Jump to content

Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Moving text to tables

I moved the text for Arizona and Vermont to a table. It looks a bit neater and the information is easier to sort for readers. Let's discuss whether this would be an improvement for the entire article. Moving text to a table is very time-consuming work, and requires both technical and copyediting skills (with no increase in pay). If there is some agreement that this will improve the article, I'm willing to do Mississippi, one of the larger states. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Geographic dispersal

This edit has been made and reverted three times now. In my opinion, the existing version was a complete and accurate description of the fact that most of the monuments are in the South while a few do occur in Northern states, and the edit removed relevant details for unexplained reasons. This map is a good reference. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean this map? [1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that map is better. I changed it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that 4 out of the 5 paragraphs in the "Geographic dispersal" section have nothing to do with the geographic dispersal topic it is surprising that there is not more disruptive editing. Carptrash (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Oof, that whole first paragraph is to one source (that I can't access to read), seems undue-ish on it's face. Arkon (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, removed that whole section, hope I didn't mess up the headers. We got 1 study being used to support huge blocks of text filled with cherry picked statements, just ouch. Arkon (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely on board with a smaller more summary style re-addition though. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it really only needs a sentence or two or just this graphic [2]. Perhaps we could be rid of the entire section, and merge the concept into another part of the lede. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fluous: per here. Arkon (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Arkon: That first paragraph is unimpeachable. What on earth do you possibly object to? Undue how? Fluous (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fluous:I removed the whole section, not just the first paragraph for the reason's I stated above. To reiterate, one source, primary, no secondary to express due weight, cherry picked blocks of text. Now please, can you either provide reasoning for your revert, or do better in your edit summaries in the future? Arkon (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Arkon:. With regard to the first paragraph, can you be more specific? Your concerns here are vague. What's undue? What's wrong with the source provided? Fluous (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fluous: I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to say this again...it's -one- source (I think, don't feel like looking but 4 paragraphs, and 5k text, no secondaries establishing weight) with all the problems that I typed in the comment you are responding too, and the comments I made above that. Please read the discussion above. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but a little more patience and good faith is required here. Please *explain* your concerns; don’t just list them. In other words: “The first paragraph is undue *because*...” With regard to your sourcing complaint, don’t you think it’s kinda bad faith to discredit a source that you admit you didn’t even read? I mean, come on now. Plus, there’s no quantity requirement; only that the source is reliable. ˜˜˜˜— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluous (talk • contribs)

I moved the Winberry content out of Geographic Distribution section and into History section because the content covered monument History almost exclusively. The one or two sentences of geographic content covering the two centers of courthouse monuments: Winberry noted two centers of courthouse monuments; the Potomac counties of Virginia, from which the tradition spread to North Carolina, and a larger area covering Georgia, South Carolina and northern Florida. The diffusion of courthouse monuments was aided by organizations such as the United Confederate Veterans and their publications, though other factors may also have been effective. could be moved back if someone wants to refactor it. Mojoworker (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Confederate monuments and memorials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sam Houston (sculpture), Houston, Texas

Page watchers may be interested in updating the Sam Houston (sculpture) article. I don't really appreciate the comment an editor left on the talk page recently, but regardless, the article could use some improvements. Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Confederate Monument (Jackson, Mississippi)

Resolved

I created a very short stub for Confederate Monument (Jackson, Mississippi). Is this monument listed here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I see a link has been added. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Building and dedication" subsection

Resolved

What's up with the unsourced paragraphs in the "Building and dedication" section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Which specifically? deisenbe (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
There are only 2 inline citations for paragraphs 6–9. Two of these paragraphs are unsourced altogether. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Those paragraphs are not my work, so someone else could answer with more authority. But it seems that those two references, which could be relocated, are intended to source tbe four paragraphs. deisenbe (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Those paragraphs are from a journal article by John J. Winberry called "'Lest We Forget': The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape". I went back just now and added a bunch more citations to better clarify that the text is still citing to the same source. Fluous (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Newspape articles I want to look at

I’m putting these here because I have used my maximum free articles for the month. Feel free to jump in.

deisenbe (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC) deisenbe (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing articles

