Talk:Confederate Memorial Day

Official state holiday?

Does anybody which, if any, states consider CMD to be an official U.S. state holiday? [1]Traditional Catholic 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Until I know its legal status I'm gonna change its category of Holidays of the United States. Thanks. jengod 20:58, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial day in Maryland is also on June 3rd.[2]Traditional Catholic 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina

most state offices are Closed in observance --Jober14 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina schools take this day off. It is an "offical holiday" for the school system. Dorchester county district 4 does not observe this day but the Dorchester county government does observe it.

May 10th is legally declared Confederate Memorial Day by the state of South Carolina. Refer to South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 53 - Sundays, Holidays and Other Special Days; SECTION 53-5-10. Legal holidays enumerated; state employees. http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t53c005.htm.

Even MUSC (Medical University of South Carolina) in Charleston basically shuts down for CMD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.106.85 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

The history section looks more like fanciful fiction or a regional piece of folk lore. I don't have historical record of this holiday's origin, but surely there must be a more scholarly source. I would suggest that the original "history" be relabled as "associated lore" or what-have-you, it's clearly not objective historical fact.

Consult http://www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/history.asp Traditional Catholic 16:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Having lived in Mississippi for my whole life and never having heard about this "holiday", it seems to be just some paltry attempt at either humor or insult to people south of the Mason-Dixon Line. --J. S. Freeman 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what cave in Mississippi Mr Freeman is living in, but CMD has been celebrated every year for the 30 years I've lived in Mississippi. (Ray) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Atlanta, GA. The state recognizes this as a holiday and all state offices are closed - including my employer, the State Credit Union. ~Michael Cyr 28 March 2007

(to the above) That's interesting, because having lived in GA all of my life I never once had a day off from work or school on that day. And, if you read one of the links posted below, it says that from 1984 on the state government only observes federal holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.61.124 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an excellent book entitled Confederate Memorial Days 1866-1985 describing the observances in Fredericksburg VA during those years. I don't think there is any real doubt that Confederate Memorial Day exists and has existed since the end of the WBTS. CsikosLo 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a great write up from the University of Georgia about Confederate Memorial Day http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/confmem.htm A link from timeanddate.com http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/confederate-memorial-day AND a link from MS Secretary of State about CMD becomeing an official Holiday: http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/Proclamations/Confederate.asp About.com http://genealogy.about.com/b/2006/05/10/confederate-memorial-day.htm There can be no dispute about it in MS. There are too many sources to list them all but the OFFICIAL MS State site makes it indisputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.209.4 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i do not think that quoting "From the May, 1893 issue of "Confederate Veteran," the Origin of Memorial Day" is useful. perhaps some expert can put a real citation perhaps with a link or library of congress reference. also, as a structural format issue, the beginning and end of this citation is not clear. maybe it should be indented in different font. also, i would assume there must have been a similarly contrary writing that disputes the relgiously and geographically biased reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data87 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

CMD

Here is a link to an article about the observance of CMD in 2007. http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20070430/localnews/171018.shtml s20130 I also live in Atlanta and know of no Confederate Memorial Day in which offices are closed. However, I have gone to "Decoration" all my life at a family church in Alabama, but there is no Holiday other than the federal "Memorial Day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.160.4 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the State of Georgia website, and it lists all state holidays. This includes Confederate Memorial Day, celebrated April 26th: http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_modifieddate/0,2096,4802_64437763,00.html. Also, the holiday is tacitly codified at O.C.G.A. 1-4-1; to wit: "the Governor shall include at least one of the following dates: January 19, April 26, or June 3, or a suitable date in lieu thereof to commemorate the event or events now observed by such dates." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.6.30 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the State of Georgia website now calls it simply "State Holiday", and it's been moved to Monday April 24 this year. -NoApostropheInIts (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient source.

First, the source quoted for the history section directly contradictsWikipedia's own Memorial Day entry re: origins; second, it displays a clear bias for the southern states, and Georgia in particular, as does the link you provide.

