't appear to be neutral in language.

"In 2015 the Pentagon, contrary to popular opinion made the correct decision, declared it would not be renaming these facilities."

It certainly seems that "correct decision" is a definitive political leaning.

Never posted anything to Wikipedia before, so I apologize if stepping on a foot.207.203.244.20 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize; you're right. The statement fails WP:NPOV.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure not what I wrote in that section. Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Fork out list for any state(s)?

This list is quite long. Do we want to fork out sublists for any U.S. state(s), or do we want to try to make this single page as complete and concise as possible? Maybe we're not yet at a point where forking is necessary, but I can envision a more sourced, fleshed out, and illustrated version of this list needing some splitting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And now that we have decided that we should add little tid bits to the various items on the list it will get a lot longer. Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If we fork, start with the longest State. Not necessary just yet. The section by section seems to be working well. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Washington and Lee University

There is more on the WLU campus, namely "reproduction Confederate flags" and "Stand-alone statues and portraits of Confederate leaders." See:

• Roll, Nick (August 23, 2017). "Robert E. Lee's Namesake". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved August 23, 2017.

Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Set it up like a city with multiple items, including the University name itself. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know what statues and portraits there are. We need more research on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

perhaps list the obvious ones like the school name, museum, big statue, horse grave, chapel, and then a catch all "paintings and other commemorative imagery" Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you mean. Would you like to do it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials

Resolved

Please see Category talk:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials regarding the inconsistent naming of subsections within Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Removing Links to individuals in favor of stubs about statues

Another Believer has been stripping links to people from their names to create redlinks to proposed articles about individual statues. (In National section anyway). That strikes me as unhelpful. The typical reader is not interested in a little page about the history and maker of a statue, but in info about why that person got a statue. I'm not even convinced that the vast majority of these memorials are individuLly notable. It's hard enough to find solid sourcing to prove some even exist. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There are three parts here. 1) unlinking names, and 2) adding red links for individual monuments / works of art, and 3) creating stubs. I don't think "Robert E. Lee" needs to be linked so many times throughout the article. For this type of list, I think linking to articles about specific sites is better than linking to names of people. But I also understand the importance of linking to names, so your concern is fair. Regarding red links, I have turned half of them into stubs, and planned to convert the others as well, so that's not much of an issue. Regarding stubs, I assume these were all notable because they are depictions of notable people by notable artists, in a notable collection. There is likely information about how and why the works were chosen, how the memorials were received by the public, if there have been efforts to have them replaced or removed, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I support delinking of major cities, and many of the most famous generals. At one point we even had state names linked.

Within the National Statuary Hall Collection yes they are notable, but it may make sense to put the detail all in one article on the collection. For monuments in random citoes, no, we don't need so many articles. It seems you might be trying to create a lot of pages for some contest or something based on some links on the talk pages. Let's focus on quality amd reader usefulness over article count. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection are notable, then we should be encouraging the creation of their own articles, not adding lots of detail to this already long list. This list should remain just that --- a list -- and should only include minimal information about each monument or memorial. It seems the systematic article creation is rubbing you and another article the wrong way right now, so I'll focus on to other areas of the project for a while. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall Collection already lists the subject, artist, date and if there is a stand alone article. If you want to build pages link them from there, not directly from names on this page where a reader is going to be WP:SURPRISEd to get to a piped title about a statue instead of the article evidently linked via a person's name. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. When I'm reading a list of monuments, and I see a link to "Robert E. Lee", I'm expecting to be taken to a page about a Robert E. Lee monument, not the article about the person. Either way, I'll stop creating new articles for individual monuments and let other editors decide how names should be linked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind new pages as long as there is a good reason and meaningful content. I'm not picking on your pages overall, just cautioning. The fact some ladies raised a few hundred bucks in 1924 to buy a generic statue from a catalog and erect such statute in some small town does not make the statue notable. Even the quiet removal of that statue does not make it notable. On the ofher end of the scale, kkk riots and murder over a statue, yes notable. Somewhere in the middle is the line between notable on its own and just keep it on a list as notable in the context of similar statues across the south. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the things that we on wikipeida get to do in order to arrive at a more complete understanding as to what we are doing here is ask for a clarification of words, a definition as to exactly what we are talking about’ So I’d like to ask Legacypac, what exactly, or who exactly is the “typical user’ that you have referred to above? Since it appears that we are creating wikipedia for this person, I feel that I need to know who s/he is? So, could you help me out? Carptrash (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always do what is best for the reader. This page will attract a heck of a lot of readers with questions like "How many CSA monuments are there in Alabama?" "Is there a CSA monument in Durham?" and when they see there is a CSA Forrest monument two towns over, "who is Forrest?" That is a typical reader. Very rarely is a reader going to be looking for nitty gritty fine details about a specific statue rather they want context, magnitude, an idea of how many statues and their distribution, and for the reader like me that is not super familiar with who is who in the Confereracy, links to more info on who that guy on the monument was. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that this is what the average reader from Bangalore or Beijing is asking. You appear to be tailoring the article to a user that exists mostly in your mind. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should have referenced articles about specific statues. Our readers can always click on wikilinks to find out more.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* Oh well, I tried. And I was going to create new articles for these works... @Carptrash and Zigzig20s: I'll let you two decide if this is worth debating further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Just making sure you're aware of this discussion, since you replaced the red links with links to names of people. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is easy. (1) If there's a page about a monument, etc, then link to it. (2) If there's no page, then link only to the name of the person being memorialized. (3) If you want to create red links to a memorial page that doesn't exist, then do it (if that's what you want). Just make sure you ALSO write in something like "named after So-and-so" with a link to their page. That way people can find out who the person is. Fluous (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm still hesitant to link to names of some people over and over throughout the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer:Yeah, that's an issue. What do we do? Link once, period? Link once per state? Fluous (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll let others decide since I've already offered my 2 cents above. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

These may be of interest...

... if we want to have some more background to the topic (I realize this is a "List of..." article): [13], [14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And now I find this - Dixie

• Dixie, Elmore County, Idaho unincorporated. Dixie is a term for the Southern states that rebelled"

The term Dixie as referring to various areas in the South, both in and out of what was to become the Confederate States of America PRE DATES THE CONFEDERACY. They are not the same thing. It is NOT a term for "the Southern states that rebelled." get it.? it was a term for parts of the south BEFORE THEY REBELLED, get it? Is it necessary that we parade our ignorance in front of the whole world? I would just remove this stuff but we have a relationship, which means that we talk about things, so, your turn. Carptrash (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

well I added that because I found a good source that quotes a Boise State Univ prof who seems like he knows what he is talking about:

"there are a number of places in Idaho named after Confederate battles, and figures such Atlanta, the Robert E. Lee Campground, Leesburg, three places named Dixie and even Grayback and Confederate gulches." “Idaho had a pro-union and a territorial government and pro-Confederate territorial legislature,” says Shallat. Many of these symbols of Confederacy in Idaho and around the nation have been appropriated by different groups for different reasons.

Calling me ignorant is a flat out personal attack and absolutely false. I suggest you read Dixie before you start defining words for us. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also a Dixie in Canyon County, Idaho with a good cite from Idaho Place Names (1988). Mcowley (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps these will help:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Dixie, the Southern U.S. states, especially those that belonged to the Confederate States of America (1860–65).
• Merriam-Webster: Dixie: the states of the southeastern and south central U.S. and especially those which constituted the Confederate States of America
• Dictionary.com: Dixie: Also called Dixieland, Dixie Land. the southern states of the United States, especially those that were formerly part of the Confederacy.

A geographical region vs a mythological plantation era South created by adverting and pop culture. Mcowley (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dixie stuff in Idaho, according to the source, was done by Missourians which was not a Confederate State. To them, it appears, "Dixie" is looking back at Missouri. @Legacypac: I am sorry for the personal attack, perhaps if you get an Admin in here and get me banned from the article we could all sleep better? The "vandalizing" of your signature was something that happened during a badly executed cut & paste, trying to send you a message, I guess you got (i.e. "I sent) the wrong message. The definition above pretty all say, "especially" I'd think we'd want "exclusively" if we are going to use it like that. The article that you sent me to includes several states that were not in the CSA as being acceptable as Dixie states. I'll repeat, the famous song Dixie (song) "Wish I was in the land of cotton" and all that was written prior to the CSA being formed. Yet by our criteria, should we include songs as "memorials" that one would fit in. There is a huge rush here, propelled by the news we read every day, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Carptrash (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the article on Missouri secession, please check the refs in the Idaho section, including the one titled Lower Boise Historical Marker-Confederates in Idaho which has not yet been quoted here. It includes an explanation by another historian and references documents on the Idaho state govt site. Mcowley (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't see how vandalising my signature [15] by replacing my username with another term could happen by accident. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I had "Missourian" on my clip board (or whatever) when I thought I was copying your name to "Yo" you, I somehow pasted that there. Anyway, you make it sound as if being from Missouri is a bad thing? Is that how you see it? Calling someone a Missourian is a nasty word? An insult? Okay, this is helping me understand what is going on. Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One (the newest posted) source refers to Missouri as the source of settlers for one of the three Dixies in ID. See Missouri secession which debunks the idea MO was completely outside the CSA. There is nothing wrong with people from Missouri, there is an issue with changing someone's signature. BTW I'm not from MO but it's a lovely place I enjoyed living in. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

We need photographers

File:My favorite Confederate Monument.jpg

Seen in phoenix during Pres. Trumps visit, 8/22/17

We need photographers all over the country willing to take pictures of those statues, plaques, buildings, etc., before they get removed. Is there a way to coordinate this productively please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw someone on a Facebook discussion recently suggest Wikipedia:Wiki Documents Confederate Monuments, but I think posting requests at U.S. state WikiProjects might be a better option? I've added photo request tags to unillustrated articles, but that doesn't help identify unillustrated monuments without standalone articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If we're not wanting a start a whole campaign page, a WPUS subpage might be a good option: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Confederate monuments, or similar. Would be nice to copy over this list and then reduce to show which monuments are illustrated, and which are not. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects might be one way, but I'm not sure too many editors look at them. I have no doubt there are many Wikipedians in most states who do not know we need pictures for these monuments because they are interested in other topics, but would be willing to help (for example I've asked one in Wyoming, and I'd asked another one in Montana for the Confederate Memorial Fountain). We have missed our chance for the Confederate Monument (Hollywood Forever Cemetery) for example, unless someone has a picture they took before it was removed... This may also be a way to attract new editors, if we can ask local residents (or college students) to take pictures and upload them on Commons...For example, is there a way to find Washington and Lee students who might be interested?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am planning a trip into Phoenix to shoot the one in front of the Old State Capitol. I might have random scattering of others, but figuring out exactly what they are is not always easy. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Funny you mention Confederate Monument (Hollywood Forever Cemetery), which is now illustrated. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Very nice!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Maybe a place to start is by creating a list of unillustrated monuments? Would require searches at Commons first, since there are many monuments not illustrated on English Wikipedia that might be at Commons. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement not supported by source

I deleted the following sentence:

The organization has taken various states to court and each time has won the right to issue plates.

This was immediately put back in by @Legacypac

Look under Texas and you'll see that SCV has not won "each time". Also see Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia.

The SCV itself has never had "the right to issue plates," and to my knowledge never has issued any. deisenbe (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a correct statement according to the 2011 source, and still true to a point since the SCV has always won the right to get plates, just not with their logo as of 2015 SCOUS case. Texas remains unresolved as far as I've found. I've revised the statement to be more clear. I restored as part of a block of text removed. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

Does anyone share my concerns about this? It sounds like a SCV member wrote it. Note that two corrections of mine were reversed by @legacypac, who also deleted my cn template for the first sentence.

Nine states have issued commemorative or affinity license plates for the Sons of Confederate Veterans as a result of a national campaign for approval of such plates. Starting in the late 1990s, The SCV took various states to court and each time won the right to issue plates and include their Confederate Battle Flag based logo on the basis it was a free speech issue[37] however the 2015 US Supreme Court Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans allowed states to remove the Confederate flag from plates finding that the plates were speech by the state. The use of the Confederate Battle Flag and other Confederate symbols on the plates has stirred controversy but Jay Barringer, commander of the Maryland Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans countered "We're trying to divest ourselves of the negative associations" with the Confederate flag.[37] In some states revenues are shared with the SCV organization.

deisenbe (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"It sounds like a SCV member wrote it." So? Are SCV members banned from posting on Wikipedia? -Topcat777 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't get your concern. I'm no SCV. With two edits you removed sourced content that provided context. That left a CN tag that was unnecessary before the sources were removed. Anyway this is old news. I've rewritten the section to be more clear and expanded with lots of cites in the state listings. I'm trying to provide contect and history for why all these plates and the court cases they lead to. The issue went to the Supreme Court after all. There is some more research required. If someone can add good info, please do. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Former namesakes

What about former namesakes like this, which was closed down in 1986?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The name described the facility's scope and purpose, so no, I wouldn't include it. Mcowley (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

California Bear Flag

Does it merit inclusion here?

From the Flag of California article:

During the secession crisis and the early part of the American Civil War in 1861, California was divided between supporters of the union and supporters of southern secession. Sympathizers of the south in Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County showed support for secession by flying the Bear Flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.[23]

I'm not sure. Fluous (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bear Flag predates the Civil War and is a sign of independance in California. It's display today is not associated with the Confederacy. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh, "predates" is a bad reason. After all, the Nazis weren't the first to use the swastika. But yeah, with the Bear Flag, there's probably not enough of a connection here. Confederate Californians did fly the Bear Flag in support of the Confederacy, but it seems more like a brief episode in that flag's long history. Fluous (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

South Carolina Heritage Act

Hello. Could someone please create an article about the South Carolina Heritage Act? This might be useful, too. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Song

What about this song? Is it notable? Not really a monument but, if we are to believe the The Birmingham News, a popular song about the flag. Or is it too fringe? (I think it might be.)Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not approved by any city or state, and not location based so no. It might be worthwile to add it to Confederate Battle Flag Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

While digging around

Found at CSA monument, Phoenix AZ

I discovered that in 1911 the Kansas State legislature passed a one time county tax levy to allow counties with a population of over 70,000 to build Civil War monuments. Which is right at the hight of the Jim Crow Era. Kansas? Who knew? Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll grant that was 50 Years from the Start and 46 years from the end of the ACW, and at a time when the vets would be dying off quickly, but still. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And what do you think of this poor fellow, found today (or "yesterday" if you are viewing this tomorrow, etc) at the foot of the CSA monument in Phoenix? Random act of violence by Mother Nature or some sort of political statement? Think I could use it at the Animal sacrifice article? Carptrash (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And I also emailed the Dixie Chicks and informed them that according to wikipedia, if they were a monument (and they damn near are) they would be considered to be a monument to the CSA. They probably won't reply. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Good, but they are not supported with public funds so ... free private speech and all. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They are also notorious liberals. For Texans anyway. Carptrash (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe some, if not many, of the monuments listed are in cemeteries, many of which are in private hands, and some sit on private land. I don't think most of these listed have been vetted as to being on public or private grounds. Dubyavee (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this list exclude markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature, as claimed in the lede?

The following was added (with this diff) to the lede a couple of days ago: This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature. sourced to SPLC findings. Is this the case? Yes or no, it's currently inconsistent – for example, Gettysburg National Military Park, and Antietam National Battlefield are on the list, but Vicksburg National Military Park, and Shiloh National Military Park are not. Should they be? If so, being on Federal government property, do they belong in the National section? If places that are largely historical should be eliminated from the list, should this list be moved to List of public monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America in places that are largely non-historical in nature or similar? This list is really a mess in its current state and will need a lot of work. I hope the johnny-come-lately editors (and that includes me) stick around. Mojoworker (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical vs not historical is a huge debate! That idea came from the SPLC report. Better to remove the claim. I don't think it is a huge mess at all. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree the claim should be removed. And since Vicksburg NMP alone has "1,325 historic monuments and markers", according to our article, we should have hundreds we can include from there alone. For better or worse, I think the battlefield markers will soon overwhelm the list. Do you think we can get this list to hit the maximum page size of 2048 kilobytes? Mojoworker (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Support (and have supported) a name change to either:

• List of public monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America (or List of public symbols of the Confederacy: the on-point name of the SPLC report) and forking out a separate List of private monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. This forking makes sense: there are potentially over 1,500 publicly-supported listings and potentially over 2,600 private listings. We could not possibly include all 4,100 listings in one article. Fluous (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This article is long but it's fine. The only change I would approve of would be an article for each state (but then the Wyoming article would be very stubby...).Zigzig20s (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Stonge Oppose as well. The State by State links at the top make this very functional, even to edit. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Sorry, I'm confused. What exactly do you oppose? Mojoworker actually never said anything about changing "state-by-state links." All he's saying is that there are a few private monuments in this list of otherwise public monuments. And that the lede itself actually says this is a list of public monuments that excludes private monuments. And that we should probably fork out the article on public vs. private lines (in other words, memorials in public spaces vs. memorials in private spaces like cemeteries, etc). We could keep both, but that article would become fairily enormous. More than double the size it's currently at. Fluous (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose a fork private vs public. There is going to be too much debate over which is which. The current state by state listings make the long page easy enough to navigate. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Strongly disagree. There would be little debate over what constitutes a public space. These are, excuse my french, "big-ass monuments." They're large-and-in-charge in public spaces across the Southern U.S. They're on road signs and schools and parks, and whatnot. They're not exactly subtle or shy in placement. So, I'm not sure what exactly you're struggling with. Can you provide a difficult example? The vast majority of entries are simple to categorize. The SPLC report certainly found no difficulty in doing so. And, both public and private articles would have state-by-state listings, so that's a non-issue. Fluous (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be made clear that the article includes monuments and memorials on both public and private property. The SPLC did not do diligent search for just public monuments. Many cemeteries are private property and many of these listed are in cemeteries. One of the monuments listed in my state is a statue on private farm land and erected by the UDC with permission in 1913. The article does not have to specify which is public or private, but it should be made clear that the article includes both. Dubyavee (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: Please clarify what you mean by "The SPLC did not do diligent sarch for just public monuments." The SPLC report contains only public memorials. There may be a few that slipped through the cracks, but you're (mis)characterizing the whole report based on a single possible error. Now, please tell me what monument you're referring to so I can research it and possibly correct this error. Fluous (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that the use of the word "public" implies to many people that these monuments are on public land and supported by taxpayer money, so it should be made clear that "public" does not mean government supported. A hardware store is a "public" space, but it is private property at the same time. Many cemeteries that have Confederate monuments are considered "public" because they will sell plots for burials and have open visiting hours. But they are privately owned and not supported by government. Monuments in parks, on courthouse lawns, or battlefields are of course maintained by local and Federal governments. That was the argument in Charlottesville, Baltimore and other cities. The monument in Mingo, WV, is on private farmland, it is not public in the sense most people think. The distinction is important. Dubyavee (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the lede to streamline it and clear up the scope to match what we actually built. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And I've undone it. Your edit was clumsy, typo-ridden, poorly organized, and clunkily-worded. Not to mention you put the nav bar in the middle of the lede. You have to stop editing on your phone. It's just not a proper way to make those kinds of revisions. Fluous (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Important information for the lede:

• YWhat the list is: This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials.
• YWho or what generally is being honored: The monuments and memorials honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general during the American Civil War.
• YHow many memorials are there? (Very important): A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States.
• YWhat physical forms do these memorials take? These memorials include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works
• NWhere are they located? (Short, general phrase or sentence. Currently missing from lede)
• YMeta/ How to navigate this list

...and then the nav bar.

