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)

Please also see the Requested move discussion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The chart

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 [3] [4] [5] [6] (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: [7] [8] [9] [10]. 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[11]

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. [12] 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)

Non-neutral POV (Pro-Confederate)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

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)

So ??? Does this mean this page should not follow wiki NPOV policy, that none of you care about the main point of the issue? Of course SCV member can contribute and edit, so long as they abide by wiki policies and attempt to remain neutral. I understand that one should not simply delete tons of stuff including sources along with it, but it definitely should be rewritten in more neutral manner if it sounds like SCV literature. Until that is addressed I do not see how this issue can supposedly be solved. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed listings

Gaines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

License plates now spun-out. See hatnote (10k reduction) – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 15 October 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)

The holidays are now listed at Public holidays in the United States#Confederate States of America, with the link listed in the SA section. Deleting the holidays. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Coins and stamps are now linked via hatnotes or text notes. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spin out CSN

There is a List of ships of the Confederate States Navy which has ships listed in this article. In fact many of the ships in the CSN listings are in honor of the CSA, CSA states, events, etc.. Recommend we delete the CSN ship section and add the list article as a See also. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Note. The CSN ship listing article is 27k (do we need to expand this article by so much?). Many of the ships are named after geographic locations in the CSA. By comparison, the listing in this article is 1.8k, and has been removed. Editing rationale: the ships were not monuments per the common understanding of the word; nor were they memorials as they were on active duty when named as "CSS" vessels. As many were named after geographic locations, we cannot say (today) that they were named after the CSA as a larger entity. With this section removal the article has been reduced by a fraction. And readers are directed to the List of ships of the CSN article in two locations. – S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Two Ohios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Graph of Monument Construction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

PLEASE FIND A SPOT FURTHER DOWN TO VOICE YOUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION

• 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,[13] Encyclopedia Britannica,[14] and the Smithsonian[15] 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.[16] [17] [18] 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,[19] Encyclopedia Britannica,[20] and the Smithsonian[21] 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. [[22]]. 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) - CHECKUSER BLOCKED AS A SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNT.[23] Alsee (talk) 08:01, 9 October 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)

This entire discussion has already clearly articulated them. Please read it, and also read WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:1AM, and WP:BLUDGEON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Because" is not the game-winning argument you seem to believe it is. And the notion of you citing -- content-free -- WP:BLUDGEON has a certain amusement value. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 21 October 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 [24], 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)

The key word there is coincided - i.e. "by coincidence". Likewise the majority of sources do NOT discuss the anniversaries but rather Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement. As such the graph accurately represents the sources. Volunteer Marek  19:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not a native speaker of English, so I'll cut you some slack (either that or you're being disingenuous in the extreme), but no, to "coincide" does not mean "by coincidence" (as in accidentally), rather it means the state of being coincident. I invite you (or anyone else doubting this) to look up coincide and coincidence in any dictionary. If you'd care to read a treatise on the matter see The History of Coincide and Coincidence. Mojoworker (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking into it further, I'm opposing the graph, and not just the labels. According to the graph source, the graph excludes the majority (64 percent) of Confederate monuments – "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature." Mojoworker (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be amenable to relocating the graph (with labels modified as discussed above) to a new section that pertains to the scope of the SPLC report and the topic of Confederate symbols as tools of oppression, and that explicitly explains the scope of the graph is different than that of this Wikipedia List article in its entirety. Mojoworker (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2 of the 3 sources given on that chart mentions anniversaries. Discuss them, no of course not as that did not suit agenda of message they are trying to portray, but they still are mentioned. NPR reporter does not mention it at all (personally could care less what some reporter says). SPLC: Whose Heritage source,

These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War.

and Karen Cox: Whole point of Confederate.

Some were erected during the civil rights era of the early 1960s, which coincided with the war’s centennial

Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:46, 26 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)

Let's see, an account with few edits, most of them disruptive or obnoxious, including gems like this, history of edit warring about civil rights (yeah, for THAT POV), and just jumping into contentious discussion just to cast their vote. This is a classic throwaway account. And this is the quality of the "Oppose" votes on display here. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, seems personal attacks for your MO. Next you will stomp on my foot, spit in my eye, and kick my dog. You should calm down and no get upset just because someone does not have the same opinion of you and doesn't spend 24/7 on Wiki. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:59, 24 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)
• Comment I am a bit vexed to see quite so many oppose votes arguing that the graph (and the links between Jim Crow era, Civil Rights movent, and confederate monument building that it suggests) is something being "pushed by the SPLC," is "original research," or is even "fringe." All of these arguments are demonstrably incorrect, as there's a strong consensus among historians that monument building did spike during those periods, and that it was a form of racial backlash. You won't find a more "official" voice of American historians than the American Historical Association (AHA), and their recent, official statement on this is very clear:

The bulk of the monument building took place not in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War but from the close of the 19th century into the second decade of the 20th. Commemorating not just the Confederacy but also the “Redemption” of the South after Reconstruction, this enterprise was part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South. Memorials to the Confederacy were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life. A reprise of commemoration during the mid-20th century coincided with the Civil Rights Movement and included a wave of renaming and the popularization of the Confederate flag as a political symbol.

The correlation between the monument building and the Jim Crow & Civil Rights era is very well documented and specifically highlighted by experts, and by the professional body that speaks for American historians as a whole (the AHA). The links implied by the graph are most certainly not OR, fringe, unsourced, or solely the view of the SPLC. !votes based in such obviously flawed arguments should be discounted.

I Support including a version of the graph with the labels, as this represents the mainstream historical view and comes about as close as you can get to having been endorsed by the entire profession of American historians (which I'm a part of, btw - though I don't expect that to give my vote any special significance) per the AHA statement I just linked. I also think it would be good to add some of the extra information/context as suggested by Malik Shabazz above (especially the anniversaries) as this is part of the story too. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: This is about as succinct argument against democracy as I have seen since . ... maybe . . .. ever. "!votes based in such obviously flawed arguments should be discounted." Carptrash (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that @EvergreenFir: but don't you think that having someone who says "votes based in such obviously flawed arguments should be discounted" is not the person you would want making up the voting rules? Any where, at any time? As bad as Jim Crow rules.Carptrash (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As bad as Jim Crow rules You, uh, wanna rethink that one maybe? RFC closers are always supposed to not just count the votes but evaluate their strength & consistency with policy/RS. This isn't controversial - my point is simply that a lot of the "oppose" votes (eg, "this is just the SPLC's opinion") appear to be based on an assumption that is demonstrably incorrect (per the source I linked above, and the many others linked below), and that the closer should examine them critically. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fiddlestix. The insanely frustrating part of this discussion - which is part of the reason why I'm all over this place - is that pretty much ALL the oppose votes are based on some version of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT but then the same editors make demonstrably false statements ("it's OR", "it's not what real historians think" etc) which gives their votes a veneer of respectability. If we treat this according to Wikipedia policy, this is a no-brainer. It should stay. The whole !voting has demonstrated in what little regard a lot of editors here hold actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Volunteer Marek  19:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I do not argue, nor believe that "racist backlash" was not a factor, merely that the sources do not support the inference that 'backlash' was the sole factor, which is what the graph implies. Of course 50 years/100 years and 'backlash' are not mutually exclusive, but the graph - and to an extent the text - imply that the only motives for memorialising were racist. This is a question of how much emphasis is given to 'racial backlash'. At the moment the 'anniversary' element in the text appears thrown in as an afterthought. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Fyddlestix. This does not appear to be OR/SYNTH as it is supported by sources. Nor does it appear to be FRINGE or UNDUE as it's a commonly discussed phenomenon (e.g., [25], [26], [27]). Similar charts showing the link between timing and monument creation have been published by many reliable sources (often reposting the SPLC one) (CNN, NPR, PolitiFact). Others explicitly mention the link between time and monument creation without the chart (Vox, History.com, The Atlantic, NBC News). As such, it seems entirely DUE to have the graph. If we need to alter the graph (e.g., add sources to caption or image description), then do so. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• support there is no problem with V as the graph is in the source cited. The source is plenty reliable. Most importantly, this graph does exactly what we want a graph or other figurre to do, which is provide some additional way to grasp the content in the article. This graph shows the history of monument construction in a way that is easily graspable at a glance and corresponds to the sourced content dispersed throughout the article already (and this correspondence just supports the reliability of the source here). The figure is great! Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several other less biased graphs, even from SPLC, which would be more suitable and less objectionable. This is supposed to be a list of CSA Memorials, which will prolly always be debatable as it is, so please use graph that will not be as debatable unlike this one will. This graph and in particular the labels is pure BS, specifically designed by SPLC to back up it biased claim. The graph itself is as best as I can tell factual, just that it is so mis-leading on several levels.
  

1) The graph only includes cherry picked memorials and not ALL the memorials SPLC has researched and worse this graph is specifically designed to appear exact opposite. This is impossible to tell on this graph because it does not actually state what all is even shown or being represented.

a) The "Monuments" makes it appear like it is full comprehensive list of them all, when in fact it is only monuments on courthouse grounds. Not big deal until you get to...

b) the "Other" which is actually other sites of monuments not on courthouse grounds. But without knowing this someone can just easily assume it is list of ALL Memorials, including military base names, location place names, etc.

c) "Schools" which sounds fine and going by appearance just completes the list. Except when taken in consideration of the reality, why only include one type of place name? Why only one type of building such as Schools? Argument could be had about how inappropriate it is, which I agree and definitely question the need for schools to be named in honour for CSA, but when you include ALL the other memorials you will find that it skews the graph so it no longer reflects the message SPLC wants to portray. If you look at the graph, adding schools helps to fill in the 1960's era and lending more credence to their it is due to Civil Rights movement suggestion. Now it becomes clear what all info was includes has been cherry picked.

2) The Labels is nothing but biased with one purpose, to show their agenda it is all about white supremacy which furthers their fund raising efforts cause. There is no room for any other intrepretation which such big bold labels clearly showing otherwise but to draw this conclusion.

I do however support using less objectionable graph, even SPLC other one, which still has flaws and has been cherry picked, but one can look at the data and see what all has or has not been added plus can see other event time lines, which sort of but not necessarily prove SPLC point. It allows the person more so to arrive at their own conclusion instead of being directed to it with no other alternative. I find this graph, I hardly questioned anything, yep it sure looks like they are right, when reality is it could just as easily be the anniversary dates. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - This account was created solely to edit war on this article and vote on this RfC. (Also, all three point a,b, and c are simply false and ignorant (looks like the user hasn't even bothered reading the source)). Volunteer Marek  20:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Which version of the article have I not read? The original April 21, 2016 version or their tweaked more recent PDF version? I have actually read both, read their first one long before the graph was ever put on this page and long before this page started seeing such heavy activity. Both versions lists in the graph "Monuments on Courthouse Grounds" and not simply Monuments as I stated. Both also list "Other Sites (including monuments" as opposed to simply Other. Neither version really spells out what all Other Sites were included, however it does state: "For the final tally, the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature." Further actually looking at their long list also can be seen to have been ruled out Road/Street/Highway = N/A; River/Creek/Lake = N/A; Mountain or Peak = N/A; Dam = N/A. Sorry but not false at all. Selective cherry picking just as I stated because adding all that info would not have reflected as sharply the big peaks as drastically to support their hypothesis as clearly. (I have not added them all but from what I do have, does not appear to really change 2 peak periods just lessens them). Would appreciate an actual response next time instead of an attempt discredit me and to diffuse what is actually from the sourced article. FYI: have been doing minor edits for years anonymously until creating this account solely from requests from other users on this page not wanting to see me type ~Kevin Fisher at the end of my discussions. I have never hidden behind some fake account and strongly suggest you stop. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

  After years of erection, I can confidently state that this graph doesn't say anything about the motives of the people who put those monuments up. However, the multiple sources provided throughout DO in fact speak to their motivation. This includes numerous scholars and historians who have indeed "proven" (as far as these kinds of things can be proven in historical research) that these monuments were build during the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights era to advance the cause of white supremacy. If you don't like it, too bad, that's what reliable sources written by experts say. You can take your grievances about the world somewhere else. Volunteer Marek  20:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- relevant to the article. I do not find arguments re: the unsuitability of SPLC as a source to be compelling; this connection is made by multiple other sources, as noted elsewhere on this page. United Daughters of the Confederacy played an instrumental part in fundraising and lobbying for these monuments; the purpose of these monuments was to advance the Lost Cause narrative in the service of white supremacy. The arguments about 50th and 100th anniversary of the Civil War are more of a distraction; I'm sure it was used as a cause and / or pretext by UDC and other orgs. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Abundant Reliable Sources cited, particularly down in the discussion section. Note: I'm concerned that some of the opposers may have missed those sources in the discussion below. I'm even more concerned that some of the opposers casually deny the legitimacy of top-rank Reliable Sources, when it serves their purposes to do so. I am most concerned and shocked by the history of few opposers in relation to race. Alsee (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned many of the support votes don't address the label problem. Even accepting the SPLC's figures, the graph in question [28] looks very different than the SPLC's: [29] Compare their labels with ours. Taking their data, stripping the labels, then adding our own labels supported by unrelated sources is synthesis. D.Creish (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, as I said above, you seem to misunderstand WP:SYNTH. Synthesis is combining multiple sources to say something that isn't stated in any of the sources. But numerous sources in the article support the assertion that the monuments went up in the Jim Crow and Civil Rights era; it's an accurate summary of the sources, not synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@D.Creish: The wording of the RFC does not directly address that issue. From what I read, this RfC is about the inclusion of the chart generally. I believe it's been raised elsewhere on this talk page though. That would be the appropriate place to discuss it. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The wording of the RFC (which I wrote) is Should the article include the following graph of monument construction and shows a graph, with labels. Unless the votes to include assume the labels will be removed, their inclusion is directly addressed. Aquillion, I think you're misunderstanding my point with synthesis. D.Creish (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, what is your point? As I see it, we have a graph that illustrates something with two labels, and we have multiple sources saying "this graph illustrates thing, as covered by these two labels", and other sources saying "these two labels define the topic." Putting all of that into a graph is summary, not synthesis - there is nothing significant in the graph that you wouldn't get from reading any one of the three sources now appended to it. Or, in other words, WP:SYNTH is about combining multiple sources to say something that no individual source says - the essence of WP:SYNTH is a form of WP:OR where we end up stating or implying something we lack a source for. What 'new thing' do you feel is being created here? If you identify the specific thing you feel we lack a source for, I can search for a source; but right now I feel I've found sources for everything and that the WP:SYNTH concerns have been completely addressed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@D.Creish: fully understand and agree with most of you, except it is NOT adding labels supported by unrelated sources. That source says exactly that just under the graph.

@Aquillion: The point is even the source of the graph, SPLC, states this is their conclusion, which is also so happens to be conclusion of several historians as well. But their conclusion is just their opinion - observation or w/e you want to call it and not a fact. More importantly the point is that goes against NPOV policy, it is different listing several events as opposed to some historians labeling era like SPLC original graph does. Biggest point is SPLC graph is not copyrighted and if any graph should be used it should be the one from the original source UNLESS it went against wiki policies. Except it is the other way around, the re-created graph is more issue and more biased than the original. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Kevin, the "opinion" of notable historians does NOT violate NPOV. In fact, including the opinions of scholars and historians is precisely what NPOV requires.

I would still like to clarify the copyright status of the SPLC graph. Volunteer Marek  11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV policy requires that opinions (regardless from whom) be stated in a neutral manner. No it does not require that expert, scholars or historian opinion to be included, but if you do it must be kept neutral. Not only has this not been done, but this revised graph specifically ignores one of the two sourced given opinions for these symbols. Thereby by only picking and/or choosing one of them most definitely does not abide by NPOV policy. May I also point out that many historians and experts (including both that you used) have given several reasons symbols are done. All polling data that have been done also suggests that symbols were not done for white supremacy per most of those poled, just as majority percentage of those poled also are not in favour of removing any of these symbols. This all suggests that this is not supported by decent (in this case majority) amount and should be kept neutral as explained in NPOV policy. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"NPOV policy requires that opinions (regardless from whom) be stated in a neutral manner" - no it doesn't for the simple reason that injunction doesn't even make sense. What does it mean to "state an opinion in a neutral manner"? This is some weird incoherent invention of yours. What NPOV requires is that opinions are ATTRIBUTED. Which they are. To experts, scholars and historians that stated them.

And one more time. It is simply not true that these experts, scholars and historians, and the report itself "have given several reasons symbols are done" (with one, very outdated, from 1983, exception). They ALL stress the link between the monuments and Jim Crow and White Supremacy. The fact that they also mention in passing that the building sprees coincided (their word) - as in "by coincidence occurred at the same time" - is not a "different reasons". Who's cherry-picking, eh?

So. One more time. Show me sources which emphasize these "several reasons". I've asked for this over a dozen of times. Nobody has been able to provide such sources, the dude from 1983 notwithstanding (and on its own that's extremely weak). The fact that nobody, including you has been able to produce such sources testifies to the fact that you and the other "opposes" are just talking out your thin air. You're inventing stuff. Making it up. Doing, shoddy, original research. Failing to follow Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek  15:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, how many times must I answer this. For the last time your own cited ref's that is on your own graph both say it if you would actually bother reading it. Any historian I have ever read admits this, it is kinda hard not to admit it when reading all the literature and media written during the era (nor speaking to anyone that was alive during the time). It was simply a big deal for the 50th, for several reasons. From SPLC: "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." From Karen L. Cox: "which coincided with the war’s centennial". It is irrelevant that they mention it in passing, as of course they will since it is coming from two reliable but biased sources. What is relevant is that even biased reliable sources are even willing to acknowledge it. This is what should matter here on an encyclopedia source such as wikipedia and is the reason for wiki's one of three policies is in regards to NPOV. It is not my opinion, it is not your opinion, it is not even experts opinion that matters solely. What matters is that ALL major opinions are represented to give due weight and to abide by NPOV policy. So quit cherry picking from your own sources and include both given reasons at minimum. Once you can get that far, than maybe we can go on to other reasons from other reliable sources. But someone else will have to fight that battle cause I only care about what imho is the two biggest, and which also so happens to balance each other out for neutrality purposes. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also forgot to include the 3rd reason from sourced SPLC. Historical represents the majority of symbols. "For the final tally, the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 .... that are largely historical in nature." That is over 60% of SPLC data collected not included on their graph, yet which is included in list here. Talk about weight, another key thing that you keep insisting is not mentioned on the graph, and one that most historians will also say when talking about ALL symbols. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support After reading though this thread in its entirety, I have to say that I find the "oppose" !votes entirely unconvincing. I've seen several blatant falsehoods used as arguments for opposition, several drastic misinterpretations of policy stated as arguments for opposition, and nothing compelling ever given for opposition (not all of the arguments were bad per se, but those that weren't are unconvincing). I've seen some problems on the "support" side, as well, but those problems are far fewer and further between. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:Can you read this and then tell me that the SLPC is a neutral source?[30] Carptrash (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Can you read this and then tell me whether or not I care if the SPLC is "neutral"? (Hint: the answer is "No.") ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: thank you for pinging me, I’ve (again) removed this article from my watch list, so would have missed your reply. That you don’t care that our monuments & memorials article is now defined by a non-neutral source is disappointing, but okay, I asked you to look and you did. I just find the politicizing of this (or any list) list disturbing. Probably this indicates that I am a highbrow intellectual wannabe. I have started a List of lists of monuments and memorials which turned out to be a bigger task than I had anticipated, Nepal alone has over 100, Malta has over 60, Ireland over 30. That’s not monuments, that is “lists of monuments.” So anyway, there are hundreds of these lists on wikipedia and although I have not looked at them all, it seems that we are the only one who includes roads and schools on our list. Why did we do that? (opinion) We did it because that’s how the SPLC did it. We are, with the exception of list of articles about monuments to Lenin or communism that have been removed, that get into any political talk. Most are just lists. What comes next. The obvious thing is the politicalizing of other lists of monuments. It is easy to find source that define the United States’ role in the Vietnam War as being racist and even genocidal. Does that mean the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and the probably hundreds of other VW memorials across the country are monuments to racism and genocide? Because that is what our argument says. I imagine that your reply will be “Find a source that says that and then you can use it.” I am not interested in doing that. I want to keep politics out of all these articles. But that, it seems to me, is the precedent that we have set up. Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash:Unwatching this and other political pages is probably the smartest thing you've done. This has nothing to do with you, personally. I've done the same thing. The dumbest thing we're both doing right now is responding to pings. We should both probably stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:, a good idea. When I started editing this article 5 years ago it was not a political article. ciao, Carptrash (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the graph is neither accurate nor is the source reliable for its inclusion per WP:QUESTIONED. SPLC is a self-published legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation which is unequivocally noncompliant with WP:NOT, per WP:SOAPBOX - they recruit clients and litigate. Any legal advocacy appears to be reliable when you're on their side and that is what makes it noncompliant with NPOV. The site is not considered academic, there are no legitimate historians on their team - they are attorneys - and I can't believe we are even having this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO bullet 4: Off-topic. Closers lack both the time and the responsibility to evaluate claims about editors, so this merely wastes space and time in an RfC. (I don't need to tell experienced editors where to take this kind of thing if they feel they have a case for it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First, you have only showed up here because we are currently involved in a dispute on a different, unrelated article. This is pure WP:STALK and WP:HARASSMENT, something you've been warned about before. Second, your statement is utterly false and so ridiculous it reeks of bad faith. WP:QUESTIONED does NOT apply to the SPLC. SPLC is not "self-published" anymore than any other think tank or research institution is self published. WP:NOT is a completely irrelevant policy and it's just stupid to bring it up here. What does it have to do with anything? Likewise WP:SOAPBOX is completely irrelevant. Finally, and I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated - the information in the graph and in the SPLC report is NOT JUST from them. It is based on over a dozen reliable sources written by professional "legitimate" historians. I can't believe that you are willing to be so transparently petty and vengeful and make a statement which is so dishonest. Volunteer Marek  18:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC) VM, I've been editing WP for a while now, and have not read such venomous PAs against any editor as what I'm seeing from you over nothing. I imagine if my vote had been in support of including the chart, we would not be having this discussion. I actually started to support it, and a good argument for support may have convinced me to change my vote but your behavior is off the charts. The WP:OWN behavior you have been exhibiting at various political articles is bad enough but the PAs are unacceptable, especially considering my initial post to you on your TP, which is not at all what you portrayed. You have done nothing but attack and intimidate, and it's not just me you're targeting - it is anyone who disagrees with you. The evidence is widespread over several political articles. It appears that you may be well on your way to a TB because you have demonstrated an inability to carry on civil discourse with any editor who disagrees with your position. If you continue such highly disruptive behavior - spewing venomous PAs on every editor who disagrees with you - it will not bode well for you. I actually arrived here for a much different reason than what you portrayed, but that's neither here nor there. I'm here, I participated in GF, and your history speaks volumes as to who is doing what to whom. I have nothing more to say to you. Atsme📞📧 19:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Given your history of trying to systematically discredit the SPLC (see here and here), I don't think the characterization of your arguments as "utterly false" is undue, moreover it begins to cross the line into IDHT territory. And what's that old saying about people in glass houses throwing stones? In particular, this piece of gaslighting "...I actually started to support it, and a good argument for support may have convinced me to change my vote" following a quite contemptible argument against the SPLC truly boggles the mind. I can't fault anyone for assuming you didn't come here in good faith. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The graph is helpful, useful to the reader, and the data is not contested in the scholarly community. The arguments for exclusion are extremely weak; most don't even attempt to make a policy-based argument. As for the SPLC, it is reliable for items such as this, as we've been over this many times before. Reliable sources, e.g., NPR, refer to the SPLC's study as "[t]he most recent comprehensive study of Confederate statues and monuments across the country." Neutrality^talk 21:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support—The graph is useful, and isn't original research or synthesis, since its analysis and the resulting conclusions are attributable to reliable sources. The data sourced to SPLC is not seriously contested here, and the notion that they manipulated construction data on a scale to distort the result is not plausible. I would politely suggest that Reconstruction also be added as a label given its presence in the RS's analyzing when such monuments were constructed, but doing so isn't critical to its inclusion.--Carwil (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Fyddlestix. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the old version of the graph, support the revised version. I think the Jim Crow label is wrong: it covers 1900-1920, but Jim Crow laws started right after Reconstruction. The SPCLA piece itself refers to "seven decades of Jim Crow segregation and oppression." And later, "The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws" - this is not saying that the Jim Crow laws began in 1900. If the labels are removed, the graph is fine. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's debatable, especially the notion that Jim Crow laws started right after Reconstruction. Plessy v. Ferguson didn't make "separate but equal" constitutional until 1896, and many historians & RS define the Jim Crow era as beginning in the 1890s, eg "Jim Crow" represented a formal, codified system of racial apartheid that dominated the American South for three quarters of a century beginning in the 1890s. I'm sure other sources date it from the end of reconstruction, but this is a matter of interpretation - different scholars define the "Jim Crow era" in different ways, and periodization is never an exact science. Neither view is "wrong" or POV - see here for an explanation of that (just what I can look up on my phone, there's lots of literature on this). Personally I would say it's far more common to date the "Jim Crow era" from the 1890s than from 1877. See also The Strange Career of Jim Crow for a seminal work that argues for the 1890s. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

1890s? Still 20 years removed from the spike in construction of monuments.-Topcat777 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? It was an "era" not "a year". Not that hard to understand. What exactly is your point?  Volunteer Marek  02:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks for those sources, I concede that it's a matter of interpretation and there is a case to be made for the 1900 start point. What about the end point? Are there sources dating the end of Jim Crow to 1920? --Cerebellum (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, you answer this question in your comments below. I've just seen the revised chart below and it addresses my concerns, I'm changing my vote to support it. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: Have you seen this letter, the SPLC appeal to remove statues? [31] Can you still tell me that they are neutral? Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: I never said they were neutral - per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." And per RSN the SPLC is a reliable source. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carptrash and Atsme. WP:NPOV means we should be very careful with what content to include in an article on such a controversial subject. The SPLC is clearly biased on this subject. I may support a version of the graph that does away with the labels entirely. feminist 02:52, 15 October 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,[32] Encyclopedia Britannica,[33] and the Smithsonian[34] 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)

Comment on Excuse #2 - The labeling is OR, and yes I read the article long before I seen this graph, and no I am not making stuff up. That is purely speculation on the articles part, arguing that this was the reason for such memorials, and it is a valid argument, but that is all it is ... an argument for it. Even the article itself admits (if you have read it) that could be other possible reasons such as anniversary dates to explain peaks in the chart. Which it attempts to argue away bit less successfully. These labeling done in way it is on this graph, with no actual evidence to support this is the real reason, is much more than speculatory on this graph. It is denoting peaks as being specifically due to this reason instead as opposed to the original graph of SPLC which has events listed in more minor way and allows the reader to do the interpretation. Sorry but you can not just take one part of the article and neglect what else is given in the article "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." as that is OR. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Excuse #3 - The graph is not OR, however it is cherry picked including only select portions of Memorials. I personally have no issue with this IF it had included more descriptive labels (like original SPLC graph does), but when placed along with the ill and scant labels on this graph, it is much more misleading than even the original graph. The original graph is slightly biased by itself, but at least one can determine this themself unlike the one given here which leaves no room for any other interpretation. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason we don't just use the SPLC graph itself? While some people object to relying on the SPLC as a source, this graph has been repeatedly published in other reliable sources as fact, which attests to both its notability and its accuracy (since those sources all do their own fact-checking.) I think our graph is an accurate summary of what the sources say, and the original graph is a bit too "cluttered" to be easily understood at a glance, but it seems like using the original graph would address at least some of the objections above, and we could still clarify the important points with a caption (which we can much more easily summarize from and cite to the various sources discussing the graph itself.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There might be some issues with copyright. Volunteer Marek  00:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it'd pass WP:FAIRUSE, especially if we agree that the debate over the current graph means it's not serving the same purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no copyright issues, SPLC article even encourages and gives direct link just below the graph for anyone to DL it, giving no restrictions on its use at all. Nor is the graph listed as copyrighted. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm.... encouraging downloading the graph is not the same as allowing free-use, and Wikipedia copyright policies are pretty strict. You're right that there is no indication of copyright but there might be something in SPLC website's about it. Honestly I don't know which is why it'd be nice to get someone better versed in this to chime in on this.