Until someone can provide a scholarly historical source, I'm changing the "History" heading to "Folk Lore," which more accurately describes that content.

Also: what in the heck does Leo Frank have to do with Confederate Memorial Day???

Finally: in my actions above I am disputing the factual accuracy of specifically the history section. It either needs to be reconciled with the history of Wikipedia's Memorial Day entry, or removed, or edited to include scholarly/reliable sources, not society rags from the turn of the century.

I'm going to reaffirm my changes above (when I was an anonymous user). If someone wants the society rag to appear as History, I'd like to see some discussion on this page justifying that move.

Again, the article about the history of Confederate Memorial Day's birth is full of florid prose and angels and what-not. It's not an academic source. It's speculative fiction posing as society rag journalism. I'm leaving it in, but marking it as what it is: folklore. King Mongo 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are your Academic sources: University of Georgia http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/confmem.htm

And one from the US Embassy in Stockholm http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/holidays/celebrate/memorial.html

And if you search the net more looking for .edu sites there are 475 pages with information on C.M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.209.4 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "scholarly"? Thats a pretty subjective word, and it seems pretty obvious it was designed to cause anger. There are several links to sites from colleges, which is about as "scholarly" as you can get. Just because the colleges are in the south doesn't make them any less legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.113.132 (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that by "scholarly" it is meant [peer reviewed] or [primary sources] (publications in peer reviewed journals or original documents, respectively--check out the respective wikipedia articles). A university's web page, whether in North, South, or elsewhere, doesn't qualify. I don't doubt that CMD exists or has existed, but I don't think any offense was intended by a request for "scholarly" sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.196.249 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee

Confederate Decoration Day, June 3rd, is a "day of special observance" pursuant to Tennessee code Annotated 15-2-101 and it is the duty of the Governor to proclaim it as such annually. It is not an official holiday.

Texas

Just a note to say that the "table" is somewhat misleading as refers to Texas. To wit, the "see Arkansas" notation...which in turn states that MLK and the Confederate holiday are combined. In Texas, Confederate Heroes Day is ALWAYS on January 19 (Robert E. Lee's birthday), whereas MLK Day is officially observed on the 3rd Monday in January...which may or may not fall on the 19th.

Confederate Heroes Day is a state holiday and should not be confused with Confederate Memorial Day which is April 26th.

January 19 - Confederate Heroes Day (partial staffing holiday) House Bill 126, 42nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 8. Approved and Effective January 30, 1931 as Robert E. Lee's Birthday.

Senate Bill 60, 63rd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 221. Approved June 1, 1973 and Effective August 27, 1973 as Confederate Heroes Day. This bill deleted June 3rd as a holiday for Jefferson Davis' birthday and combined the two into Confederate Heroes Day.

3rd Monday - Martin Luther King Jr. Day Senate Bill 485, 70th Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 159. Approved May 25, 1987 and Effective August 31, 1987 as an optional holiday.

Senate Bill 134, 72nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 445. Approved and Effective on June 11, 1991 as an official state holiday.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/holidays.html

I understand what Senate Bill 60 says, but I would think the intention was to combine Lee's B-day and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's B-day (January 21) into Confederate Heroes Day. That seems to make more sense.204.58.248.32 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

>>As a little clarification on the original intent behind Confederate Heroes Day (as I have been able to research it), prior to 1973, the State of Texas observed both Robert E. Lee's birthday (January 19) AND Jefferson Davis' (June 3) as official state holidays. When Lyndon Johnson died that year, the state wanted to honor the former president's (and native sons) birthday, however the number of legal holidays was limited by law (I am a little shaky on this one). To solve the problem, Lee and Davis' birthdays were combined into one single observance in order to make room for one for LBJ. It was renamed Confederate Heroes Day so as to not only honor Lee and Davis, but all who wore the Gray and/or served the Confederacy. Hope that might help a bit! TexasReb 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alabama

Confederate Memorial Day is included in the Constitution of Alabama http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/1-3-8.htm

Apparently there are some changes afoot in Alabama. CMD has always been a state holiday, but now CMD and Jeff Davis' birthday, another state holiday, will no longer be mandatory days off for state employees. Though the holidays will stay on the books, state employees will now get two personal days off that will compensate for the loss of the official time off on those days. State offices will now officially remain open on those days. DesScorp 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Article?

