Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [[1]] - 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: [[2]] 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)

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. [3] 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.[4]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)