So, if it isn't copyright, you cool with using the actual SPLC graph?  Volunteer Marek  01:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the original SPLC graph is more neutral, but it still illustrates only a small subset of confederate monuments – there are 1,328 monuments (not just confederate) at Gettysburg alone and 1,400 at Vicksburg. I should probably add that to the article, and for context, I just added to the article (with refs) that many monuments were dedicated in the years after 1890, when Congress established the first National Military Park at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. At Vicksburg National Military Park, more than 95 percent of the park's monuments were erected in the first eighteen years after the park was established in 1899. Mojoworker (talk) 08:00, 26 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. [35] 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. [36] 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. [37] 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. [38] Quote:

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

5. [39] 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. [40] Quotes:

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

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

7. [41] Quote:

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

8. [42]. pg 190. Says the same thing. Too long to quote and can't copy/paste from Google Books.

9. [43] Quote:

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

10. [44] 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. [45] 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,[46] Encyclopedia Britannica,[47] and the Smithsonian[48] 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,[49] 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."[50] 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)

Yeah, when somebody says something like "why do you have such a hardon..." you pretty much know you're talking to someone who's just here to be disruptive. And indeed, this user has few edits, including ones like these - why do you have such a hardon for hardcore racists there buddy? See how that works? And if you want to "hit up a library or amazon or acquire books" and then present them here as sources be my guest. But you haven't and if you did you'd find the same thing as I presented above. Feel free to go away now. Volunteer Marek  19:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"If there are "millions" out there then let's see them." I will not say millions, but I will say thousands. Just because your search via 'Google' (lame and lazy) did not find anything does not mean they are not out there. Do your own research instead of relying on everyone (or in this case on some search program and by your input). Read stuff written during the times. Almost every newspaper article or any other thing written during 1890's and early 1900's mentioned about the bicentennial, it was a 'huge' thing back than. People attempt to re-write history all the time, including historians. Now whether any of that was reason for erecting such memorials or just an excuse we will never know. I would guess a lil bit of both, but that is opinion. Mine ofc. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are you using multiple accounts here? Because you look a lot like Heyyouoverthere. And I freakin' DID "do my research". This is what the research yielded. A whole bunch of sources, all of which say the same thing - that monuments were constructed during Jim Crow and Civil Rights era. YOU, and others who are opposing this chart, on the other hand, have completely failed to provide any sources. All you is make this bullshit claims about "millions" of "thousands" of sources which supposedly support your position. But somehow you haven't been able to provide a single one.

Oh, and this? This is a straight up, dishonest misrepresentation of what this source (and all the others) say. Don't pull stunts like this again. Volunteer Marek  20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue how I look like that other person nor care as there are several of those pages I would never go visit, but meh already answered this question. How about we use the exact same source your chart is from, SPLC. "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." sourced from https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy Darn shame when even biased SPLC can even admit there are other possible reasons. So how is what I did straight up dishonest when it is all coming from the exact same source you used? But meh w/e, change it however you wish as I really no longer care anymore and will just completely disregard any clear attempts of going against wiki NPOV policy. I suggest you read stuff written DURING the times and you will get much more accurate portrayal than most the dozen sources you gave above, yes it is not pretty, but no it is not near as dire and all about white supremacy either. Yes it is and always has been a complex topic with various reasonings. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:51, 23 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?[51] 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)

Why not just use the original SPLC graph instead of attempting to alter and make up your own? I actually found that chart enlightening, even though I still think it is biased towards their agenda. It allows the reader to draw their own conclusion, although it would have been better to at least list anniversary dates as well, but minor issue imho. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:34, 23 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's sources...

(The SPLC study has no)...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)

Oh and it's actually completely false that the "SPLC sutdy has no sources". The sources are listed at the end of the report AND are even mentioned in the graph. Did you comment without bothering to read what you're commenting about again? Bad habit to get into. Volunteer Marek  01:42, 26 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)

This makes no sense. It's gibberish. What does "If there is no presented basis, and it is just their POV as advocacy to view" even mean? And you keep making shit up without bothering to back it up. You're also lying when you falsely claim that the SPLC report or the graph states that "every monument about Confederates is automatically and can only be said to be about racism". No such claim is made.

Seriously, start presenting sources or stop disrupting the discussion and wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  01:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's also completely and utterly false that "the SPLC study has no sources...". The sources are actually listed at the end of the study. Please actually read the source before making erroneous claims about it. Volunteer Marek  11:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing they say about sources is- "This list [of monuments] was compiled from many sources." Of course, we understand that. But they give no sources for their statements about the motivation behind the construction of monuments. There is NO list of sources as claimed by Vol Marek.-Topcat777 14:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is NOT "the only thing they say about sources". They freakin' list them. Another completely bogus claim. Can you please stop it with those? You're not helping. Volunteer Marek  15:21, 29 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)

• I posted a general question about this RFC to the Administrators' Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_process_and_RFCs D.Creish (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on the above "revised" graph: it's quite poorly edited. It's clearly visible where the user erased and tried to "patch up" the two labels. If anything, the graph should simply be remade by VM without the labels, if we agree the the labels are an issue. Personally, I think the labels are fine. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be my revision, probably. So which dates are you okay with? "1896 - 1921", Which is where we were at the start of this discussion. And as for allowing VM to do a version with no labels, fine with me. I still feel that a graph made up of 850 (or whatever) bits of information out of the 1,500 (or whatever) that the SLPC collected is very flawed. However having had it suggested that my perspective has come about because of my racist tendencies, I won't give my thoughts on SLPC's purpose of the graph. Carptrash (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"In the RS noticeboard discussion of the SPLC, you posted at least three outright factually false assertions in an attempt to discredit the research. One or two, maybe, but three? Your problem might not be racism, it might be WP:CIR. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's impeccably sourced, the it's backed up by other sources, and Carptrash's BIAS BIAS BIAS claim is garbage. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's been over 30 days since the survey started...

...and 22 support the graph (two are conditional) and 23 oppose. So, is it time to drop the graph? -Topcat777 00:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. We're waiting in line: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials.23RFC: Graph of Monument Construction –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey on the graph

There are good reasons this is never done. Carptrash needs to examine this to see if anyone has !voted here but not in the RfC, and notify any such editors on their talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 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) Agreed, !votes belong in the survey section of the rfc above, copying them here serves no purpose and is more likely to cause confusion than clarify anything. This should be hatted. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC) OPPOSE 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) 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) 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? 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) 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) 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) 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) 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.[52] [53] [54] 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) 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) 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) Oppose per Dcleish and Carptrash and others. The graphic as it stands is embarrassing to put forward. --donoram 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) 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) 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) 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Oppose As above, SYNTH, OR, Undue, with a side of POV pushing. Arkon (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 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) 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 [55], 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) SUPPORT 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) 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. 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) 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) 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 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. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:55, 14 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) 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) 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) I Support including a version of the graph with the labels, as this represents the mainstream historical view and comes about as close to have been endorsed by the entire profession of American historians (which I'm a part of, btw - though I don't expect that to give my vote any special significance) per the AHA statement I just linked. I also think it would be good to add the extra information/context as suggested by Malik Shabazz above as this is part of the story too. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Support per Fyddlestix. This does not appear to be OR/SYNTH as it is supported by sources. Nor does it appear to be FRINGE or UNDUE as it's a commonly discussed phenomenon (e.g., [56], [57], [58]). Similar charts showing the link between timing and monument creation have been published by many reliable sources (often reposting the SPLC one) (CNN, NPR, PolitiFact). Others explicitly mention the link between time and monument creation without the chart (Vox, History.com, The Atlantic, NBC News). As such, it seems entirely DUE to have the graph. If we need to alter the graph (e.g., add sources to caption or image description), then do so. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC) support there is no problem with V as the graph is in the source cited. The source is plenty reliable. Most importantly, this graph does exactly what we want a graph or other figurre to do, which is provide some additional way to grasp the content in the article. This graph shows the history of monument construction in a way that is easily graspable at a glance and corresponds to the sourced content dispersed throughout the article already (and this correspondence just supports the reliability of the source here). The figure is great! Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously @Mandruss:} it is not "never" done because it was done here. I moved everyone over and have been following new folks as well. How do you propose keeping track? Or are you one of the "this is not a democracy" editors, only informed votes are going to count (that was a favorite of mine) so are going to claim victory regardless of what other want? I felt that I needed to do something because Volunteer Marek seemed to feel compelled to respond to everyone's opinions, sometimes is a very disrespectful way Oh but that's okay because he is in the right. Carptrash (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep track of what? !Vote counts? Consensus is not about !vote counts. Bottom line: 1. This is extremely unusual, so unusual that this is the first time I've seen it in over four years of heavy editing. 2. Multiple editors have objected to it. Conclusion: You need a consensus to do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 23 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)

Question about lengthy paragraphs in a list article

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)

Do these people merit inclusion?

John C. Calhoun

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)

More graph discussions

SPLC numbers too low

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)

It's not that simple, SPLC reports that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States. To put this into perspective, listing only two of the 15 or so National Military Parks, there are 1,328 monuments (both Confederate and Union) at Gettysburg National Military Park, and more than 1,400 at Vicksburg National Military Park. I've added that info to the article. Mojoworker (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A letter to the editor would not count. However, you can identify that their list differs from this articles topic as the bulk of their numbers are 'other' which is not the article topic 'monuments and memorials'and their list says it excludes memorials that we would include. As for flaws in their data or premise, well there was enough blowback at the time of release (e.g. over army bases or mostly-black schools not being symbols of such) and enough pings about ones they had missed (e.g. California cemetary, Pennlive marker) or ones that they had listed that were in errror (e.g. roads attached to battlefield or road in heavily-Union PA where 'Lee' was actually named for a local merchant). But ... really a single report by an advocacy group is not the topic of this article -- this is supposedly a 'List of' except the preface remarks getting in the way has has grown excessively and I think better to trim much of it away rather than put in yet more pages of flawed stuff then remarks about how the non-topic stuff is flawed. Markbassett (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's some nice original research there Mark. Actually, it's just original research, not really nice. Where is this "blowback"? You keep making assertions and offering your own idiosyncratic opinions on talk but as always, fail to provide any sources. Let's see the sources. Volunteer Marek  11:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many SPLC listings have no dates

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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs)

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)

Article violates WP:NPOV

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)

Yes, something must be done to reduce the length of this article. I appreciate how compressive it is, but it's way too long. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:37, 23 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)

@Deisenbe: We should remove all former monuments and memorials in this article to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

Two reasons:

1. It cuts down on the size of this article
2. Keeping removed monuments completely duplicates the contents of that article

Fluous (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe and Another Believer: Okay, I moved all former/ removed listings to the main article! It saved 47,597 bytes. Fluous (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That was/is a terrible idea. See WP:NPOV#Point-of-view forks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Whoops. If anyone wants to change it back, and feels strongly about it, then feel free! Either do the reverts or copy-and-paste from Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials (it was basically the exact same content).

Not sure I understand the "POV fork" argument. It's not really a POV fork, is it? I mean, this is a list of monuments and memorials, and the other article is a list of former/ removed monuments and memorials. They're two different things.

If what you're saying is true, then what do you propose? Should we nominate Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials for merger/ deletion and combine everything here? Fluous (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I think we do a disservice to readers—whose interest ought to be paramount—by telling them that half the information on a subject is in this article and half is in another, based on whether the monument has been removed yet. What if the reader doesn't know a monument's status? In which list can the reader expect to find a monument that's been covered but not physically removed, or moved from one site to another?

Second, can you imagine starting a list called "List of monuments of the Confederacy kept"? If not, why should there be a list—not an article—a list of monuments removed? (In my opinion, an article about the movement to remove such monuments, without a list, is a different story.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: So, if I understand correctly, you would prefer if we:

• Re-add all former/ removed monuments/ memorials to this list;  Fixed
• Keep the other article about the movement to remove monuments/ memorials; but Not sure
• Delete the list part of that article (because it duplicates the content here) Not sure

That's fair. I can do that. Fluous (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fluous. For the time being, I think that's best.

I'm not a big fan of RfC's, but I think that we should try to solicit more editors' opinions about the duplication between the lists. Do you think posting questions at the WikiProjects under whose purview the two articles/lists lie would help? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a monument, having made this list, should stay here. Not be removed from the list just because the monument is gone. If, for example all the monuments get removed, wouldn't you still want this list? Adding a "Monument removed" or "renamed" or "whatever" on the list is not a big problem. Is it? Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Ok, I see what you mean. It makes sense! :) Fluous (talk) 20:49, 24 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)

I fail to see how the 1/3 missing is irrelevant. The source (SPLC) even admitted in the article several were not included, and if it really is that high would you really expect them to say that? I personally noticed it was a large amount and yes even wondered briefly if was not some hanky panky on SPLC part to not include so much. I did not think much about it though for couple of reasons. Brief glance at some of sources used does show several incomplete data or inconsistencies, plus as far as I can tell it would not really change the biggest peak much. It is more than that though, it is also the other types of data that were included or not included, which if all were included does muddy it some but still does not appear to change the biggest peak period. It does raise the point however, that maybe it should be noted the data for chart is incomplete or not all inclusive just as SPLC article does itself, since I doubt many will not bother to read the source and the whole article. I doubt many will even read such a note put in either, but at least an attempt at accuracy will be done plus attempt at trying to remain as neutral as possible. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because it's original research. I just wrote that, didn't I? You would need a third party secondary reliable source which says "the SPLC graph is missing 1/3 of the monuments" or something like that to include this. Volunteer Marek  20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: so you counted 858. Interesting as that is not far off from the sum given in articles main headings of 852. Wonder where other 6 included came from. 2) 109 public schools + 3) 718 monuments + 5) six Southern states w/Confederate flag + 6) 10 major U.S. military bases + 7) nine official Confederate holidays. Which confirms what I thought about chart inaccurately sourcing data compiled from 2017. Nowhere does it say when it was compiled in article, but article was originally posted in April 21, 2016, the chart actually goes to 2016 and is couple vague references of things that were done in 2016 in article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What is also interesting to me is that 101 of these monuments and memorials that we have labeled as belonging to the "Jim Crow era" are not in former CSA states. We are suggesting that a monument built in Montana in 1916 is somehow related to Jim Crow. Oh yeah, that's okay because the sources say it. Not. Carptrash (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think in fairness this line from the SPLC study should be included in the caption for the graph.

"These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War.". Dubyavee (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this whole 1503 thing - it looks like you're just confusing "symbols" with "monuments". That's it. The definition of "symbols" is just more encompassing than the definition of "monuments". Like I said, original research. Confused original research. This is exactly why we follow sources and not Wikipedians' personal opinions and feelings. Volunteer Marek  15:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

THe 1503 has nothing to do with ~2600 that were discluded. Neither is confusing symbols with monuments thing. It starts with their findings and makes note they discluded so many. THAN it goes on to talk about the 1503 "symbols" that they do include. "There are at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces." (my bolding for emphasis). It even goes on to say what all those symbols are. I will bold out for you the majority ones that are NOT counted from those 1503 to arrive with ~850 value. "These include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works." I do not know about other public works, but guessing not counted either. Schools: most High Schools are in the count, most Middle and Elementary are not. Makes me wonder how you re-constructed the graph without even knowing what all the data was. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do you get that schools, bridges, dams and roads are "NOT counted"? Where do you get that "most Middle and Elementary are not"?  Volunteer Marek  11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If I have to answer this, than thank you for clarifying that you have not looked at SPLC data. Where do you think roughly half of them are not being shown from? Did you really think they were just unable to find dates for that many symbols or something. Bah, just go actually look at the data yourself, taking note when date listed is "N/A". Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:59, 28 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)

@Volunteer Marek:I mean, this seems like bad faith on D.Creish's part. He's going on-and-on about academic journals, but what sources has he ever found? What work has he ever done here? Here are the academic journals and history books that I've personally found and cited since I began editing this article:

• Gulley, H.E. (1993). "Women and the Lost Cause: preserving a Confederate identity in the American Deep South". Journal of Historical Geography. 19 (2): 125–41. doi:10.1006/jhge.1993.1009.
• Winsboro, Irvin D.S. (2016). "The Confederate Monument Movement as a Policy Dilemma for Resource Managers of Parks, Cultural Sites, and Protected Places: Florida as a Case Study" (PDF). The George Wright Forum. 33: 217–29.
• Wiggins, David N. (2006). Georgia's Confederate monuments and cemeteries. Charleston, SC: Arcadia. ISBN 9780738542331. OCLC 67612617.
• Winberry, John J. (1983). ""Lest We Forget": The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape". Southeastern Geographer. 23 (2): 107–21. ISSN 1549-6929. doi:10.1353/sgo.1983.0008.
• Davis, Michael. In Remembrance: Confederate Funerary Monuments in Alabama and Resistance to Reconciliation, 1884–1923. Master's thesis, Auburn University. Accessed August 15, 2017.
• Dirickson, Perry (2006). School Spirit or School Hate: The Confederate Battle Flag, Texas High Schools, and Memory, 1953-2002. (PDF) (Thesis). University of North Texas.

Fluous (talk) 03:29, 23 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)

I concur @Fluous: about your overall statement. I disagree though on couple minor issues. Even going by the lede, these are not all clearly memorials to the confederacy, and even looking at several they are not as many has no reference to confederacy at all except simply by association. Yes it could be much more clearer, since according to a poll I did asking non-americans showed anything but being clear. I will also concur that yes CSA memorials I am sure were used to entrench white supremacy, but no that is not the only reason or sometimes the reason it was done at all. I especially disagree with for a certain time period, and am really curious as to which time period you think this was done? Imho it has been done all along in some instances, especially when supported and funded by certain organizations, which afaik has been throughout entire history. As to Jim Crow laws, I would think it is more (although not all of) the exact opposite. From as best as I could tell when reading most things from the time, raising memorials and drawing attn to confederacy and 'some' of confederacy purposes resulted in Jim Crow laws coming about in the first place. From both points of view, pro and against, but especially from some of the hatred and increased lynchings. Although that had been brewing long before the civil war, if not ever since nations foundation. As to use of newspapers, sure it is better source taken directly from a historians published work, but I do not see issue of using newspapers. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:01, 23 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)

• D.Creish - You're mostly right. NPOV guidance WP:BESTSOURCES is basically use the best and most authoritative sources. Sometimes there is only a website or some article, and then that's all you have. When there is a variety, WP:IRS points out that for historical matters a newspaper of the time is best for primary sources eyewitness account, and current textbook would be better for secondary or tertiary sources. And yes, any newspaper or press release might pick the statistics or quotes that suit it's POV. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For the millionth freakin' time - where are your sources???? Where are these "best and most authoritative sources"? Guess what? They've already been presented and it's you guys who are inventing ridiculous excuses to try and remove them. So stop quoting links to Wikipedia policies like you actually give a crap about them, because you obviously don't. Volunteer Marek  01:15, 4 October 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)

New caption to "the chart"

User:Kevin "Hawk" Fisher has made two edits to the caption on the chart, and both need discussing. First, both edits are grammatically awkward, which would otherwise not be a problem to fix, except that this editor provided no source to support their edit, so I am not sure what meaning this editor was attempting to convey. Having contributed significantly to this article myself, I have found zero correlation between the erecting of monuments and any anniversary dates. If there is a source to support that roughly five years before and five years after the 50th anniversary of the Civil War was a time of increased monument building, it needs to be added. Else, the edit needs to be removed or tagged. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Was one of @Kevin "Hawk" Fisher:'s edits removing the "The neutrality of this graph is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." tag, because, if so, yes it definitely should have been discussed here. As the tag states. Carptrash (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"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 Dubyavee (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm looks like I am in error. I could not figure out why was such problem when the source (or so I thought) originally given for this chart listed gives the info right under the chart that I was referring too. "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." The problem is that I assumed the PDF version matched their web page version, so never bothered to actually download and look at PDF. They are similar but not the same. As can be seen at Whose Heritage Public Symbols Confederacy. Feel free to revert my edit, as I am not going to give another same but similar source until issue about graph is resolved. Will address it after if chart is decided to remain. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: In the article, of the 51 courthouse monuments in Virginia (that are dated), 7 were erected between 1911 and 1915 (14 %). In North Carolina, it's 24 %. There is no correlation between the erection of the monuments and any semicentennial. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it would take more than a cursory look to determine this. Even the SPLC admits the two bursts of building coincide with the 2 anniversaries, I don't think this is a controversial idea. I will add a paragraph to the article from John J. Winberry's 1983 study when I finish it. Dubyavee (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

1911 was the highest year of memorials, followed up by next ones the preceding years after up to 1915. No coincidence those seen the peak years. However, yes I still agree that it takes much more than cursory look or even the highest peak period. As can be seen in that chart, there had been a growing trend starting around 1886 with many plans and funding being made to continue. 1890's was a recession and delayed many of those plans or funding efforts, and would not be surprised they than held off for several until anniversary. Complex topic and why imho some simple chart will never be more than starting place and one small piece of the puzzle. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

[59] this is nonsense. Schools were not named for Lee and Forrest because of an anniversary, all the sources say they were named as a protest against integration? and to send a message that blacks were not welcome there. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Who said that schools were? You are going to pick 5% of the list? Everything is not black and white you know. Yes most schools were named after the desegregation and imho anyone trying to say they were not named for that is fooling themself and not being objectionable. However, some schools were named long prior to that time, are you going to tell me they were named in protest too? Lee in particular after the war stressed about unity and especially talked about rebuilding. Lee thought best way to rebuild was via the youth and educating the youth. It is why he became dean at WU after all. For example Robert E. Lee High School (Staunton, Virginia) from 1926 so clearly was not due to protesting against segregation, nor was it for any anniversary. HUH! You mean it might be possible it was named for some third reason! Maybe, just maybe it was not even named for anything to do with confederacy at all. Maybe it was simply a nod to local virginians efforts in attempt to make their state better. That did not seem to fit the caption in that chart, so should we list all of possible reasons for all the various types of monuments? Now that sounds like nonsense. Or just simply list two of more common and probable reasons which also counter each other out to give NPOV. Plus list the two actually provided by the SPLC source. Nonsense would be to pick one and ignore the other. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of new image to top of page -- WP:NPOV violation?

A historical marker in Colfax, Louisiana, commemorating the murder of 150 "negroes" which supposedly "marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South". A nearby monument also celebrates the three whites, who died during the massacre of Colfax's black citizens, as heroes who died "fighting for white supremacy".

I'm bothered by the POV implications of the new image that was added to the top if the page, and particularly by its caption (both reproduced here). Does a monument cited as possibly "the nation's nastiest monument" by the Daily Beast really belong at the top of the article? The majority of what I have read, by a variety of historians, indicates that white supremacy was often a motivating factor in building the monuments and memorials to the CSA, but does that have to be highlighted in the first image in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I moved it to Louisiana. We have enough trouble with the graph. Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good place to put it. Volunteer Marek  00:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Colfax? 1873? The SPLC doesn't even have that on their list. What the heck is the time limitation of events on what is counted as a "Confederate" monument? Can a marker noting some event of the 1920s be counted as "Confederate?" No? Then what's the limit? 1910s? 1900s? 1890s? -Topcat777 13:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Topcat777 - the SPLC missed more than one, and incorrectly counted many, and put in leading labels and ... basically they are an advocacy group so they don't have a scholarly interest in accuracy here and just gave it a bit of effort. Athe time it camd out there was some huffing over calling army bases confederate monumnets, but basically this is an advocacy group and not a secondary source to rely on. Markbassett (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Says you. As the kids say "citation needed". Seriously, have you bothered to present even a single - just one, uno, ein, 1, .999999999 - source for any claims that you have made? No? Then please leave the discussion to the grown ups who make their arguments with sources and evidence. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal withdrawn by proposer

D.Creish, Icewhiz, Dubyavee, Carptrash, deisenbe, Grayfell, Topcat777, Fluous, S. Rich,  Volunteer Marek , Legacypac, Waters.Justin, PeterTheFourth, AIRcorn, Magnolia677, do, Bubba73, Snooganssnoogans, My very best wishes, —Мандичка, Markbassett, Great scott, SMcCandlish ☺, Arkon, MShabazz, Aquillion, De Guerre, Mojoworker, Heyyouoverthere, Pincrete, talk, EvergreenFir, talk, Kevin "Hawk" Fisher, Lockley, K.e.coffman,

It seems pretty clear that consensus is not going to reached on the thorny issue regarding the nefarious graph, particularly the labeling of the monument building spike as “Jim Crow era.” I am planning on alerting everyone who either supported or opposed the motion to remove the graph. I likely will miss someone, it is not intentional as it is my desire to actually reach consensus here. I propose that the label “Jim Crow era” be replaced with one that reads “The Lost Cause”. There are lots of reasons why this is appropriate, but for starters, in this article at, or near, the very beginning, we state, “Cynthia Mills and Pamela Simpson argued in their critical volume Monuments to the Lost Cause ….”. We have already asserted that these are monuments to the lost cause.