The "History of Confederate Memorial Day" section is a direct cut-and-paste, and not just sourced from, the Department of Veterans' Affairs website, complete with unformatted section headlines. It would also appear that the same thing happened with the "Folklore" section (from a different source), and that section has severe NPOV issues and is written in a florid sentimental style that could work as a quotation, but not an actual Wikipedia article. Is a reformat, if not a complete rewrite, called for here? --Enwilson 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm working on rewriting this article. So far I've summarized the History section. Without another source, it's little more than a paraphrase of the original, but I think it's a little better, and I removed the unnecessary history of Decoration Day; people can read the Decoration Day article if they want more on that. Here it is:

By the time Decoration Day was established by the Grand Army of the Republic in 1868, local springtime tributes to the Civil War dead had already been held in various places. In Columbus, Mississippi on April 25, 1866, a group of women decorated the graves of Confederate soldiers who fell at the Battle of Shiloh. Graves of Union soldiers had been neglected because they were the enemy, but the women placed flowers at those graves as well.

Today, approximately 25 cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day in 1866, including Macon, Georgia; Columbus, Georgia; and Richmond, Florida. Boalsburg, Pennsylvania claims to have started the holiday in 1864. Most of the cities claiming connection with the holiday are in the South, where most of the war dead were buried.

But I think we need more specifically about Confederate Memorial Day.

--69.161.146.61 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see the relevance of the GAR info (which is still here, by the way) in an article about Confederate Memorial Day. CsikosLo 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For any rewrite, there is some good information in a book called Confederates in the Attic. If you don't have the book or access to it, let me know through this page, and I would be more than happy to put up some of their history of the holiday as presented in the book. (65.15.106.85 (talk)Victoria, Charleston, SC65.15.106.85 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Decoration Day in Tennessee stems farther back than this, to Revolutionary War and War of 1812 soldiers as a day of honor for the fallen for our country. Families & friends would decorate the cemetaries of the lost family members especially of the ones lost that never made it back home. It has been a time honored tradition in Tennessee for each cemetery to have a Decoration day and the families come together to honor the our forefathers, mothers,kin, and friends. This is a stupid debate who did it first. This is a tradition for time memorial in the south. All southern people did it prior to the 1861-1865 War due to the sacrifices made to make this country from the Initial War of Independence and the Second war of independence that we almost lost this country in the War of 1812. They did it to honor the ones that gave their all and honor all family members. So many women & children & workers in both wars that did so much, that was never credited nor honored for all they did to keep the men in the ranks of the army and navy. Grow up and think how they lived back then. They made a Confederate Memorial Day to honor the fallen or the ones that served. So honor them as the intent, not this retoric. It was a horrific war that tore families apart and give them their day in the sun for their beliefs. If we lost the Revolutionary war or War of 1812 we would want the same for them. This was started by family members & friends to honor them. Not one person did this. It was the families, widows, orphans that started this from all over the south and it was only natural for a day to be named in each state for it by the state legislatures. All races, creeds, and beliefs served the Confederacy read history and find out not political retoric or personal opinions. This is a mute point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.14.43 (talk • contribs)

secretary of state isn't charlie daniels.

the link to the Arkansas secretary of state's website incorrectly names him as Charlie Daniels. The Arkansas sec. of state is Mark Martin. Looks like someone was having fun with links. I couldn't figure out how to change it, but I could figure out how to make a comment here, so here we go. 96.35.159.51 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Useless columns in the table

I think the three columns giving the date in three years is useless and it makes the remarks column too narrow. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Confederate Memorial Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110408082243/http://www.legis.state.la.us:80/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097 to http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisions based on link from external source- Motivation and definition of Confederate War efforts

There have been several revisions that I believe have spawned from this page being linked to the front page of the popular social media site Reddit. Many of the corrections have been to include "treason" or "warring against the United States" as their contribution.