We do have to resolve the public/ private angle, but solutions have not yet been agreed upon with any kind of consensus here.Fluous (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults without addressing the reasons I made the changes (see below). Yes there were a couple tiny typos - one stray period and one other little thing I fixed right away. I did it on my computer because it took some real cut and paste reorg. I'm not hung up on the location of the nav box - did it as a seperate edit even - but a little higher beside the part where we tell the reader how we organize the page seems better. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the quote from SPLC about their data says nothing about public vs. private – it says "the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature." Since we do have data in the list that is from "historical in nature" places (and has been in the article since 2010), I merely proposed removing that statement in the lede from SPLC, since our data clearly includes sites that are "historical in nature", although inconsistently. I think Legacypac understood what I was asking in his first response, but then things devolved into confusion with the oppose/strong oppose statements, since I had presented an either/or proposition – either remove the sentence that implies all the data here is from places not historical in nature, or rename the article and remove the data that is for places that are historical in nature. I support the former, since the latter would be a diminution of article scope from the way it's been for the past 7 years. The more I think about it, if the latter, it would be better to make a new article. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the SPLC statement. Mojoworker (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don;t mind the historical statement as long as it is tied to a discussion of the SPLC report from whence it came. That was one of the reasons I'm trying to reorder the lede. The crux of pro-Confederate statue side is they are all Historical. The anti's disagree. So how are we to sort out what is historical vs not here? Better to just list everything. We should however be excluding individual and groups of simple graves. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker:

• The entire SPLC report is literally called "List of Publicly Supported Spaces Dedicated to the Confederacy." It does not include Robert E. Lee lawn ornaments, the "Good Slave" fountain in the courtyard at the local UDC chapter or however else Southerners privately memorialize the confederacy on their own property. Their data says everything about public vs. private. And it also excludes, like you said, otherwise public monuments that are historical in nature (like battlefields, etc).
• We can include notable private monuments here, like that giant flag near the interstate in Florida. That's fine. We just have to figure out how organize that information.
• You say that a public/private split would reduce the scope of the article. That's true. But an article with 4,100 listings would be far too long. A split is inevitable. We can include otherwise public monuments that are historical in nature (like battlefields, etc) in the public list, if that's what people want. Fluous (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To address your points:

• Yes, that is indeed what the SPLC report is about. However, this Wikipedia list article has been here since the beginning of 2010 and has made no such distinction between public and private.
• Sure. That sounds fine.
• No, I said excluding items that are largely historical in nature would diminish the long standing scope of the article, which I'd oppose. A public/private split would too, but I'd need to consider that further. I would guess that public monuments predominate in any case, so there still may be a length issue, but that decision can likely be delayed until it becomes a problem. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Paintings

The University of Georgia took down a portrait of Robert E. Lee. We list statues here but should we add paintings too? There must be so many paintings of all the Confederate generals and soldiers plus battles, the list would be endless...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be added to the "removal" article instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes better. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede Changes

The lede before I fixed it (and was reverted):

---

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general during the American Civil War.[1] A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States. These memorials include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works.[1][2] Monuments and memorials are listed below alphabetically by state, and by city within each state. Those that were moved or removed are noted beside their listing. This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature.[2] States not listed have no known qualifying items for the list."

---

Issues:

• 4 cites to the same report, without naming the report. Some of the cites follow information about how we organized this page

So what? You don't need to name the report. That's what a citation is for. You click the button and it takes you to the citation at the bottom of the page. At any rate, if there are duplicate citations to the same source, you could have simply consolidated any duplicate references. But I know from weeks of cleaning up your citations and references that they aren't your strong point. So I don't know why you're mentioning it here.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

4 identical citations is overkill in one paragraph. One well placed one is sufficient. What is wrong with naming the source of the information and wikilinking it. Seems like a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)*confusion with "This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature.[2]" being detached from the "[1] A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States." when both these sentences deal with the SPLC report specifically.

There is no confusion.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The 1,503 and 2,600 numbers look like they may refer to a count in this article, when this article has some quite different count and inclusion criteria.

No, it doesn't look that way at all. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• information about how this page is organized is split into three parts by the SPLC report discussion sentences and is less clear

I don't even know what this sentence means.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely clearer if these two sentences are together. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The lede evolved into a poor piece of writing

The lede was a fantastic, crisp, clear piece of writing. Yours was not. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The monuments and memorials honor... in general during the American Civil War." No, these items were all created or named AFTER the war, often long after.

We're talking about a single word here. Just change it to "after." Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am just listing my changes. Glad you agree to one. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• places and infrastructure items are commingled

I have no idea what you're possibly objecting to. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials" in the first line is repetitive

And "Confederate monuments and memorials" that honor "Confederate" leaders isn't? Your rewording makes for a passive-voice, ugly sentence.

Delete the words "that were" after the bolded words. No longer passive. We could drop one Confederate with "created to honor the Confederate States of America, its leaders and soldiers." 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is a run on paragraph. I suggest three short paragraphs - 1. What the page is about 2. how it is organized and 3. Highlights from the major source here, the SPLC report, which is not the only source. Ie this page uses the SPLC report, it is not about the SPLC report specifically.

There is no such thing as a "run-on paragraph." I don't even know what that means. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

[16] paragraphs should deal with one topic, not three. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The lede, as written, has caused some confusion on talk.

There is no confusion about the lede. The lede is crystal clear. There's confusion about some of the entries listed depsite what the lede says. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My improved version fixes these issues:

---

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were created to honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general after the American Civil War. This page includes physical monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; state symbols and license plates. It also includes names of places including counties, cities, military bases, mountains, water features and public infrastructure such as schools, parks, dams, highways, bridges and roads.

Memorials or locations are grouped by state, classified by type, and listed alphabetically by city within each type. Any known removals are noted beside the appropriate listing. States not listed have no known qualifying items for this list.

A 2017 study by the Southern Poverty Law Center identified and cataloged at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces across the United States. The SPLC also identified but did not list in its detailed report nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature. The items from the SPLC report have been incorporated into this page along with listings from other sources."

---

If there is something actually wrong with my revisions, please detail the rational and suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should say "public and private spaces". Cemeteries are both public and privately owned. One of the statues listed from my state by the SPLC is on farmland. I am sure there are many more like that listed by the SPLC and just saying "public" gives the impression that these are government or city owned spaces. Dubyavee (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: We have yet to resolve how to deal with public vs. private monuments. But whatever we do, it's something we all need to talk about first. I strongly favor an article split. Fluous (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe some of the memorials were created during the civil war, so I've edited the lede to try and clarify. Mojoworker (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mojoworker they barely had time and resources to put up grave stones. Why would they memorialize something that was ongoing? And this is thought to be the First Confederate Monument [17] and it was put up after the war. Did you have some different info? Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Confederate Monument in Cynthiana also claims it was the first in 1869. And others make the same claim. But those are monuments to the Confederacy. I'm talking about memorials to individual soldiers, though I can't remember the individual I'm recalling, and it would take me some digging to find it. But, just look at the article: Blakely, Georgia, Confederate Flagpole, Early County Courthouse, 1861 is one example. And at least 8 places named in tribute during the war are already in the article. There's even one from 1845, predating the war by 15 years. Also see CSS General Earl Van Dorn. And for a Union example, the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association started in early 1864 (and battlefield protection had started before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which was just 4 months after the battle in 1863. Mojoworker (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If we have to split - I'd rather leave public and private in the same page (identified where possible) and instead split the page geographically. We could spin out the states with the largest sections and instead show under Arkansas heading Main article: Confederate monuments and memorials in Arkansas followed by a short summary like "in Arkansas there are over 100 known monuments, 50 roads and highways, 10 schools, 3 counties (all fake numbers) and various other public places named for the Confederacy or it's leadership." That is normally how we do spinouts from big topics. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate Armory Site

Should this be added to the list please? It's not really a monument, but there is the 'Confederate' word.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. The name is merely descriptive of the site and is not meant as a memorial. Much like White House of the Confederacy, which shouldn't be included either. Mojoworker (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Symbols

There needs to be some consensus on how to go about dealing with disputed confederacy symbols. Especially when some have sources which show that they were not in honour or are memorializing confederacy at all. I will bring up one example, but am sure over such a controversial topic as this, there will be others. Fort Bragg, CA is a great example for several reasons. All of this is already well documented on its own Fort Bragg, California page. This original army garrison was named in honor for a US Army individual prior to Civil War and CSA. It clearly was not named nor honoring the confederacy in any way. However, this person it was named for later did leave the US Army and became part of the confederacy. Even though this location was not named specifically in honor of confederacy, nor anthing to do with it, unlike the current military base Fort Bragg, NC which was named in honor for Bragg long after the Civil War and especially named during one of the 2 time periods specifically named after other Confederates. I still do see some value of still having it mentioned somehow though for at least 2 reasons:

• Especially as residents of this city itself questioned about keeping the name due to the association of this persons later actions, which even has resources provided on this page. While this particular case definitely shows it is not a memorial, it still obviously can raise and bring out questionable connotations of one.
• Without any specific consensus on how to go about dealing with such disputed cases, and without any mention of it, others will potentially later simply add it thinking it was overlooked. Resulting in a constant see-saw battle.

I originally simply deleted it from this list and later regreted it and was going to put it back but with some sort of note. In the meantime, someone else simply reverted my edit (which was fine). I am removing it from the list, since this location was clearly not labeled in honour of the confederacy, but leaving a note about it at bottom of municipalities list until there is some consensus on how to go about dealing with such issues in a more effective manner. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Some editors earlier discussed the situation. While the Fort was named prior to the civil war, the town was named well after the civil war with full knowledge of the fact it's (indirect) namesake was a CSA General. The fact members of the State legislature found the town name objectionable enough to request a name change adds to the relevence for this list. This list does not make value judgements over the appropriateness of memorials and names, it just tries to reflect reality. Listing should stay. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The listing should stay for the reasons stated above by Legacypac. Fluous (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First, neither of those remarks addresses the whole point I brought this up. How to deal with any such future issues? Is there going to simply be a fight back and forth, or should we attempt to try to come up with some sort of consensus to hopefully avoid this. Second as to example specifically, I do agree with the importance of it being mentioned somehow. WHile I agree this list should not make judgements, it still should reflect actual confederacy symbols, and ones that can be proven to have been honouring confederacy in some form and not include ones that have proof it was named prior. But just because the town was not officially established until after and had continued to use the same name being used for this location the entire time, does not make it a symbol to confederacy. While the actual fort was abandoned, people continued to inhabit and be around this area (ranches and lumber mills) and appears to have simply kept referring to this location as it was already known. There are no sources provided to even suggest anything different, or to suggest this location was specifically kept the name knowing on purpose it would be memorializing confederacy or even if they were even aware at the time. But meh, if no one cares about accuracy, I will gladly keep my info and mosy on elsewhere. (not intended as threat, just do not want to put time in effort where it is not wanted). I still highly recommend the issue at hand is addressed, over highly controversial topic like this especially. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A note/suggestion to Kevin reflecting only my personal opinion. . Would you please register as a user. I can discuss stuff with people, but not so much with numbers. Yes, I see that you've included your name but it is not the same. It's free, relatively painless, brings no extra baggage. Do consider it. Carptrash (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

we care, which is why we discuss edge cases like this one and why the Fort Bragg listing is so detailed. Someone found it on a list of places named for a CSA officer. Then someone else pointed out the fort was named pre-civil war. Then I sorted out the various dates amd someone added that there was a letter requesting the rename and the mayor said no. We should present the data and let readers form their own opinions based on all relevent facts. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

another somewhat similar case is Fort Davis, Texas/Davis Mountains State Park/Davis Mountains/Jeff Davis County, Texas which we have handled the same way. The original fort was named for Davis when he was a US Army officer before the Civil War and other things were named similarly after the war. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Noted. Normally only do small grammar edits or occasional neglected page. I am ending up contributing more than thought I would so yes maybe it is time to bother registering.

Well at least sounds like things are being handled consistently, as long as it continues to be. Even though I disagree and feel this is more anything that could be associated as list or viewed as list, but it is not just about what I think. I was just hoping to comprise a list of definite symbols (with burden of proof to show it clearly was done as such if debatable or questioned), but maybe I am taking too much 'innocent til proven as quilty' motto (applied loosely, no reading into it). At any rate, this partly explains consensus about dealing with Disputed Symbols, it already has been addressed. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so one more answer to a number. I have sworn to stop editing this page because I have what I consider to be "doctrinal differences" with what appears to be a majority opinion here. However as I turn up "obvious" (another of the words or phrases that mean "in my opinion") examples, mostly of pictures I've taken, I have been adding them because I actually believe in wikipeda even when I don't agree with it. Carptrash (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well finally registered new account, and since this will be more of a complete list of everything / everyone associated with CSA, will be softening up some of the more biased opinions. Especially some of the content at top of the page taken from the clearly biased SPLC to counteract it with some opposite opinions. Plus to reflect that some on this list may or may not be in honour for CSA. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Context

• 1961 to date overview of the debate over Rebels team namein South Burlington Vermont. [18] complete with old news clipings - watch the video too. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• An interactive map for Mississippi http://m.msnewsnow.com/msnewsnow/db_345526/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1uuvuEGS *Article by W. Fitzhugh Brundage, the William B. Umstead Professor of History at the Univ North Carolina at Chapal Hill well worth reading, maybe adding in a quote [www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy] Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Apple

I am so tempted to include under other public monuments in Lexington:

• Apples on grave of Lee's horse: Apples are periodically placed in honour to the horse of confederate Robert E. Lee's burial place.

It fits under definitions of this list being used, both Lee and his horse were confederates who are being honoured, in this case with apples. (yes I am being cheeky but sometimes I just wonder at some of these other inclusions all merely cause there is association, regardless of any other achievements or significance) Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kevin "Hawk" Fisher: Hey Kevin, thanks for registering! That actually sounds pretty good. Part of the argument for inclusion, in my mind, is that it shows the incredible scope, breadth, and extent of Confederate memorialization. An entry for Traveler's grave, with additional detail about the apple custom would be great! In fact, I've just added it.Fluous (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd noticed that memorial but got distracted and did not add it. Very good. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What's a "public monument"

The Confederate Memorial of the Wind, in Orange, Texas, is being built by private funds on private land. Is it correct to put it in the category of Public Monuments? deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's built on private land, then it's a private monument. Like, if you've got a shrine of Robert E. Lee in the backyard of the local Confederate Cult Worshippers Club, then that's gonna be private. The distinction between public and private is important. People can do whatever the heck they want on their own land. But there's a real debate about whether Confederate symbols should be on public land. Hence all the discussion in the news about taking down monuments and renaming memorials. Fluous (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What should the heading be? Private monuments? deisenbe (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See also

@Legacypac: We should really keep this section as expansive and broad as possible. The criteria for inclusion requires that See Also listings only be tangentially related. In my mind, things like "List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves," which you removed, is, at the very least, tangentially related. Removing memorials for Presidents who owned slaves is often mentioned in the same breath as removing memorials for Confederate leaders. In my mind, many people will find that listing useful. Fluous (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&diff=798873359&oldid=798873046 you'll find that he has removed several others which in my view should also be in there. deisenbe (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I saw that. He also removed my Reparations for slavery debate in the United States listing. I admit that that article is a bit more of a stretch. But it's related, in my view. Instead of memorializing a bunch of racists and their racist dystopian state, we should be talking about how to rectify 500 years of slavery. At any rate, my view is that people should be given latitude on the See Also section. Fluous (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just found the list really long. Why Lincoln? He is universally regarded as a great leader, is this because he was President during the Civil War? Anyway I'm not hung up about it. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: See why I bailed out? Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'm not arguing for Lincoln's inclusion (yet). I'm saying that List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves is pretty darn useful information, in my view. The controversy surrounding monuments and memorials for Presidents who owned slaves is not only tangentially related; it's directly implicated here. It's in the conversation. It's something people will find useful. Do you really feel strongly against inclusion of that specific article? Fluous (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the pro-Confederate's incl Trump often bring up the fact some Pres owned slaves and suggest removing monuments to Lee will lead to removing monuments to Pres Jackson etc. I disagree with that logic, but i'm noylt opposed to including the link. Just axed the least directly related pages. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaines

• There are several references to Gaines. This must be general Edmund Pendleton Gaines. He died in 1849 and has no connection I can see with the Civil War or slavery. deisenbe (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Must be an error. Can't find any confederate by that name. What state? Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sewanee: The University of the South?

Why is Sewanee: The University of the South on this list please? It's not named after the CSA.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Likely this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewanee:_The_University_of_the_South#Mace_controversy Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, at minimum it is listed under the incorrect category. The School itself is not named or honouring confederacy, so moving the mace under a more appropriate category. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

OK nvm. I notice since has been added about confederacy symbols as actual parts of the buildings, which is part of the School. Bit different than one simple item at that location. Guess I moved it pre-emptively. But seriously, going on to list portrait of leading founder of that school. Why does this page seem more like a witch hunt than supposed simple listing of items actually honouring. "OH MY, they were part of confederacy so it must be in honour for that," instead of oh it is of the founder who just so happened to also take part in the war. Idk would be different if clothes were in reverse. And someone still needs to change lede to reflect that it is complete list of anything and everything that could be associated and in honour for, not list of definite in honour for. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The lede says Confederacy, its leaders and soldiers. Normally we are not listing painting, but in context of other items from aschool that struggles to disassociate itself from Southern culture and being founded by leading Confederates... There is a range of association that the reader can make the judgement on. On one extreme we have Fort Davis named for Jeff Davis before the Civil War, and on the other schools specifically named for Davis as a protest against desegregation. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, for edge cases, here's my criteria for inclusion:

• (1) you were part of the Confederacy. either militarily, politically, or otherwise gave support
• (2) there's a monument or memorial in your honor/ something named for you
• (3) because of your role in the confederacy, there's controversy in the news about the thing. (i.e. people want it taken down or renamed. or people want to keep the name, etc). Fluous (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Now see @Fluous: that is what I am talking about, if only the lede actually said or implied that. Instead it simply says in honour of CSA leaders or soldiers. Which means if anyone comes to look in so called reference source of an encyclopedia expecting an actual list that are definitely in honor, if they only skim and do not look at this big long list in depth. They will just assume going by the way the article reads now that is indeed nothing but verifiable definite cases in honor of, as there is nothing to indicate otherwise. When instead this list is mentioning everything associated with CSA leaders or soldiers and leaving the interpretation up to you to decide. Than they will be confused why when they attempt to use it as verifiable source they are being told Wiki is not good source to use. Here I was hoping to compile a good list but instead it is worse than the biased SPLC list so I personally give up, but it should at least inform everyone what this list is and what it is not. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you appear to be upset:

• (a) that people with connections to the confederacy
• (b) who have monuments in their honor or things named after them, sometimes for efforts perhaps unrelated to their support for the confederacy
• (c) are nevertheless drawing scrutiny for those confederate connections.
• (d) In some cases those monuments in their honor are being removed and things renamed.
• (e) and finally, you're saying the lede somehow fails to reflect this.

