Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

RFC: Graph of Monument Construction

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

---

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

The graph's annotation of when the Jim Crow Era occurred is misleading. Kahn Academy,[1] Encyclopedia Britannica,[2] and the Smithsonian[3] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose The SPLC chart makes a correlation that isn't there, and their impartiality has recently been called into question. The construction of large monuments took many artist on average 10 years from date of commission to final dedication. Construction of schools would have been equally long. This report and chart ignores the amount of planning, funding and city approvals for these monuments, roads and schools. If these monuments were in response to the Crow and Segragation eras, their construction would have lagged behind by well over a decade. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The correlation is obviously there. Also, WP:OR. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The annotations in the graph violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by stating an opinion as a fact, WP:WikiVoice, for giving undue weight to the SPLC's agenda driven hypothesis while failing to note that the spikes coincide with the 50th and 100th Anniversary of the Civil War, WP:Undue, WP:PROPORTION, and for being a questionable self-published source, WP:QUESTIONABLE. The graph also violates Wikipedia's best practices against creating misleading graphs. Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. The annotation states that the Jim Crow era overlaps the 1911 peak in monument building, but that is misleading because the Jim Crow era actually began after the Reconstruction Era ended in the 1870s.[4] [5] [6] The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. If the chart's annotation were accurate, the "Jim Crow Era" note would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed just above the 1911 spike that coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Civil War; although, the 50th anniversary is not even noted on the chart. Waters.Justin (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support SPLC is a reliable source and has been used as such in many places on Wikipedia. Arguments which begin with the assumption that SPLC is an unreliable source should back up that assumption rather than propose things based on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not original research. Kahn Academy,[7] Encyclopedia Britannica,[8] and the Smithsonian[9] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. Your claim that that they could not or were not enforced until Plessy v. Ferguson is original research, and doesn't even make sense. You are saying that Jim Crow laws were on the books for about two decades without being enforced. If you read Plessy v. Ferguson you will see that the law Plessy challenged was passed in 1890, he sued in 1892, and the Supreme Court made its decision in 1896. Some laws do get challenged as soon as the ink on the signature is dry, but that's not what happened with Plessy. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since glancing down this "survey" which seems more like a series of debates by User:Volunteer Marek| Volunteer Marek  than a simple survey, I'll weigh in as to what will happen once real historians begin to look at the SPLC assertions. I have never technically tried this before but it should work. Here is the story of one CSA monument found in a legit historical review from 1990, well before the current upheaval. Now imagine this repeated a couple of hundred times for a couple of hundred other monuments. I used this because I have it at home. Read this over. It follows one monument from right at the end of the war until its execution in 1893 - The Jim Crowe era. [[10]]. Carptrash (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. This looks like an interesting and highly relevant graph. It does not matter who created the image. It only matters if data used for drawing the graph were sourced to RS. Yes, they were sourced to RS. Do we have any other data from other RS which contradict data on the graph? If so, they could be included on the graph, but I do not see such data. Speaking about the legend, this is a separate question. I do not see a problem. Telling "Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement" is merely a matter of simple fact. What was the reason remains for a reader to decide. If the legend was a problem (I do not think so), it can be fixed and the graph included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Unequivocally RC'ed. A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise.--Galassi (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per others who point out the WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. This graph is extremely relevant to this topic and an excellent summary of the history of these monuments. I can't understand how it violates WP:NPOV or is WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources have, for many many many years, discussed the fact that were mainly built in the Jim Crow era. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong OPPOSE - WP:FRINGE from an advocacy group. Source issues here are that its an advocacy group so clearly falls under WP:BIASED, is WP:PRIMARY material, and we lack the actual list so a bit WP:V. Content issues are that it's mostly WP:OFFTOPIC as 'Other' is not this article subject of monuments and memorials, that inserting a racial narrative into a "List of" article is WP:SOAPBOX, that it uses false period labels (e.g. Jim Crow starts 1877). This narrative fails WP:WEIGHT but really just does not suit a 'list of' so rather than put it as minor note among the various explanations, just delete it.
  p.s. Historians list the 1900 period as popular for all manner of civic monuments and histories due to the century-mark, national growth, and simply technical advances in monuments making it far cheaper for production (e.g. Monumental Bronze Company). One could also observe that in 20 or 30 years after the war, the formerly young folk would have become prominent (e.g. Secretary of Interior, Senators, etc) so were honored for the rest of their life. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