@Zigzig20s: I had started a list of missing Wikipedia articles here, which wasn't appreciated by all, but I still think identifying missing notable topics is helpful. You ping me now and then to create new stubs. If you identify other missing articles about notable Confederate monuments and memorials, I invite you to post the red links here so I and other editors can create new stubs. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Likewise. You work on this list a lot. If you identify notable monuments/memorials without Wikipedia articles, but aren't interested in new article creation, feel free to share here and I'll look into creating at least stubs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer. This isn't exactly what you offered, but see Spanish missions in Florida and Spanish missions in Georgia. Every one should have a stub. There are also a bunch of U.S. Army forts from early U.S., but I can't find a list. I stumbled upon List of United States Army installations. deisenbe (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This is super helpful, but I'm more interested in outdoor sculpture, public art, and monuments. I wonder if you might also share these needed articles on appropriate WikiProject talk pages. I'm sure there are editors who would be interested in working on this content. Back to this list, feel free to ping requests for new stubs here and I'll see what I can do! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe and Zigzig20s: Bump, just a reminder, if you come across notable monuments w/o articles, feel free to mention them here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The easiest way for you to get this information is from the page history. Whenever something of a few hundred characters gets added. I dkn’t want to get involved in which ones are “notable” enough. deisenbe (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, 'twas just an offer, if notable topics lack articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Belle Boyd

I added some information about Belle Boyd, the Confederate spy at the Wisconsin section. Belle Boyd gave talks in the United States about being a spy for the Confederacy and she wrote. Boyd was in Kilbourn City, Wisconsin (now Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin) to gave a talk about at the local Grand Army of the Republic post when she died from a heart attack. Belle Boyd was buried at Spring Grove cemetery in Wisconsin Dells. Her grave is marked with a Confederate flag and there is a photo of her grave at the article about Belle Boyd. I hope the photo can be added to this article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

New Data

Southern Poverty Law Center has updated their data on Confederate monuments and memorials. Specifically, they have now made their data available in spreadsheet form (Google Docs). There's a lot of potentially useful information here. Fluous (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Should state capitols get special treatment?

When, as in Texas, South Carolina, or Tennessee (haven't checked them all), monuments or whatever are given prominent treatment at state capitols, this seems to me to deserve more prominent treatment in the article than mention under "Other public monuments" alphabetically by city. As they are arguably the position of the state as a whole, I suggest they be mentioned at the beginning of each state. Other opinions? deisenbe (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There being no comment on this in a week, I'm going to go ahead and do it. deisenbe (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC) I am not prioritizing this so it will take a while, but I’ve started. deisenbe (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see the logic in listing items at the state capital grounds as the first location above city names. If a monument is across town the the city that happens to be the capital that would just be listed under the alphabetcal city. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Amount of detail in listings

I think we should keep listings extremely brief. Someone (probably @Deisenbe:?) has added extremely long, verbose detail to many listings. Especially the state capitol section of North Carolina. This is a list-class article; we should keep things quite brief. In fact, the overwhelming majority of listings shouldn't have anything beyond the basics: city, memorial type, memorial name, who it's named for, year erected, year removed, who sponsored it (UDC, etc.), and so on. Fluous (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So you remove the material first, then talk about it? How about we keep it and talk about it? Carptrash (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
So, talk. You want to keep a 480-word inscription? Seriously? Fluous (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary detail. Monuments that are notable generally have their own article, where this sort of detail can be added. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I added the verbiage, and I still think in some cases it’s very informative about the context in which the monument was erected, and I feel that information is important. Most of the monuments have no article. deisenbe (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that some of these long, detailed descriptions are excessive. A sentence or two to describe the statue would be appropriate, but the words removed by Fluous were quoting entire 50+ or 100+-word inscriptions which is unnecessary. I suspect that some of these descriptions were added as proof that a certain entry is indeed a Confederate monument, which is also unnecessary. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

History section

So if we want to cut out verbosity how about we remove the several pages of "blah blah blah" at the beginning - including that silly graph? This is a list after all. Carptrash (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the whole (or most of ) the History section should be removed from the article, and if it has to be saved, placed in a spinoff article, Confederate monuments and memorials. It does not belong in a 'list" article. The SPLC is, (opinion) among things, a fund raising organization and is happy putting forth what ever propaganda is useful in these efforts. I was sorry to see wikipedia jump on that bandwagon, and really see no reason to include them in the article other than being a good source of documentation of monuments. Carptrash (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Since no one feels inclined to write in favor of the history section I'll feel free to remove or at least heavily edit it. Carptrash (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Carptrash: I support your proposal to trim the history section. This is a list after all. As for removing that silly and completely inaccurate graph, that may need a fulsome discussion (recall Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 8#RFC: Graph of Monument Construction). Magnolia677 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I go back-and-forth on this. On one hand, I'm not sure that presenting these memorials without context is a good idea. (@Malik Shabazz: has commented on article split issues in the past; he might have something to say here. Or not?). On the other hand, this article is quite long. In general, I do like the idea of a more concise, less wordy list. And there seems to be more than enough background information to support a regular article-class article. At any rate, I think this is drastic enough a change that more people should chime in before we do anything. Fluous (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are we excluding cemeteries and museums, as the lede says?