First, should this article receive some sort of protection status? What is the protocol when external brigading brings vandalism and revision with questionable sourcing?

Second, is the nature of the war necessary to this article? The United States Civil War page treats the conflict as an internal conflict and I would be hesitant to offer anything further on this page as it's subject matter seems pretty narrow. A discussion of the motives and whether or not the Confederacy was treasonous seems better suited for the for the United States Civil War page.

Moosedontgomoo (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call those edits vandalism. Perhaps good faith edits with which you disagree. Treason is a crime defined in the US Constitution ("Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...") and it's pretty hard to argue the CSA was not treasonous. Whether it belongs here.....that's going to be an interesting discussion. My gut feeling is that I agree with you but I am always wary of whitewashing history. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change second paragraph

The holiday is observed in late April to recall the surrender of the last major Confederate field army at Bennett Place on April 26, 1865. The holiday is observed officially in Alabama and Mississippi, and widely, but unofficially, in other Southern states.

Any problems? deisenbe (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I did go check that Websters Dictionary reference. The cited edition doesn't mention the surrender. [3] Maybe another edition has it? We do have Georgia's Landmarks, Memorials, and Legends, a quaint volume from 1914, to attest to the connection though, so it's already covered. Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Observed dates for Confederate Memorial Day

At one time there use to be a table of all the dates Confederate Memorial Day is observed, because some states have different dates, this appears long gone and assumes only two dates. More interesting that North Carolina and South Carolina observe Confederate Memorial Day on May 10th, yet its not mention here fully; only a piece about South Carolina state government providing a holiday. Is there a reason for missing information here or was there just an editor that didn't like the fact that there was not consistent holiday so forced it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why so much on Logan?

This article, which purports to be about Confederate Memorial Day spends over half of its space talking about Gen Logan and Memorial Day, which already has its own page. CsikosLo (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Texas and Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Is Texas's date of January 19 intentionally set on or near Martin Luther King Jr. Day, or is that just a coincidence? — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article can obviously be greatly expanded to explain the rational for each date used per state, but at this time we do not have a reason for Texas and we should not speculate. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does specifically mention that Tennessee chose its date to coincide with Jefferson Davis's birthday, so it stands to reason that the reasoning (if any is documented in reliable sources, of course) for other states' dates seems worthy of inclusion. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Very misleading lead ("to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died in military service")

Many of these holidays are meant to honor Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, which is why the holiday is celebrated on their birthdays. Neither of those men died in the civil war. Robert E. Lee died in 1870 from a stroke and Jefferson Davis died in 1889 from bronchitis.--Craigboy (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy. If the holiday is for other people, then it should be removed from here; for example, Robert E. Lee Day is not Confederate Memorial Day. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy." If that's the criteria then several of the holidays mentioned in this article do not belong here. "Confederate Heroes Day" (Texas) for example does not meet your criteria. It is held on Lee's birthday and the description reads "in honor of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate heroes". No mention of those that died and the only people mentioned by name did not die in the Civil War.--Craigboy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You mention several, but only bring up Texas. If that is the only offending holiday, then it should be removed (or at least I am all for it); if there are others then we need to go through the list to confirm first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Craigboy (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Listing holidays which are for heroes in addition to or instead of the dead under "Related holidays" makes sense; they shouldn't be removed from the article completely, as it's helpful to explain the distinctions for readers. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"See Also" Missing Pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Approved. After a year, enough editors weighed in on the issue that agree that the relationship does exist. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy is clearly relevant to this article and it's the reason why the majorities of these "Confederate Heroes" holidays exist.--Craigboy (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - First sentence in the article states that the Lost Cause it is a belief that the cause of the Confederate States was heroic, just, and not centered on slavery. Confederate Memorial Day specifically honors the war dead, which is fact; it is also a societal norm to honor the dead, regardless if they were heroic or cowards and the other points do not apply. Not everything that has the word "Confederate" means its also part of they Lost Cause mythos. Also, you already brought up the fact that Texas probably should removed and I support it; if the state holiday is not specifically a day for the dead, then it should be removed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support The reasoning behind this is articulated here, far better than I could. The two topics are inextricably linked. Wes sideman (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Support i wasn't aware of this discussion when I took the initiative to add the link Lost Cause of the Confederacy to the article recently. for what its worth, the article for national memorial day also obscures confederate history. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Support - It doesn't matter whether the Lost Cause is the reason for this holiday or not. Both are related to how the American Civil War is remembered from the Confederate or Southern perspective, and so a fair number of readers interested in one can be reasonably expected to be interested in the other. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The actual motivation behind Confederate Memorial Day, according to historians