*Oppose the proposed labels as polemical. How about "Populist era" instead of "Jim Crow era"? "Populist" is certainly more of a professional historian's term. Great scott (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC) - CHECKUSER BLOCKED AS A SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNT.[11] Alsee (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Because" is not the game-winning argument you seem to believe it is. And the notion of you citing -- content-free -- WP:BLUDGEON has a certain amusement value. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - there's nothing wrong with this chart. It's based on a reliable source. The labels in it are based on text of the source. This info is backed up by a dozen other reliable sources, including ones written by academic historians and scholars. Volunteer Marek  18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Both the actual data and the interpretation the graph implies seem to be well-sourced, not just to the SPLC (where we got these exact number) but to numerous other sources that have said the same thing in similar terms. Graphs are sometimes tricky to use, but I don't see how this can be credibly said to be synthesis - synthesis is when you combine data from multiple sources to imply something that none of them are saying. In this case, we're legitimately summarizing multiple sources to express the same thing that all of them are stating; the spikes of Confederate monuments in the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras are well-sourced (and was the original purpose of the figures the graph expresses), so highlighting them is clearly not OR or SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support and add context. As an attempt to explore some kind of middle-ground (and deliberately ignoring the question of when the "Jim Crow era" and "Civil Rights movement" were), I note that a theme from the "oppose" comments is that while the data is correct, other contextual information (e.g. 50th and 100th anniversaries) are missing. Why not fix it instead of removing it? De Guerre (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note - I've made some minor changes to the graph, in particular changing the span of the labels as suggested above. Volunteer Marek  11:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of the labels, not necessarily the graph. As has been pointed out, the source for the graph is the SPLC article "Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy" at [12], which says "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." If the existing labels are retained, these labels need to be added as well. Mojoworker (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Karen Cox: Whole point of Confederate.