Another well documented factor in the raising of monuments was the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was founded in 1894, just at the point where the spike in monument construction takes off and pushing the saga of the Lost Cause was one of their primary missions. This can be documented in such works as Burying the Dead but Not the Past by Caroline E. Janney, “Challenging the notion that southern white women were peripheral to the Lost Cause movement until the 1890s,” Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (New Perspectives on the History of the South) Karen Cox, "A vital and, until now, missing piece to the puzzle of the Lost Cause ideology and its impact on the daily lives of post-Civil War southerners.”

And it goes on and on. One great resource for this “Lost Cause” approach are the monuments themselves, which frequently mention “the Cause”, the cause” “the sacred cause” and even the “Lost Cause.” We are talking about the meaning of the monuments and what better source to jump off from than the monuments themselves? We may not wish to end there, but that should be be square one. Soderberg in Lest We Forget: A Guide to Civil War Monuments in Maryland in the section “Interpretation of the Monuments: The Meaning:" writes “A person viewing a monument in a later age may receive a different message than that which was sent by its builders.” They, the builders, say the monument is for the Lost Cause. That is good enough for me.

As a wikipedia editor I can make this change myself, but I’d rather hear that it’s okay with you, my fellow editors. I can hardly imagine how much work went into making the graph and it does present a nice visual of something, but, of what? I think there is ample reason to determine that it was the Lost Cause. Carptrash (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing it, and it doesn't have the "wait, this doesn't agree with the time line at all" problem of using "Jim Crow". PS: When does the kid-cooking start? I brought hot sauce.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing it Forgive me, but what sources specifically are you referring to here? From what I can tell none of the sources Carptrash referred to even uses the term "lost cause era," much less says that monument building peaked during the "lost cause era." If I missed something (pretty sure I didn't) please point it out. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Jim Crow era", depending on the source, starts in 1877 (or 1894) and goes until the 1950s or 1960s depending on the source. Our graph shows it as from the mid 1890s to the mid 1930s. You are okay with that? Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - We have multiple RS saying that monument building peaked in the Jim Crow era. Where are the sources saying it peaked in the "lost cause era?" Also the "lost cause" is an narrative about the civil war, not a period of time. The term "lost cause era is not very widely used. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fyddlestix ... Lost Cause is not an "era" but a movement and belief that persists today. The "Lost Cause Era" doesn't exist or isn't widely known/understood. And labeling it as such would be grossly inaccurate and is a bizarre suggestion as a replacement for the Jim Crow era. This is reaching denialism levels. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - The RfC about the graph, posted by User:D.Creish on Sept. 12th, is still active and no clear consensus has yet been reached. I know that darned graph is causing a lot of lost sleep, but RfC policy (which was reached by consensus) advises that after 30 days (the default RfC length) we request formal closure. What say? Magnolia677 (talk) 21: 17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Also, these are not monuments "to the Lost Cause." These are monuments to the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. The Lost Cause is a literary and intellectual movement about the Confederate cause. Statues, monument building, and other memorials are part of how Lost Causers spread their narrative. Fluous (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the word "era." These are monuments to the Lost Cause, not to Jim Crow. I was just trying to work toward consensus. Carptrash (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

These are monuments to the Lost Cause

@Carptrash: Again, no! The monuments are NOT memorializing the "Lost Cause". They're NOT memorializing "Jim Crow." They're memorializing the "Confederacy". The movement to build monuments was part of the Lost Cause. Lost Cause ideology is expressed in many monuments. But the monuments don't memorialize the movement to build monuments, which is basically what you're saying. Please explain to me how I can help clarify this distinction. Fluous (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fluous: okay, so this attempt to reach consensus was ill advised. So let's go back to the "Jum Crow era" label. Of the 11 references lister for it above, I think (please double check) only 3 mention the "Jim Crow era." One sets it in time as "post-reconstruction" (1877) and says "vestiges"remain in 1996. How does this jive with the time lines on the graph? Another one that mentions the era has 1949 as the only date I could find. Well outside out parameters. USA Today, one of the sources that does not mention Jim Crow era, says, "“The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that in the 150 years that followed the end of the Civil War hundreds of Confederate monuments where erected in almost every state" Actually the data from SPLC says 30 states. And of those, 14 had 3 or less. Yet the source says "almost every state" so that is what we use? I suspect that it is time for me to take a wikibreak. But think about it, 8 of 11 sources that we are using to justify "Jim Crow era" don't say it. Carptrash (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

While we wait for the RFC to be closed...

Carptrash has done good work in the list-article and here on the Talk page. Consensus about the graphic will in fact be established by closure of the RFC in a section above. Please don't anyone argue with my forecast here (it is my forecast of what will happen and there is no point to debating it): I predict that the RFC will be closed with "delete the graph" decision, because of the nature and quality of arguments made, specifically that the graph is biased, original research which is embarrassing for Wikipedia to be presenting. As Carptrash and others have pointed out, there are serious problems with quality of data/research by the organization which made a report, then there are further serious problems with the construction of the graphic by editors here, and there are further serious problems with the quality of many statements made in RFC and otherwise on this page. That said, I hope/trust that administrator(s) who close this will do a good job and that will establish what a consensus is. It remains possible, as has happened with other high-profile RFCs, that the "wrong" decision is taken and that further RFCs and dispute will run on. It is not the end of the world if that happens, it will just continue. It may continue to be embarrasing what is displayed on this article. Anyhow, I want to thank User:Carptrash for their very constructive and patient participation here, and to say that i hope they can continue to be involved but not to be too stressed out about the sorry situation that has gone on and that is somewhat likely to continue. Thank you for trying with a proposal here, but I think we have to wait for the RFC to be closed. --doncram 17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph is not original research. We have long established that it's a re-creation of the SPLC graph with well-sourced labels. If I had to guess, the "embarassment" is on those who continue to support the public display of monuments to white supremacy. And you should be embarassed. It's embarassing. By contrast, I am proud of this wikipedia article. The quality of the work here we should be proud of. Including the graph. I am confident that the right decision will be reached and the graph will stay. Fluous (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fluous - Be ashamed, not proud. Pride in championing an agenda other than NPOV presenting all views in due weight? The graph is exaggerated data from an advocacy group, as one should expect of an advocacy group, and while a decent if flawed listing has conclusions that are ... not the only interpretations from less-biased scholarly sources. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's NOT "exaggerated data from an advocacy group". Stop making shit up. Stop substituting your own prejudices and original research in place of actual sources and historians' scholarly work and then pretending that you're actually following Wikipedia policy. You're not. Not even close. You're shamelessly ignoring it, spitting on it, shitting on it and running roughshod over it. Wait... you're the guy who argued with a straight face that A DOZEN reliable sources, most written by historians and academics constituted "cherry picking" because because because... there are potentially millions (why not billions? Why not go the whole hog there buddy? I mean, as long as you're making shit up, do it with style!) of sources out there which maybe just maybe say something different. Of course you never bothered to present a single one.

You got no business lecturing others about shame.  Volunteer Marek  01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the fact that according to the graph source, it excludes the majority (64 percent) of Confederate monuments – "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature"? Is that "exaggerated data from an advocacy group"? I hope not, but in any case, while the graph may accurately represent the 36 percent scope of Confederate monuments covered by the SPLC report, it doesn't accurately represent the 100 percent scope that this Wikipedia List class article has. I would hope that nobody editing here is supporting the romanticized Lost Cause revisionism that the Confederacy was all about the noble goal of states' rights, and that slavery had nothing to do with it – in truth, the Confederacy fought one of the bloodiest wars ever, for one of the most ignoble causes in history. And undoubtedly confederate symbols were appropriated by racists and white supremacists. It's also undoubtedly true that some monuments and memorials are commemorating certain historical events on battlefields, such as marking the site of a turning point in a battle, or the place of death of a confederate general. We need to adhere to NPOV and be accurate about whatever we state in Wikipedia's voice in this, or any other Wikipedia article. The Civil War was a complex issue – probably the most complex event in US history. It, and its aftermath, can't be oversimplified just to fit certain points of view, whichever side that happens to be. It remains a divisive subject, but the discussion here has generally been civil. Now, I see above, some evidence that the civility may be crumbling, so please, please stop that behavior, and respect everyone's point of view without making personal attacks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? To answer your badly posed and largely rhetorical question, no, it does not make it "exaggerated data from an advocacy group". People. Find sources. Quit making your own shit up. That's Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Many historians have stated that there were several reasons for the memorials. Some of those have stated especially more so depending on the time periods built. The majority of those 2600 discluded were built in first couple of decades after civil war. Per several historians this was the time memorials were being built mostly for historical purposes such as marking battlefields, major events, etc and/or memorials honoring the dead. Markers and obelisks were quite common during that period and for these type of memorials. So no it is not making stuff up, and this means IF they had been included it would definitely show completely different graph .. hench the exaggerated data bit. Guessing the biggest peak would be in the first 50 - 60 years, which is NOT what SPLC wanted to show. HOWEVER, I have no problem with discluding those historical and gravesite memorials, as it only takes common sense to figure out why those were erected for. I and am sure most people are curious as to why the rest of memorials are for. What I do have problem with is SPLC than pick and chose what all data to include of rest ~1500 they found and more importantly with this graph only labeling one of two probable reasons for the memorials given from two of sources clearly leaving out the anniversaries and going against NPOV policy. Something any other respectable source will admit. Wiki job is not tell people what to think about it (which this graph does), but to be source of info and let readers come to their own conclusions, nor is it an opinion piece.Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Many historians have stated that there were several reasons for the memorials." - yeah, which ones? Let's see the sources. You guys keep offering your opinions and keep making these, often ridiculous, claims, but continually fail at providing sources. On the other hand, I've presented more than a dozen sources, including from "many historians" which back up the notion that these monuments are tied to white supremacy and Jim Crow. Sources vs. some Wikipedia editor's opinion.... guess which one matters more?  Volunteer Marek  11:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Both the ones included on the graph you did, SPLC and Karen L. Cox, give at least one other. Not sure how many times I must say this, but do not see point of listing other sources if you do not know what other reasons are listed from your own sources. Besides I have never claimed that some are not tied to any of this (Imho many of them are), what I am claiming PER even your own sources that this is not the only possible reason. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

1) That's not "Many historians", 2) they mention something else in passing while forcefully arguing for the "it was Jim Crow" view, so that claim is a pretty serious misrepresentation of the sources. Volunteer Marek  20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not "making shit up", that the graph "excludes nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" that are within the scope of this Wikipedia article, comes from the cited source of the graph data. Mojoworker (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The "making shit up" is the "The graph is exaggerated data from an advocacy group" part. You got no evidence or sources to back up that statement. In other words, you just made it up. Volunteer Marek  11:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you notice, much as you did yourself directly above where I did, I was quoting someone else about the "exaggerated data from an advocacy group" and it was a question (there was a question mark after it) about whether that was true or false – I said I hoped it wasn't true. I never made any claim as to its veracity. To be clear, I think there is a place for such a graph in this article, perhaps in its own section as EvergreenFir suggested with option (1). But it needs to be clear that it covers a different scope than this article does. Perhaps we need a formal RfC, but I'd rather wait until the current one has concluded. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible solutions include (1) moving the image to a section with a narrower scope (may need to be created first), (2) putting a footnote in the caption, (3) narrowing the scope of the article by splitting it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For now, I've implemented your suggestion (2) of a footnote as a temporary measure, but I'd favor your suggestion (1) or (3) since the graph as it currently stands near the top of the article, implies it covers the same scope as our article, while in actuality it covers only a small subset. Mojoworker (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the "footnote" is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. It'd be fine to include something about how the chart may not be an exhaustive list (and neither is this Wikipedia article) but we would really need to do so in a neutral manner. What we have here is just underhanded attempts at poisoning the well and trying to discredit the chart because you can't remove it. Volunteer Marek  11:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How can you claim it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, when the footnote is a direct quote from the source for the graph? Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it tries to synthesize the info from SPLC graph with the ... edit history of this Wikipedia article (!). So it's actually sort of original research about original research. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Please explain your premise in more detail. This article clearly covers battlefield monuments that the SPLC excluded from their data. It has nothing to do with the edit history, other than editors added the monuments to this list starting 7 1/2 years ago. Mojoworker (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: the "subset" argument, this looks like a non-issue to me. SPLC "excludes battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" because it doesn't define those as monuments. That editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader (borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE) definition of what a monument is (specifically including plaques, flags, and holidays, for example) does not invalidate or reflect poorly on the SPLC source. It merely suggests that splc has put some thought into what should and should not be included. The suggestion that the SPLC's count is invalid because they don't include every little plaque or flag that anonymous Wikipedia editors have chosen to add to this list at some point is absurd. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Volunteer Marek  19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, can I remind everyone that the SPLC survey was specifically limited to public and publicly supported monuments? Their survey was never intended to be an exhaustive list of all confederate monuments so it's hardly a "gotcha" to point out that that's not what it is. All we need to do is tweak the caption to make it clear what's being displayed. The chart is no less valid or worthy of inclusion for having been based on an actual standard/methodology for inclusion though. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, before you make that sort of accusation, you should at least check your facts beforehand. It's not that "editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader" definition, rather it's the contrary – the recent headlines that have drawn in many editors that have never previously edited on the subject – and they are trying to make this long-standing article all about the SPLC report. As I stated above, the confederate monuments at Gettysburg have been in this article since before the 25th edit to this article, and the monument at Perryville was here the first day this article existed. The SPLC doesn't include those – so what? This is not the SPLC's list of Confederate monuments designed to support white supremacy article, and I would strongly oppose overturning the 71⁄2 year consensus about the scope of this article. If you want to make that article (which would be item (3) of EvergreenFir's proposals), have at it. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as an accusation - but the article IS bloated, probably since long before the current controversy. The point is that the graph isn't (and shouldn't be) represented as accounting for every monument listed here, much less every monument, everywhere - not least because that's not even what the SPLC survey set out to do, reasonable people can disagree over what counts as a "monument," and the standard for inclusion in this article seems very broad/unclear. But it doesn't have to include everything listed here to be relevant - though it does need to be clearly/accurately labelled. The written (non-graph, non-splc) sources make it clear that the point made by the graph is generally valid and does apply to confederate monuments in general. The graph is simply a useful illustration of a broader trend, which is well documented in other rs and obviously relevant to this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on your edit summary here it does look like this is the heart of the issue - if the graph is clearly labelled as a graph of public and publicly supported monuments to the confederacy and its leaders (which is the criteria the splc actually used) and the data is attributed to them, what's the issue? No one is claiming that the graph lists all confederate monuments, much less all monuments listed here. (Even though we DO have sources stating that what's true of the monuments graphed is also true of confederate monuments generally). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If that were the case, I would agree with you, but no, the criteria the SPLC used for the data the graph is based on is not of all public and publicly supported monuments to the confederacy and its leaders, only some – according to the SPLC "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" (about 64% of the total) were excluded. The monuments and markers located on battlefields such as Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Antietam, Shiloh, Chickamauga, etc. are also public and publicly supported. That's the problem. They eliminated the historical markers which make up a large portion of the scope of this article. Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markers, and Gettysburg has a similar number (note that these include both Union and Confederate). Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? SPLC makes it quite clear that they're cataloguing not just "publicly supported" but public monuments (as in: official, in a public space, erected by the government). In other words, they're drawing a distinction between obscure battlefield markers and cemeteries on the one hand and giant, equestrian statues of Robert E Lee that were erected with great fanfare in a public square on the other. Those are two very different categories of things, and the distinction is a perfectly reasonable one for them to have made. Essentially, you're faulting them for not doing something that they did not set out to do (and which they clearly state that they're not trying to do), which is pretty silly if you ask me. Also, your statement that Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markers just highlights how patently ridiculous the ideas that anyone could (or should) catalog all such monuments is.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix:You've misunderstood. I'm not faulting the SPLC – they made their list of data as they saw fit. I'm faulting the graph of the SPLC's data being used at the top of this article with the implication that it's representing the same data in this article, when the scopes of the two are very different. As you said above, "though it does need to be clearly/accurately labelled." That's why I implemented option (2) of EvergreenFir's suggestion, but Marek keeps edit-warring it out. Looking at his prodigious block log, it seems that's his MO. He appears to be the only one opposed to the footnote, despite what seems to be the consensus of the discussion here, so perhaps another RfC will need to happen. Or his behavior becomes so egregious that someone takes him to a noticeboard. As to the "obscure battlefield markers", the following look a lot like "giant, equestrian statues of Robert E Lee"...

• 
  John C. Pemberton
• 
  Vicksburg
• 
  Texas Memorial, Vicksburg NMP
• 
  The 1909 dedication of the Mississippi Memorial at Vicksburg National Military Park

...well, not the equestrian part, but they are official, in a public space, erected by the government with great fanfare, all in the city of Vicksburg, and are not included in the SPLC data, since they commemorate events during the Siege of Vicksburg and so are "historical in nature", and were not erected as tools of oppression. Mojoworker (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to jump in...but this article in The Washington Post suggests the construction of Confederate monuments was partly the result of a marketing campaign by Monumental Bronze Co. of Bridgeport, Connecticut--a manufacturer of bronze statues. About 2,500 of the company's soldier statues were erected in the North, and about 500 in the South. "Many of the South's Silent Sentinels turn out to be identical to the statues of Union soldiers that decorate hundreds of public spaces across the North. Identical, but for one detail: On the soldier's belt buckle, the 'U.S.' is replaced by a 'C.S.' for 'Confederate States.'" Kinda funny. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC chart is basically cribbed from John J. Winberry's 1983 essay "Lest We Forget".[60] At the end of his essay Winberry gave 4 reasons for the construction of the monuments. 1) to honor the memory of the dead and recognize returning veterans, 2)to celebrate the rebuilding of the south, 3) to support the idea of the Lost Cause, and 4)to unite whites against the interests of African American southerners. He concluded-"No one of these four possible explanations for the Confederate monument is adequate or complete in itself. The monument is a symbol, but whether it was a memory of the past, a celebration of the present, or a portent of the future remains a difficult question to answer; monuments and symbols can be complicated and sometimes indecipherable." Dubyavee (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Except... it's not. Volunteer Marek  19:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I was the person who added the Winberry (1983) article. No, the SPLC chart is definitely not "cribbed" from his article. Winberry's article focuses almost exclusively on courthouse monuments.

This paper will ...concentrate specifically on the courthouse monuments because of their characterization of the Southern landscape.

The SPLC study is far, far broader:

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

Fluous (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Shelbyville, Tennessee

Should we add the Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Willow Mount Cemetery, Shelbyville, Tennessee? Cunningham was the founding editor of the Confederate Veteran.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A gravestone where he was buried. No unless you are going to start listing gravestones for all confederates (~1 million). Memorials in honour for him elsewhere, sure. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I agree with Kevin. Fluous (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes - Memorial is a decoration dedicated to the dead, and as this does not look like a gravestone it might well be included. The article is leaning towards inclusion, widely interpreting monument and memorial, so this is not as big a stretch as other items. The Dodd scroll photo from his gravestie is the only other one I see but ehh.. Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Verification of SPLC data

Did anyone actually do any verification on list of data from SPLC before adding to wiki page here or was just blindly manual input? I can understand couple things falling through the cracks, but if no one even attempted to do verification that is another matter. Because I am certainly not going through this entire page to look for them all at this stage, if I had known this before I could have been doing it all along with ones I have found, but I do not recall what all those were. Anyway, removing Midway, AL for town marker. It is for town that has nothing to do with CSA and was named long time prior. You can see text and marker here: http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMFN36_Town_of_Midway_Midway_AL Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I re-added the listing. You have to read the back: :

The marker was erected to commemorate the Jefferson Davis Highway and Soldiers of the Confederacy.

Fluous (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I DID read the text on the Marker. The full text (front and back) can be seen on link I gave, including your quote. It does not say 'this' marker, it is talking about another different granite boulder marker. The granite boulder marker needs to be included, not this one which is for the Town.

A granite boulder, located at the intersection of Highway 82 and 51, marks remnants of Midway's past. The marker was erected to commemorate the Jefferson Davis Highway and Soldiers of the Confederacy.

Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Fudge @Fluous:, lol. Since you seem so antsy on including it. I have been attempting to verify if this was seperate one than marker listed block away before I was going to include it. Other than Town marker, I have not been able to find any other reference to this granite boulder, however it does not appear to be same one as far as I can tell. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hm.That's actually a really interesting question. The sign says there was a granite boulder erected to commemorate the Jefferson Davis Highway and Soldiers of the Confederacy. But I also can't find further information about the boulder. EDIT: This might be it at Highway 51 and 82. Fluous (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yea that is prolly it, sorry did not actually look at your link. I was trying to find an actual link somewhere, but yea finally looked at satellite image, where I could definitely tell they are two seperate things. I could easily see the sign marker, which already had link for anyway. I could also see the boulder and could tell it had something on it, just not good enough to really tell what. However since there are two seperate things, along with Town Marker stating what the boulder is for, sounded good enough for me to add them both. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The data was added because the SPLC report is a reliable secondary source. Further cites and verification are an ongoing processs. The noted sign is not a memorial, but the google maps link with the evidence from the sign verifies the boulder is the correct item to list. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So, correct me if I am wrong here, but it's not our job to verify original research by somewhere like the SPLC. Rather, we verify that reliable sources report what they found. I think this is the thrust of WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this is what the majority of this controversy on the talk page comes down to. Some editors just "know better" than what the sources say and even when you put articles written by prominent historians in front of them they'll insist that their opinion is more important than some stupid historians (that's if they're not sitting there and claiming with a straight face that historians don't say what they actually say).

If somebody ever wanted a perfect illustrations on how to try to get your way on an article while ignoring Wikipedia policy by trying to force POV through sheer numbers, this right here is it. Volunteer Marek  20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, no this is not what all it comes down too and no it is not a matter of some editors knowing better. That study was a huge endeavor in which even SPLC on its own article asked for help and welcomed any feedback because they knew some things which may appear to be named for someone may indeed be named for someone else entirely as just one point. Lee is such one example. The Lee family was a prominent family ever since arriving to the US and Virginia. Robert E. Lee father and grandfather both had things named for them, such as Lee county named for Light Horse Harry Lee the Gov of VA way back 1793. I would guess SPLC was aware of this because they did not include that on their list, however am sure they were also aware that certain things may slip through the cracks because Lee High School in Jonesville of Lee County is on the list. Simply because SPLC was smart enough to realize that they may get some things wrong and would not always know better does not equate too because some editors here know better. Besides SPLC is a biased source, a fact that I am sure even they are aware of. Talking about getting your own way bears no weight coming from the one who keeps trying to dicatate what is included in the caption of the graph. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's EXACTLY what it comes down to. As has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over again, there's more than a DOZEN sources which say the same damn thing. Did you miss the part which says "even when you put articles written by prominent historians in front of them they'll insist that their opinion is more important than some stupid historians". So it's not just editors questioning the SPLC report. This is editors - in a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy - ignoring or rejecting ACTUAL historians and scholars as sources. And then making up crap as excuses or pretending it's only about the SPLC. It's shameful behavior. Volunteer Marek  19:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lee Hall Elementary School in Newport News, VA is another such example. It is named for Lee Hall mansion, which that family fled their great mansion during Civil War and was not part of the war. I recall hearing about that controversy as a kid back in 70's or 80's in which all historians and experts put an end too showing clearly its correct history. Apparently that may have only been more of a locally common knowledge, because SPLC appears not to have been aware of this as it is included on their list. I am sure SPLC was aware they would not know history of local areas as well as people from the area were. This has nothing to do with some editors knowing better either, that is the locals know their history better, confirmed by all experts and historians that looked into it. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Kevin "Hawk" Fisher - your statement "It is named for Lee Hall mansion, which that family fled their great mansion during Civil War and was not part of the war" suggests that Lee Hall was not part of the Civil War. It's well documented that Lee Hall was occupied as a Confederate headquarters by Major General John B. Magruder and General Joseph E. Johnston in early 1862. On May 4, 1862 a small skirmish was fought there as the Union troops moved to control the Lower Peninsula. CBS527^Talk 02:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

National Battlefield Parks

Really? These are memorials for the Civil War, not for Confederacy. I can understand that they are related, but this is a list for confederate memorials and symbols. Maybe have in the National section some short blurb about battlefield parks with link to Civil War Battlefield Park page. What next, are we going to list all Union things too cause they are related as well. I might understand if it is actually named such (ie: Richmond Confederate Battlefield Park) but this is not the case because they are memorials for Civil War. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that battlefield monuments don't really belong. The SPLC feels the same way:

This sum does not include approximately 2,570 Civil War battlefields, markers, plaques, cemeteries and similar symbols that, for the most part, merely reflect historical events

and

This list was compiled from many sources. In many cases, judgments were made as to whether a symbol was largely historic in nature (e.g., a historic marker or battlefield park, in which case it was not included) or whether it served to honor the Confederacy.

This issue came up before. I think the consensus before was inclusionist/ keep the monuments. Because some people don't buy the distinction between symbols that are largely historic in nature vs. symbols that honor the confederacy. The distinction seems clear to me though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fluous (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. Kevin didn't say anything about "battlefield monuments don't really belong", how can you be agreeing with something he didn't say? He's talking about the section on the battlefields themselves, and what he's saying is that these NPS Military Parks are not confederate memorials – although most do contain confederate monuments (along with Union monuments and general interpretive signs and monuments). I agree with Kevin that the section should be removed. Fluous, why are you trying to foist the SPLC's article scope onto this Wikipedia article? From the start this article has included monuments largely historic in nature. The confederate monuments at Gettysburg have been in this article since before the 25th edit to this article, and the monument at Perryville was here the first day this article existed. The SPLC doesn't include those – so what? This is not the SPLC's list of Confederate monuments designed to support white supremacy article, and I would strongly oppose overturning the 7.5 year consensus about the scope of this article. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Only Fluous can clarify what they meant, however I did not interpret it that way. Yes taken literally, you are correct. It sounded to me was supporting what I said, just did not phrase it very well. Ofc monuments inside of NPS battle field parks in honour for CSA should be listed, just not the NPS Battle Field parks themself, unless maybe it is actually called such. Gettysburg National Military Park is a perfect example, the NPS park itself is not listed, however several of monuments inside of it are. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I was agreeing with you! I also think monuments/ memorials inside the parks clearly honor the Confederacy or Confederate soldiers. But battlefield parks, no. They're not monuments or memorials. Fluous (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a List, not an article about history of. However after looking at them all, I do see where some should stay, as some are listing the CSA memorials inside of it rather than simply listing some significant CSA event / others are named for. Arlington House, Lee Memorial (except it is duplicate as already listed on VA > Buildings); Augusta Canal listing memorial inside; Fort Davis (named for Jeff Davis); Fort Donelson (named for); Great Basin listing memorial in; Yellowstone listing memorial in. Idk might be one or two others I missed, but most rest really should not be here in a list of article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Arlington is probably not a confederate monument – yes, it was Lee's home, but its significance is its role as national cemetery (and was put there purposely to spite Lee, not to honor him). But to your point, should these battlefield monuments (within these battlefield parks) be consolidated into their own section (and perhaps broken down by state with subsections) or merged in with the other monuments in the individual states? I guess I'm leaning toward the former. Mojoworker (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on Image History Section

I note the above page after page concern on the image neutrality and think a tag may have gone in and been reverted, so per guidance of Template:POV I am tagging the image section and putting in this section to discuss. Please leave the tag while discussion of addressing the topic is resolved, per that guidance. For background:

1 - The image file information states it to be the creation of editor Volunteer Marek. This editor apparently used the data from elsewhere, deleted their labels, and inserted labels "Jim Crow Era" and "Civil Rights Era" to paraphrase the writing.