My response is that you're reading the lede far too narrowly, and you're reading things into it that just aren't there. Because you personally want to see a list of only the most obvious monuments and memorials that explicitly honor someone's role as Confederate military officer, soldier, or politician. But no, the scope of this article is broader. If you were a Confederate leader or soldier and there's a monument or memorial in your honor, then you're getting on this list. There's no confusion. It's right there in the lede.

The monuments and memorials honor the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War

Fluous (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this article is broader? It hasn't been for the past 7 years, until the recent SPLC article. Now it's being hijacked for an entirely different purpose – ironically much like the confederate battle flag was hijacked by racists and white supremacists. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes things actually are just about history. Mojoworker (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this article reflects how people see these monuments and memorials today. Things change. I'm sorry you're on the other end of that change. I really am. It must be hard for you. Fluous (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Change? Polls don't indicate any change (CNN 2015, Marist 2017) - unless you count the rantings of political fringe groups and media hype as indicators of the "true" sentiments of the masses.-Topcat777 22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that poll is in regards to monuments, only a specific part of confederacy symbols. The change is in that many southerners have begun to question at least some confederacy symbols. Confederate Flags being lowered in many southern areas which done mostly in support of its local population clearly shows there is at least some partial change. I still agree with Mojoworker statement though. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I am frustrated for 2 main things. Only part of your list. Scrutiny is good. Questionable / debatable is good. Evidence showing clearly in honor of something else but still being listed is not good. Or no evidence at all is in honor but still being listed is not good.

• a is irrelevant imho, self-defeating of whole point of making a list and it is history that can not be changed.
• b Monument for most part are easy establish in honor of, place names not so much. YES to in honor for efforts totally unrelated, but mostly because of e).
• c & d are again irrelevant imho. Scrutiny is good or fine, whether places choose to remove is up to that location and their local population, not my place nor here place.
• e YES, YES and YES lol. I simply can not understand how "in honor of CSA leaders/soldiers" is anywhere close to "it makes no difference if it really is in honor or not, listed here as long as there is some association."

Maury and Monument Ave is a great example springs to mind. Maury was well known for his published ideas of navy prior to CW, so much that even got some international attn. Maury than become well known for his Scientist ideas, especially internationally. There are several monument in honor for Maury for those achievements, including ones outside of US and have absolutely nothing to do with CSA (but betting they will all get listed here regardless). Now Monument Ave in Richmond, originally was simply wanting to honor 3 soldiers helping to defend them, but by time it finally got planned and funded, than one of those org's added to it. Somewhere along the line, it got changed to being in honor for CSA. Out of nowhere statue of Maury gets added in attempt to look like it is honoring his other achievements. Sorry but NO. It was out of place than, still is now and only implies guilt imho and their attempts to try and soften Monument Ave image. So yes I completely understand having debatable things listed, but this is way beyond that, which would be fine IF lede actually implied this. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The section about Sewanee is too long for this list in my opinion. I think it should be trimmed and most of the info should be added to the history section of the Sewanee article instead. Don't you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Davis Peak

1859 and a survey party was already trying to rename Jeff Davis Peak in Nevada to Union Peak. It is now Wheeler Peak, but a subsidiary peak still carries Jeff Davis's name. [19] Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: What happened to the Nevada listing for Jeff Davis Peak? Did someone remove it? EDIT: Ah ok, it's in a national park. Sounds good! Fluous (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I also found a Jeff Davis Peak and another CSA general peak in California. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Cross reference lists

See List_of_U.S._counties_named_after_prominent_Confederate_historical_figures Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Forrest City Prison

Probably doesn't belong. It's just the name of the town it's in. Only the town should be the listing. Fluous (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Federal Correctional Institution, Forrest City, Arkansas. (1997) The namesake town is named for CSA General Nathan Bedford Forrest

Is Forrest City where the feds send KKK members convicted of crimes? Would that be ironic? Not sure how this is different than a military base named for other generals or other stuff named for Forrest. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess you're right. At first I thought their use of it was facially neutral, incidental, and derivative of the town in which the prison is located. But federal officials could call it something different; they aren't forced to use the name of the town named after a Confederate officer. I'll add it back. Fluous (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I was also gonna add the same logic could be applied to the Forrest City High School, also listed, or any other school named for a town with a CS name. And yes, the Feds could have used the county name or some other name other then the founder of the KKK. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually concur with that logic. It is normal to name things after the town/location that it resides in and so should not be listed. Unless of course it clearly is in honor for CSA. But the reason that town/location was named should be listed. Forrest High School in town of Forrest should not, it is named after the town. HOWEVER, if Forrest High School has statue of Forrest, especially depicting in military, than yes it now should be on the list. But if you are going to list everything named after the town, you really will need to fork this article. CONSISTENCY people. Choose one or the other but make it consistent at least. If you are going to add the prison, than you need to add every single building and company with that name in that town (Forrest bank, Forrest post office, Forrest Hardware, etc). Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The line we seem to be following for things named for a geographic place name that qualifies for the list is Govt named things are included but not private businesses etc. For example Lee School on Lee Street is listed but not Lee Lee Street Market. Publicly visible Private monuments are different and count. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'd add further criteria: is the name purely for identification purposes or can it be changed? For example, high schools and prisons don't have to share the name of the town in which they are located. And schools and prisons frequently don't. It's a choice. So FCI Forrest City and Forrest City High School both merit inclusion. But something like "Forrest City Municipal Works Department"— that's part of the local government, but there's not enough there that would merit inclusion. It's entirely derivative of the town in which it's located and there really isn't room to call it anything different. I mean, right? Fluous (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - the public works department is part of the city listing, as would be the Mayor's title and the City Hall. Similarly we are not listing "Lee County Courthouse" which there must be a few. "Lee County Jail" would also not be listed because it is just another part of the County government. The Federal Prison complex is different in my view. It could be called anything, though given the naming conventions for Federal Prisons that would have been an unusual but not unprecedented decision. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed the Federal Prison SHOULD be called something else, and it IS called something else. Federal Correction Institution. What is NOT called something else is the local city prison/jail. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Consistency, one states "list is Govt named things" and yet that is not being done. Where are all the others for Forrest City? So far only see the schools listed. Someone else states Municipal Works Dept should not be listed. Which one is it?

Yes they could have named FCI and FCHS (and all other govt bldg) something else, Yes it is a choice but that is not normal. NO, schools and prisons are not frequently called something else unless they have more than one, since don't want to keep calling them the same. Looking at nearby locations to Forrest City we have: Marion High School (Marion); Hughes High School (Hughes); Palestine-Wheaton High School (Palestine); Earle High School (Earle); Wynne High School (Wynne). Prisons nearby once again reflect same name it resides in: Cross County Detention Center; Forest City Prison; St Francis County Jail & Sheriff; Poinsett County Detention Center; Lee County Jail & Sheriff; and Woodruff County Jail. Point being none of these really should be listed except for the actual location (ie Forrest City), as one normally expects to find that govt building to be named for that location. But meh if everyone insists on adding some like schools, than it NEEDS to be consistent and list ALL of them. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Nathan Bedford Forrest can't have been the founder of the Ku Klux Klan, because he was initiated by John W. Morton.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

National Park Service

I started checking every NPS site (400+) for CS connections. Some of the battlefields have scores of monuments to this and that Confederal General and regiment. Sites like Arlington definitely should be listed. There are some Union sites though that never saw Confederate action. Please leave them in for now, as I think a List of National Park Service sites related to the American Civil War would be a good spin out, and then just link to that page from here.

If we're going to include battlefield monuments, they definitely be set out in a separate subheading under Monuments called something like "Battlefield monuments" Fluous (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends if there is a CSA marker or not at the site. If there isn't, please leave it out.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are already battlefield monuments here – Gettysburg has been in there since before the 25th edit to this article, and I added some for Vicksburg. If we're making a new list, why just NPS sites? What about monuments in other battlefields such as Port Hudson State Historic Site or the privately owned Mill Springs Battlefield and the General Felix K. Zollicoffer Monument there marking the place of his death? I like the suggestion from Fluous of a "Battlefield monuments" section, but a should this be an overall section or a subsection of each state? Seems a better alternative than to remove historical markers here with an explanation of what this list covers, and a {{Main}} to List of historical monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, then abandon this list to the Lost Cause monuments (however determining what goes where would likely be an acrimonious WP:SYNTH-storm. Mojoworker (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with monuments etc. removed

Under Texas these are in a separate section at the end. I think this is a bad idea, but if it's done for Texas it should be done for all. deisenbe (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Former monuments and memorials have their own section in each state. It is done the same way for all. Did we miss some? Fluous (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ohio Kansas Montana Maine Alabama (one school). I stopped at the m's. deisenbe (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is definately inconsistencies between States:

• A) in "former" section vs inline notes (I'm undecided on this)
• B) how we deal with City: Monument Name vs City Monument Name (I prefer the : system as it makes multiple items in a city easier to list)
• C) dates in brackets (1912) vs "established in 1912" (I prefer the bracketed dates for less words and easy scanning to see when most were established, since that is an important point)

Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

How to Shorten Article

I removed a "too long" tag because we all know this and it is a high public traffic page. How could we shorten this up? Some ideas for discussion follow. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

All great ideas. I don't know; this is a really hard question. Can anyone point to examples of how other articles have dealt with this problem? Particularly large, list-class articles. Fluous (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on ISIL and personally spun out several pages and helped spin out others. It's not list, but the principle is when a section gets too big we spin it out and summarize.

There are several ways this can be done. I would suggest doing it one of two ways though.

1) Changed to list only Monuments on this page (and renaming page) and putting all other Memorials on new page as Zigzig20s suggests below. A monument is only type of memorial, but this could easily split down the list and length.

2) Forking out certain sections by creating new pages as one sub-heading for certain state gets too large. (ie Roads, Place names, etc) Specifying what all sub-headings can be forked and setting what x number amount when that should happen.

If using the second option I listed, is there a way that can auto calc the number on newly created stub page? Like say leave Roads sub-heading under state but simply stating "There are x number of roads for this state. A complete listing can be seen in List of Confederate Memorial Roads in x State." Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

actually the "there are X monument in State" lines are sourced to the SPLC list are misleading because our crowdsources list is more comprehensive. We could replace the * with # which would give us a count. We would need to change the lists around so the town is listed after the road or statue or whatever like this because we want to count items not towns:

1. Lee Ave, town A
2. Lee Rd, town B
3. Kirby Smith Rd, town B
4. Rebel St, town B
5. Confederate Rd, town C

Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out Confederate States Section

Stuff named by the Confederacy during the Confederacy seems different than post war memorials. Perhaps take the list of ships out to a seperate page and put it as a See Also? Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out individual states

If we did that we could provide a short summary and a link to the Alabama page with the detailed listings under the Alabama heading. I would not suggest spinning out states with very few entries, just the ones with the really long lists. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could have:

• a single article for Union states;
• a single article for Border states; and
• individual articles for each state in the Confederacy. Fluous (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

might be a good way to go, if needed. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This sounds messy. The Civil War is OVER. Either we have an article for each state of the Union, or we have this article with all the states. But a state like Wyoming would only have one listing. So instead, it may make sense to keep this list but split off some states, like Alabama, and just mention the main monuments/statues in Alabama on this list.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I created a drafting copy User:Legacypac/Alabama to show numbering and what a spinoff State page might look like. It's still in progress. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Wyoming would be too stubby. So would Montana. Instead, if we take out the schools for each state here, it's a great improvement. We can keep the historic buildings on college and university campuses (monuments), but we don't need all the middle and high schools (memorials).Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting we would only spin out the states with lots of listings and summarize the detailed state articles here. I've been working on the User:Legacypac/Alabama example, which includes a section of what would go in this page instead of all the detail. It's not a good idea to have a seperate Wyoming page.

There has long been a public debate over "practical monuments" like a school or road vs erecting a statue or stone with no practical use other than something to look at. This debate occured specifically over Confederste memorials but also for other wars, people etc. A named school is absolutely a monument/memorial just like or more so than a statue or carved chunk of stone by the courthouse. Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's "absolutely" different.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is no different at all, especially if you use the proper terminology, like wikipedia's definitions. School or road is a memorial. A statue is a monument (which is a type of memorial). I do like how they are attempting to rename the word into 'practical monument' though lol. Why not just use what it is called, memorial. Anyway they are all memorials in honor of CSA and so should be listed, only difference is that a school or road can be renamed and in theory no longer be a memorial in honour of, but renaming a monument (ie statue, etc) will make no difference as it is still clearly in honour. I would also argue that a school being named after Lee especially in VA, where he emphasized and encouraged that precedence should be on rebuilding and educating the youth to accompolish that is not in honour of CSA. A school elsewhere is admittedly more debatable. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out the License Plates Section as its own page

We could then do a simple listing under each involved state with a link over. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be split into another article and just mentioned in the "see also" section. This article should be primarily about statues and buildings (as it used to be).Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We could split this whole article thematically.

• Monuments and memorials of the Confederacy (Perhaps no longer a list-class article. It probably deserves an article on its own merits. It can include an overview of the list-class articles we split out. And we can delve more deeply into the controversy part of why these memorials happened in the first place— something we've largely avoided so far. Yet much has been written about it in the news.)
  • List of monuments of the Confederacy (monuments, statues, plaques, sculpture, carvings, etc)
  • List of places named after the Confederacy (inhabited places, parks. maybe lakes, rivers, and public works like dams, too?)
  • List of roads named after the Confederacy (roads, highways, bridges, etc)
  • List of schools and the Confederacy (schools named after the Confederacy, the use of Confederate iconography in schools: nicknames, mascots, traditions, etc).
  • List of Confederate holidays and observances by U.S. states
  • List of Confederate license plates by U.S. states
  • List of U.S. military facilities and ships named after the Confederacy
  • List of [insert legacypac-type stuff]

Fluous (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we should keep all the buildings and statues in one place. Those are "monuments"; memorials (license plates, coins, etc.) are a little different...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I much prefer a State by State listing rather than a list of all schools across all states. It is much more informative to know that Alabama has a lot of statues and schools and roads compared to Maryland. Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Schools are not monuments; they are memorials and can be renamed easily. That's not the same thing as removing statues completely or scrubbing "Confederate" from historic buildings.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

To split the article into separate articles on coins, streets, license plates, schools would make what is going on less significant as a whole. deisenbe (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an activist news website. This is an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

National Parks Service Civil War Page

I'm thinking the treatment of the Civil War by the National Parks Service would be a useful notable topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

See National Military Park, and List of areas in the United States National Park System, specifically List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Military Parks, List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Battlefield Parks, and List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Battlefields. (edit) I just read what you said again. Can you explain more about what you mean by "treatment"? Mojoworker (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Treatment = how the NPS presents and commemorates the civil war. Do they have monuments, confed flags etc celebrating the CS. Not federal, but Jefferson Davis State Historic Site is definitely a celebration of all things Davis. Legacypac (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out holidays, coins

Holidays and coins are not monuments. Maybe this list has become too long because it includes not only monuments (buildings and statues), but also memorials (coins, holidays, etc.)?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

check the title of the page. Anyway, holidays and coins are not a significant portion of the content. The gazillion statues are the biggest part of the content. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The list was stable until a few weeks ago. We didn't use to list all the schools and roads. We used to focus on monuments (statues and historic buildings).Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Two Ohios

We don't need two sections for Ohio.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Merged Legacypac (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Graph of Monument Construction

Should the article include the following graph of monument construction based on SPLC data?

Number of Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year. Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension. The year 1911 saw the largest number constructed, which was the 50th anniversary of the Civil War.