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

Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As the content is pushed by the SPLC. A graph mentioning the dates/timeline of the construction/erection/installation of the monuments/memorials is one thing. Trying to politicize it with adding certain other events is just pushing their agenda. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Wow, seems personal attacks for your MO. Next you will stomp on my foot, spit in my eye, and kick my dog. You should calm down and no get upset just because someone does not have the same opinion of you and doesn't spend 24/7 on Wiki. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the labels, not necessarily the graph and not coverage of the topic in text. It is disingenuous to pretend that the labels do not imply a 'racial kickback' as the primary reason, when many other reasons are legitimately floated as partially causing the (hardly momentous in the case of 50-60s) peaks. A more nuanced text exposition along with a less 'loaded' graph would be more informative IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I am a bit vexed to see quite so many oppose votes arguing that the graph (and the links between Jim Crow era, Civil Rights movent, and confederate monument building that it suggests) is something being "pushed by the SPLC," is "original research," or is even "fringe." All of these arguments are demonstrably incorrect, as there's a strong consensus among historians that monument building did spike during those periods, and that it was a form of racial backlash. You won't find a more "official" voice of American historians than the American Historical Association (AHA), and their recent, official statement on this is very clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support per Fyddlestix. This does not appear to be OR/SYNTH as it is supported by sources. Nor does it appear to be FRINGE or UNDUE as it's a commonly discussed phenomenon (e.g., [13], [14], [15]). Similar charts showing the link between timing and monument creation have been published by many reliable sources (often reposting the SPLC one) (CNN, NPR, PolitiFact). Others explicitly mention the link between time and monument creation without the chart (Vox, History.com, The Atlantic, NBC News). As such, it seems entirely DUE to have the graph. If we need to alter the graph (e.g., add sources to caption or image description), then do so. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• support there is no problem with V as the graph is in the source cited. The source is plenty reliable. Most importantly, this graph does exactly what we want a graph or other figurre to do, which is provide some additional way to grasp the content in the article. This graph shows the history of monument construction in a way that is easily graspable at a glance and corresponds to the sourced content dispersed throughout the article already (and this correspondence just supports the reliability of the source here). The figure is great! Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several other less biased graphs, even from SPLC, which would be more suitable and less objectionable. This is supposed to be a list of CSA Memorials, which will prolly always be debatable as it is, so please use graph that will not be as debatable unlike this one will. This graph and in particular the labels is pure BS, specifically designed by SPLC to back up it biased claim. The graph itself is as best as I can tell factual, just that it is so mis-leading on several levels.
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. The graph and its caption encourage readers to jump to an interpretative conclusion about the motives of the people who put those monuments up, based on the years of erection. You can't prove political motive by graphing out when statues were built, and you shouldn't suggest anything you can't prove. --Lockley (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Support -- relevant to the article. I do not find arguments re: the unsuitability of SPLC as a source to be compelling; this connection is made by multiple other sources, as noted elsewhere on this page. United Daughters of the Confederacy played an instrumental part in fundraising and lobbying for these monuments; the purpose of these monuments was to advance the Lost Cause narrative in the service of white supremacy. The arguments about 50th and 100th anniversary of the Civil War are more of a distraction; I'm sure it was used as a cause and / or pretext by UDC and other orgs. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Abundant Reliable Sources cited, particularly down in the discussion section. Note: I'm concerned that some of the opposers may have missed those sources in the discussion below. I'm even more concerned that some of the opposers casually deny the legitimacy of top-rank Reliable Sources, when it serves their purposes to do so. I am most concerned and shocked by the history of few opposers in relation to race. Alsee (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned many of the support votes don't address the label problem. Even accepting the SPLC's figures, the graph in question [16] looks very different than the SPLC's: [17] Compare their labels with ours. Taking their data, stripping the labels, then adding our own labels supported by unrelated sources is synthesis. D.Creish (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@MPants at work:Can you read this and then tell me that the SLPC is a neutral source?[18] Carptrash (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cerebellum: Have you seen this letter, the SPLC appeal to remove statues? [19] Can you still tell me that they are neutral? Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

• Oppose per Carptrash and Atsme. WP:NPOV means we should be very careful with what content to include in an article on such a controversial subject. The SPLC is clearly biased on this subject. I may support a version of the graph that does away with the labels entirely. feminist 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on "Excuse #3" - The graph's annotation of when the Jim Crow Era occurred is misleading. Kahn Academy,[20] Encyclopedia Britannica,[21] and the Smithsonian[22] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. If the chart were accurate, the note "Jim Crow Era" would span from the beginning of the chart to 1965, but it is misleadingly placed over the 1911 semi-centennial spike. The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson is when the Supreme Court held Jim Crow laws to be Constitutional, but that is not when Jim Crow laws started. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the original SPLC graph is more neutral, but it still illustrates only a small subset of confederate monuments – there are 1,328 monuments (not just confederate) at Gettysburg alone and 1,400 at Vicksburg. I should probably add that to the article, and for context, I just added to the article (with refs) that many monuments were dedicated in the years after 1890, when Congress established the first National Military Park at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. At Vicksburg National Military Park, more than 95 percent of the park's monuments were erected in the first eighteen years after the park was established in 1899. Mojoworker (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources for a monument building spree during the Jim Crow era

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

1. [23] Quotes: :"The memorials are a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era".

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. [24] Quotes:

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

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

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

3. [25] Quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

4. [26] Quote:

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

5. [27] Quote:

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

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

6. [28] Quotes:

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

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

7. [29] Quote:

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

8. [30]. pg 190. Says the same thing. Too long to quote and can't copy/paste from Google Books.