A “Museum of the Confederacy” is a memorial and should be included. I think if there are any cemeteries labeled Confederate those should be included too. deisenbe (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is a natural history museum a memorial to dinosaurs? Is an art museum a memorial to Impressionists? I don't think so. Carptrash (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC) - "Definition of museum for English Language Learners. : a building in which interesting and valuable things (such as paintings and sculptures or scientific or historical objects) are collected and shown to the public." I looked up half a dozen definitions of "museum", nowhere did the word "memorial" appear. Carptrash (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Carptrash. Fluous (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mainly because the SPLC source which was the foundational source for the page excluded these two categories. I agree with the exclusions. No sane person is going to destroy or pull down cemeteries. Many people agree that confederate statues and memorials belong in museums where they can be contextualized properly. Recently I was in a museum in Lithuania that displays Nazi material, including awards for men who tortured civilians, that would be extremely offensive in most contexts to display but perfectly logical to display in that context with appropriate commentary. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And this is an interesting bit of revisionism {"SPLC source which was the foundational source for the page"}. The list existed, please check and see if I am wrong because I have not, long before the SPLC showed up. Carptrash (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this list article was created in March 2010‎, while the SPLC's report was more than six years later. The SPLC's focus was on Lost Cause symbols and their survey excluded "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that SPLC deemed largely historical in nature." The reasons the excluded symbols were created is a much more complex issue, with many shades of gray. I think we should create a small section on the SPLC report, perhaps after the "Building and dedication" subsection. Thoughts pro or con? Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
(1) "Foundation" doesn't mean "first." The SPLC report absolutely is the foundation of this page. That's where the overwhelming majority of listings come from. I know this because I personally spent all that time adding the listings from the SPLC report. One by one. I did that. I know. Before the SPLC report, this article had virtually no listings. It's undeniable that the SPLC report has been a tremendous, foundational resource in compiling a list of memorials. (2) That said, I don't really get how the report merits an entire section. Or even a paragraph. Focusing on the SPLC at all has long-been an obsession for a certain kind of wikipedian. It has been discussed dozens-and-dozens of times (if not more) on official channels. And we always come to the same conclusion. And then it pops up again, like clockwork. Fluous (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we understand "foundation" and can agree that the SLPC report is the foundation of the list and I believe that it was at this was the point (when we adopted there report as our Bible) that we became a foolish man who built his house on the sand. It provided a great list of monuments that was just slide over into the article but it also introduced the idea of using schools and roads and parks as appropriate monuments or memorials and I think that this is what, in my view, makes this list a bad idea. But as you said, we have been over this before, and as I did before I'm just going to unwatch this article. Carptrash (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC list is the source of most of the listings (which is why I called it foundationslal) but there are of course small portions of the page that predate it and we have assembled a much longer list than the SPLC published from many other sources. Many sources note schools especially as controversial memorials.


"nowhere did the word "memorial" appear."

Memorials are typically buildings or works of art intended to commemorate specific individuals, groups, or events. Museums typically include collections from different historical eras and geographic locations. They are not supposed to be equivalent, though there are exceptions. Writer's home museums tend to focuse on artifacts connected to the life and work of a single writer.

"No sane person is going to destroy or pull down cemeteries."

Why not?:

Demolition of cemeteries is far from unusual. Partly because the local settlements need the grounds for new locations, partly because those buried there are considered "undesirable". Most of the above cemeteries were reserved for the remains of local ethnic and religious minorities, or for the soldiers of various colonial powers. The authorities wanted to erase them from history. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed Alabama factoid

I just removed the sentence "In referenda held in 2004 and 2012, Alabamians voted against removing the (unenforceable) prohibition on school integration in the Alabama Constitution." It was supported by a reference to an opinion article in The Guardian. A couple of points:

  1. Ballot measures about segregation in education are not relevant to the history of Confederate monuments and memorials.
  2. The sentence implies that Alabamians voted against amending the Constitution because they wanted to defend school segregation, even though the law is unenforceable. As someone who supports racial equality but voted against the amendment, I can offer two compelling reasons for voting no.
  1. The amendment would have also deleted from the state constitution any mention of the Legislature's responsibility for funding public education. While it was unlikely that the Legislature would actually vote to stop paying for schools, this deletion could open the way for shenanigans that would harm education.
  2. The Alabama Constitution is an illegitimate basic law that was imposed by fraud in 1901. Alabama is the last former Confederate state to languish under a so-called "Bourbon" constitution that ties the hands of local government and makes state government poor, weak, and inefficient. As passing new consitutional amendments every year has become a necessary tool of governing, some of us have vowed to vote against every amendment until the Legislature is forced to call a new constitutional convention.