D.Creish (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose, My first concern is the labels which don't correspond to their respective eras or their peaks. As far as I can tell they're unsourced. My second concern is the monument data itself. SPLC may be an authority on hate groups but not history. We should find better a better source. D.Creish (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The assertions above are false. The labels do correspond to their respective eras. This is a strange thing to say because it is so blatantly and obviously incorrect. It's also false that they are "unsourced". All the info is in the source and other sources have ALREADY been provided above to back it up. So we ALREADY have other sources (and SPLC is fine since when the Jim Crow era was in effect is not exactly a major controversy in history). This is just excuses for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. Volunteer Marek  19:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also since most users above have supported inclusion of this graph I would really appreciate it if you, along with the anon IPs, stopped edit warring about this graph for the time being and left it alone. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek  19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Basic knowledge of history (repeated in Jim Crow laws and Civil rights movements) says otherwise. Should discussions go in the Threaded discussion section? D.Creish (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What is this "basic knowledge of history"? Because the stuff in Jim Crow laws and Civil rights movements (sic) fits in perfectly with the graph. Please actually read the discussion above. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph's annotation of when the Jim Crow Era occurred is misleading. Kahn Academy,[20] Encyclopedia Britannica,[21] and the Smithsonian[22] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the SPLC had a specific agenda (which might be correct), and they are pushing it. We should use a non biased source in this regard. There are other explanations out there for the first peak (in general, monuments for wars are not constructed right after, eg Korean War Veterans Memorial).Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

1) The SPLC is a perfectly reliable source as has been discussed to death across the vast span of Wikipedia. 2) The SPLC is NOT the only source provided, there's a dozen sources given in the discussion up above which say the same thing. This isn't just another WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT excuse. Volunteer Marek  20:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC being reliable (though that is being questioned of late), does not mean it is unbiased. The SPLC is an important source for designating hate groups, particularly current groups. It is not, however, a good source for history.Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For this kind of history they're just fine. Regardless, we have a dozen other sources, including academic historians at prestigious institutions, saying the exact same thing. Volunteer Marek  11:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I also oppose the inclusion of the graph in its current form. The SPLC may be a good source for information, but it is not Wikipedia policy to include editorializing. I wrote the Wiki article on the history of slavery in WV, so I know a bit about these issues. The graph blatantly ignores the spike in building monuments that occur during the semi-centennial and the centennial of the Civil War. It would be easy enough, though arduous, for someone to compile the laws considered Jim Crow by year and come up with another graph. It would probably be a worthwhile project. But I personally believe the graph should not be used until the two labels on the spikes are removed. Comments under the graph would be available for discussion of racism and Jim Crow, Dubyavee (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• I have Opposed the graph since it first appeared. Correlation does not equal Causation. These peaks also correspond with the 50th and 100th anniversary of the war, and the second bulge is when the baby boomer schools were being built and the interstate highway system was being constructed. Both created a huge demand for names and the folks in the South have always gravitated towards the losers of the Lost Cause when looking for names. The first peak also corresponds with when the Union and GAR monuments were being built and that proves . . . ..what? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph does not assert causation. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. It seems to claim that Jim Crowe & the Civil Rights movement caused the monuments to be built. If not that, what is the point of the labels on the chart? Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You are INFERRING. The graph is not IMPLYING. The point of the labels is to accurately reflect the source. To be explicit - the graph and the source are IMPLYING the POSSIBILITY that Jim Crow and CVR were related to the flurry of monument construction. As an aside, we already discussed the possibility that the 50th and 100th anniversary had something to do with it. And I thought we had successfully discounted it. The second peak, during the civil rights era, starts in the ... 1950's, well before the 100th anniversary. Likewise, the first peak starts growing at the turn of the century also well before the 50th anniversary. Overall, as far as Wikipedia is concerned however - you need sources! Show me reliable sources which attribute the growth in monuments to the anniversary thing. Otherwise you're the one actually doing the original research. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This article was written in 2006. Well before the current craze about "Jim Crow" and white supremacy- "RECONCILIATION OR CELEBRATION ERA, 1890–1920 The peak of monument development occurred in the reconciliation or celebration era. By 1914, Charles Reagan Wilson notes, "over a thousand monuments existed in the South," and "many battlefields had been set aside as pilgrimage sites containing holy shrines" (p. 178). The Gettysburg battlefield would have nearly thirteen hundred monuments erected by 1920, most of them northern. The semicentennial of the war took place in the years 1911–1915 and served as an impetus; so too were the nationalist fervor aroused during the Spanish-American War and World War I and the aging or passing of the first generation of descendants." http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/culture-magazines/civil-war-memorials-and-monuments -Topcat777 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but as repeatedly pointed out, the increase shown in the chart start well BEFORE the semi-centennial of 1911-1915. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the chart is reliably sourced both in terms of the graph itself and the labeling of the eras. Volunteer Marek  02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I found it useful and don't find it unsourced or biased. deisenbe (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It ain't perfect, but it's reliably sourced. This information, in graph form, is widely repeated by other reliable sources as being relevant to the topic. That should be enough. If well-sourced facts imply something, which is then emphasized by other sources, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps this Wiki article might make the objections more understandable. Correlation does not imply causation. I think that is the mistake here. You need hard data on Jim Crow laws in order to make claims that one caused the other. The SPLC doesn't have to do that because they are a private organization, they can say anything they want. The hard data on the monuments might be reliably sourced, but the correlation between monuments and Jim Crow has no data at all. Wikipedia is an entirely different thing, and all sides must be considered here and NPOV be maintained. Dubyavee (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not productive to suggest that most of us are not familiar with something as fundamental as correlation/causation. At the very least, it misrepresents the nature of this discussion. The SPLC is a reliable source, and this correlation is also supported by other reliable sources, such as CNN. Insisting this is not causative, because it's not spelled-out as a causation by a source you approve of, is original research. If sources choose to contextualize this information a certain way, removing that context is a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider CNN a reliable source on history, they are a news agency. I also have reservations on the SPLC, which is an advocacy group and not a scholarly source. They have an agenda, and that is fine. But we cannot duplicate such material on Wikipedia because Wikipedia has an obligation to verify information. It is the combination in the graph of the number of monuments built by year, which is verifiable, with an opinion that is not verifiable. That is the great problem with the graph. There has been no study relating Jim Crow laws to the building of the monuments that would validate the combination of those two separate things into one graph. The simple solution to this whole thing is just to have the graph showing the numbers of monuments with the editorializing stubs removed. The subject of Jim Crow and monuments can easily be treated in the text. If the creator of the graph would just remove those two tabs all objections would vanish, and Jim Crow can be addressed in the article itself. I think that is a reasonable solution. Dubyavee (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 1.The SPLC graph (indicated as the source) does not have the big labels placed over the peak periods of the monuments. Suggested solution- remove the big labels. 2.The SPLC is not an unbiased source. They actively promote the removal of monuments. 3.The SPLC study does not mention the 50th or 100th anniversaries of the Civil War as motivating factors in the construction of monuments. That's a major flaw in their study. Of course, if you're going to promote the "white supremacy" angle, it does no good to distract the reader with more plausible reasons for the construction of monuments. -Topcat777 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not have the labels but it is mentioned directly and explicitly in the text. And whether you think SPLC is "unbiased" or not is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that they, and the many other sources presented, are reliable. Hell, we're actually using this report to compile the list! So how come we can use the report to compile this list, but not include the graph from the same source??? This is why this just smells of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1. We already decided this should be included. 2. The editor commenting here using the IP should identify themselves because otherwise a SPI is warrented. 2. The sourcing is clear, and backed up by not only the SPLC report but confirmed by this very page and all the data we collected that matches the trends. 4. SPLC is well respected and the report deemed reliable and widely quoted by every major media outlet that has reported on the monumnets issue over the last several months. I have yet to see any RS question the data or call out some sort of inappripriate bias against SPLC.

I will grant that, as the SPLC report states, the data is not comprehensive. This page is more comprehensive than SPLC but we can't cite this page as the data source. We also can't use the actual SPLC graph as it's copyrighted; hence why we are using the user generated copyright free version. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The SPLC report is not copyrighted. Fluous (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – While the charting of monument building (by years) may be properly sourced, adding the "eras" is WP:SYN. Indeed, the "Jim Crow era" does not have an historical definition/article in WP. (A better benchmark would be Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

From the article "starting in 1896 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans in railroad cars" and then it goes on to date the end to 1954 (and the last of it by 1965). I really wish people would read what they invoke. Volunteer Marek  02:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – There's nothing wrong with the graph. It's reliably sourced. Those who oppose its inclusion are Lost Causers who are trying to sanitize/ whitewash history. Fluous (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. let me get this straight. Because I OPPOSE there inclusion of this graph I am (and I quote) a " Lost Causers who are (is) trying to sanitize/ whitewash history." That is quite a claim considering that you do not know who the **** I am or what I believe in. @Fluous: I seriously suggest that you reconsider this statement. Don't remove it because it is germane to the discussion, but think about it a bit. Carptrash (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, Carptrash, did you just try to VOTE TWICE?  Volunteer Marek  03:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy, we don't "vote" on things. There was a discussion about my opposition to the graph, like, what motivated it and I was quoting myself. Carptrash (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you tried to !vote twice. Still not a good thing. Or should I just start saying that I Support you not !voting twice? And do similar for my insights about other people's comments?  Volunteer Marek  13:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So now you are an expert on what I am trying to do? This is called projection. Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for striking that. Volunteer Marek  19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Might as well get the whole gang in on this one. @Srich32977:, @Topcat777:, @Icewhiz:, @D.Creish:, Carptrash (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

People, can we agree to reserve "bolded support/ oppose" formatting for our initial votes only? Otherwise, it looks like you're voting twice. There's no reason for it. I changed Carptrash's double vote to plain text, but he unreasonably reverted the edit and taunted me to "go find an administrator" if I didn't like it. I mean, really? Fluous (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No one cares. Stop wasting everyone's time. D.Creish (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You might want to strike that comment. Volunteer Marek  03:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The SPLC chart makes a correlation that isn't there, and their impartiality has recently been called into question. The construction of large monuments took many artist on average 10 years from date of commission to final dedication. Construction of schools would have been equally long. This report and chart ignores the amount of planning, funding and city approvals for these monuments, roads and schools. If these monuments were in response to the Crow and Segragation eras, their construction would have lagged behind by well over a decade. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The correlation is obviously there. Also, WP:OR. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The annotations in the graph violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by stating an opinion as a fact, WP:WikiVoice, for giving undue weight to the SPLC's agenda driven hypothesis while failing to note that the spikes coincide with the 50th and 100th Anniversary of the Civil War, WP:Undue, WP:PROPORTION, and for being a questionable self-published source, WP:QUESTIONABLE. The graph also violates Wikipedia's best practices against creating misleading graphs. Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. The annotation states that the Jim Crow era overlaps the 1911 peak in monument building, but that is misleading because the Jim Crow era actually began after the Reconstruction Era ended in the 1870s.[23] [24] [25] The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. If the chart's annotation were accurate, the "Jim Crow Era" note would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed just above the 1911 spike that coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Civil War; although, the 50th anniversary is not even noted on the chart. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support SPLC is a reliable source and has been used as such in many places on Wikipedia. Arguments which begin with the assumption that SPLC is an unreliable source should back up that assumption rather than propose things based on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC did not make this chart, and their chart does not include the annotations. Nobody is claiming that the SPLC can't be cited in the article. Even if SPLC is a WP:RELIABLE source, the chart and its annotations can still be challenged on WP:Undue, WP:PROPORTION, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The chart is a faithful representation of the chart made by SPLC. Your list of undue, proportion and all that just basically shows that you're willing to quote whatever random Wikipedia policy is necessary, even if inapplicable, to support a simple IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that the placement of the Jim Crow era above the 1911 spike is historically inaccurate because Jim Crow laws started in the 1870s at the end of the Reconstruction Era, not including an annotation on the 50th and 100th anniversaries in the chart but including an annotation on the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights era favors the inclusion of some facts at the omission of others. That is an obvious example of WP:Undue and WP:PROPORTION. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first that's not actually true. Jim Crow laws started being passed in the 1870s but they couldn't be enforced until Plessy v. Ferguson overturned previous rulings which had found them unconstitutional, so the Jim Crow era didn't really begin then. Second, and more importantly, for our purposes none of this matters. Our own personal disagreements and opinions about when the Jim Crow era actually started are completely irrelevant. We are not historians here on Wikipedia (even if we are in real life). We do not do original research and historical interpretation. We are editors who report what reliable sources say. And this reliable source says that one of the peaks of monument construction occurred in the Jim Crow era. Volunteer Marek  15:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Jim Crow laws started being passed in the 1870s but they couldn't be enforced until Plessy v. Ferguson overturned previous rulings which had found them unconstitutional." JC laws were enforced from their inception by state and local governments. The Supreme Court case of 1896 involved a law (passed 1890 in LA) that was challenged by Mr. Plessy. If it wasn't being enforced there would be no need to challenge it.-Topcat777 18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"If it wasn't being enforced there would be no need to challenge it" - that makes no sense. That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. Some laws get challenged as soon as the ink on the signature is dry. This is just a profoundly incorrect and wrong statement. Regardless, as I've said - this is no place to argue about history. All that matters is whether a source says something. It does. That's it, that's all we need. Leave your original research at home, or some other internet forum, cuz it don't belong here on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  19:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not original research. Kahn Academy,[26] Encyclopedia Britannica,[27] and the Smithsonian[28] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. Your claim that that they could not or were not enforced until Plessy v. Ferguson is original research, and doesn't even make sense. You are saying that Jim Crow laws were on the books for about two decades without being enforced. If you read Plessy v. Ferguson you will see that the law Plessy challenged was passed in 1890, he sued in 1892, and the Supreme Court made its decision in 1896. Some laws do get challenged as soon as the ink on the signature is dry, but that's not what happened with Plessy. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is original research. In particular it's WP:SYNTH. All these sources say that states *began* passing laws after the end of Reconstruction. My claim about Plessy v. Ferguson is not "my" claim but what sources say. I presented a dozen sources below which explicitly link monument construction to Jim Crow. So take it up with reliable sources. Please respect Wikipedia policy - WP:RS. Also, this whole "semi-centennial" thing - unless you got sources to back it up, drop it. Respect WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  14:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No source is reliable for all claims in all contexts. SPLC's expertise is "hate groups", not medicine, Latin grammar or history. The contradictions between their claims and historical experts is concerning and I'll address them after we settle this graph issue. D.Creish (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The "hate groups" here have a historical pedigree, hence SPLC's expertise is very much satisfactory. There are no "contradictions" between their claims and historical experts. Quit making stuff up. Saying "I'll address them after we settle this graph issue" is ass-backwards. You're suppose to support your arguments BEFORE a decision is reached, not, if you happen to fancy, after you railroad and edit war your way to "victory". Volunteer Marek  19:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The first question is whether the graph is appropriate assuming the SPLC is reliable for history, the second is whether the SPLC is reliable for history. Oppose votes can address the first without addressing the second.

So far you've made 20-something comments in an RFC with only 15 votes. Maybe time to drop the stick. D.Creish (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I fall in line with excuse number 2 mentioned below. The addition of the labels are drawing conclusions that are not supported. I also agree with VM that Fluous should strike their comment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the support from the source is quoted directly below. Likewise, it's not Fluous who should strike their comment but D.Creish who's making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  13:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Despite the chart stating "Source: SPLC" in small lettering at the bottom, it none-the-less gives those reading the article the sense that it is summarizing information contained in the article, when in fact it is summarizing SPLC data and providing an SPLC interpretation about the cause of that data. Because a number of editors have provided additional interpretations for the shape of the graph--other than the two provided by the SPLC--inclusion of this chart is contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia:Graphs and charts, which states that "graphs must be accurate and convey information efficiently". I would suggest instead that if the SPLC data is added to the article, it be added as a textual summary preceded by "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center". Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Since glancing down this "survey" which seems more like a series of debates by User:Volunteer Marek| Volunteer Marek  than a simple survey, I'll weigh in as to what will happen once real historians begin to look at the SPLC assertions. I have never technically tried this before but it should work. Here is the story of one CSA monument found in a legit historical review from 1990, well before the current upheaval. Now imagine this repeated a couple of hundred times for a couple of hundred other monuments. I used this because I have it at home. Read this over. It follows one monument from right at the end of the war until its execution in 1893 - The Jim Crowe era. [[29]]. Carptrash (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not clear on what your link is suppose to show. It's a local history pamphlet from 1990 by an author that unsurprisingly I've never heard of, which doesn't actually address any of the issues being discussed. Volunteer Marek  02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dcleish and Carptrash and others. The graphic as it stands is embarrassing to put forward. --doncram 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have no doubt that many things in the South were a result of Brown vs. Board of Education, etc, but it is less certain that building monuments was one of those reactions. I think that the "the "corelation" with Jim Crow Laws is only a coincidence. You could put in several other things and see similar "corelations". "Correlation is not the same as causation." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bubba73 your point is fine except for three facts - the people that built the monuments disagreee with you, and the people who study these things disagree with you, and the people who opposed these monumnets disagree with you. I've read hundreds of news articles, books, history pages etc on the issue over the last few weeks and the link is 150% clear. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not aware of any historian that has disputed the accuracy of the graph. The graph has received extensive coverage by reliable sources, with numerous historians going way further than the description in the graph, saying explicitly that the monuments were were built during the Jim Crow Era and Civil Rights Movement as a means of intimidating African Americans and to glorify white supremacy. So it's weird to read all these correlation =/= causation arguments above when (1) the graph itself makes no such argument while (2) actual experts DO make the argument. If anything, this graph and its description box is treading way too carefully, in a way that biases the content in favor of those who want to keep the monuments or claim that they have nothing to do with the civil rights struggle or white supremacy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You're saying Marek's graph has received extensive coverage by reliable sources? This RFC is about including his graph specifically. Would you like to revise your vote/comment. D.Creish (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it has. And please notice that I address this little "tactic" specifically below. If someone presents a source which mentions the SPLC report then the argument is "that's not an independent source, it's just SPLC again". If someone presents a source which says the same thing as the SPLC report but does not mention it, then the argument is "this RfC is about the SPLC source". It's basically a disingenuous and underhanded attempt to get around the fact that both the chart and the info it represents are impeccably sourced by reliable sources. Would you like to revise your comment?  Volunteer Marek  14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This looks like an interesting and highly relevant graph. It does not matter who created the image. It only matters if data used for drawing the graph were sourced to RS. Yes, they were sourced to RS. Do we have any other data from other RS which contradict data on the graph? If so, they could be included on the graph, but I do not see such data. Speaking about the legend, this is a separate question. I do not see a problem. Telling "Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement" is merely a matter of simple fact. What was the reason remains for a reader to decide. If the legend was a problem (I do not think so), it can be fixed and the graph included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Unequivocally RC'ed. A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise.--Galassi (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per others who point out the WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. This graph is extremely relevant to this topic and an excellent summary of the history of these monuments. I can't understand how it violates WP:NPOV or is WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources have, for many many many years, discussed the fact that were mainly built in the Jim Crow era. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong OPPOSE - WP:FRINGE from an advocacy group. Source issues here are that its an advocacy group so clearly falls under WP:BIASED, is WP:PRIMARY material, and we lack the actual list so a bit WP:V. Content issues are that it's mostly WP:OFFTOPIC as 'Other' is not this article subject of monuments and memorials, that inserting a racial narrative into a "List of" article is WP:SOAPBOX, that it uses false period labels (e.g. Jim Crow starts 1877). This narrative fails WP:WEIGHT but really just does not suit a 'list of' so rather than put it as minor note among the various explanations, just delete it.