2 - Image cites and discussion text link it to the Southern Poverty Law Center list in Whose Heritage? publication (pdf). Their image of conclusion 4 was apparently picked up by others. (Image shown here or here).

3 - WP:NPOV issues stated for the image include WP:BALASP that this gives excessive prominence to a crafted diagram or single SPLC publication disproportionate to a 'List of' article and especially drawing from recent events in the news (i.e. significantly Trump-bashing and Post-Charlottesville); WP:BALANCE fails to provide additional viewpoints on the topic; WP:WEIGHT that the proportion given to this exceeds prominence among the viewpoints on article topic; and finally that as the data source and interpretation is an advocacy group it should be regarded as WP:BIASED source that may need in-text attribution but the image note does not indicate the data source.

4 - Related to NPOV is that data is inappropriate or WP:OFFTOPIC as it is not about this article's list 'monuments and memorials'. It differs in broad areas of both excluding the 'memorials' in 'List of monuments and memrials' article topic and that it is mostly a count of 'Other' shown in blue (which largely creates the impressive spike visual) and schools in grey that do not fit within the article topic.

For addressing this I will propose initial steps of replacing the made-up diagram with the actual SPLC image, and putting SPLC attribution below the image. In addition I suggest the additional caueations mentioned be put in according to due weight and the group agree upon whether to word it as 'additional motives' (increasing teh effect) or 'also cited as cause' (indicating alternative explanation) or 'various motivations' (indicating individual caases apply). Please discuss below, cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion User:Markbassett. You should not have placed a tag on the image because your information is partially incorrect.

1. The underlying data used as noted on the image, is SPLC data which is further clearly sourced by them. User:Volunteer Marek indeed created the image because the SPLC version is not free use. The labels are reflective of the source (and MANY other sources listed here).

3. The single largest source for the contents of this page is the SLPC report the image is also found in. That is not undue. The data predates recent events. We already established that there is no BIAS problem with SPLC data. The image does show the data source clearly.

4. Markbassett incorrectly reads the graphic. It includes a selection of items that SPLC was able to date. We also have not managed to date everything, but there is no indication that their sample is not reflective of the dating off all items. Both the SPLC data and this page reflect both monuments and memorials and schools. Most of the data here is from the SPLC report.

No one has provided ANY sources for "alternative explanations" or "motivations" because the closer you get to what was said at the dedications and the rationals of those who erected these monuments the more blatantly racist the justifications given. "And on June 2, 1913, Silent Sam was dedicated on commencement day with speeches from then Gov. Locke Craig and Confederate Civil War veteran Julian Carr. Carr praised the Confederate Army as the saviors “of the Anglo Saxon race in the South” and recalled “horse-whipp[ing] a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds” for offending a Caucasian woman on Franklin Street." Let's avoid white washing here please. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

This is from Gov. Craig's speech at the dedication ceremony of the "Silent Sam" monument (UNC, Charlotte, NC): "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." (Charlotte Observer, June 3, 1913). Sound racist? I've read this entire June 3 article on the dedication ceremonies and there is nothing racist in it. Whatever Julian Carr said he is not quoted in the article..-Topcat777 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Topcat777 very nice you found a 1913 article but if you are disputing that Julian Carr (industrialist) bragged of horsewhipping a negro women, there are plenty of sources that disagree. Legacypac (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User generated ad hoc tag removed. Please join existing discussions. The graph had been covered widely enough by secondary sources that it, in my opinion, passes the "sniff test". We can refine it, but with the RFC and other stuff, it's gonna take time. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir Per your removal note over it being a nonstandard marker on image, I am willing and will put a standard marker onto the section, with notices to WP:NPOVN and to the originator of the diagram Volunteer Marek. Now kindly adhere to the guidelines of and leave it there until the process proceeds towards the means to improve NPOV are introduced and addressed in some fashion that satisfies the majority of the complaining side and convinces new and previously uninvolved editors. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

collapse offtopic content not proposing edits to narrow or mitigate POV dispute

À section tag would be better IMHO. Having it in the caption frankly seems like an attempt to throw enough at it until it topples (RFC, disclaimer statements, edited versions, and tags). Having a section tag would let the reader know there is a dispute without aiming directly at the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Which section is gonna get tagged though? Also the "guidelines of Template:POV" are not actually guidelines - it's just something somebody added to the language of the template. They're not guidelines in the same way as WP:MOS or WP:RS are guidelines. In other words it can be more or less ignored. The actual relevant guideline is WP:NPOV itself which states that the tag needs to be sufficiently justified. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Also this: "that satisfies the majority of the complaining side and convinces new and previously uninvolved editors. " is also not Wikipedia policy or guideline or even practice. The satisfaction of "the majority" doesn't matter. Because, you know, it's easy to get a bunch of sketchy accounts together who are willing to completely disregard actual policy and guidelines and have them brigade an RfC or something (the fact that this is SOP on other fora, like Reddit, and the fact that people think they can get away with the same tactic here is part of the problem). That's not how consensus works. Only arguments which are policy based count, not somebody's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT feelings. Volunteer Marek  04:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek] The History section has been tagged per voiced issue with trying to tag just the image. Now kindly follow the text at TEMPLATE POV in handling the tagging, and propose actions or movement that heads towards WP:CONSENSUS, which yes is going to mean suggesting ways that address POV complaints recently voiced and that new readers would also not find POV. Propose changes to the article that you would also accept and think going to reduce the concerns and dispute. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I can see that you've tagged it. I have also already responded to your "objections", right above. Can you please address my response rather than giving us this boiler-plate substance-free generic statements? Because that looks to me like "I'm just gonna keep the POV tag in place until I get my way or as a badge of shame" kind of obfuscation. Volunteer Marek  05:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek -- Having both objected-to material and a tag saying that is not desired as a permanent situation. WP:TALK is to discuss proposed changes, and for this thread to either propose changes to article content that you feel would move towards NPOV WP:CONSENSUS or discuss which proposed changes mentioned are preferred/acceptable. Changes that get to WP:CONSENSUS, i.e. not having the current situation of a large percentage of editors view things as POV, would fulfill the TEMPLATE POV When to remove. Please make efforts to accommodate the concerns of others. Thank you for any proposed changes or acceptance remarks on any proposed within this thread. Markbassett (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, we all know what the talk page is for, we all know about consensus. Now, can you actually make a constructive contribution to the conversation rather than writing up these substance-free comments which don't advance the discussion in any way? You're suppose to justify the NPOV tag. Saying "I object" and then some weaselly language which doesn't actually say anything is not sufficient. Volunteer Marek  15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: I both agree and yet strongly disagree. Definitely disagree that no one has provided other any other sources, since I have couple of times. Do not know how many times I must say that both SPLC and Karen Cox listed as ref's on this chart gives another motivation. SPLC actually gives two others, historical as well as anniversary. John Winberry gives 4 main reasons. I will give another, one is to honor confederate women, and sorry but no honor of females (true heroes imho) has nothing to do with racial tension, it is sex. 1) Agree that it is data from SPLC which is clearly sourced and also agree that labels are reflective of many sources including SPLC own article this graph comes from. However you seem to have missed the heart of the issue, it is paraphrasing / editorializing only one part of their conclusion. Selectively choosing which reasoning of the given two listed reasons to label from the sourced SPLC. Nor is that the only source to provide other reasons, the other listed source from Karen Cox mentions it as well, among others such as one provided in Distrubtion section of this article. 3) When have we established that the data is not biased? I would agree that decent portion of the data is not, but I have mentioned some irregaliteries (sp?) above with the data in choosing partial (~850 of its remaining ~1500 symbols) from its list. This in no way states it is biased, but neither does it establish it isn't. The bigger issue is that the source itself is biased, I still feel that SPLC attemtped and mostly succeeded in comprising the data, but that is my opinion and still does not negate that it is a biased source. It also does not address "the data source and interpretation is an advocacy group it should be regarded as WP:BIASED source that may need in-text attribution". Several attempts have been made to address this but they keep getting reverted. Which leads to biggest issue of Weight, especially with my statement in #1 above. As to balancing aspects, yes decent amount is still from SPLC data but I think it has moved on since than, which is good thing as any wiki article should not be mostly from one source. 4) I think you mis-interpreted Markbassett on this. It appears that you think this was in regards to the remaining ~650 from its 1500 list not being used. However I believe Markbasset was referring to the ~2600 that SPLC discluded due to historical nature, which does not best represent the list here that does include such symbols. This imho can be easily addressed by clearly noting this in the caption though or maybe in History section of the article itself. (again attempts to do this have been reverted). Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC) " it is paraphrasing / editorializing only one part of their conclusion. Selectively choosing which reasoning of the given two listed reasons to label from the sourced SPLC." - no it is not. This claim is completely false. There's one conclusion - the association between monument building and Jim Crow/Civil Rights era. That is their conclusion. There's nothing "selectively about it", the whole freakin' report is about this. That's why it's called, wait for it, wait for it,... "Whose Heritage". Yes it does mention ONCE, and IN PASSING, that the monument building COINCIDED with the centennials. But that is not a conclusion and it is dishonest to portray the source as claiming this. "but I have mentioned some irregaliteries (sp?) above with the data in choosing partial (~850 of its remaining ~1500 symbols) from its list" - this, as well as your comments about the data "being biased" is original research as has been repeatedly pointed out. You don't like the inclusion criteria. Ok. So what? Find a different source with different inclusion criteria. Your own personal opinions are irrelevant. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC) How can you say it is not editorializing when you pick one of three given reasons from one source and one of two reasons from the other source. To only include 'white supremacy' out of 'historical' and 'anniversary' is exactly that, editorializing and giving undue weight to only one of several reasons, thereby making it NOT neutral. ESPECIALLY when SPLC even gives two reasons in their Conclusion of the chart. Of course they mention it in passing, that is their attempt to be credible while trying to down play. Hench the NPOV tag. Stop reverting the NPOV tag. Yes both the section and chart has been disputed, by me and others. There is even a topic on this talk page called " Article violates WP:NPOV". You keep talking about historians, like they deserve undue weight, yet per wiki policy this is simply not true. Historians are only one small part btw, nor should it be only about the sources you provided when there are several others cited even on the article page. Jill Ogline Titus (associate director of Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College) states "most stand on ground that is distinctly historical in nature" MOST, but you only want to hilight the minority of symbols. Talk about being dishonest, especially when SPLC even states this from the source of chart itself. Jill also states "multifaceted motivations" as well as "honor their ancestors and the cause for which they fought" which can all be seen here. Yes a big part of that motivation for Civil War was slavery and yes this means that part of monuments are done for white supremacy, but this does not mean that is the only reason. John Daniel Davidson lists several reason including "Lost Cause, Historical (grief and remembrance)" as well as explaining why it took so long to start erecting lot of these here. Other monuments were even done due to 'Womens Suffrage' movement. Take note of when majority of CSA monuments to honor women were done. So no this is not making stuff up because I do not like it. (could care less what I like so long as it is neutral which means white supremacy MUST be mentioned but not only thing mentioned). But the absolute worst dishonesty is you are trying to ONLY portray minority opinion. Which gives undue weight plus makes it non-neutral. Again hence the NPOV tag and questioning about it not being neutral by several on this talk page. The majority of people simply do not believe this is true (they are wrong but that is irrelevant). Every poll I have ever seen reflects this and reflects that majority of people find these are Historical in nature and do NOT believe they offend people. NPR had Marist poll conducted recently see page 11 which clearly shows 62% of people do not find these offensive and do not think they are honor for white supremacy. Yet you insist on ONLY including what minority 27% believe. That is simply not keeping it neutral. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) What are you talking about? What is this "one of three reasons"? What source? What is "one of two reasons"? From the SPLC? Already explained - the fact that something is mentioned in passing as "coinciding" with the construction, in an article which is entirely about how the construction is a legacy of Jim Crow etc. is NOT "two reasons" except under a blatantly bad faithed reading of the source. And yes I keep talking about historians. Apparently according to you that's "UNDUE weight". Stop it. We use sources. You don't like that go somewhere else. I'm getting sick of this dishonest obfuscating and obscurantism. You haven't presented a single source. You're making up ridiculous excuses to reject solid, scholarly, reliable sources. Yours is the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Let me reiterate: first the completely bullshit argument was that "it's only SPLC, real historians disagree". Then when sources from actual real historians were provided it turned into "we can't use it because, um, um... um ... because it's in newspapers!" then it turned into "you're giving historians UNDUE weight!" Seriously, when will this crap stop? What are these "other sources"? Their existence has been asserted, yet none have been presented. You reference one which is completely irrelevant to ... well, anything here. And you know what's "absolute worst dishonesty"? Calling this well soured, academic research "minority opinion". Stop making shit up. Unless you can actually articulate a legitimate policy based reason, backed by sources, that there is POV in the section, the tag goes. I don't give a fig if it hurts somebody's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT feelings. Wikipedia isn't therapy for weird ass hangups. Volunteer Marek  02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Let me try to explain this again. Because you do not seem to be comprehending what I said. SPLC (source of chart) gave three reasons that symbols are done in honor to confederacy. Starting with 1) Historical - SPLC collected data and found majority (roughly 2/3) of them were of Historical nature. Any comprehensive study has found this out, just as any expert will readily say. Not even sure why I have to explain number one. After SPLC discounted all historical symbols, they came up with conclusion of 2) White Supremacy - nothing new since Civil War was in large part over slavery. Of course SPLC is going to stress this as it is an advocacy group originally founded to fight this (no it is not academic). Than they threw in 3) Anniversary dates - which was highly talked about and published during the time as well as since than for early 1900's memorials. One has to ask why SPLC even mentioned it, if it was not valid reason. Why did SPLC even bother mentioning if as you claim if it's not one of their given reasons, as it contradicts their agenda. Why not simply leave it out. Because even they had to admit it's one of the reasons. Actual academic studies and experts goes much further, seperating them at time periods over the entire history. Not purposely looking at two and trying to match it up with things that point to their agenda. Several cited sources on this page attest that many places wanted to erect them shortly after, but this was discouraged by leading people as well as by many confederate veterans. When veterans started to die off, places started erecting them, until big 1893 scare and following recession. After was the highly publicized 50th, along with end of reconstruction period. This is all well documented. I did not give that BS "it's only SPLC" so not sure why you are quoting it to me. I have always believed that slavery was big reason for the war so it is only natural for me to think that will carry over to some of the memorials. I have even stated this to you several times. Nor am I giving historians undue weight. The current historians opinion should be expressed, but that is not all of them, nor should they be the only thing talked about when the majority of people feel differently. Giving undue weight is what you are trying to do by only expressing one viewpoint from which does not make up the majority opinion. THIS is what I am talking about in regards to not abiding by wiki policy of NPOV. "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety" You have carefully analyzed one sides opinion, not a variety. You are attempting to give due weight to those sources that you have selected, which is fine. I have given other sources, besides the ones already cited on this article page. The fact that you want to dismiss those is not abiding by the "variety" part. "Editors should strive in good faith to provide complete information," Hmm yea not being done. "and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Again failed. "neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view" Guess you missed this part too. I have already shown that majority of people do not think this, yet you want to dismiss the majority opinion and go with decent sized minority. Where I want to include all points of view that bears due weight. Majority opinion should be expressed. This includes Historical, which practically all experts state is largest portion of memorials including SPLC and so should be given its due weight appropriately. I do not even recall historical nature even on the page, fails neutrality. Also fail Balancing Aspects "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable". As this list IS including all of those, which makes up majority of symbols, it should have the most Weight. Imho followed by White Supremacy and including Anniversaries. Others not so sure worth mentioning much, but there are several others. The rest of Balancing Aspects "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." You are wanting to do the exact opposite, by emphasizing all the current events spread around the news. Not even going to get into the Impartial Tone issue of neutrality policy. Will leave with imho the worst sentence that badly needs re-phrased, still included if can be done to meet Neutrality policy on many levels. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Confederate monument-building has often been part of widespread campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South, and assert white supremacy. Legacypac - POV tag is for the number of editors sharing a POV concern over that being a single source you state as dominating. I think in the recent RFC it was about 21 for deletion and 18 for keeping the image, and a few comments of concern; and further discussion in other TALK posts. Please provide suggestions to address the concerns voiced and move towards a consensus. If your remarks are indicating acceptability to you of alternative factors when identified with cites, and/or asking for quotes of a non-racial case to contrast to the one you showed, please clarify whichever as your proposal. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC) This is just getting silly. I am getting tired of seeing an editorialized caption on a reconstructed chart from SPLC and when anyone attempts to put this in more neutral tone to abide NPOV policy by using direct quotes from same sourced SPLC article and SPLC own conclusions, it gets removed. Worse is this has been a heated debate over this graph for some time know, yet any NPOV tag keeps getting removed from it, clearly not following wiki policy on how to resolve that dispute. It is put on there so that any user can see there is a debate about it and if so inclined can head here to Talk page. Without it no one would even have a clue there is this big debate over it. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC) I've added an inline tag to the caption as a compromise (though let me be explicit - this is pandering to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT obstructionism, and the tag does NOT actually belong in there). Please stop restoring the NPOV tag to the section unless you can articulate why there are neutrality problems with the section text. Volunteer Marek  17:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek ? I see no alteration near the tag deletion. In any case, kindly adhere to the process described for which says it stays put and when to remove it. That is, let it alone until steps to improve NPOV are discussed and addressed in some fashion that achieves WP:CONSENSUS. Again I highlight that you should look for what satisfies others, in addition to yourself. It is desirable that you suggest steps that you prefer, or state which are acceptable to you, but your satisfaction alone is not sufficient to remove the tag. Please use this thread as intended -- discuss which proposed changes are desired/acceptable to you, and suggest additional alternative changes to the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) How about you kindly adhere to the actual policy as outlined in WP:NPOV and actually explain why the tag is being added. The tag itself is not policy and it does need to be removed when it's added for spurious reasons. You have not bothered to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way so far, just quoted irrelevant policies and lectured people. It's a simple freakin' question - what exactly is POV about the text? Your inability to answer it despite the fact it's been posed repeatedly evidences the fact that you're full of it and just trying to tag-shame the article because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  22:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note - section title belatedly altered to reflect tag was updated to be on the History section. Also collapsed lot of stuff above that was not discussing any article edits to narrow the area of dispute or mitigate dispute, the stated topic of a tag discussion thread. Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• From the guidelines on the usage of the {{NPOV}} template: "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." This means that you need to state which policies are currently being infringed by the content and what can be done about them, ideally referring to the specific text of the policies or criteria which is not being met by the content. When you add this tag you are basically saying to your editorial colleagues on the project, I have identified a specific problem and you are required to tell them what you need to be done in order for the tag to be removed. Typically you would add this tag if you have identified a piece of content, which infringes some specific neutrality policy but, you are unable, do not know how, or cannot be bothered to fix it yourself. It's a way of telling people to do work. You have to tell the people what work to do. Edaham (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaham - Not quite right. Note that part begins "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." An ongoing edit war over a single POV being given prominence and 21 folks in RFC being ignored plus a tag whacked suited as identifying "an issue". So I duly followed procedure to take it to TALK for proposing edits to help. Note that "explaining" is all it says, and "identifying issues".

The start of this thread and the NPOVN captures my summary (however well or badly done) of the "explanation" with the background, and stated NPOV issues involving the image of WP:BALASP, WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BIASED, along with my suggesting some specific edits to the article.

But -- this thread is for TALK to would discuss alternative edits or further POV concerns or whatever ... it's not stated *I* am "required to tell them what you need to be done in order for the tag to be removed" because it is not a matter of my dictating the measures or limiting TALK to my proposals or just my views of the POV issues. The label itself notes that ~other~ resolutions will do which the documentation says in more detail. Assuming of course that folks other than me actually discuss edits to the article to reduce or narrow the POV dispute. Certainly it would be desireable for you to suggest any ideas on what might make everyone semi-content as a resolution.

So far though, it's been a bollocks of the tag being edit-warred (repeatedly) and lack of alternative edit proposals or even understanding that consensus means most of the opposing side have to go for your proposal. Frankly the whole article has since run a bit amok and TALKing is about symbols and changing the title and scope substantially so things have fairly lost the plot. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett sure. Nice interpretation of the guideline. A practical application of it has taken around 10,000 words to affect zero kbs of change to the article, but at least you got to tell someone they aren't right. Luckily you aren't being paid and there's no deadline so it's quite acceptable to watch everyone's faces turn the color of one trying to suck an insufficiently greased pig through a garden hose pipe as they debate the proper usage of the tag as opposed to following concise instructions as to the means of its removal. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaham - sorry if you felt dissed by that, but had to point out that I already had put in what you were asking for, and the simpler goal here -- that the Tag thread is to discuss narrowing the pov dispute by WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. Now I will ask you to please demonstrate good intent by actually walking your talk and voiced impatience by doing a bit to do so and talk about specific edits. Per Tag documentation and my own request, please either indicate which of the offered suggestions suits you, or contribute suggested edit idea(s) of your own. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what feeling "dissed" is. If it means inpatient, I don't feel impatient because I'm a Wikipedia editor which means I don't have feelings like impatience, as we don't have a deadline. I've read your explanations and requests at the top of this thread. Perhaps because of of the strangle hold you have on the English language, perhaps because of complexity of the argument you are putting forward, I don't fully grasp what your issue is. In any case the tags seem to be gone now. Recommend for future you keep things simple, address specific parts of policies and state required changes clearly from the outset. Edaham (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Article was created in March 2010...

...and the "racism" angle makes its first appearance in May 2017. -Topcat777 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not object to inclusion of 'white supremacy' as it is valid argument and imho should be included to show weight that current historians think this is one of reasons for such symbols being built. For neutrality puposes it should be mentioned. What I oppose is it went from one extreme to exact opposite extreme and is still not neutral. Of course for a so called "list" page, it is getting to be rather descriptive turning it more into an actual article instead of simply a list. Maybe it would simply be better to only have a lede, completely removing the History and Distrution section and replacing it with list of related articles. Those sections really should have there own stubs created if none exist for them already. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your point Topcat777? Legacypac (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and POV

I think the promotion of the SPLC as an unimpeachable source has not been questioned enough. I knew very little about them but became curious by the zealotry exhibited here on their behalf and found this article from Politico, which is a well regarded news agency. These are a few things they mention about the SPLC-

J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague stated “The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” He went on to say-

"Berger says that defining a hate or extremist group is notoriously problematic when using extensive, technical criteria, and that the problem becomes greater in the case of the SPLC, which reserves discretion in how and when it applies those labels. 'There’s no consensus academic definition of extremism, and the SPLC’s methodology for making that call isn’t clear,' he says. 'So it’s very subjective even within academia, and even more so for a motivated organization.'"

"Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors. 'The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote,' he says."

Harper's, which is hardly a right-leaning publication, has published several articles critical of the SPLC in recent years. They say the founder, Morris Dees, became a multi-millionaire through the organization, and locals refer to their new headquarters in Atlanta as the "poverty palace".