I love The Guardian and I donate to it. But the cited opinion piece was oblivious to the nuances of these elections, providing one more example of why Wikipedians are encouraged to link to news, not opinion. As enjoyable as it is to point an accusatory finger at us bone-headed rednecks of the Deep South, I'm going to suggest that in many cases, including this one, it only serves to distract attention from the many other redoubts of racism throughout the United States, and to promote a mood of self-satisfaction among white Americans who happen not to hail from down here. </sermon> — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

date format

There are many cases of a comma after a month name and before the year. The Manual of Style says that no comma should go there. See wp:date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of items built before Confederacy/Civil War

I'm working to clear off items which shouldn't be on the page as they were built/dedicated before the Confederacy. Mojoworker noticed one and I'm going through the rest to find what I can. I can't imagine an argument for keeping them on the page but wanted to put this here in case anyone had any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polisciatica (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, clearly not memorializing the Confederacy if created before there was a CSA. Mojoworker (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Silent Sam

I removed most of the Silent Sam entry - it has its own article, so maintaining an 800-word entry here too seemed a clear violation of WP:CFORK, as well as inappropriate for a list. I've put some of the unique content from here into that article, where it seemed to be notable and not to duplicate what was already there. Others with knowledge of the subject may wish to take a look at my edits and see if there's more that can usefully be moved across. TSP (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keeping only minimal content here and leaving detail for the standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hood's Texas Brigade Monument

Should Hood's Texas Brigade Monument be added to the list? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added to the list (hopefully in the correct location). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument --> disambiguation page

Just FYI, I moved Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument to Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument (Baltimore), then converted Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument into a disambiguation page. I did this after creating Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument (Georgetown, Texas) and realizing there were a couple other similarly-named monuments. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Painting missing

In the Georgia section, a missing painting is listed. How is a missing painting a monument or memorial to the Confederacy? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Is your point that it shouldn’t be there because it’s a commemoration by omission than by commission, or that it isn’t relevant to the Confederacy?
I'm the one who put it in. I found working on the monuments in the Georgis capitol: a fascinating but little-known bit of trivia. (A similar item accidentally discovered is the former Texas Confederate Museum.) My criteria always is, is it helping or hurting the reader seeking information on the topic? At the time I couldn’t think of a better place for it. The article on the Georgia State Capitol doesn’t talk about any monuments at all. But I’ll move it over to the Removal article, which is about things not there. deisenbe (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I just don't see how something that isn't there is a "monument or memorial" to the Confederacy. It would make sense in an article about the state capitol. Since that is the only painting missing, how do you explain the fact that the paintings of two governors who where not duly elected ARE there? James Johnson was appointed by President Johnson in 1865 and US Army General Thomas Ruger was appointed in 1868 by General Meade, when the US Army still occupied Georgia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Scratch that last part. The article says that every governor elected since 1850 has their portrait there, so I don't know about the unelected ones. (At least some of the ones before 1850 must be missing too.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I put it where it belongs, in Georgia State Capitol. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

United Confederate Veterans Memorial

I created United Confederate Veterans Memorial, so the Washington State section should probably be trimmed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Shortening article by removing Former material

I have started to remove the Former sections and replace them with links to sections of Removal artival at beginning. I am checking that everything deleted is in the Removal article.

It serves no purpose to include the same information two different places, which means double editing. And in fact not everything in Removal section is here under Former, which can mislead readers.