It's a consensus among historians that Confederate Memorial Day has a "public face" reason for existence while the actual reasons are to reinforce the Lost Cause myth and solidify white supremacy in the South. Most (not all, but most) of the push for such holidays came in the Jim Crow era and in the 1950's Civil Rights Movement era. This is sourced. You can't erase that. Sources are in the lead and there are more coming. Wes sideman (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging previously-involved editors to this page: @Jaredscribe: @Washuotaku: @Craigboy: Wes sideman (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this is the text added to the intro by Wes sideman and removed by Washuotaku who noted "not entirely correct as memorial services started a decade before the Jim Crow era":

While the holiday is publicly presented as a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died rebelling against the Union, writers and historians have pointed out that the holiday's establishment often coincided with the height of Jim Crow racism around the United States, decades after the war ended.

The Vox piece points out Florida established the holiday in 1895. I don't have complete access to the encyclopedia, but I do see a bit that says the holiday was a "rallying point" during Jim Crow. Was there a different quote there that would help document the claim? The body of the article points out it wasn't officially recognized until 1874, when Georgia made it official. The end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow was in 1877, so if it took a few years for other states to recognize it (implied by the statistic of ten states by 1916), then the claim seems reasonable. The claim is referring to government recognition, not cultural establishment (which did take place in 1866, much longer before Jim Crow), and it would be worthwhile to make the distinction more clearly. Given this is a controversial issue, it would be better to show in addition to telling. And in general it would be useful reference information to add a table with dates of establishment and disestablishment in each state. -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I hope @Wes sideman: will reword their paragraph regarding the relationship between the holiday and its relation of Jim Crow; after all, the article already points out its existence predating Jim Crow and not a result from it. While there is no doubt there was those that used the date for nefarious reasons in the following years, the original start was of good intention of honoring those that died and I agree with @Beland:'s comment on the matter. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether the Confederate dead should be honored for fighting for their new country, right or wrong, or condemned because they fought to preserve slavery, is a controversial issue Wikipedia can't take a position on, though it can explain various opinions. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have clarified the phrasing as proposed, and added a table showing the dates of statutory establishment and disestablishment. There are still three states I couldn't find the establishment dates for, but I'm sure they can be dug up with a bit more effort and perhaps looking in some more specialized databases or law archives. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look into that, though I can't promise I'll get to it fast. For the moment, I think your approach is entirely reasonable, consistent with sourcing and a good way to flesh out the topic altogether. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