Letter from Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor, regarding Morris Dees

I think this should raise questions about leaning too heavily on them as a total source for information in the article. Dubyavee (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out what claims by the SPLC you consider to be dubious? Are we using an instance of the SPLC defining a group as extremist in this article? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America → List of Confederate monuments and memorials – This title is shorter and also more logical: the momunents do not belong to the Confederate States of America, but were established to commemmorate the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy. Also compare with Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Opton A: List of Confederate monuments and memorials
• Option B: List of public symbols of the Confederacy

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That is still a redundant title, Monuments are Memorials. But meh I know that is prolly how most will still be searching for anyway. Do not really object or support. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Another option that I mentioned in an earlier discussion is "List of public symbols of the Confederacy". I have a slight preference for the latter, but wanted to be consistent with the "Removal..." article. I added both options above. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative - List of memorials honoring Confederate soldiers. Seems more neutral. Most of these memorials were not erected to honor the Confederacy, but the men who fought for it (there is a difference). They were erected well after the Civil War ended - around the time that the generation that had fought in that war were dying off. The same phenomenon (constructing memorials honoring "heroes" of a passing generation) occurred in the Northern Stares as well (honoring Union soldiers, of course) and around this same time frame. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option A. Blueboar's alternative is not good because every grave is a memorial to each particular soldier. Option B is ambiguous in that "public symbols" may mean "symbols in public view" or "symbols established by a public entity". – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option A. I personally prefer B, however wiki is not about me and I have feeling most will be looking for A. Not only that but A would also cover broader range guessing being searched for (one reason do not like Alt but more neutral one given above). With Option A: Search for "Memorial" should find result, search for "Monument" should find result, searching for both ofc better find the result lol. Even if on odd case someone does search for symbols, just believe they will also use one or the other terms of Memorial and/or Monument. As much as I like option B, I had to admit to myself it prolly was not best for the whole of users. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option A however we should make sure that it won't be confused with any other Confederacy. I don't think titles need to be overly precise or literal, since the lead explains what the article is about. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Option A - concise and accurate. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Both Options have merit. Option B, "List of public symbols of the Confederacy," is one that I proposed (based on the SPLC title). But I think the consensus was that there are notable private memorials that we want to include here. So count me for Option A. And I agree with Kevin that the title is redundant: monuments are memorials. It should be "List of Confederate memorials." Fluous (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Option A but this list looks more like an article than it does a list with its 2954 words of readable prose size (excluding actual lists). List of Confederate memorials in America would work, too, provided it's made into an actual list less all the lengthy prose. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• We actually have international memorials here, too. So, "...in America" wouldn't work. Fluous (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Option A; the B version is ambiguous (if Banksy graffitis a confederate flag on a wall does that count?). If the long name is kept, BTW, change it to use "to" instead of "of", per nom's observation that the monuments are not part of the CSA. Basic grammar fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comments - Just to point out that this RFC has phrased it as being is A better than B, so it hasn't done a clear check of if there should be a move at all. Otherwise I'll note this seems three somewhat different topics -- 'Confederate monuments' are not quite the same as 'monuments of the Confederate States of America', nor are monument, memorial, or symbols necessarily even closely related. For example, a symbol could be a logo or seal, a painting, a hand gesture, a song, or a token object -- and what it symbolizes depends on POV. "Confederate monument" would be just a bit broader than "monument of the Confederate States of America" as it for example could be cited to statues of Calhoun or Taney. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion on limiting the scope of this article

Just curious... Fluous - Buchanan served 45 yrs in the US Navy with many notable accomplishments. He only served 4 yrs in the CSS, so why are the 3 ships named after him included in the list of Confederate memorials? I'm not seeing any citations that verify those 3 U.S. Navy destroyers were named for Buchanan's 4 yr. service in the CSS. It seems more likely they were named to honor Buchanan's 45 yrs of service in the US Navy, for his proposal that created the US Naval Academy where he served as the 1st superintendent, for his service in the Mexican-American War, and then as commandant of the Washington Navy Yard? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the consensus was to include anything associated with or named after confederates, which would be fine IF the lede clearly reflected that. Topic is highly debatable on reasons why things are named, not up to us to decipher why it was named for them, consensus thinks better to comprise list and let readers decide. Which sadly means several need neutral notes to allow reader to come up with their own decision. But yea I still agree with you that it can be made more of a list and less of an article. I have been attempting to create stubs that this list can point too. Currently working on NPS list (about half are already duplicated in state part below anyway), suggest the same needs to be done with history and distibution sections as well. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin - I looked back through the archives and couldn't find that particular RfC or discussion. Can you please provide a diff or link? What I find troubling is that the first sentence in the lede states: This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials honor the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. Unless the monument/plaque/memorial actually states that is was named, constructed or dedicated for that purpose it doesn't belong. The article should not be a "catch-all" for every soldier/officer who either volunteered or had to serve in/for the Confederacy. Considering the controversy surrounding the monuments, et al, each item in the list must be cited to a RS to be compliant with WP:V. If there are no RS available and it doesn't seem likely that any exist because it's obvious they aren't related, then they should be removed. Many monuments were dedicated as honorariums for a much different purpose, and I believe we can use the Buchanan destroyers as an example. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac, Volunteer Marek, and Deisenbe: You guys may have something to say here. Fluous (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are several thousand items on the list and the inclusion criteria is The monuments and memorials honor the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War.. How exactly are you proposing to source exactly why a road or school was named for Robert E Lee or a statue erected in his honor? Or what about Forrest? Was Forrest memorialized for being a Confederate General, slave trader or founder of the KKK? Men that lived beyond the Civil War all did other things, many serving in the US Army after the civil war. That does not change the fact they rebelled against the USA and fought to preserve slavery. If you can reliably source that a particular memorial is for some other contribution, add that info, but don't delete the item from list. See Brigadier General Albert Pike for example in the US Capital section. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You bet I do.

Let’s take Taney as an example. He had nothing to do with the Confederacy, so he should be out. But for now he’s in, and rightly so, in my opinion. (I may have put him in, I don’t remember.) The two statues were removed at the same time as the removal of Confederate figures like Lee. So, and may I suggest that the feelings of African Americans be considered (they hate Taney), “something” out there sees the removals as equally desirable. (By the way, if anyone thinks the US is falling apart, the fact that monuments are being removed at all shows a healthy polity(country, more or less).) Something - the media? academics? religious leaders? I don’t know - whatever it is out there that influences American public opinion - sees the protest as bigger than rejecting merely the Civil War. It’s (I think) against slavery and everything associated with it (antebellum life, antebellum publications, slave-owners). Slavery is the topic. The peculiar institution - no other country had anything remotely like it - our public defense of slavery and racism, of publicly declaring it God’s will (it’s in the Bible, all right), our prohibition of slave education, it was unique in the world. Related issues are with us today. Civil war figures were the movie stars of their time. If it were up to me I’d put in Calhoun - more than anyone else he was responsible for the concept of a separate nation, centered on the issue of slavery. (See Cornerstone speech.). deisenbe (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To not cite a RS is noncompliant with WP:OR and WP:V. Surely there are history books and old newspapers with an article about the unveiling, ribbon cutting, construction of, and/or dedication ceremony, etc. Statues will have a memorium plaque telling the story, local news and/or the Navy will have published records of ships & the christening, etc. We cannot simply claim they were named after or memorialized in honor of the Confederacy without citing a RS for verifiability, especially statues, parks, ships, plaques, etc. that were created/built years after the Civil War. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme - I can find articles that describe things as 'confederate monuments' that logically are not, but the ongoing labeling tends to apply tar with a broad brush. At some point I have to say it may be in error but WP:WEIGHT says a POV should be given in proportion to it's presence and the amount of recent coverage just tends to outweigh all else. The current article thrust seems refusing to even looking to at alternative POVs. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

National Park Service

"This list includes NPS administered sites where the primary history is Civil War, and sites that include features named for significant figures in the Confederate states" I removed all battlefields and historic sites that are not memorials or named after Confederates. These sites are preserved for their historical significance, not as a monument to either side of the war. I also propose removing this section entirely and moving the monuments to their states. In particular, natural features such as rivers and mountain peaks don't need to be in the National section. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a path I went down but it did not work out as planned. I'm ok with dispersing that section. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dixie

While Dixie was discussed earlier (archive), there was no conclusion. As "Dixie" pre-dates the CSA, and applies to the region (not the political entity), it is WP:SYN to assume that the Dixie Highway is a monument or memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Pov tag

Kevin, if you're going to edit war over the pov tag can you please explain the pov issue? As far as I'm aware the only issue has been with the graph - what exactly is the concern? Fyddlestix (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I can clearly see that NPOV tags and wiki neutrality policies along with several editors concerns about neutrality and to discuss when things have been questioned is all pointless. As the NPOV tags get removed even after several have advised on this talk page already to stop removing them until consensus has been reached. The talk page is full neutrality concerns. I even found one in archive. Even topic 24 titled about this " Article violates WP:NPOV" all to no avail. I am done warring over this. If you all can not keep to wiki policies than what is the point? Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of article has been questioned by several, including me. One in archive found here Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America/Archive_1#And_let.E2.80.99s_talk_about_sources. Plus at least two occassions of talk page topics Non-neutral POV simply 'resolved' without any consensus reached and Article violates WP:NPOV and several other misc posts elsewhere.

Neutrality of chart has been questioned. Yet even after several users have specifically stated to stop removing NPOV tag until consensus has been reached, it keeps getting removed. Somehow it seems ok to not follow proper procedure when removing NPOV tags, yet expect others like me to follow. Sad Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything an be "questioned". I can show up to any random article and proclaim loudly "I question this!". I can go to the article Earth and question whether it's really round. I can even make up a bunch of ridiculous excuses and demand that reliable sources get thrown out (because of "undue weight") and scream and yell and whine and cry and dance and question as much as I want.

Doesn't mean I get to put a spurious bullshit POV tag on the article. Volunteer Marek  02:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have missed it is not just somebody, but several users. Half dozen for article itself (including 3 seperate talk topics) and more than half responding for chart. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That completely fails to understand or address the point. Volunteer Marek  13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean you can remove it, either. It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first This article has more problems than just POV - it is noncompliant with OR and V. S. Rich, will you format a proper RfC or help me with it? It doesn't appear the issues will be resolved without one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. Tag is spurious. It's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And you've just engaged in disruptive WP:CANVASS calling in reinforcements by pinging someone you KNOW will come here and support your disruptive POV pushing. I call shenanigans. Volunteer Marek  13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your message here but reverted the multiple tags you added. They added nothing to the article, and were misleading. For example, the article has lots and lots of reliable third-party sources (756 for crying out loud!). If there are specific issues you want us to solve, please let's talk about them here. No need to add useless tags. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Volunteer Marek  13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme: You're restored your tags but I am afraid they are undue! There is not one source at all, but rather 756!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme: Please do not leave messages on my talkpage about this. Let's keep the conversation on this talkpage. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s - you're not understanding the issue. If you'll read what's on the TP, you'll see that some of listed memorials were not created in honor of or to honor the Confederate States. Some of the statues were created in honor of completely different things - and there are no sources cited to verify why the memorial was created which makes it OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be an argument for "This article possibly contains original research.", not "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source." And can you please give us a specific list of the unreferenced monuments here? If the monuments include the word "Confederate", we don't need to reference them--the sky is blue.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Read the TP as other editors have mentioned the issues, some have removed the problematic memorials/statues/ships/parks/etc. Please leave the tags in place - an RfC is in the works. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not a useful answer at all. Could you please be more specific? If you're talking about Calhoun, that's been removed, so your tags are undue. If you're talking about the SPLC, there are 756 RS, so your tags are undue.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but depending heavily on a single source which also happens to be a self-published website by a group of civil rights attorneys is not a reliable source for this purpose. It is actually a primary source. The sources that are needed here should be history books, or published dedications/honorariums like one would find in a state or national statuary hall, or in old newspapers, or inscribed on a plaque on the memorial itself. See this monument: [[61]] - it includes the dedication and/or honorarium so it's unquestionable that it belongs here. You cannot include a memorial that was created to honor the birthplace of a notable person, or a single event, or a life's history and include it here as if such a memorial was created to honor the Confederacy or that person's affiliation with it. The people, places and things that were memorialized must be identifiable and verifiable, or they should not be listed here. If such memoriums are included without verifying the reason for the honor, then it's WP:OR, and/or noncompliant with WP:V, or it's WP:SYNTH. For example, there are 3 destroyers, facilities, etc. all named after Buchanan. Where is the verifiable evidence that says any one or all of those memorials/namesakes were named in honor of Buchanan's service in the Confederacy or Confederate whatever? He served 45 years in the US Navy and doesn't belong here unless you can cite a RS that verifies the monuments/memorials were actually Confederate. There are many others in the list that are not verified, which means there's quite a bit of work that still needs to be done. Perhaps you can help by finding the RS that verify the specific dedication/memorial/honorarium. I have requested the expertise of DGG since he is quite familiar with such resources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Fluous removed your tags and seems to think they are undue, too. I don't think we have banned using the SPLC as an RS. In any case, there are hundreds more RS in this article...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:Unfortunately, you're contravening the consensus about the inclusion criteria here, in an attempt to severely restrict the article's scope. There's no requirement that a person must be memorialized specifically and exclusively for their activities between the years 1861 to 1865. You're making that up. No, the inclusion critera is much simpler: if the person was a Confederate soldier, politician, or otherwise, and they're memorialized in some way, then that's enough. The extent to which each memorial honors the Confederacy (or that person's role in it) will always differ; we leave that to each person to decide for themselves. That people have done other things with their lives is immaterial. They were Confederate solidiers, politicians, etc and they're still being memorialized— either because of it or despite it. If you don't understand, then replace "Confederate" with "Nazi" and maybe the point becomes clearer.

And, for the love of God, can you please limit the wikilawyer talk? We solve problems constructively here. We don't beat each other over-the-head with rules and formal procedures. Fluous (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you not understanding the context or purpose of this list? Read the first two sentences of the lede: This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials honor the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. In some instances, it appears as WP is doing the "honoring" by including them in a list where they don't belong. Unless there's a plaque on the memorial describing what it's for, or RS verify that it was created in honor of the CSA, Confederate leaders & soldiers of the Civil War, then it cannot be included. Take a look at the following picture so you'll understand that a memorial or monument actually describes what it honors, either on an attached plaque, engraving, in a history book, archived newspaper or in accompanying literature where the monument is kept on display: [[62]] The best course of action right now is for editors to chill, just sit back and wait for the RfC. I'll try to work on it tomorrow. In the interim, leave the tags in place to notify others that maintenance is needed because neutrality and sources have been challenged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You're just making the same point and not engaging constructively here. Re-read my response to you. And I wrote the lede, so I think I understand it. You're reading things into it, again, as I described above. All in, what appears to be, a personal crusade to exonerate the reputation of Franklin Buchanan— a man who was literally the highest-ranking officer of the Confederate Navy. Fluous (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is more than ridiculous. None of the tags are substantiated. No policy is being applied. No sources are being provided. It's just an obnoxious and tendentious POV pushing and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT tag shaming. Tags are going to be removed unless they can be explained. THAT is policy. Not "what reliable sources say hurts my feelings so I'm going to make this article look like shit out of spite and cry loudly about how you can't remove my disruptive tags". Volunteer Marek  13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

When the Image RFC is closed, tags relating to the image should be removed regardless of outcome. (Either removed along with the image, or removed as a resolved dispute when the image is kept.) I have not followed the other tag disputes closely, however if the image is kept then duplicative tags should also be removed. 'Duplicative tags' means tags placed for reasons that would have (but failed to) remove the image. Alsee (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My objection is specifically to the graph. If that tag had been left in place I doubt we'd be dealing with this disruption. D.Creish (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please disclose your previous accounts or explain how in your very first edit on Wikipedia you knew how to refer to the WP:COAT policy. Alternatively, make a legit appeal to have whatever sanction you're under lifted and make a clean start in a non-controversial topic area. Volunteer Marek  07:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this article has improved somewhat, but it still is not neutral enough. Memorials and Monuments erected in honor of confederacy is just as complex as the issue it was derived from, the history of the American Civil War, if not more so. Unlike the article of Civil War which is written in much better neutral point of view, this one still comes nowhere close to meeting wiki Wikipedia:NPOV policies. There are simply so many reasonings for these, yet most of the article stresses only one point of view and opinion, due to White Supremacy. I agree that is 'one' main point that is big part of it, but it is way overdone and not been kept in neutral manner in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. Every expert I have ever read or heard from will say that a majority of these are of Historical nature. Several historians say this, every poll of americans reflects they believe they are mostly of a historical nature. This is not given due WP:Weight in accordance with NPOV policy, it is actually not mentioned at all, merely alluded too. White Supremacy being only one opinion on the other hand takes up the majority giving it Undue Weight. The History section, 1st paragraph mostly talks about when and where, but ends with a dig at Lost Cause per 2 art historians. The inclusion is fine, but it really needs to not be part of 1st paragraph if that is the ONLY thing it is going to list or mention. It should also list other reasons .. or simply be moved to another paragraph. Way it is currently is setting the tone for rest to follow, in an attempt to hi-light one opinion or one main opinion as to why. This is NOT neutral nor abiding by wiki NPOV policy. 2nd paragraph mostly talks about Jim Crow and White Supremacy ... again this is fine to be included. The problem is again giving it undue weight as the majority viewpoint for the Memorials and Monuments should be expressed here, Historical covers the majority of these as even the SPLC has stated. As such to give it proper Weight, Historical is what SHOULD be discussed next, instead it is not even mentioned in history section at all. 3rd paragraph is where it can start talking about other reasons. Instead it re-iterates again more about Jim Crow and White Supremacy. Ending with short one sentence about Beautifying locations. Why even bother including that one sentence after 2 whole paragraphs of Jim Crow and White Supremacy, it just gets lost and disregarded. The inclusion is again fine, but should be elsewhere prolly towards the end ... or maybe put that as end of first paragraph. 4th paragraph mostly brings up organizations mostly funding, which is mostly attributable to driving the White Supremacy cause, so I can fully understand it coming after 2 paragraphs talking about that. Ending with 5th paragraph which talks about 1950's and 60's Memorials is prolly the most neutral of them all, except for the point the one opinion tone was already set in preceding first four paragraphs. We have the same issue regarding the lede, it states one thing but clearly the list involves much more than the lede implies it does. The list actually gives anything and everything associated with, whether it actually is in honor for confederacy or not. That is not worded in a neutral manner or accurately either. The lede needs to be more reflective of what all is included in this list to abide by Neutral policies OR the list needs to only include Memorial and Monuments which are clearly can only be in honor of like lede actually states. Imho the list including more that are associated with is fine allowing readers to make up their own mind, so lede just needs changed to reflect this. Removal section is given proper Weight and NPOV kinda, my problem is this is where more of the controversy over these should be discussed. This is where all those opinions from historians stating these are for White Supremacy and Jim Crow laws should really be mentioned more. The history section above should be more about time periods and how many along with list several of given reasons in short. The Removal section can than greatly enhance all the controversy about them. This last bit though is I admit is just my opinion on only ONE way on how to go about this. As long as it is improved to be more neutral I would not care specifically HOW that is done. The point is Yes one opinion White Supremacy is a big part, but entire article keeps stressing this in an attempt to portray THIS is the only and correct reason over and over again, and THIS is why the article does not abide by wiki NPOV policy the most, it is supposed to be kept neutral for such an encyclopedia source as Wikipedia. Mention sure, even hi-light what some historians have stated, but not make it the repetitive theme of the entire article, when majority of Americans (let alone readers) simply do not agree with that point of view. This is not supposed to be a propaganda piece, its an encyclopedic article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing concerns

NOTE: The original heading of this title was "Is this a joke", which given the nature of the discussion is a legitimate question. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it User:D.Creish if you answered my previous question about your previous accounts. I have asked you this several times and each time you were evasive which is a pretty clear admission that you did edit with previous accounts. Your initial edits on Wikipedia confirm it as well. I'm pretty sure you are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on WP:SOCK and abuse of multiple accounts. I suggest you dump this sock account and make a clean start on non-controversial topics, or, if you are actually banned from Wikipedia or this topic area, follow formal procedures for an appeal. Thanks.  Volunteer Marek  06:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:ASPERSIONS very carefully. D.Creish (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not denying it there buddy. Volunteer Marek  07:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The phrase "The semicentennial of the Civil War, 1911 to 1915, served as a motivating factor in the construction of monuments" was added to the caption of the graph. The source for this is... An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments by Timothy Sedore, a professor of ... ENGLISH. Not History. English.

So let me get this straight.

The editors who were complaining about the graph first tried to pretend that "real historians" disagree with the idea that monument building was motivated by Jim Crow/Civil Rights era.

Then these editors, once presented with over a dozen sources from "real historians" tried to exclude these sources because "they were written in newspapers"

Then these editors, when rightfully told to stop playing games, tried to tag shame the article and the section by adding a bullshit NPOV tag because "it's disputed", while whole time pretending that the problem was that "there are multiple explanations" but failing to provide any sources of their own.

Finally, these editors who were trying to remove or tag-shame over a dozen sources from actual freakin' historians went and found 1 - one, single, unity, uno - just one source to support this alternative thesis of "motivated by centennial". And it's not even by a historian. It's by an English professor. And it's not even about Confederate monuments in general, just in Virginia.

Can we have any stronger evidence that the editors who are playing these games are acting disruptively and are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia? Because I can't think of how you could possibly demonstrate your bad faith any better. Volunteer Marek  21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"The source for this is... An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments by Timothy Sedore" which was nominated for the Society of Civil War Historians book award.-Topcat777 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Nominated. That means very little - publishers nominate any eligible books for prizes like this as matter of course. It's also clearly a guidebook. This does not carry a lot of weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Writers of the SPLC article "Whose Heritage":

Booth Gunter - Prior to his association with the SPLC was a writer for the Tampa Tribune and communications director for a lobbying group in Washington, DC. Nothing about history.

Jamie Kizzire - Writer for the AP, the Birmingham Post-Herald and Montgomery Advertiser.

Cindy Kent - Nothing found prior to association with the SPLC.

This group has no background in history. -Topcat777 13:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There are over a dozen OTHER sources which back up what SPLC says (your shoddy original research on these individuals aside). Please stop pretending these other sources don't exist. Please stop being so blatantly dishonest. Volunteer Marek  13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I see that somebody managed to sneak in the wrong version of the chart without the labels despite the fact that the RfC is still open. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you try to express your particular concerns in a civil manner, VM? Condescension doesn't work, PAs don't work, and neither does WP:OWN behavior. Try COLLABORATION - discuss in a civil manner, not in a "civil war" manner, on this TP. I know you're capable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

See, that's all you got. All you can do is make up complaints about other editors supposed "incivility" (sic) because you have no Wikipedia policy as far as the actual issue goes. I am civil. I am also critical. Of this constant, dishonest attempts at WP:GAMEing. One more time. What is suppose to be wrong with the section or the chart? Why is one source - written by an English professor - being given the same prominence as over a dozen sources, including those written by academic historians?  Volunteer Marek  02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see a succinct explanation of what these POV tags are referring to. What specific things in the article are POV? I'd like to work towards resolving this so that we may all feel comfortable removing the tags. –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If those of you who are edit warring over the tags could please state your concerns in clear, concise terms here then we can answer/address the issue and move forward. Some comments above - from both sides of the dispute - have been pretty vague and/or unhelpful. Let's cut to the chase (and try to stay in topic) shall we? What are the specific concerns of those of you who keep adding the tag? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have stayed out of the edit war, but I have concerns about the graph. First of all, someone was removing the comments from the SPLC article "Whose Heritage" which stated "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." which were in the caption of the graph. The SPLC graph was taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry, and they put the spin to the graph about Jim Crow. Dr. Winberry concluded at the end of the study that there were 4 various reasons for the monuments 1. the need to preserve the memory of the dead, and returning veterans; 2. to celebrate the rebuilding of the south after the war; 3. the promotion of the Lost Cause, and; 4. to unite the white population against the interests of African American southerners. He stated: "No one of these four possible explanations for the Confederate monument is adequate or complete in itself. The monument is a symbol, but whether it was a memory of the past, a celebration of the present, or a portent of the future remains a difficult question to answer; monuments and symbols can be complicated and sometimes indecipherable."

I posted several articles above on criticisms about the motives of the SPLC who get donations by fear mongering. This is from the Politico article I cited above:

Touches such as these have led some journalists to nickname Dees, with irony, “the Mother Teresa of Montgomery.” And as Dees navigates the era of Trump, there are new questions arising around a charge that has dogged the group for years: that the SPLC is overplaying its hand, becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog. Critics say the group abuses its position as an arbiter of hatred by labeling legitimate players “hate groups” and “extremists” to keep the attention of its liberal donors and grind a political ax.

J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague, stated in the article:

“The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” he says.

This was printed in an open letter from Stephen Bright, a prominent professor of law at Yale, about Morris Dees, the head of the SPLC:

I also received the law school’s invitation to the presentation of the “Morris Dees Justice Award,” which you also mentioned in your letter as one of the “great things” happening at the law school. I decline that invitation for another reason. Morris Dees is a con man and fraud, as I and others, such as U.S. Circuit Judge Cecil Poole, have observed and as has been documented by John Egerton, Harper’s, the Montgomery Advertiser in its “Charity of Riches” series, and others.[63]

To leave the graph as VM constructed it means that we would have to believe that every Confederate monument to the dead from 1867 onwards was not actually built out of grief for the loss of hundreds of thousands of sons, brothers and fathers in the war, but were built instead to keep African Americans from their rights. It is too broad a brush and cannot be justified in those terms. This article will be in a state of contention for years if reason and compromise are not reached. Dubyavee (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In no particular order:

"To leave the graph as VM constructed it means that we would have to believe that every Confederate monument to the dead from 1867 onwards was not actually built out of grief" - pure nonsense, we don't have to believe anything like that. All we "have to believe" is that the spikes in monument construction occured during the Jim Crow and the Civil Righrs era. So please stop it with these fake-ass STRAWMAN. I hope people here are intelligent enough to pick up on the fact that's exactly what you're trying to pull.

(most of the monuments were in fact built instead to keep African Americans from their rights though - and this is impeccably sourced. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but that's tough noogies. Wikipedia ain't therapy. It's an encyclopedia based on reliable sources)

"The SPLC graph was taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry" - no, you just made that up. How do you know there's ANY connection between the SPLC report and the outdated Winberry paper? You don't. You're just making up a connection - which is original research - because it allows you to construct a convenient, but false, narrative. No go. Nope. Not unless you can show us sources which link the SPLC report and Winberry paper. Stop making shit up.

The Winberry paper is from 198fucking3. We have over a dozen sources of much better vintage.

What does Dees have to do with anything? This ain't an article about Dees and, as has been repeated ad nauseum, there's more than a dozen reliable sources, from reputable, academic historians who say the same thing.

Stop it. Just stop it. It's disgusting and shameful to watch this kind of behavior. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we have an RfC regarding the graph which you are welcome to contribute too. I think it's appropriate to include a "Disputed" tag in the caption of the graph until the RfC is closed. The following tags were also added to the top of the article:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed.
• This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.
• This article possibly contains original research.
• This article needs additional citations for verification.

Could we please have an explanation and proposed solution for each of these tags? –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, now we are getting somewhere - thanks for raising specific issues.

In response I'll start with a question - what's your basis for saying that the SPLC study is "taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry?" If you read the section of the SPLC report on their methodology, it states pretty clearly that this is new research they did more or less from scratch, and that as far as they are aware it's unprecedented (see also the passage about there being "no comprehensive database of such symbols" and about the extent of confederate symbols being "largely a mystery" on pages 7-8). I would also question whether this is a matter of the SPLC applying "spin" about Jim Crow, since American Historical Association and many other sources also state quite clearly that the monuments were "part and parcel" of the post-reconstruction movement towards disenfranchisement and segregation (ie, Jim Crow). This does not seem like "spin," since it's consistent with what historians say. (Winberry, by the way, was a geographer not a historian. He also wrote that in 1983, making it more than 30 years old).

RE: the anniversaries of the civil war, where does the SPLC report say that "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War?" I can't find it. I've actually advocated adding those anniversaries to the graph in the RFC above so I definitely see your point here, but the SPLC does not appear to make that point themselves (would be helpful if someone could produce a quote or page number - I looked but don't see that quote in the report anywhere). I'm not opposed to mentioning this but we have to do it in a way that's not OR and that can be properly sourced.

As for criticism of Dees/SPLC, it's no secret that a lot of people on the right don't like them, but that's basically an ad hominem here - the SPLC report has been widely cited and referenced by other major news sources, which suggests that it has considerable weight. SPLC reports are usually deemed RS at RSN, BLPN, etc., including in some quite recent discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The article I linked to is by Politico, not a right wing source, and the people quoted in the article are not right wing. This article and the articles in Harper's raise questions about the SPLC as a reliable source, as the gentleman from the Hague expresses his concerns of them being both and advocacy group and a source of information. The trouble with the graph is that it tags ALL the monuments as racially motivated. And here is the article mentioning the 50th & 100th anniversaries.[64] The age of the Winberry article is not material if it is correct and I have seen no one disputing it. Winberry was a cultural geographer, which is a bit different from map making. Dubyavee (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, they do not "raise questions" (how passive aggressive and phony is that?) The reliability of SPLC has been discussed previously and extensively and despite coordinated efforts to smear them, they are reliable. You can, I guess, try one more time. WP:RSN is thata way. In the mean time, stop trying to make up silly excuses for your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

And yes, we all know that there is one passing sentence in a report otherwise completely about how monument building was related to Jim Crow and white supremacy, about how it also "coincided" with the anniversaries. So what? You are trying to pluck out, cherry pick and blatantly misrepresent the source.