p.s. Historians list the 1900 period as popular for all manner of civic monuments and histories due to the century-mark, national growth, and simply technical advances in monuments making it far cheaper for production (e.g. Monumental Bronze Company). One could also observe that in 20 or 30 years after the war, the formerly young folk would have become prominent (e.g. Secretary of Interior, Senators, etc) so were honored for the rest of their life. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is likely the most headscratching response in this thread. What on earth? This person would cite WP:ZOOANIMALS if that were a choice. They're just throwing random guidelines on the wall to see what sticks. Moreover, there is some serious brigading going on here. Do you conservatives/ libertarians/ Lost Causers have some kind of brigading mailing list? Fluous (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed labels as polemical. How about "Populist era" instead of "Jim Crow era"? "Populist" is certainly more of a professional historian's term. Great scott (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you present some sources which link the monument construction to "populist era". So far not a single source of such nature has been presented. On the other hand, a dozen sources which link it to "Jim Crow era" have been presented. "Populist" is NOT "a professional historian's term". Sources are below. They don't call it that. Who are these professional historians suppose to be?  Volunteer Marek  09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Although you've never heard of the Populist era, you are somehow able to imagine that you have an informed opinion about these matters. A historian might talk about this as the Populist era the same way you might talk about the "Reagan era" or something like that. My meaning is not that the rise of the Populists led to monument building, but only that it happened in the era named after them. "Jim Crow era" is not a neutral era name in this sense, but rather an attempt to blame monument building on the Jim Crow laws. I don't think this is a reasonable interpretation of history. It is rather an attempt at point scoring in a modern political debate. The turn-of-the-century monument building frenzy was triggered but growing economic prosperity, industrialization, and improvements in monument-building technology. People who were young soldiers in the 1860s had risen to influential positions by the 1890s. How does Jim Crow explain all the monuments of Union soldiers that were built in the North at this time? See this article. Great scott (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got the notion that I "have never heard of the Populist era". Please stop making stuff up. If "a historian might talk about this as the Populist era", or "something like that", and this historian links this Populist era, "or something like that", to the construction of Confederate monuments, then you should have no trouble presenting a source from such a historian, no? You either haven't read what I wrote or you read it and then completely failed to understand it. Apparantly you have also not read or read and then completely failed to understand the very source you're linking to which says, quote: "the communities that erected those (Confederate) statues were also looking for a way to assert their doctrine of white supremacy at a time when they were passing Jim Crow laws to codify the separation of the races". So thanks for proving yourself wrong. And if you got a graph of the number of monuments build in the North during the same time, let's see it. Otherwise all your ramblings about industrialization and monument-building technology and "something like that" are just so much misplaced original research.  Volunteer Marek  17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"About 2,500 soldier statues were erected in the North and about 500 in the South" Thanks for the link, Great Scott. I found that very interesting. If those numbers are correct then the north was outpacing the south by 5:1 with respect to monument construction.108.218.57.36 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the WP:V / WP:NOR concerns especially, but also the WP:NPOV ones. No opinion at present on the utility of one that was fixed to match what the sources say. Would need to see it to evaluate it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Care to articulate what the V, NOR and NPOV problems are suppose to be? It actually says exactly what the sources say so I'm not clear on how it's suppose to be "fixed". So by "fixed" do you mean "made in accordance with my own personal prejudices and opinions"? Cuz that's the only way your statement makes sense (even though it violates Wikipedia policy). Volunteer Marek  09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Not sure how this is anything but WP:SYNTH. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it SYNTH? The chart is in the source. The source explicitly mentions the two eras. As do numerous other sources. Volunteer Marek  17:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The chart is in fact not in the source. You manipulated the data and added titles that do not reflect accurate dates or even the data represented by SPLC! This is clearly WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and "Don't Draw Misleading Graphs." Your claim that "As do numerous other sources" is the very definition of SYNTH. You have caused this immense problem all by your hubris and it is unbelievable you have the audacity to question other editors when you are the creator of the flawed graph. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the chart is in the source. No data was manipulated. Please stop lying. The data is EXACTLY as it is in the source. The labels (not titles) were added based on the source *text*. The fact that other sources say the EXACT same thing is NOT synth - because no novel conclusion is being drawn. All it means is that the labels in this chart are supported by MULTIPLE sources. Please cut it out with the pontificatin' and personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  05:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you actually tried using Infowars as a source, pretty much means that your opinions can be safely ignored. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the page number you pulled the information for the dates regarding the Crow Era and Civil Rights Eras. Your "titles" inaccurately reflect the dates as numerous people have already mentioned. So go ahead, give us those page numbers.108.218.57.36 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the graph, with an improved legend. The period of the civil rights movement should be clarified based on reliable sources (by highlighting the background in a different color if the name won't be legible), the anniversaries of the start of the Civil War should be included, as should the nadir of American race relations and massive resistance. We should include as much information as possible to make the timeline meaningful to readers. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the label for the Civil Rights can be easily fixed - it's a bit larger simply for reasons of readability, but if someone's gonna use that as an excuse to oppose this chart, it's not a big deal. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - there's nothing wrong with this chart. It's based on a reliable source. The labels in it are based on text of the source. This info is backed up by a dozen other reliable sources, including ones written by academic historians and scholars. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Both the actual data and the interpretation the graph implies seem to be well-sourced, not just to the SPLC (where we got these exact number) but to numerous other sources that have said the same thing in similar terms. Graphs are sometimes tricky to use, but I don't see how this can be credibly said to be synthesis - synthesis is when you combine data from multiple sources to imply something that none of them are saying. In this case, we're legitimately summarizing multiple sources to express the same thing that all of them are stating; the spikes of Confederate monuments in the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras are well-sourced (and was the original purpose of the figures the graph expresses), so highlighting them is clearly not OR or SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support and add context. As an attempt to explore some kind of middle-ground (and deliberately ignoring the question of when the "Jim Crow era" and "Civil Rights movement" were), I note that a theme from the "oppose" comments is that while the data is correct, other contextual information (e.g. 50th and 100th anniversaries) are missing. Why not fix it instead of removing it? De Guerre (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note - I've made some minor changes to the graph, in particular changing the span of the labels as suggested above. Volunteer Marek  11:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of the labels, not necessarily the graph. As has been pointed out, the source for the graph is the SPLC article "Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy" at [30], which says "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." If the existing labels are retained, these labels need to be added as well. Mojoworker (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As the content is pushed by the SPLC. A graph mentioning the dates/timeline of the construction/erection/installation of the monuments/memorials is one thing. Trying to politicize it with adding certain other events is just pushing their agenda. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the labels, not necessarily the graph and not coverage of the topic in text. It is disingenuous to pretend that the labels do not imply a 'racial kickback' as the primary reason, when many other reasons are legitimately floated as partially causing the (hardly momentous in the case of 50-60s) peaks. A more nuanced text exposition along with a less 'loaded' graph would be more informative IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment - reverting and removing, then really quickly starting an RfC to "protect" one's edit warring is textbook example of disruptive WP:GAMEing. The graph needs to be restored until the RfC is concluded. An RfC is not a blank check to make reverts one prefers. Volunteer Marek  20:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In general there is some serious shenanigans with respect to this graph going on here so let me address these "rationales" collectively:

Excuse #1 - "it's original research". No. Not in the least bit. The graph is based explicitly on a source, it's the exact same information as in the source. In fact the source is given BOTH within the graph AND as an inline citation. There's no original research here and anyone making this assertion does not appear to be engaging in discussion in good faith since it's blatantly false.

Excuse #2 - "the labeling is original research". No. The graph in the source does not label certain eras as "Jim Crow" and "Civil Rights Movement" but rather notes specific dates. True enough. BUT it does explicitly discuss the upticks in the graph as occurring during these eras. For example: " its association with slavery, Jim Crow and the violent resistance to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.", "And it conceals the true history of the Confederate States of America and the seven decades of Jim Crow segregation and oppression that followed the Reconstruction era", "Confederate flag was used extensively by the Ku Klux Klan as it waged a campaign of terror against African Americans during the civil rights movement and that segregationists in positions of power raised it in defense of Jim Crow" And then, about as clearly as possible it states:

"But two distinct periods saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols. The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War."

That's it right there. Anybody who tries to argue that the labeling is original research with a straight face either hasn't read the source, or they're just making stuff up to justify their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Excuse #3 - "ok, the graph is not OR, the labeling is not OR ... but it's just wrong! As "basic history" (sic) shows!". I don't know what this is suppose to mean specifically, but in general what it means is that the person writing it has no basic familiarity with history and should probably refrain from lecturing others about "basic history". The Jim Crow era is dated by historians to Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling 1896 which allowed for "separate but equal". The spike in the number of monuments does indeed start around this time. So not only is this info in the source it is also correct. I'm not going to address the civil rights era part because that's even more obvious. So this excuse is either sheer ignorance of... basic history, or it's more IJUSTDONTLIKEIT obfuscation.

Rest later. Volunteer Marek  20:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." I notice that sentence is on the website version of the article, but they leave it out of the PDF version (see page 9). -Topcat777 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to back this up?  Volunteer Marek  02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nm found it. Volunteer Marek  02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on "Excuse #3" - The graph's annotation of when the Jim Crow Era occurred is misleading. Kahn Academy,[31] Encyclopedia Britannica,[32] and the Smithsonian[33] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources for a monument building spree during the Jim Crow era

Since it appears we have quite a number of history experts here who feel that their own original research should trump what the sources says, let's at least take a look at the number of sources on this issue. Likewise, since a few editors wish to reject the SPLC simply per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT while simultaneously but erroneously asserting that it is the only source to make this claim, it is useful to show otherwise. Oh yeah, we also have assertions (unbacked by... well, anything) to the effect that "once real historians see the SPLC graph they'll tear it to shreds" - and since these assertions are just as wrong as everything else being claimed by the Opposers, it might be a good idea to actually see what actual historians say. So, here we go...

1. [34] Quotes: :"The memorials are a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era".

Also "their installation came against a backdrop of Jim Crow violence and oppression of African Americans".

Also "During the era of Jim Crow, Confederate monuments could be placed most anywhere."

Note also that this article DOES NOT mention the SPLC report at all. This is an independent source.

And who's it by? Oh yeah, a "real historian". Quote: "a professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte"

Now... I'm pretty sure I know what the next step in the argument here will be. Somebody will pipe up and say "this doesn't mention the SPLC report! Therefore it's SYNTH!". (No, no it's not). And if I give you a source which does mention the SPLC report then the argument will be "this is based on the SPLC report! It's the same, not an independent source!". Which is of course all bullshit. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Can't make such arguments while continuing to pretend you're here to edit in good faith.

Ok, now that we've pre-preemptively dispensed with this potential chicanery, let's keep going...

2. [35] Quotes:

"huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s (...) "in the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. "

And oh gee, here we have ANOTHER "real historian" who has the temerity to disagree with all our "real historians" that have shown up to this talk page: "James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message"

Yes, this source references the SPLC report. It confirms it. It says the same thing. It highlights the role of Jim Crow. It has a "real historian" confirming it.

3. [36] Quotes:

"Most monuments went up not immediately after the war, but as Southerners put Jim Crow in place"

"It is hardly coincidence that the cluttering of the state’s landscape with Confederate monuments coincided with two major national cultural projects: (...) the imposition of Jim Crow and white supremacy in the South"

This source also does not rely on the SPLC and just confirms the same thing independently.

And this source is also written by an actual "real historian". Indeed, one who is an expert in Confederate monuments.

Ok, we'll go quicker now, because there's so much...

4. [37] Quote:

" the dedication of monuments boomed in the 1920s, alongside the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws across the former Confederacy"

5. [38] Quote:

"Durham Confederate statue: tribute to dying veterans or political tool of Jim Crow South?"

"The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era" (this is a quote from another actual "real historian")

6. [39] Quotes:

"Confederate monuments peaked during Jim Crow & Civil Rights eras"

" uptick in Confederate installations at the height of Jim Crow"

7. [40] Quote:

"Mr. Grossman noted that most Confederate monuments were constructed in two periods: the 1890s, as Jim Crow was being established"

8. [41]. pg 190. Says the same thing. Too long to quote and can't copy/paste from Google Books.

9. [42] Quote:

"The erection of these Confederate memorials and Jim Crow went hand in hand"

10. [43] Quote:

"These latter downtown monuments were erected during the main Confederate memorialization period (...) when the Myth of the Lost Cause was in its ascendancy and Jim Crow segregation was being imposed throughout the South"

11. [44] Quote:

"The parallel development of Jim Crow laws and Confederate monuments in Richmond restructured the physical and social space of the city"

Yeah, alright, I could keep going and offer another dozen sources. But this should be enough for anyone above who argued in good faith and sincerity that the SPLC graph was contradicted by "real historians" or that the SPLC report was somehow an outlier, to strike their !vote. Now, I actually don't have that much faith in the ability of rational, source based arguments at persuading people - folks tend to dig in when they're shown to be wrong and tend to take it personally - which is why I'll stop with "only" twelve sources rather than keep going.  Volunteer Marek  03:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• To believe all of this, you have to believe that people (simply by their own human nature) don't memorialize their dead. That some nefarious motive is involved and it's not because they lost someone in a war.

"The victorious soldier is honored by his nation. Even a defeated nation can still honor its dead, but in the case of the Confederacy there was no nation, so the domestic tie between these women and their lost men bore the weight of that political burden....the larger issues of right or wrong, of victory or defeat, were irrelevant in the face of the basic sacrifice these men had made. For these women as women, the larger issues of why the South fought were irrelevant. They loved these men regardless of the war's rationale and outcome."

Christie Farnham, Women of the American South: A Multicultural Reader, p.139

-Topcat777 14:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? The sources above clearly show that monument construction occurred and was linked to the Jim Crow era. That's all that is relevant here. So I'm sorry but I have no idea why you posted the above quote. Volunteer Marek  14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Jim Crow era lasted from 1877 to the 1960s. It would be difficult to miss that period for those putting up Confederate monuments. The CW generation had all passed away by the '60s. Prior to 1877, celebrations of the Confederacy or its soldiers were generally outlawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topcat777 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No it didn't. Regardless, you are arguing against sources. The fact that sources contradict you is your problem. Volunteer Marek  21:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lost-Cause Ladies Memorial Associations argued that; not the historian. You're literally talking about the Lost Cause and you don't even know it. Fluous (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Coski, John M. (2005). The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. United States of America: First Harvard University Press. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-674-01983-0. Archived from the original on 2016-03-09. Retrieved March 8, 2016. The flag changes in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coincided with the passage of formal Jim Crow segregation laws throughout the South. Four years before Mississippi incorporated a Confederate battle flag into its state flag, its constitutional convention passed pioneering provisions to 'reform' politics by effectively disenfranchising most African Americans. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• "The installation of the 1,000-plus memorials across the US was the result of the orchestrated efforts of white Southerners and a few Northerners with clear political objectives: They tended to be erected at times when the South was fighting to resist political rights for black citizens".[www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy]

The question is whether the chart not these articles should be added to Wikipedia; unlike the chart, your sources are ambiguous on when the Jim Crow era occurred. One says 1890, another says 1920, most generally refer to the Jim Crow era without giving a date range. The chart, however, places the Jim Crow era note directly above the 1911 spike. None of your listed sources give a date range for Jim Crow that would allow us to place the note directly above the 1911 spike. Most of your sources are from news publications not historians, so that further weakens the reliability of those sources. Kahn Academy,[45] Encyclopedia Britannica,[46] and the Smithsonian[47] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. One says Jim Crow laws ended in the 1960s and another says they came to an end in the 1950s with the passing of Brown v. Board of Education. How can we have a chart that places the Jim Crow era note above the 1911 spike when the Jim Crow era existed for almost a century? The chart is also misleading because it doesn't note the semi-centennial and centennial that fall on the spikes, and a neutral point of view requires addressing every relevant fact. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The chart reflects the information found in these articles. I listed these articles PRECISELY because some of ya'll were trying to pretend that "real historians would dispute this chart". Bunkum. As it turns out "real historians" say exactly the same thing as a chart.

And I explicitly address the "news publications not historians" issue. These are historians. Some of it is historians in books. Some of it is historians being interviewed in "news publications". The reliability of these sources is pristine. Please stop making up ridiculous excuses. How many freakin' sources do I have to post, which all say the same damn thing, before this kind of bad-faithed obfuscation stops?

Your criticisms of the chart are your own. The desire to include the semi-centennial and centennial dates is likewise your own invention. This is classic original research. You want a chart that shows semi-centennial and centennial dates? You got two choices. Find a reliable source that has such a chart. Or make such a chart yourself and post it to your blog or Facebook or some other internet venue which is not based on reliable sources and WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What are the chances that all the "sources" so generously supplied above are all generated from the some one place, that is, the SLPC report. Pointing out the 50 different sources reported on the same report is not the same as having 50 sources. Show me one that reported prior to the SLPC report and I'll pay attention. Until then this is just so much smoke and mirrors. Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"What are the chances that all the "sources" so generously supplied above are all generated from the some one place" - hey, I know! Maybe if you actually LOOK and READ the sources or... even just READ my comment you'll know? So... please. actually. read. the. sources. Volunteer Marek  21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The relevancy of the Civil War Centennial is not original research. It's well documented that there was a large increase in celebrations and memorials during this time. President Kennedy even created the United States Civil War Centennial Commission to organize celebrations. It's also well documented that many Confederate memorials were placed on the 50th Anniversary for the purpose of commemorating the 50th Anniversary. Many of those sources are in newspaper archives. The Smithsonian Magazine says that the 25th and 50th anniversaries were widely celebrated,[48] and if you look at the chart you will see there is also a spike at the 25th anniversary of the Civil War, from 1886 to 1890. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Spending time and money commemorating the Xth anniversary of the Civil War is much like erecting a monument or naming a school for a CSA General. Such celebrations were often just another way to promote the "Lost Cause" and reframe it as "The War of Northern Aggression". Also interesting are the celebrations are X years from the Start of the War, not the end, which emphasizes the just nature of the South's position, not to commemerate the North's victory. The confederate holidays and most of the commemorations are in the South - you don't see anyone in the North celebrating the Union victory. Therefore saying monuments are just a neutral way to mark the xth anneversiy of the ACW is not fair. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Magazine wrote "by the time of the 25th anniversary of the war, the veterans of blue and gray were beginning the long process of reconciliation. In 1886, survivors of Confederate Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett’s division were welcomed to a reunion at Gettysburg with Union veterans of the battle from Philadelphia. “Then they were enemies,” wrote the New York Times. “Now they are come together as friends and as citizens of a common country, having no resentments and cherishing no animosities." And "reunification was a dominant theme in the 50th anniversary observances of 1911-1915. George Carr Round, a Union veteran who after the war became a lawyer and settled in Manassas, Virginia, helped organize the Manassas National Jubilee of Peace, in July 1911, in observance of the 50th anniversary of the war’s first battle."[49] Waters.Justin (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, that's great, now show me a source which attributes the monument construction to these centennials! Until then, yes, it is original research.

And really quick - even if you find such a source -- well, actually sourceS, plural, comparable to the dozen I've presented so far - all that would mean is that we could consider adding a "centennial" label to the graph. Volunteer Marek  21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There were Jim Crow laws, but it is not up to us to create a "Jim Crow era" in this list article. Nor can we say the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was part of the South's general attitude or culture about race. (That is up to historians writing about the era.) So, while Jim Crow laws were motivated by racial attitudes, we cannot tie those attitudes to other possible motivations. This said, the revised chart (which does not make a connection to Jim Crow) is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, not up to us to create it, but up to us to reflect it if that's what the sources say. And they do. Ditto for the Lost Cause. Volunteer Marek  15:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:Volunteer Marek - Look at all the other reasons out there. So you googled and found 12 places out of millions that agree with you - this is not showing WP:WEIGHT, it is showing WP:Cherrypick. Looking at them, the first bunch from August 2017 are obviously more about anti-Trump in the wake of Charlottesville; the last part showing results of google "confederate monuments constructed during jim crow era", should be obvious is filtering or biasing the results to select mostly racial narratives. To be NPOV you need to do a neutral search and see all the POVs, or do a variety of googles and see which have more hits. Perhaps Bing 'why were so many monuments consructed" will suit you as showing there are other reasons. Perhaps googling 'monuments constructed 1900' will show you the century mark motives, and 'monuments constructed 1876' will show you the centennial', perhaps 'monuments constructed bronze' will show you that the technology improved (got cheaper) at the end of the 19th century, and the numbers found will suit to show what prominence Jim Crow deserves here. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. If there are "millions" out there then let's see them. Now. I've repeatedly asked for the other side to present sources. Nothing. Your whole argument is "You found twelve sources but I don't give a fuck", which is an explicit contravention of Wikipedia policy. How the hell am I suppose to show it's not cherry picked? Go through all these "millions" of sources that are SUPPOSEDLY out there or something? You're setting this up so that your standard is impossible to meet. What is a "neutral search"? A search that yields results that flatter your prejudices? How the hell do you know that I didn't do a "neutral search"? Your implication here is insulting. And I just did your Bing (?) "why were so many monuments consructed" (sic) search. And guess what? It's the same freakin' sources I provided above. Which say the same thing. The centennial thing is barely mentioned if at all.