SPLC mention in intro

Just pinging @Jaredscribe: @Craigboy: @Beland: and @Snow Rise: to call attention to this removal of sourced info from the lead. I've reverted it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I made an attempt to discuss this with Washuotaku, but he simply deleted it without replying. Wes sideman (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: This quote from the SPLC was not sourced in the intro, but only the body. It is rather strong, so it's not surprising someone would ask for it to be cited, even though it's already cited in the body. As WP:LEADCITE says, "controversial subjects may require many citations". Rather than re-adding it with no source, I would have re-added it with a cross-reference to the source in the body, and there would have been no need to discuss. Using phrases like "unless, of course, you were masking your actual reasons for the removal" is not assuming good faith, and may have contributed to your message being received as hostile. I see that Washuotaku deleted the user talk page message after adding that cross-reference, which is a perfectly fine thing to do after a dispute seems to be resolved. @Washuotaku: It should have been clear from the start that there was sourcing in the body, as Wes' original edit summary said "added summation of paragraph in the body to the lead", and it appears you read that because you knew whose edits you were reverting. After Wes pointed out in another edit summary and that user talk page message that sourcing was present in the body, removing the text a second time with the edit summary "Then cite it correctly." comes across as a bit passive-aggressive and no doubt contributed to Wes' accusation that you were edit warring. I'm glad that in the end, the article is better off - having the cite in the lead probably contributes to stability - for having both of you contributing, but I'm sad that we didn't get there more quickly and cooperatively. What's done is done, but I just hope thinking about what happened here can help make future interactions more pleasant and productive. -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Beland: I agree with your summation of the situation. I would add that it's difficult for me to assume good faith with this particular editor, given his past edits on this article. They all just happen to be edits that remove sourced info that points out the holiday's connection to racism. While it's plausible that that's coincidence, I don't believe that to be the case. So in this instance, I hope you understand why I made the assumptions that I did. It was based on a pattern of editing, and not arbitrary judgement. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: Everyone has their own perspective, and it's easier to see certain problems from certain perspectives. That's why having a diversity of editors is an important part of writing balanced articles. WP:AGF is asking us to assume other editors aren't driven solely by their point of view, even when it's starting to look that way, or at least to keep that opinion to ourselves. For example, a legitimate concern plus annoyance with another editor can incorrectly appear to be POV pushing to a person with a different perspective. Acting as if other editors have good intentions can actually also encourage them to do so; if people are accusing you of bad behavior even when you are trying to do good, why bother doing good? -- Beland (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Decorating graves is "racial terror?" That's the grandest idiocy I've ever heard. It's laughable. Somebody's been taking too many woke pills. Actually, back in the day (late 19th/early 20th century) it was not uncommon for both white and black to celebrate memorial days and decorate graves - both Union and Confederate. -Topcat777

@Topcat777: If graves are being decorated with white supremacists symbols, that certainly seems like one plausible interpretation. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on such issues; it merely documents notable points of view. The SPLC is certainly a notable commentator, and other points of view are also extensively documented in the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing whether or not we personally agree or disagree with various opinions, so if you want to express your opinion about the SPLC, I would recommend either speaking to them directly or finding a more suitable forum. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hidden text

There seems to be some dispute about HTML comments in the article telling articles not to change the intro or the "See also" section without getting consensus on the talk page. While getting consensus for controversial changes can be helpful, unless there's a consensus on the talk page that the entire intro should remain unchanged after a hard-fought consensus, it's not appropriate to put a note saying it shouldn't be changed. Certainly there are many changes to the intro and "See also" list that would not be controversial and would be helpful to make without asking permission. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text. -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the relevant guideline on this topic, to which I was not aware. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on wording in lead and infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by poster. Wes sideman (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the wording of the sentence in question be:

A: a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died rebelling against the Union

or

B: a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the American Civil War.

Please discuss below. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor preferences