I have done this so far with Arkansas and California. As time permits I will go on through the alphabet. deisenbe (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Florida and Georgia merges completed. Different details and references in the two former Florida versions. deisenbe (talk)
We had a discussion about this in the past. I had removed the former sections, and @Malik Shabazz: was particularly adamant that it constituted a POV fork. So I put them back. You participated in that discussion, Deisenbe, so it's a little odd that you're bringing it up again without reference to the previous discussion. Fluous (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, you have a better memory than me. Bear in mind a year has gone by and other monuments have now been removed. Maintaining the same information in two different places at best is a timewaster. To have different information, including at times different references, on the same monument in two different places is flat out wrong. So I’m doing what I need to do to fix the situation. No one else is doing anything. I will keep doing this until someone starts undoing my work or convinces me - now, not a year ago - that I’m making things worse instead of better. deisenbe (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Troy Confederate Monument

The description for the image of the "Troy Confederate Monument in Troy, Alabama" says, "Confederate flag made out of flowers at the Confederate Statue in Jasper, Alabama". According to the Wikipedia articles for these two cities they are not close to each other. Which description is correct? -- User-duck (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn’t find this. Did someone fix it already? deisenbe (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just fixed it. I downloaded, converted, uploaded, and cropped an image of the Jasper monument. I then replaced the existing "Troy" image and edited the caption. The referenced source of the Troy monument has images of a similar monument. -- User-duck (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Memoria In Aeterna

Shouldn't Memoria In Aeterna still be in the list? It still exists on display in Brandon, FL. -- User-duck (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s been removed from its prominent, public, government-endorsed display in the county seat (city), and moved to a (by comparison) isolated small private cemetery. deisenbe (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of private memorials listed, e.g. "Orlando: Confederate "Johnny Reb" monument, Lake Eola Park (1911, moved to Lake Eola Park 1917, moved to a private cemetery 2017)". Public / private might be a good separation criteria. (Just a thought) -- User-duck (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I’ve taken it out. Let me know if you spot any others. There are definitely others and it’s now on my mental list of things to do.
You can’t use “private” as the criterion. There are monuments newly constructed on private property that are intended for the public to view, like the horrible one of Forrest outside of Nashville, and an increasing number of others. I think the criteria has to be “removed from its original location because of concern/protests over its Confederate link”, and that it is now much less prominent or accessible than it was at its former location. deisenbe (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I was not talking about public/private as a criteria for moving to Removal. I was thinking about it as a criteria for splitting this article into " … public …" and " … private …". This article really needs to be split or trimmed. The size limits are suggested for "accessability", not everyone has high speed access and large screens. The corresponding Union article is only 44K bytes compared to this 564K behemoth.-- User-duck (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that says something, doesn’t it. 44K for Union and 564K for Confederate.
Here’s an interesting list I sumbled upon: Special:LongPages. According to it as of today this article is 34th longest. deisenbe (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope creep

Alaska: "Confederate Gulch" and "Union Gulch" listed as "Confederate monuments and memorials"? The article, Yukon–Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska does not mention either. At this rate General Lee (car) will be added. -- User-duck (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@User-duck: Both of these locations are properly sourced, and "Confederate Gulch"--like so many of the parks, water features, dams and roads in the article--is a geographic feature that is obviously named after the Confederacy. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The point is that these "memorials" are not important enough to mention in linked article. I changed the referencing, the original cites used the same URL. I "assume" the 1913 report mentions these locations, I did not read it, just found an online copy to correct the cite. -- User-duck (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, most of the items on this list are places or things which were named or created during the "Lost Cause" era, generally by one of the heritage societies. However, during and after the ACW some veterans or sympathizers named things after Confederate (or Union) people or things. An example is the Alabama Hills, also in California, named by miners for the CSS Alabama. Should it, and others like it, be on the list? Mobi Ditch (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be totally consistent with this list. Atlanta, Idaho is a similar example already on the list. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to possibly shorten article

Obviously, this article is way too long, but we've failed to come to a consensus about how to split this up. Therefore, I propose 2 ways to reduce the overall size:

  1. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove descriptions
  2. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove inline citations