If this was one or two sources THEN you could accuse me of cherry picking. But it's a dozen and more can be easily provided. So stop with the wool-pulling. I'm the only one who has provided sources here (not counting the couple instances where editors provided a source which didn't say what they claimed it said). So if you want to railroad this and cast your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT votes, then whatever. Systemic failure of Wikipedia. But I'd really appreciate it if people stopped coming up with bullshit excuses for the way they're !voting and just admitted it honestly ("it really bothers me that these monuments might have been build during the Jim Crow era to assert white supremacy cuz I think Gen. Lee is sort of cool"). And I really don't appreciate being accused of "manipulating data" or "cherry picking". YOU guys are the ones who are playing games and violating policy here. I'm the one providing sources and following policy. You want to remove the graph, you'll get to do it. But let's not pretend for a second that this is cuz of policy rather than somebodys' personal feelings. Volunteer Marek  15:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And I just did a search for "Confederate monuments centennial" to try and find these magical mystical unicorn fairy sources about how the real reason for the monument building was the centennial that people here keep asserting. Guess what? Nope. Not out there. Yeah, the centennial gets mentioned in some but then gets dismissed. This source is typical:

"Some were erected during the civil rights era of the early 1960s, which coincided with the war’s centennial, but the vast majority of monuments date to between 1895 and World War I. They were part of a campaign to paint the Southern cause in the Civil War as just and slavery as a benevolent institution, and their installation came against a backdrop of Jim Crow violence and oppression of African Americans. The monuments were put up as explicit symbols of white supremacy."

And that's from a "real historian".

This whole discussion has been one big exercise in dishonesty and bullshitin'. People have claimed that this graph is "original research" when it actually faithfully replicates the source. People have claimed that this graph "manipulates data" which is sheer nonsense. People have claimed that this graph does not represent the views of "real historians" which has also been shown to be complete hooey. It does. People have claimed that this graph relies on "cherry picked sources", even though it's backed up by more than a dozen sources whereas those opposing it haven't come up with shit. Ironically the same people who have claimed that the graph is "original research" have done plenty of original research themselves by claiming that the spikes have nothing to do with Jim Crow and Civil Rights (which is what ALL the freakin' sources say) but rather have to do with this centennial. EVEN THOUGH sources explicitly disagree.

This is sorry business and the !voters should be ashamed of themselves. Threw away Wikipedia policy for their own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  15:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So why do you have such a hardon for SPLC and trying to ensure it's use? On and don't use Google. Actually hit up a library or Amazon and acquire books, either check them out or buy them, and then review how these monuments were actually installed during their timeframe and not viewed upon during times of current outrage. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Revision

The original SPLC graph included both the data and dated events. Would everyone accept removing the two event bars (which are imprecise anyway and seem to confuse some people) and adding below the graph a short list of events with dates to include Jim Crow Era, Civil Rights Era, 50th and 100th anniversary of the start (or end) of the ACW. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be a list. I am not sure if there is a wikipedia definition as to what a list article is or is not but to me all this is swerving way into the NOT lane. Carptrash (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Will you add to the chart that the United Daughters of the Confederacy became nationally organized in 1894?[50] They are the organization that held bake sales to pay for many of the monuments, so that partially explains why there was an increase in monument building just prior to the turn of the century and peaking at the semi-centennial in 1911. I think there are too many variables to justify a chart with anything other than the raw data, but even a chart with only raw data may result in edit wars from people adding controversial comments to attempt to interpret the chart. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What justifies the chart and any labeling in it are sources. And a dozen sources have been provided. The fact that these sources say something which doesn't jive with some editors' prejudices... well, tough noogies. Volunteer Marek  13:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Of the eleven sources provided above the first seven, Washington Post, NPR, Vox, National Geographic, The Herald Sun, USA Today, and the Knoville Senintel are just news outlets reporting on the story. As such they carry no weight with me. All they are demonstrating is that this was a big news story. The next four seem more promising, though I am not sure that the given quote, " “The parallel development of Jim crow laws and Confederate monuments in Richmond ……” proves anything. Calling something "parallel" is quite different from saying that there is a cause and effect involved. The graph needs to go until such time as it is deemed to be relevant. Carptrash (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but the opinions of any editor that tosses out National Geographic, Washington Post, and USA Today carry no weight with me. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, that is your decision to make but what I am saying is that all they are doing is parroting the SPLC report. It's all one source. My respect for the opinion of an editor who considers a dozen reports of the same thing as being a dozen sources ain't that great either. Carptrash (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Arghghghg. I address that specifically above. The tactic here is:

"If a given source does not mention the SPLC report then argue that it is irrelevant and WP:SYNTH" and

"If a given source does mention the SPLC report then argue that it's just the same as the SPLC report and is parroting it hence it doesn't count as a source"

The purpose of this tactic is to exclude ANY source which makes the claim that there's a correlation between Jim Crow era and monument building.

It's dishonest.

It's bullshit.

It's disruptive chicanery.

It's circular reasoning.

It's illogical. Volunteer Marek  21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

People who pursue this line of argument should be ashamed of themselves.

(Also, the WP at least is NOT "parroting the SPLC report". There's no mention of the SPLC report in the WP. You haven't even bothered to read the damn sources I provided! So why are you commenting on them? Oh yeah. Cuz your mind is made up regardless. Wikipedia policies and guidelines be damned)

 Volunteer Marek  21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

So now because I do not agree with you I am "dishonest.", my ideas are "bullshit" I am engaging in "disruptive chicanery" "circular reasoning" and am illogical. Damn Spock, it's a good thing we have you on board. Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Simultaneously making the argument that any source which mentions the SPLC cannot be used because "it's parroting the SPLC" and any source which does not mention the SPLC cannot be used because it's WP:SYNTH... yeah, that's chicanery. Volunteer Marek  09:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Another Chart

...of Confederate monuments and race violence shows no connection. In fact, it shows just the opposite- when monuments went up, race violence went down-

https://i.redd.it/i6zc8v2ulbgz.jpg

-Topcat777 17:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that chart demonstrates shifts in allocation of limited time and resources? Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "they" were too busy lynching folks to be putting up monuments? Carptrash (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What the hey is "famoustrials.com"? Need a RELIABLE source. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is who created the site- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Linder

http://famous-trials.com/

http://famous-trials.com/legacyftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

-Topcat777 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Right. That article should probably be deleted for lack of notability and lack of coverage in sources. Volunteer Marek  09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, they both could be true. One does not contradict the other and I'm not sure why you think it does. So this is also irrelevant as to whether the SPLC chart belongs in the article. Volunteer Marek  21:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC study has no sources...

...for its statements regarding the motivation behind the construction of monuments. It doesn't cite any historical work or quote any historian. -Topcat777 14:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? It's a secondary source. Not your job to second guess secondary sources. Also, has it already been mentioned, maybe once or twice, or... half a dozen freakin' times, that there are like oodles of other sources, some indeed written by historians which say the exact same damn thing? No? Gee, one would think that it's been brought up before... See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is no presented basis, and it is just their POV as advocacy to view the world thru the lens of everything may be about racism then see WP:FRINGE and WP:Cherrypick instead. Again, there are other societal and technological reasons that monuments in general were peaking around centennial and turn of the century that are unrelated. The Statue of Liberty, Washington monument, Lincoln memorial, and national parks and battlefields are prominent examples of the monument increase in that era. This position that every monument about Confederates is automatically and can only be said to be about racism is not the sole opinion out there, so WP:NPOV guidance to present every view in proportion to its WP:WEIGHT directs the presentation to show the other reasons, and I think WP:Pseudoscience would indicate the SPLC study be properly presented as a non-historian report from an advocacy source which is honest about that WP:BIASED. Markbassett (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Result of the survey

it seems to me that the survey ran 12 opposed to including the graph as it is currently set up and 7 supporting is inclusion. Seems to me that it is time to remove the chart. Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't claim victory in less than 48 hours. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Darn @Legacypac:, another lost cause. Carptrash (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Let it run the full 30 days. We've had a few more !votes today. And I am still hoping that some people will listen to reason and stop being bull headed. Volunteer Marek  21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be removed as it violates "Don't draw misleading graphs" for misslabeling the Crow Era as a result of this misslabeling it is promoting a causality rather than a correlation. The graph must be removed.108.218.57.36 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This is getting strange. This is like the fourth or fifth user who has made this "causation is not correlation" argument apparently INDEPENDENTLY (as shown by the fact it's in this section). And it's not an obvious argument (it's also wrong and irrelevant but whatever). So I gotta ask - is this being discussed somewhere else on the internet where someone is telling folks to !vote against the chart because "causation is not correlation" (sic)? Cuz it sure stinks like it. Volunteer Marek  21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Can't you see that the graph is wrong with respect to the Crow era dates? That alone requires removal. But this is further compounded by the fact that the graph is wrong to intentionally mislead readers. The graph must be removed. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Even the Civil Rights movement dates are wrong. This graph just chose to arbitrarily label the peaks with no regard to history. What a mess.108.218.57.36 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No, no they're not. Just. stop. making. stuff. up. Volunteer Marek  17:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The shaded area of the chart that says "Civil Rights movement" spans from 1948 to 1978. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The dates should be 1954 – 1968. How is that making stuff up? Do you even know what you are talking about?108.218.57.36 (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now there you go, assuming bad faith on the part of other editors who do not agree with you. I am one of the folks who has made the "causation is not correlation" claim because that is what this looks like to me is going on. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck maybe it is a duck. I have never, that I am aware of, interacted with any of the other editors saying it. Gee, it also looks to me like you guys are meeting somewhere else and sharing your stupid pills. Is that what is going on here? Carptrash (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think you in particular are fine. Wrong, but fine. You've been working on this article and related ones for some time, so it makes perfect sense you're here. Some of these other accounts popping up here - and this kind of brigading happens a lot - ... not so much.

Also, you do realize that yes, correlation is not causation (you have that backwards above), BUT, 1) correlation is usually seen as a precondition for causation and 2) the converse is not true. Specifically, just because correlation is not causation, that does not mean that if there IS a correlation then there is NO causation, which is basically what you're arguing. Which is silly. Volunteer Marek  21:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this has become more about turf than listening to other editors. As per the SPLC "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War."

As another editor pointed out above, the 25th anniversary of the end of the war was in 1890, and the Fed. Gov. used the 1890 census to count Union veterans. Anniversaries are important and it is not just coincidence that the anniversaries of the war saw the greatest number of monuments being built.

"The semicentennial of the war, 1911 to 1915, served as an impetus, as was the Spanish-American war-era of reconciliation between North and South, the nationalist fervor aroused during World War I, and the maturity or passing of the first generation of descendents and the deaths of most of the veterans. By 1914, according to Charles Reagan Wilson, over a thousand monuments had been erected in the South." An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments, Timothy Sedore, pg. 3

I think this argument should be ended now with a replacement graph, and anyone who wants to posit Jim Crow as reasons are able to do so in captions and text of the article.

Confedarate monuments (2)

Dubyavee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

So I’m looking at the SPLC’s graph in the “Whose Heritage Is it” report and I see that World War One is marked off as “1914-19”. Actually World War One ended in November 1918. That’s a mistake, or, "bad history". Then for World War Two I find the dates "1941-45”, which are the dates of the United States version of WW Two. So why does the WW One dates not read “1917-18” which were the years of the US’s involvement. That’s bad process, a shoddy, inconsistent reporting of history. These folks are lawyers, not historians and we should not make their POV driven, fund raising version of history the centerpiece of our article.Carptrash (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's a really irrelevant and weak attempt to trash the SPLC. Yes, while WWI ended 11/11/18, many troops were deployed well into 1919. Thus, military service records often cite WWI service dates through 1919. But again, this has nothing to do with the graph in discussion. More on point: There is nothing I can see in the report that asks for money or donations, so your claim that this report is somehow a "POV driven, fund raising version of history" is certainly false, and using your own logic, that should cast doubt on the accuracy or all of your statements, shouldn't it? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Result of the survey" RFCs and other discussions are not a vote or survey. The point is to achieve a consensus based on cited WP Guidelines. For example, if at WP:AfD, 99 people support deleting an article because they think the subject does not meet notability guidelines, but one person supports keep provides proof that the subject clearly meets notability guidelines via WP:GNG, guess what happens? Article is kept. PS: @Carptrash: Thank you for inviting me to join this discussion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that your example is a very good comparison. If someone dropped a graph of the "best" poets of the world in the middle of a poetry article and 99 people opposed the subjectivity of the graph and 1 defended it, that doesn't mean the graph should stay. This is not a discussion of the object itself, but of its purpose and objectivity. Dubyavee (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah except this is nothing like that at all. Volunteer Marek  17:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

VM. I have been on Wikipedia many years and I have seen many turf wars like this and they are very tiresome. You are totally unwilling to see the objections by other registered editors as having any validity. Even Legacypac (below) suggested the graph be included but without the banners at the top, which was also my suggestion. You did a lot of work putting that graph together, and I applaud that. I think the graph should be fine with the article. But a graph or photo that generates this much opposition is pretty much doomed at some point, and it is mostly because of your total inability to see anyone elses point of view. Not all the monuments built are racist, they are many true memorials to dead sons and fathers and had no other purpose than that. Some monuments are racist, like the one removed in New Orleans. Labeling all the monuments as somehow instruments of racism is bias, and the banners should be removed from your graph. Dubyavee (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've been here for many years too. And the problem I have with people's "objections" is that they go against established Wikipedia policy. They either make outright false claims ("the graph is original research" "it's not supported by real historians" etc) or they're just straight up IJUSTDONTLIKEIT votes... based on original research. I don't think my "inability to see anyone's else's point of view" has much to do with the opposition here. We can discuss a graph without labels after we get done discussing this graph.

The last part of your comment very nicely illustrates the fundamental problem here. The graph DOES NOT assert in any way shape or form that "all monuments built are racist". This is YOUR and some other editors INFERENCE from the simple correlation that is presented in the graph. But this is stuff in your heads. It's a subjective and erroneous assessment. It's a triggered emotion, not thought or reason. People are objecting to the graph not because there's anything wrong with it, or because it violates some Wikipedia policy - it doesn't - but simply because this graph makes them feel bad or hurts their feelings. Which is bad enough. But then they turn around and invent some really absurd and often insulting excuses for !voting on the basis of these feelings. Volunteer Marek  17:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this has turned into nothing more than a turf war pissing match. Consensus appears to be that if the graph only depicted the build dates and nothing more, then it could stay, but as it currently stands it is misleading.108.218.57.36 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey on the graph

I have tried to include everyone’s opinion here, but have no dobt that this will be double checked. Please do not add your opinion here unless you have not already “supported’ or “opposed.” Please format your opinion to make this work.

Just to caution -- you asked for new and not repeats, but ... some repeats happened Markbassett (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, why did you do this? You know RfC are NOT decided by !votes and this appears to be an attempt to do a run around that policy. This is also sort of messing with other people's comments. Volunteer Marek  11:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE

• 1. Oppose, My first concern is the labels which don't correspond to their respective eras or their peaks. As far as I can tell they're unsourced. My second concern is the monument data itself. SPLC may be an authority on hate groups but not history. We should find better a better source. D.Creish (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, the SPLC had a specific agenda (which might be correct), and they are pushing it. We should use a non biased source in this regard. There are other explanations out there for the first peak (in general, monuments for wars are not constructed right after, eg Korean War Veterans Memorial).Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I also oppose the inclusion of the graph in its current form. The SPLC may be a good source for information, but it is not Wikipedia policy to include editorializing. I wrote the Wiki article on the history of slavery in WV, so I know a bit about these issues. The graph blatantly ignores the spike in building monuments that occur during the semi-centennial and the centennial of the Civil War. It would be easy enough, though arduous, for someone to compile the laws considered Jim Crow by year and come up with another graph. It would probably be a worthwhile project. But I personally believe the graph should not be used until the two labels on the spikes are removed. Comments under the graph would be available for discussion of racism and Jim Crow, Dubyavee (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. I have Opposed the graph since it first appeared. Correlation does not equal Causation. These peaks also correspond with the 50th and 100th anniversary of the war, and the second bulge is when the baby boomer schools were being built and the interstate highway system was being constructed. Both created a huge demand for names and the folks in the South have always gravitated towards the losers of the Lost Cause when looking for names. The first peak also corresponds with when the Union and GAR monuments were being built and that proves . . . ..what? The SLPC data is questionable. They list about 1500 monuments or memorials but only less than a thousand are on the graph. Since this is all about what happened when, what would it look like if all the monuments were graphed? Carptrash (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 1.The SPLC graph (indicated as the source) does not have the big labels placed over the peak periods of the monuments. Suggested solution- remove the big labels. 2.The SPLC is not an unbiased source. They actively promote the removal of monuments. 3.The SPLC study does not mention the 50th or 100th anniversaries of the Civil War as motivating factors in the construction of monuments. That's a major flaw in their study. Of course, if you're going to promote the "white supremacy" angle, it does no good to distract the reader with more plausible reasons for the construction of monuments. -Topcat777 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose – While the charting of monument building (by years) may be properly sourced, adding the "eras" is WP:SYN. Indeed, the "Jim Crow era" does not have an historical definition/article in WP. (A better benchmark would be Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The SPLC chart makes a correlation that isn't there, and their impartiality has recently been called into question. The construction of large monuments took many artist on average 10 years from date of commission to final dedication. Construction of schools would have been equally long. This report and chart ignores the amount of planning, funding and city approvals for these monuments, roads and schools. If these monuments were in response to the Crow and Segragation eras, their construction would have lagged behind by well over a decade. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose – The annotations in the graph violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by stating an opinion as a fact, WP:WikiVoice, for giving undue weight to the SPLC's agenda driven hypothesis while failing to note that the spikes coincide with the 50th and 100th Anniversary of the Civil War, WP:Undue, WP:PROPORTION, and for being a questionable self-published source, WP:QUESTIONABLE. The graph also violates Wikipedia's best practices against creating misleading graphs. Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. The annotation states that the Jim Crow era overlaps the 1911 peak in monument building, but that is misleading because the Jim Crow era actually began after the Reconstruction Era ended in the 1870s.[51] [52] [53] The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. If the chart's annotation were accurate, the "Jim Crow Era" note would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed just above the 1911 spike that coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Civil War; although, the 50th anniversary is not even noted on the chart. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I fall in line with excuse number 2 mentioned below. The addition of the labels are drawing conclusions that are not supported. I also agree with VM that Fluous should strike their comment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Despite the chart stating "Source: SPLC" in small lettering at the bottom, it none-the-less gives those reading the article the sense that it is summarizing information contained in the article, when in fact it is summarizing SPLC data and providing an SPLC interpretation about the cause of that data. Because a number of editors have provided additional interpretations for the shape of the graph--other than the two provided by the SPLC--inclusion of this chart is contrary to the consensus at Wikipedia:Graphs and charts, which states that "graphs must be accurate and convey information efficiently". I would suggest instead that if the SPLC data is added to the article, it be added as a textual summary preceded by "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center". Magnolia677 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Dcleish and Carptrash and others. The graphic as it stands is embarrassing to put forward. --donoram 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I have no doubt that many things in the South were a result of Brown vs. Board of Education, etc, but it is less certain that building monuments was one of those reactions. I think that the "the "corelation" with Jim Crow Laws is only a coincidence. You could put in several other things and see similar "corelations". "Correlation is not the same as causation." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  13. Strong OPPOSE - WP:FRINGE from an advocacy group. Source issues here are that its an advocacy group so clearly falls under WP:BIASED, is WP:PRIMARY material, and we lack the actual list so a bit WP:V. Content issues are that it's mostly WP:OFFTOPIC as 'Other' is not this article subject of monuments and memorials, that inserting a racial narrative into a "List of" article is WP:SOAPBOX, that it uses false period labels (e.g. Jim Crow starts 1877). This narrative fails WP:WEIGHT but really just does not suit a 'list of' so rather than put it as minor note among the various explanations, just delete it. p.s. Historians list the 1900 period as popular for all manner of civic monuments and histories due to the century-mark, national growth, and simply technical advances in monuments making it far cheaper for production (e.g. Monumental Bronze Company). One could also observe that in 20 or 30 years after the war, the formerly young folk would have become prominent (e.g. Secretary of Interior, Senators, etc) so were honored for the rest of their life. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose the proposed labels as polemical. How about "Populist era" instead of "Jim Crow era"? "Populist" is certainly more of a professional historian's term. Great scott (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per the WP:V / WP:NOR concerns especially, but also the WP:NPOV ones. No opinion at present on the utility of one that was fixed to match what the sources say. Would need to see it to evaluate it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose As above, SYNTH, OR, Undue, with a side of POV pushing. Arkon (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. The graph and its caption encourage readers to jump to an interpretative conclusion about the motives of the people who put those monuments up, based on the years of erection. You can't prove political motive by graphing out when statues were built, and you shouldn't suggest anything you can't prove. --Lockley (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