And of course the age of the Winberry's article is relevant - as it the fact that he's not a historian. Sure, we can probably include something from him. But stop trying to use the existence of this one single outdated article to remove or tag shame other reliably sourced information. Volunteer Marek  06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that I edit-conflicted with VM and Dlthewave's replies, Dl raises a good point though that the graph is (quite rightly) currently being discussed in the RFC. I still don't see a good rationale for an article- or section-wide tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee:

The SPLC graph was taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry

No. Winberry compiled data from sources. Made a graph. SPLC compiled data from sources. Made a graph. There's literally no relationship between the two. It's odd that you're claiming one. I don't even know what you're trying to achieve. As others have pointed out, you're just making things up. Fluous (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC used the basic graphic from Winberry's article and added data as well as editorialization. Here is Winberry's graph [65]. The SPLC mention of the 50th & 100th anniversaries are here, [66] There was a previous database of the monuments that was published in 1982 by Ralph W. Widener, cataloguing about 700 monuments, organized by states. Dubyavee (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

One more time - and this isn't hard to understand - this is your own personal conjecture. Something you made up. Original research. Something you invented. OF COURSE the two graphs look similar since they graph the same phenomenon. But it's also obvious it's not the same graph. (And really, who cares one way or another?)  Volunteer Marek  06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that the Winberry article isn't very good - he makes claims which are demonstrably false (though perhaps at the time when he wrote the article, 34 years ago they were taken for granted), for example the idea that all monuments to Confederate soldiers face north. Volunteer Marek  15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your argument boils down to: citing an English professor who's published books on the topic (the one in question covered by CSPAN's American History channel [67]) is a problem, but citing lawyers for an advocacy organization is not. That's not convincing. D.Creish (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that is NOT "what my argument boils down to" at all. Please stop making up shit. What is it with the dishonest STRAWMAN arguments? My question to you, and a few others here is - why are you trying to remove sources - a dozen of them - by actual historians while at the same time trying to insert a source by an English professor? Here is another one of my questions - why did you claim that "historians disagree with SPLC" but then attempted to remove sources by historians when these were actually presented to you?

You know what's not convincing? That you are HERE to build an encyclopedia. That you are acting in good faith. And oh yeah, that this is your first account - wanna answer that question? You've had plenty of chances. Volunteer Marek  07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So... nobody wants to explain how and why sources by academic historians should be removed from this article or at least "tag-shamed", but one single source from a non-specialist which hardly deals with the subject should be given prominence? Didn't think so. Volunteer Marek  03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to the studies that support the opinions of these historians? I am actually not aware of any studies of all the Confederate monuments that have researched the various Ladies Memorial Associations who built them and their motives for building them and how exactly those monuments were built for racial purposes rather than in remembrance of the dead. Dubyavee (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please stop making up ridiculous thresholds for inclusion. Are these people historians? Yes? Are these reliable sources? Yes? Are they experts in their field? Yes? What else do you want? If you really want to look them up yourself. It's not difficult. Volunteer Marek  06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Tags

This page is full of discussions of the chart and the SPLC, but nobody has explained the purpose of the article tags. I'm starting this section to specifically address these tags:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed.
• This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.
• This article possibly contains original research.
• This article needs additional citations for verification.

What specific concerns are the tags referring to? This is not about the chart. Please discuss the chart above. –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to tags and their application, perhaps Wikipedia:Template_messages may provide some insight. My primary concern over this list is the fallacious assumption that everything in the list was an "honorarium"; i.e., that it was named in "honor" of or "for service in" the Confederacy, et al. That is not the case at all. Example: this Time article includes a quote from Brigadier General Malcolm Frost. He reaffirmed that “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history.” He went on to say that "historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies." He also stated "that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” Regarding how it all relates to this "list" is rather evident that not all were erected/constructed/created as honorariums to the Confederacy et al. In order to justify inclusion in this list, they must have been dedicated specifically for the purpose named in the article title and lede, and cited to a RS that verifies the dedication - but that is not what we're seeing here. SPLC is not a RS for this purpose. They clearly have a COI and by that I mean when they target persons, places or things, they create legal challenges, and as lawyers, that puts money in their pockets, regardless of how good their cause may be. Hope that helps, Dlthewave. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is it implied or assumed that everything in the list is an honorarium to the Confederacy? The lede opens with "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." Would you agree that this covers individual soldiers and leaders as well as the Confederacy/CSA itself?

As for the SPLC source, I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you are concerned about its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC source is a RS, full stop. You're welcome to challenge it at RSN but I wouldn't expect to get very far. Beyond that, this seems like an argument for removing unsourced items or items that don't belong in the list, not an argument for the tags. I'm all for ensuring everything is sourced and a clear standard of inclusion, but that's hardly a pov issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge. SPLC has major issues, and those issues have been acknowledged in numerous RS, including the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Dlthewave - in answer to your question, "Where exactly is it implied or assumed that everything in the list is an honorarium to the Confederacy?" I encourage you to read the second sentence in your response to me...The lede opens with "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." What part of established in honor are you not understanding? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge. Can you link the discussion you're referring to please? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Fyddlestix. Also a source's "COI", even if there is one (and it's false that one exists here), is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors can have COI. It doesn't apply to sources. Just like it's perfectly fine for sources to do original research but it's a no-no for editors.

As for the "honors" thing - if you want some other wording please propose. But that's a very weak peg to hang a whole series of "badge of shame" tags on, which sort of suggests it wasn't the actual reason for the tagging. Volunteer Marek  21:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No sir, COIs in sources are not irrelevant - bias may be, but even then we're asked to look for other sources. I find your "badge of shame" comment rather distasteful. Why would you say such a thing, and what exactly does that mean? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"COIs in sources are not irrelevant" - yes it is. Show me in WP:RS where it talks about sources' "conflict of interest". And just to be clear, there actually IS NO conflict of interest here, you're just making it up. But even if there was, it wouldn't matter.

Adding "badge of shame" tags is exactly what you are doing. What exactly is, uh, "distasteful" about calling it that? Are you misunderstanding something here? Volunteer Marek  00:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the "honors" thing, VM, you suggested bringing forth a proposal so here is my proposal: the dictionary definition of "in honor of" = a celebration of or expression of respect for. Therein the problems lie and why it is the incorrect terminology for this particular list. The statues, monuments, memorials are not all in honor of, many are in rememberance of...and there is a big difference between the two. Among the best explanations I found for the latter is the following statement by Brigadier General Malcolm Frost: "Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history." He further explained that the historic names chosen "represent individuals, not causes or ideologies," and that it was done "in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” The point being, many of the memorials-monuments et al are a "rememberance of", not in honor of unless it specifically states same in multiple RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's possible or necessary to come up with a single word that reliable sources use to describe every monument, memorial, etc that meets the inclusion criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like a bit of a waste of effort. I prefer "honor" over "remembrance" in part because remembrance just strikes me as an odd word to use (subjective, I know), but also because I have seen very few RS use it in this context, which makes it a poor choice IMO. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought, maybe we could use "associated" which is used at List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials. –dlthewave ☎£

That might have worked if the lead didn't say "in honor of"...perhaps the following will give you a better idea of what I'm trying to relay:

• Massachusettes confederate memorial
• Confederate_Memorial_(Arlington_National_Cemetery)
• A new Confederate monument stating: "That's why we're here is to honor our Confederate dead, to honor our ancestors," Notice the term "HONOR"
• Hollywood Forever Cemetary - a memorial that "commemorates the military service of Confederate veterans buried there."

In other words, it's not a difficult chore to cite the subjects to dedication ceremonies and the like. Most will have plaques that state "in honor of" - if there are no sources that distinguish the memorial et al, then it doesn't belong in this list - WP:OR, WP:V. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

General description of how tags are used

Extended content

dlthewave - ??? Think you'll have to explain a bit more on what you're asking or why, and the tags have been edit-warred deleted again so perhaps it's OBE but in case any of these help: If you want the purpose of tags, entering template:pov into the search box will bring up the WP documentation about neutrality dispute tag, covering purpose of the tags along with some procedural information. If you're interested in specifics of what particular concerns there were, see what is stated in threads above. (Though I think it's fairly self-evident what each concern is about -- the neutrality of the article is disputed in the above; there is a single source extensively present and discussed; and so forth.) If you want to know why a specific instance of POV tags was put in place, one can go thru the history and visit the talk page of whichever editor put it in place and ask them directly. There are a number of editors who posted such and the reasons for each case would likely vary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC) This isn't a helpful response. The discussions above are a mess/all over the place, hand waving along the lines of "its up there somewhere" isn't enough. If you want to add the tags clearly state the issues in this section of the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC) And to be perfectly clear - what it says in the tag is NOT policy. The actual policy is WP:NPOV. And yes, spurious tags CAN and in fact SHOULD be removed. Volunteer Marek  13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC) dlthewave - again, This thread may be OBE because that tag (plus a section tag and the image remark about disputed) all got edit-warred out again, but feel welcome to clarify a bit more on what you were asking for and why, or whether you feel this thread is over. Meanwhile I again offer the possible helps for some aspects of this ... -- For 'the purpose of the article tags' there is purpose generally stated in the template documentation. -- For 'specific concerns' of what may be of concern there is a lot of prior TALK with specifics, and seems fairly obvious meanings /links to each item -- For 'specific concerns' why that particular tagging instance was done, the editor who did it is the only one who can say what he did it about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry, what's "OBE"? Out of body experience? Anyway, you keep linking to policy, as well as making false claims about policy but you consistently fail to explain the reason for the tags. Absent such an explanation the tags go. And your failure to engage constructively and address the issue does not signal good faith. Volunteer Marek  15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Glossary#O – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I'm not looking for a general description of how tags are used. I'm looking for a specific explanation of why each of the article tags were added. Most of the edit summaries say something like "do not remove without discussing" or "see talk page", but I'm having trouble finding an ongoing discussion of why each of these tags was added to the top of the article. We all have the common goal of building an article that does not have issues that require tagging, so I'm trying to start a discussion to identify those issues and work towards resolving them. Several editors are posting on this Talk page and advocating for keeping the tags in place, so they are well aware of this request. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) user:Dlthewave - why D.Creisch added each of the tags 5 Oct. can only be answered by him, you can ask him directly. I think Atsme added the same tags so you could ask him what his reasons were. I am not sure why you ask since the tag got obliterated, but those are the only two who could have thatinternal knowledge, if they recall it. The “do not remove without discussion” likely comes from the template documentation describing that the tag is to stay while discourse is ongoing but ... was being edit-warred. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion

While this list has been around for some years, it was less than 100,000 k until mid-August. Since then it has quadrupled in size. Presently the lede has an interesting (and helpful) criteria from the SPLC – the exclusion of cemeteries, battlefields, museums, and historical markers. One small way we can limit the size of the article is to stick with that limitation. Thus the 10” Rifled Sea Coast Columbiad in Mobile (which was a CSA weapon) is excluded from the list we comport with the overall topic of the article while exercising some control over the article size. (Note, this issue was raised in August without resolution.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be some kind of standard/limitation. No reason we have to use the SPLC criteria, although I'd be fine with that, and it would be easy to apply. We do need to agree on and stick with a standard for inclusion though, or its just going to bloat up out of control. There are literally thousands of things that could be listed, there has to be some kind of standard. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: S. Rich and I are lawyers, so here's my initial rule statement. The criteria that we've been using (mostly): pretty much any (1) memorial; (2) of a person or group with direct ties to the Confederacy; or (3) to the Confederate States of America in general. "Memorial" meaning monuments, statues and plaques; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, ships, military bases, and other public works. Excluding/ including (?) memorials that are largely historic in nature like graves, historical markers, battlefields, museums, etc. "Direct ties" meaning Confederate soldiers, politicians, leaders, "Confederate women," etc. So, for example, here's two extremes: Memorials to CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee? Of course. Memorials to SC Sen. John Calhoun? No. There's a strong argument for Calhoun's inclusion, but ultimately the consensus was that Calhoun's ties were too remote: Calhoun had died a decade before the war. Fluous (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fluous: As a test, how would these rules handle exclusion or inclusion of the weapon in S. Rich's example? Also, the "excluding/including (?)" is getting me stuck in a mental "if" loop. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd first ask: what does the cannon memorialize? The cannon itself doesn't seem to memorialize anything. It's more of an historical artifact at a battlefield or historic military site. It's there for realism/ to show what the fort was like at the time it was used. What do you think? Fluous (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Good question, Fluous. If I may - some editors (understandably so) appear to be unable to correlate the title of the article and the relationship between the monuments/memorials/et al VS the actual purpose of the dedication. In order to be included in this "list", there must be more than a simple "connection" - as a core content policy, verification is paramount - example: was the memorial a dedication to the birthplace or to the 3 or 4 years the person served the Confederacy (and was it forced or voluntary) and to what degree is that birthplace monument actually a memorial to the Confederacy et al?

• Let's look at former ships...
• USS Buchanan: Three U.S. Navy destroyers have been named in honor of the highest ranked Confederate Admiral Franklin Buchanan <---"in honor of"? Where is the RS that verifies such an "honor"? And so it goes.
• USS Buchanan (DD-131) 1919–1940 then transferred to UK Navy
• USS Buchanan (DD-484) 1941–1949 then transferred to Turkey's Navy
• USS Buchanan (DDG-14) 1960–1991 then sank as target in 2000

To say persons, places or things are dedicated in honor of anything requires a RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And I'll add that when I tried to distinguish the list as in "rememberance of" in lieu of "in honor of", my edits were reverted twice; therefore, the list needs to be reduced dramatically because the majority of the persons/places/things that are included in this list, are not (per WP:V) "in honor of" the Confederate States of America, et al. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with an inclusion standard that would exclude memorials of the man who was literally the highest-ranking officer in the Confederate Navy. Especially when there is a public debate about removing memorials of him precisely because of his ties to the Confederacy. Fluous (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides V, we should consider WP:NOTEWORTHY. By doing so we can exclude some people who are not Notable (with redlinked names). (Along the same lines, I deleted the place where David Owen Dodd might have been executed.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence cites SPLC which uses "honor" to describe, among other things, the 1,503 public symbols and 10 military bases. This should cover the majority of items in the list. –dlthewave ☎ 01:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding to my comment above, we could improve the standard for inclusion by limiting the list to Notable monuments – those with a WP article about them. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. Good way to limit OR inclusions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Strongly, strongly oppose. There is absolutely no need to severely limit the scope of this article to something like that. This is a truly terrible idea. S. Rich, I'm shocked that you would suggest something so radical. Fluous (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose limiting the scope that severely. And as I've mentioned previously, I also oppose adopting the SPLC's criteria for this article, which has from day one, 71⁄2 years ago, included monuments largely historical in nature. Mojoworker (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I strongly support the proposal by S. Rich re: inclusion based on notabilty of a person/place/thing, otherwise we're dealing with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Fluous, you stated above, "I strongly disagree with an inclusion standard that would exclude memorials of the man who was literally the highest-ranking officer in the Confederate Navy." The inclusion standard is actually based on our core content policies. Example: the reason the 3 Buchanan ships were named after Buchanan was for his life's service from 1800-1874, not because of his service to the Confederacy, much less in honor of it. To include those ships in this list is misleading and inaccurate, and noncompliant with WP:OR, WP:V and WP:ADVOCATE, and are actually what regulates "the inclusion standard". If the intention of this List is to name every single person/place/thing that was constructed during, or named specifically in honor of, then it must be compliant with the aforementioned policies. You might also want to review the many articles that are already in place regarding the Confederacy, such as List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Confederate), List_of_Confederate_States_Senators, List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy and so on.
2. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for noncompliance with PAGs.
3. Regarding SPLC as a source, please understand that they have a COI which at the very least, makes it a questionable source; therefore, unreliable for the purpose of naming monuments and memorials that were honored in the name of the Confederacy. When looking at the business aspects of SPLC primary purpose is their need to exist, "its headquarters is testament to the fact that, in America, even fighting racism can be very good business" (cited via link to Politico) and to do that they must create racial controversy which generates the lawsuits that motivates their base "makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders." (cited via linked Politico) According to Politico, "SPLC has been criticized for spending more of its money on fundraising and overhead and less on litigation than comparable groups like the American Civil Liberties Union." (cited to Politico) and the contributions that fund the organization, and I would imagine, the settlements that pay their bills and the extremely high salaries of its lawyers/directors. SPLC is an advocacy. ^{Drmies is this acceptable? Atsme📞📧 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)}

Removed Encyclopedia Britannica excerpt, struck my 1st comment, and properly cited the corrected version per noted concerns of Drmies.

• CORRECTED VERSION for #3: Regarding SPLC as a source, we must consider the fact they are a legal advocacy with a COI which makes it a questionable source; therefore, per WP:QS, it would be unreliable for the purpose of naming monuments and memorials that were honored in the name of the Confederacy, the latter of which has become far more politicized than when this list was first created. To further support why I believe WP:QS applies in this case is evidenced by numerous discussions at WP:RSN and by the sources cited to support statements made in the criticism section of SPLC's WP article; a search for "SPLC" in the archives at RSN will provide numerous discussions from which editors can draw their own conclusions. Politico's Ben Schreckinger said of SPLC, "its headquarters is testament to the fact that, in America, even fighting racism can be very good business," which I feel justifies concern over potential COI when combined with other criticisms over their spending in comparison to similar groups like the ACLU. Regarding political involvment, Schreckinger said "SPLC's hate groups and extremist labels are effective", and further stated, "This makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders." In summary, SPLC's suitability as a RS for this list makes it a questionable source because they are a legal advocacy with a COI, and while they are not a political organization per se, some of their activities may be considered within the realm of American politics. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

4. The simple fact that a person served time in the Confederacy does not, in itself, make them notable nor does it satisfy the requirements for inclusion here. On the other hand, if their notability and the memorium was actually dedicated specifically in honor of their service to the Confederacy and nothing else, the latter of which is verifiably the reason, then yes, they belong in this list. There is no ambiguity in this instance. For us to "assume" without meeting the requirements of WP:V is WP:OR, and I am strongly opposed to it. Quite frankly, it makes it appear that WP is being used as a soapbox to support a particular advocacy and as GF editors, we are responsible for making sure that does not happen, so if that requires limiting the scope of this List, then so be it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Atsme, I am dismayed to see you utter such rhetoric as "Included in SPLC's primary purpose is their need to exist, and to do that, they must create racial controversy which generates the lawsuits that motivates their base, the contributions that fund the organization, and I would imagine, the settlements that pay their bills and the extremely high salaries of its lawyers/directors." This is not a forum, and it's certainly not a forum for this kind of POV nonsense. What's next--you're going to call them racists? Do you know some of these people are still under 24/7 police protection because old school racists with guns routinely utter death threats? You can cite some accusations from some source, but that they "create racial controversy" is ridiculous, and on a par with "there's good people on both sides". Chattering about salaries is likewise...well, just completely inappropriate. I hate to break it to you, but their lawyers went to law school and could probably rake in much more money elsewhere; Donald Trump Jr. showed up in Montgomery for an evening of ranting and got paid $100k and for which he did not have to get any kind of degree--so let's have some perspective here. You may discuss issues of neutrality or reliability, that's fine, but you cannot do it in this kind of inflammatory language: I am uninvolved enough to impose a discretionary sanction for it. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I cited the Britannica (a tertiary source) for the biggest part of the supporting argument. Do you want me to delete my comments and use in-text attribution to other sources? I will do whatever you ask, you know that. I'm not here to be controversial. My concern is/has been the fact that this list has included memorials as being "in honor of the Confederacy" when that is not the case (and FYI, having been born and raised in New England during my early childhood, I'm no supporter of that time in our American history, but my personal biases are not/should not be a consideration here). My only goal is compliance with NPOV and V, and OR. I have neither asked for nor expected the impossible here.^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

We're not saying that all of the memorials are in honor of the Confederacy itself. The current lede states that it includes monuments and memorials in honor of the CSA, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers. –dlthewave ☎ 14:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: The fact that the article is 7+ years old is a poor rationale. At that time the inclusion of historical sites may have been helpful to the reader. But now the article is unmanageable in size and rational exclusions are needed to keep it encyclopedic. Also, the current interest in the CSA monuments stems from the recent political concern about glorifying the CSA, whereas the purely historical markings were created for coming generations to note and consider. – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Let me see if I can explain more thoroughly, since there seems to be a misunderstanding. My point is (and has been) that there has existed a 71⁄2 year consensus on the scope of what this list includes. It is (and has been for those 71⁄2 years) the complement to List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials – a list that surely ought to exist, I hope we all can agree on that. Yes, the recent racially motivated events have spurred interest in the subject, which is a good thing – the more people understand about history, the better. But the interest (and the convenient list in the SPLC report to pull from), means that this list has swollen. I have no problem with a list article, maybe List of racially motivated Confederate monuments and Memorials or something, covering the same scope as the SPLC's list. I think such a list should exist. However, commandeering this list for that purpose is what I disagree with. The SPLC report covers some 1,503 items, while eliminating nearly 2,600 markers, and other items "that are largely historical in nature". If the long standing consensus of this list's scope is narrowed to match the SPLC data, then where should this historical content, the confederate counterpart to List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials, be forked to? I suppose that if the move discussion currently underway is successful, it could be forked to the old (current) title of List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but that seems messy and confusing for the reader. I welcome any thoughts or suggestions on a way forward. Mojoworker (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Mojoworker forking can be dangerous. On a more serious note, a word of caution - using the words "racially motivated" in a title can bring unwanted results, and possibly be misconstrued as a POV fork. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was just an example...something like List of Lost Cause Confederate monuments and Memorials might be better. Mojoworker (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme — kind of forking, it seems, by breaking off monuments or memorials that are not within the racial narrative, though it is not a literal fork as there is no second article with them and any alternative POV. Also it is adding non-statuary categories from the SPLC item that were not previously monuments. I am thinking it’s moving away from being a WP:LISTS article, and being something of different title and nature. Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Establishments within a town

There are several instances where a place named after a Confederate is listed, along with several institutions within that place. Example: Forrest City, Arkansas, Forrest City High School and Forrest City Junior High School. I think it's fair to exclude these schools from the list because they were named after the town, not as memorials to Nathan Bedford Forrest. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact I made such edits but ran into resistance. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's silly... I would have no problem with removing them. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC

There's a previous discussion about this here. I initially shared your view. But then I realized that federal prisons don't have to be named after the town; it's a choice. And especially schools don't have to be named after the town, and very frequently aren't. We contrasted that with something like "Forrest City Municipal Works Department" which can't conceivably be called anything different; it's entirely derivative of the town. That would be silly. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Which of these List of U.S. federal prisons are named after something other than the town? We are conducting SYN when we say the Forrest City prison was named after the CSA figure simply because Forrest is part of the name. – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than trying to second guess the nomenclature, adhere to policy and cite it to a RS that satifies WP:V, the latter of which serves the realistic purpose of avoiding such arguments, and WP:OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Which of these List of U.S. federal prisons are named after something other than the town?

* USP "Big Sandy" in Inez, KY

* USP "Allenwood" in Gregg Twp., PA

* USP "Coleman" in Wildwood, FL

* USP "Hazleton" in Bruceton Mills, WV

* USP "Lee" in Pennington Gap, VA (It's in Lee County)

* USP "McCreary" in Pine Knot, KY (It's in McCreary County)

* FCI "Allenwood" in Brady Twp., PA

* FCI "Beckley" in Beaver, WV

* FCI "Elkton" in Lisbon, OH

* FCI "Coleman" in Wildwood, FL

* FCI "Hazleton" in Bruceton Mills, WV

* FCI "Gilmer" in Glenville, WV (It's in Gilmer County)

* FCI "McKean" near Lewis Run, PA (It's in McKean County)

* FCI "McDowell" in Welch, WV (It's in McDowell County)

* FCI "La Tuna" in Anthony, TX

* FCI "Williamsburg" in Salters, SC (It's in Williamsburg County)

* FCI "Schuylkill" in Butler Twp., PA (It's in Schuylkill County)

Fluous (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think my point is made. Our own article Federal Correctional Institution, Forrest City says it's named after the town. So we are inserting our own opinion when FCI, FC gets included in the listing. It is NOT a memorial or monument of the/to the/for the/in honor of the CSA. Same rational applies to the schools, candleshops, and bakeries in Forrest City. Perhaps we agree, but I'm not sure. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

withdrawn suggestion for more formal DR

Options for settling the debate over what to include? Clearly there are strong feelings on both sides here. I'd suggest an rfc or at least a straw poll of this page's regular editors to firmly settle the issue, but we'd need to determine what the most valid/viable options for an inclusion criteria are. Atsme, am I correct in thinking that you are saying we should only list things that RS directly say are a confederate monument/memorial? And Srich you're saying that it not only has to be sourced, but notable right? How would those of you with a more inclusionist vision of the article phrase/present your standard for inclusion? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Are you suggesting inclusion criteria for whether or not the symbol commemorates the Confederacy, or whether or not historical/non-historical markers should be included? I think it will be cleaner to discuss those issues separately. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC) I'm asking more generally what your criteria for listing something is. If your position is that any symbol that commemorates the Confederacy can be listed, then that's my answer. If you think historical markers should (or should not) be included then that's part of it too. There's not much chance of cleaning the article up if we can't agree what exactly this is a list of. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC) @Fyddlestix: You're a new editor on this article who is re-litigating these issues. We've long operated on a fairly expansive, inclusive criteria for inclusion here. We do not need quarrelsome formal procedures. The ONLY reason it's an issue at all is because one editor is on a personal crusade to exonerate the reputation of Franklin Buchanan, a man who was literally the highest ranking officer in the Confederate Navy. This editor has written endlessly, on-and-on; desperately repeating the same points over-and-over. Enough is enough. If you feel this article needs shortening, then the focus should be on forking out sections; not deleting content. And I encourage you to read the previous ideas on this talk page about forking the article. Those discussions are unresolved. We should focus our efforts there. Fluous (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC) If you (and others) really think there's a consensus on what the standard for inclusion is I'm happy to drop the suggestion. I'm skeptical though, As there appears to be broad dis-agreement over what should be listed, both above and in recent edits to the article. I don't see how saying "this is how it's always been" is going to resolve that. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC) What is the confusion? The lede states specifically: "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." IN HONOR OF...so the realistic response is to include what was established IN HONOR OF, and cite it to a RS to meet the requirements of WP:V. Why would anyone find that confusing? Atsme📞📧 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

the word "honor" in lede

This terminology seems to narrow the scope of the subject as well as add a subtle non-neutral slant to the text. The source used in the lede (on page 8) uses the term "publicly sponsored symbols", which not only more broadly encompasses the different types of entries listed in the second sentence, but also gives the article a more neutral and general tone. I changed it accordingly. Comments or improvements welcome. Edaham (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It was changed to simply "symbols" with the stated reason by Srich32977 that, the "sponsors" were often private individuals/groups, so "public sponsorship" does not apply).