9. [31] Quote:

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

10. [32] Quote:

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

11. [33] Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is whether the chart not these articles should be added to Wikipedia; unlike the chart, your sources are ambiguous on when the Jim Crow era occurred. One says 1890, another says 1920, most generally refer to the Jim Crow era without giving a date range. The chart, however, places the Jim Crow era note directly above the 1911 spike. None of your listed sources give a date range for Jim Crow that would allow us to place the note directly above the 1911 spike. Most of your sources are from news publications not historians, so that further weakens the reliability of those sources. Kahn Academy,[34] Encyclopedia Britannica,[35] and the Smithsonian[36] all state that Jim Crow laws began at the end of the Reconstruction Era in the 1870s. One says Jim Crow laws ended in the 1960s and another says they came to an end in the 1950s with the passing of Brown v. Board of Education. How can we have a chart that places the Jim Crow era note above the 1911 spike when the Jim Crow era existed for almost a century? The chart is also misleading because it doesn't note the semi-centennial and centennial that fall on the spikes, and a neutral point of view requires addressing every relevant fact. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The relevancy of the Civil War Centennial is not original research. It's well documented that there was a large increase in celebrations and memorials during this time. President Kennedy even created the United States Civil War Centennial Commission to organize celebrations. It's also well documented that many Confederate memorials were placed on the 50th Anniversary for the purpose of commemorating the 50th Anniversary. Many of those sources are in newspaper archives. The Smithsonian Magazine says that the 25th and 50th anniversaries were widely celebrated,[37] and if you look at the chart you will see there is also a spike at the 25th anniversary of the Civil War, from 1886 to 1890. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The Smithsonian Magazine wrote "by the time of the 25th anniversary of the war, the veterans of blue and gray were beginning the long process of reconciliation. In 1886, survivors of Confederate Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett’s division were welcomed to a reunion at Gettysburg with Union veterans of the battle from Philadelphia. “Then they were enemies,” wrote the New York Times. “Now they are come together as friends and as citizens of a common country, having no resentments and cherishing no animosities." And "reunification was a dominant theme in the 50th anniversary observances of 1911-1915. George Carr Round, a Union veteran who after the war became a lawyer and settled in Manassas, Virginia, helped organize the Manassas National Jubilee of Peace, in July 1911, in observance of the 50th anniversary of the war’s first battle."[38] Waters.Justin (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's from a "real historian".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no clue how I look like that other person nor care as there are several of those pages I would never go visit, but meh already answered this question. How about we use the exact same source your chart is from, SPLC. "The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." sourced from https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy Darn shame when even biased SPLC can even admit there are other possible reasons. So how is what I did straight up dishonest when it is all coming from the exact same source you used? But meh w/e, change it however you wish as I really no longer care anymore and will just completely disregard any clear attempts of going against wiki NPOV policy. I suggest you read stuff written DURING the times and you will get much more accurate portrayal than most the dozen sources you gave above, yes it is not pretty, but no it is not near as dire and all about white supremacy either. Yes it is and always has been a complex topic with various reasonings. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Revision

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

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

Will you add to the chart that the United Daughters of the Confederacy became nationally organized in 1894?[39] They are the organization that held bake sales to pay for many of the monuments, so that partially explains why there was an increase in monument building just prior to the turn of the century and peaking at the semi-centennial in 1911. I think there are too many variables to justify a chart with anything other than the raw data, but even a chart with only raw data may result in edit wars from people adding controversial comments to attempt to interpret the chart. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's dishonest.

It's bullshit.

It's disruptive chicanery.

It's circular reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not just use the original SPLC graph instead of attempting to alter and make up your own? I actually found that chart enlightening, even though I still think it is biased towards their agenda. It allows the reader to draw their own conclusion, although it would have been better to at least list anniversary dates as well, but minor issue imho. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Another Chart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://famous-trials.com/

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

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

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

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

The SPLC study's sources...

The SPLC study has no sources for its statements regarding the motivation behind the construction of monuments. It doesn't cite any historical work or quote any historian. -Topcat777 14:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Oh and it's actually completely false that the "SPLC sutdy has no sources". The sources are listed at the end of the report AND are even mentioned in the graph. Did you comment without bothering to read what you're commenting about again? Bad habit to get into. Volunteer Marek  01:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

No, that is NOT "the only thing they say about sources". They freakin' list them. Another completely bogus claim. Can you please stop it with those? You're not helping. Volunteer Marek  15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Result of the survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confedarate monuments (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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