SUPPORT

• 1. Support. I found it useful and don't find it unsourced or biased. deisenbe (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. It ain't perfect, but it's reliably sourced. This information, in graph form, is widely repeated by other reliable sources as being relevant to the topic. That should be enough. If well-sourced facts imply something, which is then emphasized by other sources, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support 1. We already decided this should be included. 2. The editor commenting here using the IP should identify themselves because otherwise a SPI is warrented. 2. The sourcing is clear, and backed up by not only the SPLC report but confirmed by this very page and all the data we collected that matches the trends. 4. SPLC is well respected and the report deemed reliable and widely quoted by every major media outlet that has reported on the monumnets issue over the last several months. I have yet to see any RS question the data or call out some sort of inappropriate bias against SPLC.
  4. Support – There's nothing wrong with the graph. It's reliably sourced. Those who oppose its inclusion are Lost Causers who are trying to sanitize/ whitewash history. Fluous (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support SPLC is a reliable source and has been used as such in many places on Wikipedia. Arguments which begin with the assumption that SPLC is an unreliable source should back up that assumption rather than propose things based on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support. I'm not aware of any historian that has disputed the accuracy of the graph. The graph has received extensive coverage by reliable sources, with numerous historians going way further than the description in the graph, saying explicitly that the monuments were were built during the Jim Crow Era and Civil Rights Movement as a means of intimidating African Americans and to glorify white supremacy. So it's weird to read all these correlation =/= causation arguments above when (1) the graph itself makes no such argument while (2) actual experts DO make the argument. If anything, this graph and its description box is treading way too carefully, in a way that biases the content in favor of those who want to keep the monuments or claim that they have nothing to do with the civil rights struggle or white supremacy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC
  7. Support. This looks like an interesting and highly relevant graph. It does not matter who created the image. It only matters if data used for drawing the graph were sourced to RS. Yes, they were sourced to RS. Do we have any other data from other RS which contradict data on the graph? If so, they could be included on the graph, but I do not see such data. Speaking about the legend, this is a separate question. I do not see a problem. Telling "Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement" is merely a matter of simple fact. What was the reason remains for a reader to decide. If the legend was a problem (I do not think so), it can be fixed and the graph included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support. Unequivocally RC'ed. A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise.--Galassi (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  9. Strong support per others who point out the WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. This graph is extremely relevant to this topic and an excellent summary of the history of these monuments. I can't understand how it violates WP:NPOV or is WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources have, for many many many years, discussed the fact that were mainly built in the Jim Crow era. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support inclusion of the graph, with an improved legend. The period of the civil rights movement should be clarified based on reliable sources (by highlighting the background in a different color if the name won't be legible), the anniversaries of the start of the Civil War should be included, as should the nadir of American race relations and massive resistance. We should include as much information as possible to make the timeline meaningful to readers. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support - there's nothing wrong with this chart. It's based on a reliable source. The labels in it are based on text of the source. This info is backed up by a dozen other reliable sources, including ones written by academic historians and scholars. Volunteer Marek  18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support. Both the actual data and the interpretation the graph implies seem to be well-sourced, not just to the SPLC (where we got these exact number) but to numerous other sources that have said the same thing in similar terms. Graphs are sometimes tricky to use, but I don't see how this can be credibly said to be synthesis - synthesis is when you combine data from multiple sources to imply something that none of them are saying. In this case, we're legitimately summarizing multiple sources to express the same thing that all of them are stating; the spikes of Confederate monuments in the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras are well-sourced (and was the original purpose of the figures the graph expresses), so highlighting them is clearly not OR or SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  13. Support and add context. As an attempt to explore some kind of middle-ground (and deliberately ignoring the question of when the "Jim Crow era" and "Civil Rights movement" were), I note that a theme from the "oppose" comments is that while the data is correct, other contextual information (e.g. 50th and 100th anniversaries) are missing. Why not fix it instead of removing it? De Guerre (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"Public spaces" vice "publicly supported spaces"

The change may seem minor, but the NPOV rationale is important. As public spaces in the United States are open for freedom of speech and assembly, saying that monuments are in "publicly supported spaces" implies that the public in general (or local governments) may dictate what monuments are to be placed (or removed). In many cases the monuments were erected by private groups. This being the case, it is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for a government authority to remove such monuments or memorials. My recent edit removes the implication that "publicly supported" gives local governments any special rights. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Your edit is fine. I don't have a problem with it. But your rationale is way out in left field. I have never read anything that even hints at the legal issues you raised. Granted, news coverage of legal issues is notoriously bad. I know this because I'm also a lawyer, like you. But you'd think these issues would have been brought up in some way. I haven't seen it all. Nothing. So, can you provide any reference whatsoever that backs up your legal claims? Well, any link that isn't from some conservative/ libertarian blog? Fluous (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My comments are simply food for thought to justify the "publicly supported" revision. I do not think this will become an editing issue. (But, in fact, there has been some legal challenges brought. See: for example.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just cut this out fro Virginia

• • "Democratic state Rep. Eric Johnson, meanwhile, is demanding the removal of a nearly 60-year-old plaque rejecting slavery as the Civil War's "underlying cause." Republican House Speaker Joe Straus has called for checking the accuracy of that plaque and nearly a dozen other Confederate symbols located around the state Capitol alone."
  • Mayor Levar Stoney of Richmond (2016– ) commented on the matter while talking about the Robert E. Lee statue saying, "At the end of the day, the way those statues stand at the moment is a default endorsement of a shameful past that divided the nation. And to me, it defies my mission of one Richmond. You, I want to be a city that is tolerant, inclusive, and embraces its diversity, and those statues without context do not do that".

This is a list of CSA monuments & memorials. These are not CSA monuments or memorials, therefore (opinion) they do not belong in this article. Carptrash (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And I do find myself wondering what African American Civil War Memorial is doing in a list of monuments & memorials of the CSA? Carptrash (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The first is obviously talking about Confederate symbols. The second a Lee Statue. The African American Civil War Memorial is a specificially Union soldier memorial and should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So, obviously, every conversation with a reference to CSA symbols gets on the list? And I am pretty sure that the Lee statue is already included. I think it even has my picture. Hopefully you are not suggesting putting this stuff back? It is hard to tell from your post. Carptrash (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

if there are symbols of the Confederacy at the state capital they belong on the list. Some limited commentary on specific listings is good. General commentary belongs elsewhere like the removals article. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

"of the" CSA v. "to the" CSA?

Including the Appomattox Court House in the list presents an interesting question for editors. E.g., is the Appomattox memorial (or any battlefield site – Petersburg, Gettysburg, etc.) a "monument", "memorial", "tribute", or even "dedicated" to the CSA? More importantly, the question leads to another issue – General Lee made great efforts post-war to reconcile the differences between the states. Are the memorials to Lee to him as a CSA general or to him as a post-war reconcilliator? (Also, President William McKinley (himself a Civil War hero) sponsored a great and emotional reconciliation between the GAR and Southern veterans.) How do these post-war reconcilliation efforts impact our 21st Century efforts to understand what happened? The answer for Wikipedians is to look at what the sources say. Do we include such-and-such monument simply because some name and an event that we now associate with the CSA happens to be the same? Clearly, no. Some RS is needed to verify that the naming was done as a memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are looking at a section about National Parks Service sites connected to the civil war I started, which did not get finished. I was thinking maybe a spin out. Some of these sites (Gettysburg for example) have hundreds of monuments to CSA leaders amd units. I've trimmed back some entries and will trim some more.

Why something is named for Lee might be discoverable amd included here, but that is really a very political issue subject to much interpretation. The reconciliation angle may have some truth, but so does the "push down the former slaves" angle. The story of Silent Sam errected in 1913 is a good example. Time magazine "repeatedly encountered remarks suggesting that if people don’t like the university’s Confederate memorial statue, affectionately nicknamed “Silent Sam,” then they should leave. Sadly, this was the precise message of the statue itself: in 1913, Silent Sam marked the UNC campus as a site of white supremacy, making it clear to people of color that they were not welcome." for at the dedication it was very clear the purpose see the "Some contemporaries linked the monuments to the defense of white supremacy in shockingly explicit terms" section especially. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I've read a long article on the dedication ceremonies of this statue (Charlotte Observer, June 3, 1913) and there is nothing about race. The speakers focused mainly on the subject of the statue- students who left college to go off to war. The governor of North Carolina was there and ended his speech with these words: "Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people." Sound racist? Whoever is making this claim about a "racist" statue are lying through their teeth. "in 1913, Silent Sam marked the UNC campus as a site of white supremacy, making it clear to people of color that they were not welcome." Huh??? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. They didn't need a statue to establish segregation in 1913. -Topcat777 23:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1913 UNC did not need anything to help keep African Amemicans out. There was no question about that in anyone's minds. As far as ""Some contemporaries linked the monuments to the defense of white supremacy in shockingly explicit terms" goes, I guess I'd like to see (read) what was said for my self. Carptrash (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia

Page watchers may be interested in participating in this discussion re: creation of a standalone for the Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia, which I believe is independently notable. All are invited to share their thoughts. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about this one (Wyoming)

John C. Hunton's grave.

though have not removed it. Yet.

• Cheyenne (Wyoming): CSA veteran and Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton's private grave in Lakeview Cemetery. Buried in 1928, Hunton's burial was updated with a Confederate marker designed by UDC in 2010
  

This is just a grave marker with "CSA" carved on it. Allowing this suggests that every gravestone with "CSA" carved on it is a separate listing? Given that there are (to make up a number) 250,000 of these I believe it to be a bad precedent. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think your logic is correct here. After doing some research this is a grave marker that is free for any CW Veterans grave that does not have an existing marker or for a grave that doesn't include their service dates. The markers are provided by the department of Veterans Affairs. A monument or memorial would need to be something in addition to their grave marker, even if they were a historically notable person such as Mr. Huton. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya take it out. It's just a grave marker. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The rationale for this is the reliable third-party sources:

• Shaw, Jerry (September 1, 2015). "Where You Can Find Confederate Flag Flying in Wyoming". Newsmax. Retrieved August 15, 2017. Confederate flags and monuments wouldn't seem to be linked to Wyoming, but connections exist because of Civil War veterans who traveled west after the war. [...] Long after his burial in 1928, Hunton's grave at Lakeview Cemetery in Cheyenne received a Confederate grave marker in 2010. [...] The Veterans Administration provided the gravestone, which was designed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
• Barron, Joan (September 5, 2010). "Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton gets Confederate gravestone". The Billings Gazette. Retrieved August 15, 2017. The grave marker is believed to be the only one of its kind in Wyoming, said Bev Holmes, a pioneer association board member.

User:Carptrash: You should have pinged me! It is the only Confederate marker in Wyoming and it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Now the list makes it look like there is nothing in Wyoming, which is not true.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have returned what I removed from Wyoming, we can now start the discussion as to whether every head stone in a cemetery should be listed as a separate monument or memorial. I oppose this. ````

• I also oppose listing individual headstones. I'd be surprised if there is any confederate monuments in Wyoming - it's Wyoming. There is a river in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming listed under National Parks Service if that makes you feel better. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this is the only Confederate monument in Wyoming makes it significant I think. Also that the marker was added in 2010. When we leave it out of the section, it makes it look like there is nothing in Wyoming, which is not true. The listing is very succinct (" Cheyenne: CSA veteran and Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton's private grave in Lakeview Cemetery. Buried in 1928, Hunton's burial was updated with a Confederate marker designed by UDC in 2010.") with two RS. I am not saying we need to list every single grave marker across the USA, but RS suggest this one is significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the typical Confederate grave marker supplied by the US government. There are tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of these across the country. -Topcat777 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess if there's really no consensus to add it to the section, that's fine. I was just making a case based on reliable third-party sources. But ultimately we reach decisions by consensus here.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya it's a bridge too far. VA gravestones should not be mentioned. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And what about this?

This article is supposed to be a list. I do not think any of this belongs.

"Charlottesville (Virginia):

In May 2017, the City Council of Charlottesville voted to remove and sell its statue of CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee, and renamed Lee Park, where the statue stands, as Emancipation Park.[672] The removal has been halted for six months by a court injunction, in response to a suit by SCV.[673] Self-proclaimed white nationalist Richard B. Spencer led "a large group of demonstrators" carrying torches protesting this plan, which has played "an outsize role in this year's race for Virginia governor," in which Stewart is a candidate. White supremacists and "nationalist" groups demonstrated in Charlottesville in favor of preserving the statues. On May 15, 2017, Richard Spencer led a white nationalist group around the Robert E. Lee statue. They rallied in support of the statues for, in their view, the "Confederacy is what represents us."[673] Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam commented on the appearance of nationalist and supremacist groups, saying via email, "These actions are totally unacceptable. These people are racists. They don't represent Virginian values. I condemn their action and beliefs. I call on all Virginians who are involved in efforts to advocate for or against Virginia's history to act responsibly and honorably."[673] Mayor Stoney called it "one of the most overt acts of racism I've seen in a very, very long time."[674]

On July 8, 2017, about 50 Ku Klux Klan members from North Carolina demonstrated in support of the monument. They were met by a large group of counterprotesters who, following the demonstration, blocked the Klan members from leaving. Virginia State Police intervened and used tear gas to open the streets. A city spokeswoman said at least 23 people were arrested.[675]

Another protest by white nationalists in support of the monument, the 2017 Unite the Right rally, took place during the August 11–12 weekend. Friday night, several hundred torch-bearing men and women marched on the University of Virginia campus. A brawl occurred between the marchers and a group of counterprotesters.[676][677] One white nationalist was arrested after deliberately driving his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring several others.[678]

On August 20, 2017, the City Council unanimously voted to shroud the statues of Lee and Stonewall Jackson in black. The Council "also decided to direct the city manager to take an administrative step that would make it easier to eventually remove the Jackson statue."[679]

The University of Virginia Board of Visitors (trustees) voted unanimously on September 15, 2017, to remove two plaques from the university’s Rotunda that honored students and alumni who fought and died for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The University also agreed "to acknowledge a $1,000 gift in 1921 from the Ku Klux Klan and contribute the amount, adjusted for inflation, to a suitable cause."[680]"

Carptrash (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an entire article dedicated to the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. It seems like these entries belong in that article.108.218.57.36 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Lists can and should have some context. This could be trimed and just linked though. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

and why is John C. Calhoun

showing up here? He died a decade before there was a CSA. This is not a list of monuments and memorials to people who supported racism. Or who we don't like. Or who might have been an inspiration to the CSA. Or is it? So we should include St. Paul because he seems to defend slavery? There is such a Rush to Judgment going on that I feel a little embarrassed about wearing my 'I Edit Wikiprdia" tee-shirt in public. Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Confederate president Jefferson Davis once say "John C. Calhoun is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So? Everyone Jeff Davis said nice things about should be recognized as a Confederate memorial? So @MShabazz:, does that mean you feel Calhoun should be recognized. Than what about St. Paul? Because there are probably dozens of references to him from the justification of slavery days.Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Obviously a memorial to Calhoun, who died before the CSA was established, is not a memorial of the CSA and has no place in a list of such memorials. I thought my quotation of the orange moron who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was obvious—evidently not! Earlier this year, the alleged president of the United States said that of Frederick Douglass, suggesting that the long-dead Douglass was still alive. I was making a bad joke that maybe Davis was equally confused and thought Calhoun was alive during his presidency. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Good joke @MShabazz:, , bad reception. Years ago I was informed in a very serious way that there was no place for humor on wikipedia. I shouldn't have listened. Carptrash (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think we should do about men like John C. Calhoun. If he doesn't merit inclusion in this list, what would be a good list article to create instead? I think it would be useful to have a list of monuments and memorials of pre-civil war proponents of slavery. Or something better phrased. Fluous (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For starters I think men such as Calhoun should not be on this list. Do you @Fluous: think he belongs here? @MShabazz: did not rally defined keeping him here, so if no one else speaks up I'm going to start peeling him off. Tomorrow. I don't feel that we need a list of every racist or jerk in the world, or even in America. If you start one what are you going to do the first time someone wants to put our beloved President on it? Carptrash (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: No, probably not. Calhoun is pre-secession. If you do anything, please paste what you removed to the talk page.

Btw, can you fix that "Widner" reference you just SFN'd? Two issues: (1) The name is "Widener;" not "Widner." And (2) you're citing it to a duplicate reference; we already gave a full citation of his book much earlier. Fluous (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a bibliography of many of my books, I add them as I use them, and I had Widener spelled wrong there. I am also just learning about the short citation format and will be using it more. Carptrash (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just removed: * Tallahassee: Calhoun Street Carptrash (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a Category:American proslavery activists (where I've put Calhoun). deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Landon Garland (two Garland Hall buildings)?