• I think there's some confusion between the meanings of sponsored and funded in this context. The intent in the source isn't to imply that these were all publicly financed exhibits, but to indicate public approval of the projects. This is directly implied in the preceding sentence, "there was no comprehensive database of such symbols,leaving the extent of Confederate iconography supported by public institutions largely a mystery. " The key word there being "supported".
• Further more, the resulting text after removal of "public sponsored" reads, "established as symbols" This reads as slight puffery, as if to suggest that the listed monuments are recognized as being symbols of the subject, which is often not the case for more obscure monuments and memorials.
• For this reason I'd rather make it clear as to the nature of the monuments, which is that they are on public display, or have obtained public approval at some point, (as would be the case for anything listed in the second sentence of the lede, but more importantly, this clarification is apparent in the source on which our article text is based).
• The source text also uses the term "public displays", which I have used for the moment. I would be extremely hesitant to use any terminology which exists outside of, or is indirectly inferred from the source text, as this being a currently highly viewed and apparently contested article, anything unsourced is likely to be challenged .

Edaham (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any major quibble with your wording, but as mentioned in several sections previously, this article has existed for 71⁄2 years, and has a different scope than that of the 2016 SPLC report, which it predates by more than 6 years. I have removed the reference to the SPLC PDF from the lede, but for now, have left the second ref to the SPLC report which lists examples of the types of symbols. As to the wording, List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials, the Union counterpart to this article, uses the verbiage: "This is a list of American Civil War monuments and memorials associated with the Union." We could simply substitute "associated with" for "were established as public displays and symbols of", however some may object that it would broaden the scope of the subject. But really, that's up to us to define, and what we're trying to do in the section above. Mojoworker (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. We aren't tailoring the article to suit the newly added source! Aside from having a different scope, our article has a very very different intent. It's not unusual that articles of this nature should go through periods of relative inactivity and then be revised quickly when their contents come to the forefront of various news articles. Such is the nature of our project. That said, it is desirable that a lede summary of a list (at any given time) should be inclusive of all of its contents and one thing that you can say about all of the items on this list is that they all exist having gained some kind of public approval. The source we are currently using (the one you left in place) makes mention of that. I'm not opposed to the source which is being used, as whilst their intent for making the list - hunting down and destroying the monuments - is totally misaligned with our purpose of cataloging information, they are reputable and have invested in a reasonably thorough undertaking of the academic task of listing these monuments and their whereabouts. Due weight suggests that we shouldn't compare this article to its unionist counterpart as it is experiencing a varying amount of attention in the media and as such the quality and availability of sources on the subject will differ. The article will come to reflect this. During this process we should keep a level attitude. That a reliable source appears to be redefining the scope of what constitutes a entry to the list should naturally be of interest to us, as if we can find a definition of a list entry which is widely used in reliable sources (new or otherwise) then that definition should have a strong influence on what ever definition (which according to policy should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources) we can agree on via discussion. Edaham (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver segment

This segment is related to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

well worth watching too. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/09/john-olivers-terrible-analogy-for-confederate-monuments/

-Topcat777 17:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

www.waymarking.com as RS(?)

We have numerous cites to www.waymarking.com. Looks like a user-generated website, and thus non-RS as a wiki. At the same time the posts have photos of various monuments and memorials, thus confirming the existence of the particular memorial. However, because the non-photographic info is user-generated, I do not think we can use waymarking.com for anything other than the existence of the memorial. Conclusions about "why" the memorial was created do not WP:V the info. – S. Rich (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, before 2017, this page used a lot of unprofessional links. Waymarking, Smugmug (some guy's photo galleries on an image-hosting site), random civil-war enthusiast sites (with web design seemingly from 1997). They've mostly been "hidden" by the all the other references we've added. But I agree, they need to be replaced. Fluous (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Waymarking is owned by the same company - Groundsource as geocaching.com. It is user generated data but in absence of better sources it is better than no source. It's more reliable than many wikipedia pages. Locations are usually dead accurate and can be checked with Google Earth, and the photos are often quite good. We are using it to confirm other data non-controversial - just that there is a statue somewhere and what it looks like. We should not be removing waymarking cites unless they are demonstratably incorrect information. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't mind too much if waymarking shows a photo of the particular monument. But when their info is already covered by acceptable RS I think we can take it out. If they are the only source, without a photo, to say the monument is CSA-connected, then we should remove the entry. Same thing goes for other SPS sources. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

bare "Lee" mentions

We have a lot of Lee Streets, Roads, etc. That is, "Lee" without "Robert E." or "General". While many of these Lee mentions are for RE Lee, we do not have RS which confirms the connection. These mentions have been tagged 'cn'. Keeping in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on the editor to prove or disprove the reference/data, I submit that a simple presumption that a bare "Lee" refers to RE Lee is not sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the CN's for bare Lee mentions. They were all in the SPLC study— except "Old Lee Road" in Chantilly, VA, which I can't find anything about. Fluous (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fluous - that doesn't help avoid presuming Lee is Robert E., as the SPLC report seems to say that is what they did -- presuming a "Lee" meant Robert E Lee. While that seems likely for most of the time, there are other possible Lees and even many Robert Lees. Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this at WP:RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We really need to be careful about using SPLC - perhaps another round at RSN is needed if the intent is to use them without adherence to WP:V? We don't want the same kind of craziness erupting as what happened here. Atsme📞📧 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Maybe you could go to the RS notice board and open a discussion thread on whether SPLC is a reliable source.... oh wait! It looks like there are already quite a few discussions there! You could make an informed decision about the probable outcome of such a debate, but I think you left your stick in one of those discussions. Would you like to pop back and get it? Edaham (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC) The SPLC report is widely cited in the media as reliable. If it says a road is named for Robert E Lee that is good enough for this page unless someone can provide a RS citing otherwise. I'm tiring of the editors that keep challenging well cited inclusions in this page. There are hundreds of cites - burden is on YOU to show the page is wrong NOT throw out random speculation. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Well said. Y'all need to either stop pretending SPLC is a suspect source or put your money where your mouth is and raise the issue at RSN. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Well said! Fluous (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Not all are in lockstep with the SPLC article. Here are some negative reviews- "So because an obviously deranged person [Dylann Roof] is influenced by garbage he sees on the Internet, counties in Texas must change their names? We are not following the logic here." http://amarillo.com/editorial/opinion/2017-09-15/editorial-use-logic-when-erasing-history SPLC methodology "As it currently stands, the SPLC listings are simply unable to support the premise offered in the article.  It is not 'firm' or 'solid' data.  Is that to say their conclusions are wrong?  No.  But I am saying that we cannot, with a straight face, accept the data as an argument to support the premise that is drawn.  It is a structure placed on a wet sand foundation." https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/whose-heritage-well-splc-whos-counting/ -Topcat777 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) An editorial and a WordPress blog - color me unimpressed. At the risk of repeating myself: it's way past time for those of you who are still harping on this to either take it to RSN or drop the stick. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Craig Swain ("markerhunter") knows more about Civil War monuments than everybody at the SPLC combined. -Topcat777 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) You can think that if you want. Others (including me) will disagree. Her academic expertise is clearly not in that area. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC) It wouldn't matter if they were advocating the neutering of all sculptors of bearded men and their pets. We aren't promoting their ideologies, we are sourcing from a contemporary report they made containing addresses and descriptions of monuments, while hopefully being careful to strip out anything which seems to coat rack their views. I've personally found the peculiar objections some people raise with regard to using this particular source to be a useful canary for detecting bizarre pov edits in other areas, so do by all means pop over to RSN and let's round up another thirty or so pages to stick on our watch lists. Edaham (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "We aren't promoting their ideologies"...LOL -Topcat777 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Is this where we are now, repeating others comments back to them and adding an "LOL"? You're not going to convince anyone of anything with juvenile crap like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that not everything with the name Robert. E. Lee is named after the Confederate General, as in the case of the police building in Kent, Washington, which is named for a former long serving police chief. One must be careful on how far you try to stretch this.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is "trying to stretch this"? We use secondary sources that cross-check and confirm the naming. Fluous went through the "bare Lees", added citations and removed one that they could not find a source for. The police building in Kent does not appear in the article. If you find an entry that is questionable, you can help by finding a source or challenging it on this Talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a general reminder; as with Pickett's bridge in Bellingham, WA, which was named because it was built by him before the Civil War while he was a Captain in the U.S. Army; things are not always what they might appear at first glace and for everyone to do as you suggest and dig into the source material before rendering a judgement. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Many of us do not agree that commemorations count only if they're after the civil war. The mere fact that someone with strong connections to the Confederacy is memorialized is enough to merit inclusion here. Strong connections meaning he was a Confederate soldier, politician, etc. They don't even have to be memorialized specifically for their contributions to the Confederacy. Again, the mere fact that they had strong connections to the Confederacy is enough. It's like memorializing Adolph Hitler for his contributions as a painter. People are going to have problems with that. Fluous (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

-Of course, I've seen his paintings.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Material on removed monuments

IMO we've got too much in the article about the pros and cons of keeping or removing monuments. This is a list article. Issues about the removal of monuments (proposed or accomplished) is best done in the removal article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

S. Rich - it's no longer a list -- between the insertion by Volunteer Marek of an image he made based on the SPLC advocacy group report which largely created peaks by adding 'other' and 'schools'; folks putting in a bulk of narrative and voicing emotional motivations citing anti-trump articles from August/September; unrelenting refusal to follow RFC or allow any alternative narrative; filtering out memorials and inserting symbols; proposing to alter the title ... it's a bit of a dogs breakfast what it is at the moment, but it's definitely not a simple 'list of' monuments and memorials any longer. Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass graves and historically important graves

A discussion about the inclusion of individual CSA graves occurred earlier on this talk page (see Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#I am concerned about this one (Wyoming)). A consensus was reached that individual CSA graves should not be included in the article. An editor interpreted that to mean that all grave markers should be removed, and made this enormous delete of all graves, including memorial markers placed near mass graves. This monument and this monument are examples of memorials removed in that one edit. In addition, grave markers with unique historical significance were also removed, such as this photo and accompanying text about the grave of David Owen Dodd. The input of others regarding this is appreciated.

1. Should memorials at mass graves be allowed in the article?
   
2. Should individual graves with markers that contain unique Confederate-related text be permitted in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We have a Category:American Civil War cemeteries. Such burials (mass or otherwise), along with their monuments, should be confined to the pages in this category. Along the same lines, if a battlefield or other place (not in the category) has burials, the article for those places can have the category added. Also, we can add hatnotes to direct readers to the particular cemeteries for each state. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

First, this is a list, not a category. Second, this list can include whatever editors agree to include, per WP:LISTCRITERIA. That's why I asked the two questions above. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:Notability, just saying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Are historical markers to be counted as Confederate monuments?

That merely inform the visitor that this happened here? http://media-cdn.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2013/10/20/102113B05_House_two_2_cols_color_t800_hc62400425bef6c40a2d5156eeec7abf8f233022a.jpg -Topcat777 23:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Only if they are written is a non-historical and biased way that the facts do no support, IMO.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Chart changes: dating of eras

After a wiki break, I return, refreshed and wondering what is going on here now, and find that the chart (you know the one) has been changed from (on left)

Original chart

to this (on right)

chart as it is now

. And it seems to me that this was done in the middle of a discussion about the chart, during which time, as I understood it, no changes were to be made. I glanced over the various discussions but found no mention of this change. Can some one point me at the discussion or explain why this change was okay? Carptrash (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This was done to address a few concerns that were raised about the dating of the two eras. I don't think anyone objected and nobody changed their mind about the chart on the basis of this (which does sort of suggest that this wasn't a real issue to begin with, but there you go). Volunteer Marek  16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe no one objected and changed their minds because they didn't notice the change? Was it discussed, or do some editors just get to make changes in the middle of a fairly contentions discussion because . . . ... what? Ownership of the graph? . Earlier in the various discussions you've stated about the chart, " The labels (not titles) were added based on the source *text", "The labels do correspond to their respective eras. ", "The labels in it are based on text of the source. "The graph needs to be restored until the RfC is concluded. An RfC is not a blank check to make reverts one prefers." Were you wrong when you wrote those things? Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here. It was a minor change that made the graph more accurate. What's the problem with the actual change? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A minor issue to you because you don't want to talk about it. First we hear (see) the dates in the first version are the real dates for the Jim Crow era and now we are hearing "more accurate." And who gets to make these "minor changes?" Well only the person who has the template (or whatever) for the graph. I have some "minor changes" I'd like to make. So how do I do it?Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

So, Fyddlestix, as an historian, what is your rational for supporting ending the Jim Crow era at 1940? The era goes from being 25 years long to 45 years long, an increase of what, 40% or more? And this is considered to be minor? Carptrash (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We already went through this above - the Jim Crow era can be defined in a number of different ways: some people situate the end of it at the start of WWII, other people say it ended with the start of the civil rights movement in 1954, still others might reasonably extend it to the passage of the civil rights and voting acts of the 1964-5. All of those interpretations are reasonable and can be reliably sourced. Wherever you put it, though, the "spike" in monument building is still firmly within the Jim Crow era. It doesn't change the central point that the graph illustrates: that the spike occurred during the Jim Crow era (a point which numerous RS also back up). Hence: not an issue that would change the relevance of the graph or the outcome of the rfc. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