A: That wording is factual and more specific than "B". We should always pick the option that is more specific. "B" seems to be preferred by editors that wish to gloss over the fact that the American Civil War was, at its core, a rebellion against the United States. Not helpful to use a euphemism here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B as a non American B seems to be more informative. ACW is not a euphemism, it is the name of the war. Also there had been more than one rebellion in the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B Per Slatersteven. A non-American who might not be familiar with the American Civil War can more easily understand what the sentence is referring to through Option B. Option A is more vague and less neutral. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B per Slatersteven and Display name 99. Hog Farm _Talk 16:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B as above. American Civil War is the term used in Wikipedia to describe that conflict, we should use it here too. It would also give us a good opportunity to link to the American Civil War article. Chuntuk (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdraw and restart later – Wes, unfortunately you have completely shot yourself in the foot with the way you worded the Rfc question, and are strongly drawing votes *away* from the 'A' position which you prefer. I was all ready to vote 'B' with everyone else, until I realized this sentence fragment is from sentence number two of the lead, and sentence #1 already uses the expression Civil War. (The awkward phrase, rebelling against the Union made it worse, complicating things unnecessarily this also draws votes away from your preference, but more to the point, it makes the Rfc quesetion non-neutral in my opinion.) I recommend you withdraw the Rfc, think about how you want to word it neutrally, and start again after a pause of some time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I still think it is a poor choice of words, as they were not in revolt against the union, but the united states. I will also say that from a non-Amerian viewpoint that sentence still reads a bit uninformative, as (well I do, but then I have a union and confederate army) I doubt many even know what "the Union" stands for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that's yet another reason to withdraw, namely, because for non-Americans it isn't clear here that "union" is synonymous with "United States". So, as far as the word "Union" goes, I agree with you; but that's part of another question in this confusingly worded Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. The first option is awkwardly worded and assumes knowledge which might not be obvious to a non-American reader. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. per Saltersteven Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:56, 1 August 2022 (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.

Order of paragraphs

I rearranged some text because the second and third paragraphs essentially started with the same train of thought. WashuOtaku objects, apparently because they feel "what the day is supposed to be about" should be introduced before "that its condemned". Two problems with this: the lead already introduces "what the day is supposed to be about", and also, the vast majority of coverage of this subject deals with criticism of it. If anything, the criticism of it should be summarized in the first paragraph, but I wasn't making an editorial edit, just one for better flow and sense. Wes sideman (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki ignores Confederate Memorial Day as a protest strategy

Confederate Memorial Day is a state sanctioned protest against Martin Luther King Day and Juneteenth in both Florida as well as Mississippi. Wiki should focus on CMD as a state protest, and not on its origin story or how it is viewed by any one organization. Calling CMD a 'holiday' is like calling 9/11 'a day in September.' This entire page need to be re-written. Mrisaac57 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That is fine if you want to include that, as long it is properly sourced to validate your statement. As for the article explaining its origin story, that is very important to understanding the motives behind it. It is a controversial topic and it needs to be addressed in an honest and neutral position, as best we can. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

CMD's origins should be included, but not at the expense of its contemporary relevance. Here, CMD's origins take up 50% of the intro , followed by another completely redundant section called 'Origins.' Meanwhile the pithy "Controversy" section makes no mention of red states glorifying CMD as a holiday as they simultaneously and triumphantly deny MLK and Juneteenth holiday status. Omitting CMD's current political use is not objectivity, it's just omission. I do not know how to put reference articles below into a Wiki page to neutrally expand the "Controversy" section. Can you help me with that please? Thanks.

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-recognizes-three-confederate-holidays-200455915.html

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/34014/mississippi-closed-state-offices-for-confederate-holiday-but-not-juneteenth#:~:text=a%20Juneteenth%20statement.-,%E2%80%9CIn%20Mississippi%2C%20Confederate%20Memorial%20Day%20and%20Confederate%20Heritage%20Month%20are,statewide%20offices%20remained%20open%20today. 162.231.194.73 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

So I incorporated you provided and rewritten the best I could with it. Please give it a read and provide feedback, or make your additional changes. I will not discuss red/blue state politics here since there are several red states that have the Juneteenth holiday already and most do not have Confederate Memorial Day; also note that the sources provided gave no mention of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

'Florida recognizes three Confederate holidays as ‘official’ state holidays, but not Juneteenth'