Should we add the buildings on two campuses named for Landon Garland? He owned 60 slaves or so and defended slavery (see the "views on slavery" section in his article), but it looks like he was the president of the University of Alabama throughout the war and did not serve in the CSA.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually I am an inclusionist, but I feel that this is list is borderline out of control. Sidney Lanier is another one. he was in the CSA army but that is not why stuff is named after him.. I say "NO" to both of these. Carptrash (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. It's beyond hyperbole to say this list is "out-of-control." There may have been a few listings that didn't merit inclusion here, but only a few. Fluous (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to go beyond hyperbole. But thanks for attributing to me the impossible. Carptrash (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• • • List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I say skip Landon Garland because it is really not a memorial to the CSA. Just some guy who was in it. Carptrash (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that RS tend to conflate the CSA (which only lasted a few years) and slavery. Garland, Calhoun and many others connote slavery but not necessarily the CSA.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bubba73: On second thoughts, don't you think there is a difference between owning slaves like most rich people did at the time (George Washington) and being an apologist for slavery by saying, "The negro has, through slavery, been taken up from a condition of grossest barbarity and ignorance, made serviceable to himself and to the world, and elevated and improved socially, morally, intellectually and physically." (Garland)?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a list of racists, though it includes many. That Garland made hateful statements still does not necessarily make a monument to him a memorial to the CSA. Garland was the President of UA through out the war, but had been the president of it for 5 years before the war. Reconstruction probably cost him his job which is okay with me considering what the war cost so many others. Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Garland was not a member of the CS military or political leadership so exclude him. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The UA building was completed in 1884, nine years before he died. However, it's not clear from Emporis if it was named in his "honor" that year or renamed later.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It may not be a Confederate (CSA) monument, but isn't it a NeoConfederate/Lost Cause monument? Should we create another list for those? Are there enough RS about this?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, be bold. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also a bit surprised

at how many monuments I am discovering that don't seem to be in the SPLC graph or data. I am interested in just the monuments because (1) that's what I am interested in and (2) because the discussions, some of them, in the press seem to just talk about "monuments" as if they are all statues. So I went through the data on the SPLC "Whose Heritage is it" document to create my own graph of just monuments and found myself going, well they don't have this one and they don't have that one and then thinking, so how many missed ones would it take to be able to claim that their data was screwy and the answer is, "It doesn't matter" because that's the dreaded original research. Even if I discovered (which is not the case) that they had missed half the monuments, unless Huffington Post or the Washington Post or the Saturday Evening Post publishes it, it doesn't matter. Even if I show it to you here, it doesn't matter. So, do you think a letter to the Sun City Post would count? Carptrash (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We are struggling with the idea of RS here. The Wyoming marker is backed up by RS, but it's been removed from the article by consensus. There are also RS about Garland, but there is consensus not to add the buildings. Yet somehow this list apparently includes unreferenced content as you suggest.09:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. Crowdsourcing combined with the efforts of journalists across America localizing the Charlottesville story uncovered additional monuments that SPLC could not locate in their research. That does not make their research bad, for SPLC very clearly says their list is incomplete. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Another interesting point about the graph

Another interesting point and a reason that the graph has got to go. Remember, just because something is referenced however many times by however many sources, this does not mean that we have to use it. My interest is in monuments, statues and I am will to include bronze plaques as sort of a poor person’s bronze statue. The SLPC folks say that they have found 718 of those, out of a total of 1,503 monuments and memorials. I am in the course of identifying statues that are not on the list and am rapidly approaching 70, which means that their count is off by at least 10%, which to me is unacceptable. But wait, it gets worse. In my making of a graph that showed just the monuments that they list in their data last night I was surprised by how many of their listings had no date. So this morning I counted them. I got 645, please double check my math, which has already proven to be marginal (when I added 50 to 1861 and got 1901). They are making much, and so is wikipedia with our graph, about the dates (i.e. “Jim Crow era” etc) and yet they do not have or do not share with us the dates for over on third of their sample. How is this okay? Are we suggesting that we must blindly follow sources that we know are questionable? It has been suggested here somewhere that I am in a group of wikipedia “lost causers” wanting to “whitewash history.” This is not so. I am in a group of wikipedia editors who want to get it right.

Meanwhile I think the 48 hours for the graph is up. It goes very soon. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually if something is referenced many times and it's pertinent to the topic... yeah we DO need to use it. Otherwise what's the point of having policies such as NPOV and NOR when users can just decide to ignore reliable sources and just put their own POV into the article? And these sources are NOT "questionable". If they were you'd be able to find OTHER secondary sources which call it such or which question the statements made by these, more than a dozen, sources.

As to your own original research - nothing wrong with that, in fact it sounds interesting and I'd be interested in seeing it - it's just Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. In particular, even if SPLC missed some monuments, for the trends and the peaks to look different, the sample of the monuments they did have data on would have to be non-random. Otherwise it's gonna look the same. Again - for the purposes of this article none of this matters since we're discussing (admitted) original research here. Volunteer Marek  11:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the chart

Chart illustrating the number of Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year. According to the SPLC, most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension. The year 1911, which was both the 50th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and part of the period referred to by historians as the "nadir of American race relations", saw the largest number constructed.

The neutrality of this graph is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Yeah, you shouldn't have. The RfC is ongoing.

I've also noticed that someone has tried to remove the pertinent and well sourced info from the text as well. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  10:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 21, 2017

What started off this morning as a fairly mild and balanced article meant primarily as a list has become a polemic soapbox over the course of the day, and now violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'd like to have an admin weigh in on this one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. How? This appears to be a revenge edit by you for the message I left on your talk. Also, given your past edit history (particularly 2012 and before), here and on Wiki Commons, I'm gonna ask you to NEVER post on my talk page again. (At the time I left the message on your talk I had forgotten who you were - but don't worry not gonna go near your place again). Volunteer Marek  11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read WP:AGF, not my problem where you imagine "revenge edits" lurking everywhere. The language added today drips POV that was not there earlier. It has nothing to do with your paranoia.

I wouldn't have posted on your talkpage, I had forgotten about you, had you not left the nastygram on mine. Apology accepted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't just say "I think it's POV". You have to explain why and how something is POV. You haven't. Hence that naturally suggests that your edit was motivated by something else - payback for my comment on your talk.

How's your Wiki Commons gallery doing?  Volunteer Marek  11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Watch yourself there, tinfoil. I didn't engage you-you accused me of something right out of the gate, and even here you throw in ad hominems. Much as I'd rather avoid your talkpage (and that you'd never soiled mine), I must when I report you at AN:I.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What to do, if anything, about length of article

This article is now longer than those on the American Civil War and Martin Luther King Jr. put together.

You could make the argument that the topic (reaction to the war) is more important than the war itself, since the war covered 1861-65 and the aftermath 1865-2017.

I'd hate to see the article reduced to a series of links to articles on each state. Its huge size makes a point and IMHO it's a point that is well worth making.

If anything is to be done, collapsed sections within the article - click Here to see the streets with Confederate names in Texas - would be, in my opinion, preferable to splitting it into many articles. deisenbe (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplication of information about Removed monuments needs attention

Having to enter the same information twice - once here and again in the Removal article - is inefficient at best.

In the Removal article there are eight cities under Florida, one with three items. Here there are four. If there are any guidelines about what gets included here and what doesn't, they have escaped me. I think it depends on who's adding the item. deisenbe (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove tags

Marek's edit warring to remove tags like this, this and this with active talk page discussions and to restore disputed content with an active RFC in two different articles. I think it's time to get admins involved. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A POV tag here is completely unwarrented. This is a high traffic article that does not need a POV tag to discredit it it at the very top. That tag is you pushing your POV that you can't get concensus for. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Calm down and remember WP:NPA. We actually edit-conflicted, I was in the process of removing the same tag you removed because (I think) the content Kintetsubuffalo objected to had been removed. Now it's been restored so I restored the tag. Don't remove it until content concerns are addressed. D.Creish (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The tag is completely spurious, it appears to be motivated by "pay back" and the placer has failed to even justify it, which is a requirement for adding the tag. Volunteer Marek  15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If the graph stays - and the last time I removed it I was asked/told to give it 48 more hours, which I did and now it's "Oh it's an ongoing discussion" - then the tag stays. How about we onto the discussion with the graph gone? It is the graph that is "completely spurious." One third of the monuments and memorials that the SPLC list in their data do not show up on the graph because they don't have dates for them. How is that acceptable? Why is that acceptable? 1/3. What historian (or lawyer for that matter) in their right mind will issue conclusions with 1/3 of their data unaccounted for? It is acceptable because so many people like the stereotyped version of history that seems to appear. Carptrash (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the usual one month period. If someone said 48 hours, then that was wrong. The "1/3 missing" is your own original research, as you yourself admitted, so it's irrelevant. Volunteer Marek  20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of newspapers for historical claims

We've added several opinions from historians commenting in newspapers. We can do better than newspapers for history, we have published academic papers and thoroughly-researched books. I say we cut out newspapers for everything but the current controversy. D.Creish (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I firmly disagree; what mainstream historians say in reliable, published sources such as news media is no more or less reliable than what they say in books or papers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but the selection of historians is relevant. Do we know if the historians chosen by Washington Post published books or papers on the topic? Should we choose them over others who have? These are relevant concerns. Newspapers don't override medical journals for medical claims because journalists aren't experts. The same goes for history. D.Creish (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We aren't citing journalists, we're citing historians cited by journalists, which is precisely what we should be doing as a tertiary source. It's not our job to decide whether these secondary sources are themselves wrong; that is original research. Our job is to reflect the viewpoints published in mainstream reliable sources in proportion to their prominence in those reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

When historians cite previous works in books or papers they don't cite the Washington Post. Better sources are available and we should use them. "Our job" is not to reflect the Washington Post's views on history which are irrelevant. The Washington Post's views (to continue with that example) are reflected in their choice of historians. A pro-life journalist could find plenty of (pro-life) doctors to say abortion isn't safe. The bias of the journalist in that example affects the choice of experts. The best way to minimize that is to cite those considered experts by other experts in their field, not by journalists. D.Creish (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't reject mainstream reliable sources just because you or any other editor think they might be "biased." We certainly aren't going to omit viewpoints published in one of the leading newspapers in America. The solution would be to add more reliable sources, not take them away. If there is bias in mainstream sources, we will inevitably reflect that bias. That is a feature, not a bug. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If we can't agree that academic journals and recognized works are better sources for historical claims than newspapers, I think we're at an impasse. D.Creish (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's NOT what anybody is saying. Please stop trying to manipulate the discussion by making stuff up and falsely claiming that other people said it. Academic journals are better sources sure (depends on the journal actually). But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with articles written by historians and printed in magazines or newspapers. It's also noteworthy that you haven't actually presented any academic journals. Indeed, you have not provided ANY sources at all.

See, the real reason we're at an impasse is precisely because you do things like completely... "misrepresent" about what other people say and then expect them to assume good faith towards you. Tell you what, YOU stop ... "misrepresenting" about what others said, and others might consider taking you seriously. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be opposed to wholesale removal. In some cases we could focus on transitioning from papers to papers and books, certainly, since those are generally better sources; but most of the time an opinion represented by an established mainstream historian in a high-profile, mainstream newspaper is going to also have lots of books and academic papers written about it; and the newspaper itself, while not as high-quality, is at least usable under WP:RS until / unless someone digs up better sources. If there's specific things you feel are WP:UNDUE, highlight them and we can dig through possible sources, but I don't think wholesale removal of newspaper sources would improve the article - we can find better sources, but this isn't "nuke from orbit" level sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point generally but I think what we had before was fine. Continuing to add newspaper sources doesn't move us in the direction of improvement. D.Creish (talk)

The version you edited to was not remotely an improvement - it entirely omitted the mainstream, predominant historical viewpoint that the monuments were erected at least substantially in furtherance of Jim Crow and celebration of white supremacy. Ensuring that this mainstream viewpoint is properly reflected here is critical to the article's content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Newspaper sources are an improvement if they cover something that wasn't adequately covered previously, especially if they are high-quality and numerous enough to demonstrate that WP:DUE weight requires that aspect be covered. If you can find even higher-quality sources that support the same statements, feel free to add or substitute them; if you feel that something is being given WP:UNDUE weight for whatever reason, highlight it specifically in another thread so we can go into more detail and hash it out. But "we could theoretically find better source for this" isn't an argument for omitting something entirely when usable sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this is complete bullshit. First the argument was that "the SPLC graph is not supported by actual historians". Then when actual historians were added as sources it's "we can't use actual historians because they're being interviewed in newspaper". WTF? Where does this even come from? It's not Wikipedia policy, that's for sure. This is about as transparent instance of an attempt to WP:GAME and WP:WIKILAWYER the rules to win a WP:BATTLEGROUND dispute as I've seen in a while. It's a ridiculous flimsy pretext to remove well sourced material - from actual fucking scholars - because D.Creish WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The amount of bad faith required to make this suggestion just shows that D.Creish is WP:NOTHERE and that their activity has become disruptive.

(of course nobody's stopping anybody from including these published academic papers and thoroughly-research books. Go ahead. Hell, the historians cited are actually the freakin' authors of these published academic papers and thoroughly-researched books!)  Volunteer Marek  16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you rewrite this without the ranting and unrelated links? D.Creish (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop being passive-aggressive? The statement is not a rant, it articulates the point exactly and the links are quite relevant. You're engaged in disruptive editing on this article and are playing various games to try and remove reliable scholarly sources from it to introduce a particular POV. Which is fuckin' WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek  16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's preferable to use the historians' own books and articles, but it's impractical. If a reliable source says "historian X said thus-and-so", that's good enough for me. deisenbe (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The newspapers are interviewing the historians we are quoting because they are experts that write about this topic. Keep this nonsense up D.Creish and sanctions like a topic ban become possible. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Using newspapers and activist groups over expert sources for historical claims is a legitimate concern. If you think that's nonsense, I think a lot of history editors would disagree with you. I've been browsing Portal:History and surprisingly enough, none of the articles I clicked cite the Washington post or Herald Sun. D.Creish (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we do this without “complete bullshit.” “Hell,” “fucking” “bad faith” & “fuckin’ “? It's difficult enough as it is. It is probably time to get professional help at this discussion. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Aggressiveness and swearing don't help things. D.Creish (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we do without the bad faithed attempts to POV this article by first making false claims about supposed historians' opinions, and then when somebody actually provides sources with actual opinions from historians, coming up with some lame ass excuses to reject these historians from the article? You know what doesn't help things? WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:GAMEing. This is a silly discussion - these are reliable sources, it's on topic, these are scholars and academics. End of story. Cut it out with the obnoxious obfuscation. Volunteer Marek  17:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you really not capable of discussing this civilly? D.Creish (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was perfectly civil. Critical, but civil. Are you really not capable of actually addressing the issues rather than trying to derail the discussion?  Volunteer Marek  20:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If by "End of story" you mean that you are going away, that's cool. Carptrash (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't control your reading habits D.Creish, but I'll note this is not a history article per se only about some past event. It's very related to an ongoing situation. Many history articles rely on contempory newspaper accounts so don't dismiss the papers. If you want balance, provide high quality scholarly historical works to ADD to the article to support your POV. You set the high bar yourself so show us how it's done. Don't try to remove good content.

By removing info and adding tags - is the point you are trying to make that the monuments are unrelated to the Lost Cause narritive or Jim Crow Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are asking but my opinion is that there is scant evidence linking the monuments with the Jim Crow era other than they happened at about the same time. What the graph suggests is a huge stereotyping of all the monuments. What is not happening, that I can see, is an attempt to look at each monument in any way other than when it was dedicated. Many of the memorials have carved on them what the purpose of the monument was. Many of these memorials have long histories going back decades before they get unveiled in 1911 (or whatever). All we are suggesting with our graph is that if a monument was dedicated in 1911 then it is a monument to Jim Crow. That is about the only conclusion that the viewer can get from the graph. So we all (or many of us,) hate the CSA, they were a brutal, racist, violent regime but that does not mean the memorials are memorials to brutality and racism and violence. Read on the monuments themselves why they were made. Some are really creepy, one in particular, but we should not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon. As far as sources go, I think we have to allow the NY Times and those folks to do their thing. This is not the time to get into how unreliable they all (or most of them) are. Carptrash (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash:

All we are suggesting with our graph is that if a monument was dedicated in 1911 then it is a monument to Jim Crow

What on earth? This is about as head-scratching a comment as I can remember. No one on God's Green Earth thinks Confederate monuments are monuments to Jim Crow laws. Is that what you think? These are clearly monuments to the Confederacy in general, confederate soldiers, politicians, women, etc. It couldn't be any clearer. The argument is that, for a certain time period, Confederate monuments were used to further entrench white supremacy; they honored the past (Confederacy, slavery) to (at least in part, and, at the time of their dedication) justify and entrench the present (Jim Crow laws). Fluous (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again this is mostly just derailing of the discussion.

We have info.

This info is relevant to the topic.

This info is sourced to actual scholars and academics.

We have multiple sources.

Don't remove it because you don't like it.

And especially don't try to play bad faithed games such as first claiming that "real historians disagree with this" and then when actual historians are brought up argue "can't use it because this historian is writing in a newspaper"

And especially especially while not taking the bother to actually provide any sources yourself.

Thank you, that's all. Address the above or quit wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I posted a link to the RFC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Hopefully that brings more editors accustomed to editing historical articles and less likely to be intimidated by bad faith accusations. The NPOV noticeboard might be the best next step. D.Creish (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If your objection is to the use of newspapers as sources, surely you mean WP:RSN? --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I just cut this out from (maybe) the second paragraph

"Many memorials were dedicated in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War, and some have been built in the early 21st century, 150 years after the war. "
It is not supported by the references, one of which is from 1993 so for sure did not discuss what happened in the 21st Century. Of course I could have missed something, so please double check.Carptrash (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty anodyne thing to remove. And it makes no sense to remove temporal information from the history section. It's kinda important in a history section to know the history of these monuments, like when the monuments were generally built. Are you now disputing when the monuments were built? Enough is enough, Carptrash. Fluous (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Put it back. A 1993 reference can support the main thrust of the statement. This page has hundreds of refs that show when individual items were built or named and many refs supporting the statement you just removed. Stop with the agenda pushing. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine put it back. If you are willing to use a 1993 reference to explain what happened after 2000 then perhaps we need to look at who has an agenda? Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two parts to the sentence. Perhaps you would feel better if you moved the 1993 ref to the middle of the sentence. I'm sure you are smallrt enough to figure out I'm not making the point you claim I'm making. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• A brief glance at the section's cites near-instantly found three other citations that supported that statement; more generally, it's not a particularly controversial statement (I mean, just glancing up at the debate over the graph, above, would tell you that it was true.) When you don't think a statement like that is well-cited enough, it's usually best to throw a cite tag on it to ask for references rather than immediately leaping to removing it - that's what the [citation needed] tag is for, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)