So what? So there is a small cabal of editors who get to decide what is relevant, what definitions get used and they and only they can change those at will. it must be nice. This is why I left, probably why I will leave again. Here is how Britannica defines it, "Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s." Carptrash (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also confused about your point. Do any of the ranges that are typically used exclude the peak in monument building? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Threatening to quit and accusing others of being a part of a cabal isn't going to help you make a persuasive point here - just sayin. And I, too, noticed that the Britannica source is the first thing that pops up when you google this. That doesn't make it definitive. In fact, given the huge amount of scholarship on this and the fact that it conflicts with what a lot of the most authoritative academic sources say I would call that an exceptionally low-quality source. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll upload my version and you'll see. I have used the Encyclopedia Britannica dates. Consider signing up, Why be a number? Carptrash (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

````

Carptrash - yes, there is a small group of one who has the ability to edit the diagram, and there was no consensus or mention I saw that 11 October a change would go in. Could hope it's somewhere above though, if anyone can point it out. The labels now seem to be misplaced by about 10 years, but there were other issues that seemed more the sticking points like this was adding labels that were not in the original SPLC diagram and make it a conclusion instead of factual presentation, the chart is mostly neither monuments or memorials, discussions about the text below the diagram, and so forth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You folks were complaining that it was misplaced by about ten years to begin with (reality it was just an aesthetic decision so as not to clutter up the graph), then it gets,fixed, then you just mindlessly repeat the same argument. There's no pleasing you. Which, like I said, is pretty solid evidence that this isn't about the exact year of the labels, but rather you're just bringing that up as an excuse for your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. As Fyddlestix points out, ANY reasonable definition of "Jim Crow Era" and "Civil Rights Era" is going to include these two peaks. Volunteer Marek  02:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your labeling of the "Jim Crow era" only includes one of the peaks, now here you are saying that it should include both of them. And now your labeling is "an aesthetic decision". Here I was thinking it was based on sources? What do history Ph.D.s think about that approach? Oh yes, they are now the ones who thinks that Britannica is "an exceptionally low-quality source". Very interesting. 05:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Carptrash (talk)

so rare these days that we get to throw out Wikipedia:Rage quit. Edaham (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Who called Britannica a low quality source? I must have missed it. I think the point was that perspectives differ regarding the beginning and end of the period, and there are quality sources that shift it a few years one way or the other. I also don't think Volunteer Marek is implying that the Jim Crow era is going to cover both peaks under all definitions of when the Jim Crow era begins and ends. Just that no matter how you define it, one peak will be contained within the Jim Crow era and the other will be contained with the Civil Rights era. I'm trying to understand your point because it will help us focus on whether the debate is about precision or whether it is about the intention/meaning behind the graph. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The point about the Britannica is made right after your last edit, 207.222.59.50 (why don't you sign up and get a name?) and it seems to me that both peaks should fall under the Jim Crow era because it is the end of the Civil Rights era that brings the Jim Crow era to a close. That is one of the main points of the Civil Rights era. Check out the Movie Loving (2016 film), which takes place in, 1967 or something and is about bringing Jim Crow to an end, among things. 1967. That is the end of the JC era, not 1925 or 1930 or 1940 or even 1955. But will this make difference to how you look at this? Maybe? Carptrash (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you're right... The comment is right there in black and white. Well, I disagree with calling the Britannica entry a low quality source. If the issue is precision, I think we could probably have a constructive discussion about where to end the Jim Crow era. It might be best to start with a summary of which sources say what. Would reviewing our Jim Crow article be a good first step? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Good luck herding cats, this makes 6th change without consensus over the past two months, it's like a slow motion edit war. [68] Good luck and all, you will need it as the Admin is giving out stars from being a bully. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, so the comment about Britannica was a bit hyperbolized. It really isn't the best source to go to here (you can't, and shouldn't, write an Encyclopedia article based on what's written in another Encyclopedia, especially when there's a huge amount of more detailed expert writing available) but "exceptionally low quality" might be stretching that point a tad. I find it odd, though, that Carptrash would latch onto that comment while ignoring the substantive point I made, (which is that the current label span is actually pretty reasonable, and RS use a variety of different dates), and then in the exact same discussion turn around and lobby for a much later date (using a feature film as a source?) that is wholly inconsistent with Britannica (which they were seriously just trumpeting as definitive). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

He might have been using the movie as a point to illustrate that perception of when the Jim Crow era begins/ends aligns with one definition that may be different from the one historians use. I really do think it would be helpful if we just laid out the differing cases for beginning/end and the sourcing for each. I'm no historian, though, so I'll need some help on where to start. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest a clearer demarcation of the periods of Reconstruction, Jim Crow and Civil Rights offered as many do not know of the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction and began the new era of Jim Crow. In that way the graph shows attempts at revisionist history and segregation of Jim Crow along with another spike during the push for equal rights in the 1960s.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well 207.222.59.50, you could start by registering as a user. Though thanks for explaining my use of a movie as a source in our discussion. Perhaps Loving v. Virginia would have been a better choice than the movie. As far as Britannica goes, there are, or used to be hundreds, thousands, millions (now Fyddlestix can jump all over my hyperbole for a change) of wikipedia articles that were footnoted, or referenced as being right out of the 1917 (or something) Britannica because it was out of copyright. That was one of the early foundation upon which wikipedia was built. As far as what a reasonable Jim Crow era might be, the poll tax, one early Crow set of laws to name just one, starts in the 1870 and the last anti-interracial marriage law seems to be United States v. Brittain in 1970. Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Unregistered users are welcome here. If you would like to encourage this user to register, please do so at their talk page. Remember that registration is a personal choice and not a prerequisite for contributing or participating in discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Dlthewave: for the tough love reminder. I left a note on their talk page. Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Maybe I like being a number. C.W. Gilmore, I didn't know about the Compromise of 1877. It was an interesting read, so thank you for that! I think that's an interesting point: should the end of reconstruction be on the chart as well? And Carptrash, am I to understand that you would support a range ending in 1970 that overlaps with the civil rights era? Help me understand how that differs from what other editors are advocating, if you wouldn't mind. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As with a lot of things, legislation is the beginning of the end, but not the end; so the Compromise signaled the end of federal control in the South with the removal of the troops from the South and the beginning of the end of Reconstruction. There is more of an overlap of a decade or more as control and power shifts within society. After 1877, former rebels began to regain control of the state and local government, then the slow process of re-instituting all the pieces of the old system within a new framework; so that when these new rules were challenged in 'Plessy v. Ferguson', the South had regained enough power to have their way even in the High Court. In short, I'm not in favor of a single date, but a period of overlap at the beginning and ending of the periods. Consider Loving v. Virginia, 1967 ruling; the court ruling was not enforced in many parts of the South until well into the 1970s and it was not until 2015, that Alabama took it off the books. You can point to 1967 as the beginning, but not the end, it is more of an overlapping range especially in such a large country where nu-Constitutional laws left on the books can still be enforced long after the ruling, until challenged.[69]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, mid 1960s would be fine with me. I heard a guy a week ago saying that he was still dealing with the residuals of Jim Crow (2017). To cut it off any earlier than the Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s is not good. As for the start, Many folks (Britannica for an easy-to-find example) say "after Reconstruction". It seems to me that the amount of arguing here indicates that we will never agree on the dates so let us take them off. Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Compromise of 1877 was the end of Reconstruction but not really the beginning of the Jim Crow era. That is usually date to Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. Yes, there were Jim Crow laws before that, but that's when they were declared constitutional by the SCOTUS. The end of it would probably be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If need be the labels can be adjusted. Volunteer Marek  17:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to monkey with the graph again before the end of the rfc: For the end of Jim Crow, I think you'll find that 1954 is the most commonly cited + referenced endpoint. That's when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (which was the legal foundation of the Jim Crow system). I would suggest using that over 1964. But I'd also advocate adding the anniversaries and the nadir of race relations if we're doing that,per the suggestion by Malik and others in the RFC. That's something that a lot of sources specifically link to the monument building.Fyddlestix (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. We can quibble and discuss this. At the same time - I'd like to see if any of the editors who are trying to monkey with the graph would actually state that they will change their !votes if the dates are adjusted to their liking. Otherwise it seems half pointless. User:Carptrash?  Volunteer Marek  06:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Take the labels - at least the "Jim Crow era" label off and I'll not oppose the graph. Carptrash (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't do that. That would be WP:OR and POV since it would be giving in to POV motivated WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The question is whether if the extent of the Jim Crow label is changed, would you change your !vote?  Volunteer Marek  06:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am really inclined to say . . ..something nasty to your dozenth WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, but I won't. I changed the dates to something I can live with. Carptrash (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's exactly the reaction he's hoping for. The best way to handle Marek is ignore. Where did you change the dates? I don't see it. D.Creish (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been changed back. I used the dates from Britannica, but that's not good enough. Look at the history of the chart. It seems that Some editors get to change it, others do not. All Animals are created equal but . . . . . . . . Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about adding the Reconstruction ere on the left of the graph to add more context?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest the graphic show the Reconstruction era on the front, then Jim Crow in the middle with Civil Rights at the end and it is just fine that there is overlap of these periods as they all differed some from state to state and area to area. Just as with the ending of slavery in the U.S., it did not happen all at once and across every state the same, regardless of the a law or a court ruling. Just a thought.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Negative reviews of the SPLC study

WP:RSN Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: removed hat, apparently negative reviews were not intended by poster for RSN, so was not related and material (if any) from posters did not get incorporated to RSN so ... just unrelated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) WP:RSN Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC) https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/whose-heritage-well-splc-whos-counting/ http://amarillo.com/editorial/opinion/2017-09-15/editorial-use-logic-when-erasing-history https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/why-were-confederate-monuments-built/ -Topcat777 01:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Yeah, none of these are RS. The last two in particular are just garbage. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Topcat777, based on the following sources, they have raised some brows.... The Atlantic; Politico mentioned above; A list of sources posted at RSN; Atsme📞📧 04:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Here is another article critical of their information gathering and exaggerations from RealClearPolitics which, like the articles I posted from Harper's and Politico, is not right wing, but more left. Here is a quote from this article: "The most scathing assessments of Dees and his group have always come from the left. Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor and president of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, calls Dees a "shyster” and a “con man.” Bright’s primary complaint is that Dees does precious little litigation on behalf of poor people with the amount of money it pulls in. SPLC’s alarmist fundraising scams, shoddy collection of information, and longstanding practice of character assassination has been on the record for years—along with its “F” rating from the respected nonprofit watchdog group Charity Watch." The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee Dubyavee (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC) What's your agenda here? This material might be appropriate in the SPLC page but an agenda to discredit their report as a RS is very wrong headed. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC) This has reached the point where it's become disruptive. Y'all have been repeatedly asked to either challenge the SPLC report at RSN or drop this stick. Continually reposting the same cherry-picked blogs, opinion pieces, and other low-quality sources with an axe to grind does not change the fact that most, actual high-quality, RS make it clear that the report perfectly acceptable source. This needs to stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)  agreed - this discussion of the source falls outside of the scope of what it is being used for in this article, which is an address list. If you see POV or addenda pushing in the article, edit it. If you want to dispute that the source is insufficient to state that some piece of rock is sat in what ever location it can be discussed at RSN Where it will be filed under a pile of stick operated horse carcasses Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC) End unhatting Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Edaham - That does not seem to be a RSN, since there was no stated article context of a SPLC quote they are unqualified for. There isn't enough to say what line (if any) they want to add to the article. But I will check it with the editors involved and clarify. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Topcat777 and Atsme - is this intended for an article edit, or is there some current content where you are leading to say SPLC is not RS for that context ? Is this intending to bring forward that ther are differing definitions of 'monument' so additional POVs should be representd, or is it intended to bring the named items into edit, or what ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Markbassett, yes - and the above comment should not be hatted. Any information that cites SPLC should be verifiable by multiple 3rd party sources or a reliable secondary source that is not mirroring SPLC. SPLC is considered to be a self-published primary source - they do the research, file the litigation, create the lists, and argue the cases in court. Look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism which is relatively the same thing but with a different focus. There are hundreds out there just like them and they're all primary sources. Refer to WP:OR which states: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I think it's best to leave the information unhatted so editors can make a proper determination about whether or not to include a specific monument/memorial, etc. in the list. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Atsme The hatted discussion was about criticism of the SPLC study. How would that information help editors understand that the study is, according to your point of view, a primary source which requires verification? That's a completely different discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) SPLC is considered to be a self-published primary source That's not correct. And I'm pretty sure you've already been told that it's not correct a bunch of times. Now look, how many times does someone have to link you WP:STICK? If you're so confident that you're right about this, it should be an easy matter to persuade people at RSN. There is nothing to be gained from making the same arguments over and over again here - clearly most of us disagree with you. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I've brought it up at WP:RSN. I believe the two questions I posted are sufficient to address all of the concerns regarding the reliability of this source. If anyone feels otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can describe the issue accurately. –dlthewave ☎ 22:56, 13 October 2017 Topcat777 and Atsme - is the RSN as stated by dlthewave what your concern was, or not? Atsme is apparently questioning SPLC as a self-published primary source; I do not see reflection of that in the RSN statement. Need to know if there is consensus that is the question -- or if it is not relevant to this thread. Markbassett (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) When I posted the question "Is the SPLC report a reliable source for the name and location of a monument, without verification from another source?", I assumed that editors would consider all necessary factors including whether is was a self-published primary source. Folks are welcome to raise this issue at RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC) dlthewave (inserting) - Interesting but -- since they did not input there (it ran amok after a bit over 2 days and got shut down) .... I think this is just some links from Topcat777 and some links from Atsme, and an unrelated RSN or at least that Atsme input wasn't related to it and negative reviews did not get included there by them. I don't see any existing article text challenged or any proposed new text from any of the three so ... I think this was all just a few negative reviews mentioned by two editors and otherwise just pointless squawking. I will unhat the links since Atsme said it should not be, and think this Chinese firedrill is then done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the Methodology section of the SPLC report makes it clear that they compiled the information from a number of primary sources. This would make it a secondary source. –dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Of course the SPLC report is Reliable Secondary source widely referenced in the RS media. Anyone claiming otherwise is not paying attention. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) I disagree per WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The latter also applies to an entire list. Also WP:WPNOTRS: When editing articles and the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. I'd prefer to avoid the tags and ask that consideration be given to the reasons SPLC has been challenged as a legal advocacy (directly involved in the politics/litigation/moral constructs in resolving specific societal issues regardless of whether or not we agree with them). Adherence to WP:V is equally as important to ensure the monument/memorial being listed was indeed an honorarium dedicated to or because of the Confederacy. Secondary sources will have published articles (independent of SPLC) providing the reason for the dedication. I've already provided an example regarding the naming of the Buchanan ships but see they are still included simply because he served a small fraction of his life in the Confederate navy. Atsme📞📧 21:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion at RSN was closed with a consensus that the report is an acceptable source. There is nothing further to discuss here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Holidays; license plates; and coins and stamps.

@Legacypac: S. Rich has been making some fairly bold edits. He removed holidays; license plates; and coins and stamps to other articles. How do people feel about this? It's kind of weird that Confederate memorials aren't in the article about Confederate memorials. I personally don't share his desperation to shorten this article. Fluous (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I commented at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#Mass graves and historically important graves about the mass deletions this editor was making. In the lead of the article, the criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined: "These Confederate symbols 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." If Confederate memorials have been removed from this list, and they were sourced and met the inclusion criteria, I'd support reverting the edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It is extremely common to say a person is commemerated on a stamp or coin - and it is a federal govt decision. The listed Holidays clearly commemorate the Confederacy. He shoild put them back or he needs to be banned from the topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The suggestions about spinning-out non-monument / memorial-objects items was made a month ago with very little action. Part of our overall problem is using a broad, generic term like "memorial". Expanding the inclusion criteria to "Confederate symbols" is unwise because then absolutely everything (such as Scarlett (musical)) could be included. (All of this stuff is WP:CHOKING the article.) Here is my solution: Revise the intro lede sentence to say

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established as public displays and symbols of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or notable Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. These Confederate memorials symbols 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. This listing does not include cemeteries, museums, or markers of historical events."

The flags, license plates, stamps, coins, cemeteries, then get proper mention via See alsos and hatnotes/ – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion was not actioned because most editors don't agree with it. Now stop and put things back. A note about these items is not the correct way to cover them. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not correct. Holidays and coins were suggested a spin-out items by another editor. I agree with that other editor. You alone opposed. Stamps and coins are basic equivalents. Same goes for license plates. Finally, links have been provided to these related topics. Thus there's been a small reduction to the kb load of this article. The next thing to accomplish is some consensus on a sensible parameter for fixing the WP:TOPIC of this list to something that keeps a limit to the bloat. My suggestion is above. Comment on the suggestion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We already have sensible limits. No one has added their next-door neighbor's Confederate-themed lawn ornaments. No one has added their local bridge club's Confederate-themed teacups. There is no "bloat" problem of exponentially-expanding additions. This article has been pretty stable with the exception of your edits— edits that several editors have now characterized as disruptive. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Fluous (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Fluous - there are threads above for "Standards for inclusion", and "Discussion on limiting scope", plus a move/title change and several other points about scope and ... I think what is in or out is kind of up in the air at the moment. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fluous: The current scope of the article is reasonable and there aren't any major categories that should be removed. It's a long article because there are a lot of Confederate monuments and memorials. –dlthewave ☎ 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A federally issued coin or stamp is definately a memorial to a CSA General just as a stutue or building is. The Licemse plates are well documented as an issue as a State issued item. We are not going to take out flags on State capital grounds for example - that has been one of the most controversial memorial items. There is nothingbwrong with the term "memorial' which rightly included a variety of instalations and "issues" like a single coin, 5 stamps, and a few state license plates, which collectively tale up way less space than court house statues in one state. How in the world less than 12 listings is WP:CHOKING the page is way beyond me. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents articles in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and lists must comply with WP:LISTCRITERIA. In this regard the article fails all three criteria in WP:CSC. E.g., it contains a mixture of notable & non-notable monuments (first & second criteria) and it is NOT a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." My efforts to refine the inclusion criteria and parse out non-granite memorials have pared down the listing somewhat. But if we do a "Ctrl+F" search on the article for "* ", we get >2,000 listings. This indicates we are listing items simply for the sake of listing them. Consider, Douglas Butler's book on N. Carolina monuments (used as RS at 3 points) has an appendix to list the over 100 monuments in the state. We have gone beyond the Butler listing and added the schools, roads, etc. Where does it stop? Editors need to address the issue of BLOAT as non-partisan editors rather than seeking to create the longest WP list-article ever. Please consider the criteria of WP:CSC. – S. Rich (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

All Confederate memorials here are notable. For example, there are no listings for Confederate-themed graphics on Bubba Gump's shrimp trawler. There are no listings for Confederate billboard advertisements. The listings here are, for the large part, public memorials. That there are a lot of them is not evidence of bloat; it's evidence that there are a lot of Confederate memorials. And I don't share your slippery-slope fears: this article has been stable with the exception of your edits. The current scope of the article is entirely reasonable. And for future reference, I will be reverting any attempt of yours to unilaterally limit the scope of the article. Fluous (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There are 400 other Lists of monuments and memorials on wikipedia. None that I have found include stamps, coins, roads, schools and that stuff. None of it, much less all of it. This article existed for 6 or 7 years without them. Suddenly after the SPLC report comes out and we "decide" to add the graph, they are necessary. I say that stuff should go. The lede should be re-written or returned to what it was and that other stuff should go somewhere else. It should be removed. If someone wants to start an article about the USA's love of all things Confederate and how racism and racist culture is spread all of the country fine, do it. But it does not belong in this article. Here is the lede from April 2017. After this, the list starts.

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials dedicated to the memory of those who served and died in service to the Confederate States during the American Civil War. Many Confederate monuments were erected in the former Confederate states and border states in the decades following the Civil War, in many instances by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Ladies Memorial Associations, and other memorial organizations.[1][2][3][4][5] Other Confederate monuments are located on Civil War battlefields.[1]. New Confederate monuments continue to be proposed, and some have been built in recent years. In Arizona, a Sons of Confederate Veterans camp erected a Confederate monument in Phoenix in 1999[6] and Confederate heritage groups dedicated a Confederate memorial in Sierra Vista in 2010.[7] The Delaware Confederate Monument was unveiled in 2007 in Georgetown, Delaware.[8] In South Carolina in 2010, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have sought to erect a monument to mark the 150th anniversary of the passage of the Ordinance of Secession in December 1860, but the cities of Charleston and North Charleston have refused them permission.[9][10]. Many Confederate monuments are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[11] " Confederate monuments are listed here alphabetically by state, and by city within each state":

Carptrash (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is on the SPLC's list we include it, as it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You might be happy having the SLPC write wikipedia definitions, I am not. Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We have had the discussion about SPLC's reliability, it has been found to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh and Memorials to Abraham Lincoln.Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere does Carptrash say "roads and schools aren't memorials." That's because they are, in fact, memorials. And his arguments are otherwise not compelling. (1) What other articles do is not controlling. (2) At any rate, your sweeping "survey" of other monument/ memorial list articles is wrong. Several articles do, in fact, include memorials like place names, roads, and schools.

• List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials
• List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic
• List of memorials to Jefferson Davis
• List of memorials to Robert E. Lee
• Memorials to Abraham Lincoln
• List of monuments and memorials to Christopher Columbus
• List of monuments and memorials to Sam Houston
• List of memorials to George Washington
• List of memorials to Andrew Jackson
• List of memorials to Lyndon B. Johnson
• List of memorials to James Madison
• List of memorials to Dwight D. Eisenhower
• List of memorials to James Monroe
• List of memorials to Woodrow Wilson
• List of memorials to Franklin D. Roosevelt
• List of memorials to John F. Kennedy
• Memorials to Warren G. Harding
• List of memorials to William Henry Harrison
• Memorials to Theodore Roosevelt
• List of memorials to Martin Van Buren
• List of memorials to John Adams

And so on. Fluous (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gee, pretty much all US Civil War lists, and all American lists. American exceptionalism again. Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You might well be right this is an American thing, but it is also being consistently applied. But this is not the place for a discussion about a wider problem.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Carptrash, you've been going on-and-on about your "400 articles and none of them include schools, roads, etc" and, as it turns out, I'm hard-pressed to find a memorial article that doesn't include schools, roads, etc. In the future, please refrain from making arguments so easily disprovable. It's bad faith and a waste of everyone's time. And, I agree with Slatersteven: please follow the talk-page guidelines and keep your responses more focused and concise. This is not a general discussion forum. Your societal gripes have no place here. Thank you. Fluous (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You are saying that every Washington Street,every Lincoln Street every Grant Street, every Jackson Street etc. belongs on that list of memorials? Interesting. Carptrash (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as they are named after the right Washington, Lincoln, Jackson maybe. It depends what RS list them as.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Maybe"? There's a definitive answer. Actually as I look through the list above - most of which are not included in the Lit of m & M article (must fix that) I am finding very few streets and schools listed. Washington only includes colleges and universities. But if you folks really want every Washington Middle School in the country, every Washington Street, so be it. Carptrash (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I cannot give a definitive answer to a theoretical question, issues such as RS, Undue and venerability come into it. As I said as long as it is the right person, and an RS says it is a confederate monument we can include it (we do not have to, there is not requirement for inclusion). By the way, is every street in Washington named after ma confederate official?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am taking the guidelines here and applying then to other lists such as the Washington, Lincoln and Pres. Jackson ones. The only reason the Lee and Stonewall Jackson roads and schools are allowed is that they are listed on the SPLC list. The Holy Grail of lists. So Lincoln School, and Lincoln Street in Ypsilanti, Michigan, to somewhat randomly pick some, could only be used in the Lincoln memorials list if there was a source saying "Yes, that Lincoln?" This is right? Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus what we should do on other pages. Moreover what we do here has no impact on what is done on other pages. Any such discussions should stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes Sir! Carptrash (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: From what I can see the SPLC list is on the conservative side of thing, at least for my state.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They are not the only source we could use, but any entry must be sourced to an (not A) RS. If you have any RS that list other monuments not on the SPLC list feel free to add them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Others have been sourced and listed beyond the SPLC list and that was my point: The SPLC list is on the conservative side of things with others being sourced and listed beyond what is on their list. I see no issues with the SPLC listings and far more are actually on this wiki, because of just how conservative the SPLC was in making their list. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes by all means we should include stuff we find that is not on the SPLC list. And I have no problem about the notability of a US stamp or coin. However:

• Forrest Drive
• Hood Street, named for CSA Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood
• Jefferson Davis Drive
• Lee Street
• Longstreet Drive, named for CSA general James Longstreet.
• Morgan Drive, named for CSA Gen. John Hunt Morgan
• Stonewall Street
  

in some little town in Alabama are only notable because they are on the SPLC list and I don't agree that inclusion on someone else's list automatically confers wikipedia notability. Carptrash (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not find the SPLC list overly aggressive in list places and monuments, at least in my state. My local Robert E. Lee building, is not listed or any other questionable location in my state. Perhaps it is different where you are... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability does not affect (and has no relevance) to article content, only to article creation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The proper term for ‘not enough coverage to mention in the article’ would be that it lacks WP:WEIGHT. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Which means we only have to make sure that we do not give minority views undue coverage. So is SPLC's views on this a minority view?Slatersteven (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cemeteries and museums are not included in this list." ?

I see a lot of cemeteries included in this list, or am I misunderstanding what this sentence means? Dubyavee (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring? I know the reason for the cemetery in Seattle, WA, is because of a monument honoring 'Confederate Veterans' and often as private land, the cemeteries are the sights of many Confederate memorials.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC states, "For the final tally, the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature." Another place we should part ways with the SPLC. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a conflict within the article. Perhaps that sentence should be removed from the opening text. Also the cemetery monuments and memorials should be excluded from the Jim Crow attributions, as cemeteries in the south, as in much of the U.S., were segregated, so the purpose of the monument was memorial rather than political as very few Africa-Ams. would see them. Dubyavee (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Jim Crow discussion is supported by reliable sources. Do you have a source to back up your statement? –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The segregation of cemeteries in the south, as well as in many other parts of the US, is a well known fact. The placing of a monument in a segregated cemetery, cemeteries that were often outside of town, could not possibly be used as an instrument of Jim Crow to intimidate African-Americans, who would rarely, if ever, visit that cemetery. The early monuments in cemeteries would be for the dead, and often to commemorate the Confederacy, but had no purpose beyond that.Historically Black: Imagining Community in a Black Historic District

Out of the about 410 articles listed in the Lists of monuments and memorials article this article seems to be (please check this out) the only list that includes roads and schools and bridges and what not. Why is that? I imagine that American exceptionalism plays a part, we don't want to be like the rest of the world, so we don't use the metric system, we officially deny global warming (it's been over 100º here, in October), we don't sign anti-nuclear proliferation pacts, we won't give up the "first strike" option and we want to prove how racist the South is by including every possible reference we can find in this list. Only no one else seems to feel that such lists are the place to score political points. We are doing it (opinion) because the Southern Law folks DO want to make political points and for some reason we seem to want to go along with them. Let's not. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I just went through the list and found one cemetery, Salisbury National Cemetery, which does not appear to have a Confederate memorial. Every other instance of the word "cemetery" is used to describe the location of a memorial which happens to be within a cemetery. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is non-sensical. In what ways are "cemeteries...not included"? Cemeteries that don't have Confederate memorials are not included? Well, that makes sense. Otherwise, cemeteries are included. I would like an example of a cemetery that has a Confederate monument that isn't included. That sentence should just be removed from the lede. Dubyavee (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other monuments and memorials pages you checked being incomplete but we commonly include roads/highways and schools named as memorials or to honor individuals. Desmond Doss is one example I've worked on. He has a school and several highways named for him. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So do you feel that every street in America named after someone notable should be listed in wikipedia? Carptrash (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read [[70]]and [[71]].Slatersteven (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Confederate monument in Gainesville, Florida

The Confederate monument in Gainesville, Florida has this RS: "Widener, Ralph W. (1982). Confederate monuments: Enduring symbols of the South and the War Between the States. Andromeda Associates. ASIN B0006E9TUC. OCLC 8697924.". Does anyone know the page number(s) please? Could you please send me scans of the relevant pages?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Page 34. Scans run into copyright issues, I can scan and post elsewhere and send you a link, it will take a few minutes. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Try this [72]. I will too. Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As you can see from my scan I am not afraid to deface my books with additional information. But no reference given. Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it has a name, doesn't it? "Old Joe"?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bye-by Old Joe, see you at the cemetery. Carptrash (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Or on Wikipedia. Would Old Joe (Gainesville, Florida) be a good title please? Are we sure it was dedicated in 1904 though?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't find articles about its dedication in 1904 on Newspapers.com so far. I can find articles about another monument in Ocala, but not Gainesville...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not use a nick name in the title. I think (opinion) something like Confederate monument (Gainesville, Florida) is better. Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Confederate monument (Gainesville, Florida) it is then. And it was dedicated on January 19, 1904 apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This has the unveiling year [73] This also has a date [74] and a name for the work. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That SIRIS link (the 2nd one) also has the sculptor's name, unusual for these works, and the guy also did Lincoln at Gettysburg. All in a day's work. Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the referenced stub under construction!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer: Just in case you're interested in working on this!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources

[Post revised given that the promotion is over] --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture by Karen L. Cox and
• Recalling Deeds Immortal: Florida Monuments to the Civil War by William B. Lees and Frederick P. Gaske.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. On page 9, Cox mentions this monument. "Unveiled in May 1868, it was one of the first built as a result of women’s fund-raising efforts." Perhaps we could create an article about it. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I pounced on it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson County, WV Courthouse

Was it destroyed?

Someone keeps saying the courthouse was destroyed. It was not destroyed, it is still standing and is registered on the National Register of Historic Places. Dubyavee (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well here is then source they used [75], here is another [76], here is one saying it was rebuilt [77].Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the National Park Service application for historic designation which states "During the forthcoming war, the building in which Brown was tried was seriously damaged,".[78] The sources that incorrectly state that it was "destroyed" are using an old book called Military Operations in Jefferson County, which incorrectly stated that the courthouse had been destroyed. This is totally wrong, as it was still standing and still had a roof. I don't know why this is even in the Wikipedia article at all, as this is not about the history of the Jefferson county courthouse. We don't need extra verbiage on an article this long. Dubyavee (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I put in that it was “seriously damaged”, and someone took it right out. I have better things to do with my time than go through the lengthy history to see who it was. deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I find the statement about a West Virginia monument, " The local newspaper, ‘’Spirit of Jefferson’’, and a group of six local African Americans have called for its removal.[730] quite uncompelling. Or rather "not notable." A red linked newspaper and a group of six? That will get you into wikipedia these days? I guess it depends on what you are saying. Anyway, I am considering removing it. But let's talk about it. Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Under the Charles Town West Virginia Court House ([79]), where there is a plaque, I added that the courthouse was destroyed by Confederate troops during the war.

@Dubyavee, in his wisdom, took it out, saying the courthouse was not destroyed. ([80])

Although this was stated in one of the articles I cited, I put it back in with a quote from the source.

The source says:

And why was a plaque honoring Confederates on the building that replaced the original courthouse, which was shelled and destroyed by Confederate troops?

The source is the Washington Post, October 17, 2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/civil-wars-legacy-hangs-over-a-plaque-honoring-confederate-soldiers/2017/10/16/97817b34-a7b5-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

@Dubyavee then takes it out a second time with this unhelpful note: “Good god, the courthouse was not destroyed, it is still standing, Your ref. cannot be read and is wrong in any case. Look it up on google)” ([81])

I would appreciate it if someone more experienced could intervene as I don’t know what to do. This is wasting my time. If he has better documentation then he ought to cite it specifically. deisenbe (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I now see that @Dubyavee discussed this above. (He did not have the courtesy to inform me.) The appkication to the National Park Service says the building was “seriously damaged”, so much so that the county seat was moved. The “lot” where it had stood was about to be sold. If this isn’t “destruction” it’s pretty damn close. deisenbe (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on including this in the article or arguing about it? It isn't germane to the article, it takes up room in a very long, too long, article, and is essentially irrelevant. The courthouse was moved for political reasons, and the building was still standing. The entry for Charles Town courthouse should just mention the plaque and the protest against the plaque, that is all that is pertinent to this article. Dubyavee (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here is what I found: "Charles Town itself hosted two significant actions, and the Jefferson County Court House was badly damaged by artillery fire and often used as a horse stable."[82] And "The courthouse has been renovated at least twice–once following the Civil War and again in 1916."[83] -So badly damaged but not destroyed and rebuilt at least twice.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet the comment was made, and was given (in part) as to way it is unsuitable as a monument. So I think we should include it as an attributed qoute.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that the marker was not placed until 1986 (when the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday was first observed), so it is well within the context of this page and the use of Confederate symbols whether it was totally destroyed or partially destroyed and renovated. Put a note in that it was renovated after the civil war battle damage, should be all that is needed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If the county commission voted on whether or not to remove it I think that’s enough to justify inclusion. deisenbe (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think (about wikilinking UDC)

that since the United Daughters of the Confederacy play such an important part in the proliferation of these monuments and since readers are likely to just jump to a particular state, that they, the UDC, should be wikilinked the first time they are mentioned in every state with a "UDC" next to it, or as part of the link, and then "UDC" used without a link thereafter. Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. But please follow the talk-page guidelines and use descriptive section headings. Fluous (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They definitely made an impact on 'The Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway' as they and the 'Sons of Confederate Veterans' have still been active in maintaining what they see as 'their cultural legacy' throughout the USA.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo of African-Americans being Intimidated by a Confederate statue. Shocking!

You think we might could get this included in the article? Unveiling of the Lee monument, Richmond, VA, May 29, 1890- https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/media_player?mets_filename=evm00001716mets.xml -Topcat777 00:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate to another page [84] where it can stand in historical context as this page is already over stuffed, also that other page is linked to this one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be inferring something into the photograph which is neither stated, nor documented in any reliable source, that 'commentary' is not to be given to the voice of Wiki. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, it says nothing about who they are or what they are thinking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How detailed should listings be?

We need to talk about how much detail we should (or shouldn't) add to each listing.

I favor listings with minimal detail. We should keep it a clean, simple list. Pretty much the name of the monument, where and when it was erected (or removed and where it was removed to, if applicable), and in certain cases by whom it was erected (UDC, SVC, etc). Maybe an inscription if it's particularly notable (like praising "faithful slaves" or the "justness" of the Confederate cause). But not if it's just praising the soldiers of a certain county. We also shouldn't include things like what physical material the monument is made of, who made it (sculptor, etc), how much it cost, etc. There should be a reference that leads to that information anyway; it's not essential that it should appear on this list article. Fluous (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, link to other wiki pages from more details, but this page is already too long, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Since most of the things on the list (unscientific assessment) are from the SPLC report how is this linking thing supposed to work? If there is an article about the particular monument, fine, just a link to it, but part of what we are offering here, or rather part of what I feel we should be offering here is information about the sculptor, if it was motivated by the UDC etc for monuments that don't have articles. You suggestion that we only use the inscriptions that confirm your prejudices would be laughable, if it didn't make me want to cry. The idea of letting the people who raised the monuments tell us why they were erected is, what, a throw out because they were dishonest racists? A clue. Most of the monuments were put up for the very reasons that are carved on them. Carptrash (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"How is this linking thing supposed to work?" Well, say you have a citation to information about a listing's sculptor, cost, etc. It's simple: only add the citation to the listing. People can click on the citation to find out more about the particular monument. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand your position. Should all monument listings include inscriptions, sculptors, cost, physical material, etc? Please clarify. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry maybe In should have been more clear, link to a wiki page if there is one, link to a source if there is one (both in the cases where there is both.Slatersteven (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Maybe an inscription if it's particularly notable (like praising "faithful slaves" or the "justness" of the Confederate cause)." This is one of the most biased, naked admissions of tailoring the article to fit into some political agenda that I have ever come across. And you are giving me warnings? I have tried several times, now archived, at least one of them, to have this article be just a list and no one seemed interested. Now that I am allowing the monuments to speak for themselves, suddenly more content is a bad thing. The truth shall set you free, something you do not seem to want. Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine Tuning the Graph

Now that the RFC is closed I see two outstanding problems with the graph: first the image file has "Confedarate", a misspelling. Maybe someone familiar with commons can fix that. Second, I don't think "cumulative" belongs in the heading. Cumulative implies the sum of monuments constructed in year X and all previous years, not monuments constructed in year X as the graph shows. Is there an alternate (and applicable) meaning of "cumulative"? D.Creish (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For my part it lacks proper bookends on the front of the graph as it should show the reconstruction era, before Jim Crow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The graph covers the period from the establishment of the Confederacy to 2014. I don't understand the meanings of "bookends" and "front" in this context. Can you explain? D.Creish (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It covers the period from the Civil War to 2014, but leaves out the major period of reconstruction of the 1870s that came before Jim Crow and the removal of federal troops from the South. It says that things were not always as they were in the 1890s, and there was a time when different rules applied after the Civil War. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dense but I don't understand what you're suggesting we change. Does Marek's comment about the RFC below resolve it? D.Creish (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What I have a problem with, is an account that refuses to disclose their previous accounts making suggestions regarding controversial matters in a topic area that is overrun with sockpuppets. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Marek: If you'd asked politely and in the appropriate forum even once you'd have an acceptable answer. Instead you've chosen to harass me repeatedly and impolitely, so you get no answer, no matter how many times you ask. Let this be a lesson in manners. Now, if you'd like to explain what you meant by "cumulative" you're welcome to, otherwise this is off topic. D.Creish (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I did ask politely and you evaded the question. So I asked again. You still refused to answer. At no point have you denied having previous accounts. And there's no way that a brand new user would know about WP:COAT to invoke it in their very first edit. And you immediately jumped into making controversial edits with your first edits. So, I'm pretty sure the reason you're refusing to answer has nothing to do with any "politeness". Volunteer Marek  20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, time to stay on topic of the issues and not to attack another editor. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attacking another editor. I'm asking if they had previous accounts since it's very obvious that a brand new user would not make an edit like this. This is pertinent because this topic area is over run with sock puppets of sanctioned and banned editors pushing various agendas. Historically, these editors have sabotaged or short circuited (which is why they're usually sanctioned in the first place) the consensus-building process on such articles - indeed, this very article is a potential good example since if you look over the discussion, originally we were actually well on our way towards a compromise/agreement until D.Creish showed up. And on a personal level, I don't see why I, or other editors, should waste our time on an article when we're getting "played" by such an account. Volunteer Marek  22:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"originally we were actually well on our way towards a compromise/agreement until D.Creish showed up" I didn't/don't see it like that at all. You might have some good arguments, this is not one of them. Carptrash (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

We had labels for the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras, but they seem to have vanished. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was "sort of" the outcome of the RfC above. Volunteer Marek  23:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:D.Creish - the image is not cumulative. Also, the SPLC version of the diagram is not monuments it is symbols; and not the stated types of symbols, it’s of the locations for the subset they had dates on ... orange seems to be for the ones at courthouses, grey is at schools, and blue is at other locations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cumulative" obviously refers to the fact that it shows all three categories. If the wording is confusing, the word can be removed. Volunteer Marek  06:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)