I cut and pasted the above headline from the source I provided. It's straightforward, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...sources (you) provide make no mention of 'IT.' To me, "IT" is the official, state, weaponization of CMD to protest MLK and Juneteenth. I understand and vigorously support avoiding red/blue politics on Wiki. We do not want Twitter page. However, omitting the act (Florida, Et al, weaponizing CMD) and the response to the act is not neutral. It is as if Wiki is hiding CMD's real time essence. Furthermore, the Southern Poverty Law Center reference is untimely and offpoint - SPLC conflagates CMD with Confederate statues, flags, etc. There are better anti-CMD organizations, and more specific and timely quotes to be had. Let me give it a swing - with a heavy emphasis on neutrality - and see what you think. Thanks. Mrisaac57 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind this article is about one Confederate holiday and not other Confederate holidays; this is also not about one state in particular. This is also not about Juneteenth, which was a recently established Federal holiday at this time of this writing. The holiday has always been controversial and is stated as such, but to say it has been recently weaponized is ignoring the fact it may always have been. The goal is not to hide anything, but to stay neutral; the problem is that we have facts on what the holiday is supposed to be, but a lot of conjecture on what the holiday actually is. Statements from people and organizations show where they stand on the topic and those are facts that can be easily referenced. If there are other anti-CMD organizations, then please quote their position/stance and properly source it; but a warning, please stay on topic, there is already an article regarding the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Wow, you learn things when you edit! I never saw CMD as a precursor to Memorial Day, and I think that needs to be stated upfront (as I have done.) After eliminating the many redundancies and improving the flow by re-ordering some paragraphs, I find that I have added very little and kept most of the page. See what you think. Thanks.

P.S. I don't know how to hyperlink Mary Logan who has a Wiki page. I also don't know how to do footnotes in Wiki. Where do I find the tutorials for editing? Thanks again. Mrisaac57 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but I do know that removing long-standing sourced material summarizing CMD's official widespread recognition as coinciding with the height of Jim Crow isn't going to fly. Whitewashing such material isn't going to fly. You want that stuff gone, you're going to have to get consensus for its removal. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wes. The ChatBot NG must have removed that, and recently too. I got an email from the Bot that it made changes which I talk about on the ChatBot page. There, I complain that it removed the name of John Logan's wife, Mary, and reverted to the original "his wife," which I thought was sexist. When I saw that change, the Jim Crow part was still in there, I'm pretty sure. Now I see that the whole CONTROVERSY section has been botted - if that is word - though, like you, I can't be sure. I've received no new Bot-mail. I hope you don't mind if I continue on your page, because we may have a bot problem. Mrisaac57 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I restored the last good version and then I added in Mary Logan's name, and linked it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Mary says thanks. I'm fine with this page. Mrisaac57 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

ClueBot NG's sexist edit

In my edit of CMD, I added the actual name of the woman who was originally listed only as 'his wife.' The woman in question, Mary Logan (nee' Simmerson Cunningham) has her very own Wiki page and was an accomplished author (please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Simmerson_Cunningham_Logan.) I felt uncomfortable making an edit without bothering to at least try and respect the lady with a pronoun. Apparently ClueBot didn't agree with me. The bot actually removed Ms. Logan's name from my edit and reverted back to the original and dismissive 'his wife' wording. Why? That's simply flabbergasting. I can't see any other changes to my edit. Now look, I'm not going to get into an edit war with a bot, so I'm going to just leave it. However, I am also going to contact New York University and University of Washington. These schools are doing excellent work on racism and sexism in algorithms. Their focus of course has been on Google and Meta. I'm going to do my very best to make sure that they put Mr. ClueBot NG on their radar as well by reporting the following: 1. The sexist ClueBot edit. 2. Wiki's ClueBot NG team has no women on it. 3. Wiki indicates no awareness of the crusade against systemic racism and sexism in algorithms. 4. Wiki does not seek support from its community to ensure ClueBot NG avoids racist and sexist edits. Finally, I am new to the Wiki community, and admit that I may be completely off-track here. Sadly, I don't think so. Mrisaac57 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears Cluebot took issue with this edit, in which you removed a significant amount of sourced material. Cluebot cannot discern whether you did this accidentally or on purpose. I'm not a programmer but I assume it acts to remedy a situation, when a lot of sourced material is removed, by reverting the edit - which it did. Wes sideman (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It didn't revert the edit. It took paragraphs from "Origins" and "Controversy" sections and put them in intro. Without the redundancy, origins and controversy are shorter now. Some original paragraphs were removed as well. Not a bad page though. Mrisaac57 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)