We're approaching 1,000 inline citations, so removing those for topics with their own articles is one way to reduce the References section without taking away too much from the encyclopedia, since readers can simply click on the monument/memorial link for more information. Same with descriptions -- no need to go into detail about memorials with their own articles. Let's leave the descriptions and citations for memorials without articles of their own. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with 1000 cites or discriptions. If we really want to shorten the page I suggest spinning out the states with the longest lists as seperate pages. Put "Main: List of Confederate monummets and memorials in State X" and a couple lines that summarize the material. Like there are 15 schools, 57 statutues and three roads in State X. °Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I’m the only one who has actually done anything about shortening, by removing, not without some resistance, the material on former monuments, moving it over to the Removal article.
It’s not clear to me just what the problem is. It’s “way too long”? Says who? Where is the line between “long”, “too long”, and “way too long”? And what is the problem that its length presents? That it takes too long to load or save? That we have to be thinking of those with slow Internet connections? That it’s too big a load on the servers?
If you remove material for monuments that have their own article, then this article will in consequence be full primarily of information about the less important monuments. I don’t think that would leave a good article.
If it has to be shortened, then I’d be in favor of splitting it into states. But I don’t have a problem with it as it is. deisenbe (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am also fine with how it is, but if enough editors insist on shortening then I suggest spinning out larger states, but not all states. Washington State for example does not need its own page. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere (it may be in the Help:MOS) it is recommended that the maximum article length is 100,000 bytes. Obviously 500,000 is a lot larger. I agree shortening is a problem. I would focus this article on statues and monuments and separate roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc. into there own articles. -- User-duck (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That is just a guide and this is a special case. I do not not favor spitting off non-statues. "Functional memorials" became a big thing when money is tight - name a school, road, park etc instead of spending moey on a statue. Spinning out states would be the way to go, starting with the ones with the largest number of items. But it's not needed. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like having the states together. I agree lists are "special cases" but a list this large should be considered for splitting. Spinning off memorials (roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc.) into a separate article may be the way to go; renaming this article to "List of Confederate monuments and monuments". This may be close to a 50/50 split -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I like the concept of "former" monuments and memorials being a separate article. Has moving the items been completed? -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it’s completed. Not as simple a process as I thought it would be (conflicting information I had to resolve, in some cases). deisenbe (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly Studies?

RE the examples given concerning courthouse monuments. According to Robert Seigler's "Guide to Confederate Monuments in South Carolina" (SC Department of Archives and History, 1997) which gives a detailed description of every monument in the state, only a few were ever originally erected on courthouse grounds. Battlefield monuments only began to appear in the 1960s (Gettysburg, 1963). The majority of private monuments were emplaced either in cemeteries or on main streets in downtown areas. The advent of the automobile and changing traffic patterns saw the removal of monuments to courthouses, since they had the only open green spaces left in downtown areas by the mid-twentieth century. The whole idea that monuments were emplaced to loom over the freedmen to remind them of the superiority of white justice is historically wrong.184.20.96.249 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Battlefield monuments were around long before the 1960s. For example the Stephen D. Lee monument (erected June 1909) or the Mississippi Memorial (dedicated on November 13, 1909) at Vicksburg National Military Park. Mojoworker (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Splitting

I am undoing the splitting done today by @Pigsonthewing. It should be discussed here first. deisenbe (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Another way of doing it is to collapse text into clickable boxes. deisenbe (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that would not fix the problem (in fact, it would make it worse, by increasing the page size further). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no requirement to discuss edits before making them. Do you have a valid reason for reverting (albeit ham-fistedly) my edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I liked seeing the content forked. Perhaps ideally all monuments would be on one page, but if can't come to a consensus about how to reduce the size of this page, then I believe we have no choice but to fork some content out to separate lists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
As Deisenbe has not replied (though they have been editing elsewhere), I have restored the changes. Further splits are still needed, to reduce the article to a more sensible size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

State by State is the only logical way as that is already how we have the data divided. A short summary with links to the state list and State section of the Removals Page. We don't need to spin out all the states only the biggest (Southern) ones until we get the page down to some target size. I don't want to see a separate page for Washington or Idaho. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your work here. These splits are imperfect (a few broken references, formatting needed, etc) but overall I think this is a very helpful step towards creating a collection of lists of monuments. Finally, the parent list is not completely overwhelming, and I think over time all of these lists will be improved so they can include more details and pictures. Long term, this having separate lists is better than having one list. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; my pleasure. I thought I'd caught all the broken refs, but a bot should mop up any remaining, shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Great. Thoughts on splitting Tennessee and Texas, too? Possibly Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutey. The page is still 374,157 bytes long, so several more sections need to be split. I was using "N public spaces" as a yardstick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever are the longest. I've been against splitting but the opportunity to enhance the new pages with mlre images and refs is compelling. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Yes, I agree. We should not see this as a setback, but rather as an opportunity to make each of these lists better. Multiple better lists > one less-than-ideal list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the target size? deisenbe (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Under 100,000 bytes? Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Two comments: 1) there's a big intro. Could that be made into a standalone article, or moved eslewhere? 2) Some of the entries seem unnecessarily detailed. For example:
  • Confederate Park. It opened in 1907 as Dignan Park, named for a former chairman of the city's Board of Public Works. In 1914, the park was chosen as the location of the annual reunion of the United Confederate Veterans. The UCV chose the park as the location for a new monument to honor the Women of the Southland, and five months after the reunion the city resnamed the park "Confederate Park."
That text is copied from Confederate Park (Jacksonville). Why not delete this duplicated or overlong text and have only minimal entries? Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

To Do

Reminder to fork out the following:

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ghaida adel 2000 /13 April She is from the greatest woman in this world. Ghaidaxx (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken references

I wish whoever extracted articles from this would correct the broken references that resulted. For example (not the only example), List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Virginia#References. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: (in the case of material I (and others) contributed which was moved to List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Mississippi), and Deisenbe (in this diff for example), plus whoever else did splitting from this article without following WP:CWW – as a result of these moves, I and other editors have lost the attribution we had for our copyrights to the material we added to this article which are now in other articles with the editors who performed the moves claiming the added material as their own. This has created multiple copyright violations which should be fixed ASAP. Some can be fixed in a straightforward manner (as I just did on this page and at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Mississippi), but I'm afraid some of this may be tedious to repair (with many, many notices needing to be added to the talk page header) and so guidance from the WP:COPYPROB noticeboard may be in order. If the material had not been moved piecemeal from this article to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials for example, it would be much easier to repair the attribution. Mojoworker (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

My memory is very imperfect, but all I remember is moving removed monuments from the List (I had nothing to do with the sublists or splitting, I argued unsuccessfully against it), to the Removed list, with a new source documenting the removal. deisenbe (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Deisenbe: I'll see if I can explain. In this diff for example, was the text you moved from this article (List of Confederate monuments and memorials) to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials text that you yourself had originally contributed to this article? If so, there's no problem. If not, the text: In 1986, the UDC, who oppose memorials to John Brown, erected at the entrance to the Jefferson County Courthouse a bronze plaque "in honor and memory of the Confederate soldiers of Jefferson County, who served in the War Between the States". The local newspaper, Spirit of Jefferson, and a group of local African Americans called for its removal would require attribution to the original Wikipedia editor who added it to this article, however, if one looks at the history in Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, your edit summary of that addition "Wisconsin: adding West Virginia" provides no attribution to its author or link to this article, so it currently appears that you came up with the wording and added that text to that article as your own copyrighted contribution to Wikipedia. Per WP:ATTREQ: Contributors to Wikipedia are not asked to surrender their copyright to the material they contribute. Instead, they are required to co-license their contributions under the copyleft licenses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Both of these licenses allow reuse and modification, but reserve the right to attribution. It's the missing link in the attribution "chain" from Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials to the original contribution in the article history here that is the problem. Mojoworker (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The text you quote I'm pretty sure (memory again) I wrote originally. No one else mentioned Spirit of Jefferson. But even if I did wrong, it's not practical for me to go back and trace the history of everything I added to that article.
In 5 years and over 30,000 edits I never heard of this policy. How was I supposed to know it existed? WP does not train on such things. It's not in WP The Missing Manual. WP does a pretty poor job of training new editors, at least in my experience.deisenbe (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mojoworker: You're making a very serious allegation, without any basis in reality. I suggest you retract, and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I'm not questioning anybody's GF, but from the final sentence of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright: If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. I'll ask at WP:COPYPROB to see if I've misinterpreted the requirements. But, I fixed the one case of WP:CWW concerning the majority of my contributions which had lost attribution. As to fixing the other instances, I'll leave that to other editors. Mojoworker (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any cases in which I have done this. If you know of any, let me know and I'll fix them. deisenbe (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I said nothing about you "questioning editors's good faith". I said that "You're making a very serious allegation, without any basis in reality". You've now done so again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Extreme negative bias

This section supports "Unbalanced" tag upon this article, which displays "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

The current article's introduction and main text, while supported by numerous references, is extremely and obviously biased. It is overtly or implicitly asserting that Confederate memorials are entirely evil, that they spring from evil impulses only, and that all should be removed from public spaces. This is not encyclopedic.

I don't mind that the "anti-memorial" side about Confederate memorials is presented, including that the public display of these monuments may have always been hurtful to some, and in recent years the perception and experience of many has changed. But it reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and it seems out of place and simply odd, that an "anti" side is wholly given, without any treatment of more straightforward reasons that were honestly the motivations of many monument-builders, and were honestly the understandings of most/many of the American citizens that have visited them. Namely, the simpler motivation of daughters and sons and so on to memorialize the deaths of their fathers, grandfathers, etc. Recognizing the war as tragic, or not. With or without judgment about the reasons for the American Civil War. Namely the recognition of the actual heroism of many, and of the military brilliance of Robert E. Lee, etc. As is generally understood for memorials constructed by survivors of all the other wars (see Category:Lists of war monuments and memorials).

Even if your own view is entirely "anti-memorial", and your sole reason for participating is to get the "anti-memorial" side across, you can't do that well if you don't present the explicitly positive side, which is an honest and genuine thing. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The type of scorn heaped on these monuments ("monuments to Jim Crow/white supremacy," etc) was never made when they were erected. It's a modern invention. Even African-Americans supported Confederate monuments back in the day. For proof it's a modern invention- check this article as it existed just a few years back and you won't see a thing about Jim Crow or white supremacy. From May 2017- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=781833332 -Topcat777 23:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In support of the link between Confederate monuments and white supremacy the article cites the Smithsonian Magazine, the American Historical Association, and five professors/researchers from very reputable institutions: the University of Chicago, University of North Carolina (two), and Villanova. If you are maintaining they are mistsken then you need to cite some reliable sources that support you.
Of course the "scorn" was never expressed when the monuments were erected, but that's irrelevant. Few were known outside their local community or at most the state. Locals who opposed them kept silent because of fear of lynching or other violence.
I agree that a sentence or two could be added saying that not every person had white supremacy on his/her mind as a motive in erecting these monuments. Propose language.
I hope you'll agree that many if not most of the monuments were pro-Confederacy.deisenbe (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"the article cites the Smithsonian Magazine [Dec 2018], the American Historical Association [Aug 2017], and five professors/researchers from very reputable institutions: the University of Chicago [Sept 2017], University of North Carolina (two) [Aug/Sept 2017], and Villanova [Aug 2017]." Like I said- it's a modern invention. Where are the articles that consistently say these things over the decades? -Topcat777 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Beware of false balance, something explicitly forbidden by the Neutral point of view policy:

Since no reliable sources have been brought forward and no alternative language has been proposed, I've removed the Biased template. deisenbe (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Since nothing has been changed or proposed I've removed the biased template again. If you feel the section is unbalanced then change it using reliable sources. deisenbe (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Until that is done, don't we need to show that it is unbalanced? -Topcat777 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Why the excessive quoting from people and organizations (Smithsonian, AHA, Dailey, Cox, Leloudis, Giesberg, etc) that say basically the same thing over and over? Shouldn't that be trimmed a bit? -Topcat777 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Bias in the section about the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue in Nashville, TN

The section about private monuments in Tennessee shows a significant bias against the Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue. It only mentions anti statue viewpoints and presents a lot of the poster's personal opinion. I suggest that this section be edited to a more neutral viewpoint.

Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue, made of fiberglass over foam, 25 feet high, on private land[373] near Interstate 65, installed in 1998, built with private money. It is surrounded by Confederate battle flags, constituting what the owner calls "Confederate Flag Park." (No government recognizes it as a park, and the entrance is chained shut with a "No Trespassing" sign.) The giant statue is visible from the highway to anyone entering the city from the south.[374] It has been called "hideous"[374] and "ridiculous."[375] There have been numerous calls for its removal. Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam said: "It's not a statue that I like and [ sic ] that most Tennesseans are proud of in any way."[376] Former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry called the statue "an offensive display of hatred."[376] In 2015, Nashville's Metro Council voted to petition the Tennessee Department of Transportation to plant obscuring vegetation;[377] the Department declined, because it is private land.[374] ("Never mind that the T.D.O.T. itself removed the obscuring vegetation back in 1998, when the statue was first erected."[374][376]) There has been occasional vandalism; in December 2017 it was covered in "pussy-hat pink" paint,[374] which Bill Dorris, current owner of the land, says he intends to leave.[378] He also said that if trees are planted to block the view from I-65, he "would make the statue taller."[373] It was sculpted, at no charge, by notorious racist Jack Kershaw, an attorney for Martin Luther King's murderer, famous for having said "Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery."[379][380]

--Silvarado98 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, those are what the sources say, not the opinions of posters here. And trying to achieve an even balance of "pro and anti" views is WP:FALSEBALANCE; balance means reflecting what the sources say in a balanced fashion. So if no mainstream sources are saying good things about the statue, it's correct for our article to reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Was a vandal. He's been blocked. Deletion request removed. Normal Op (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_monuments_and_memorials/Archive_13&oldid=1184915357"