Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Texas has removed the most monuments"

In the three years since the Charleston shooting Texas has removed the most monuments.

This has been added and reverted several times. I would consider it to be an appropriate statement which is directly supported by the source. Are there any specific concerns with this content? –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I explained the reasons when I reverted it twice already and when the editor warned me on my talk page. The statement does not give enough information or context to be useful in the article. "removed the most monuments" okay... why is it consider the most? what is Texas being compared to? Are there any numbers to validate this statement? The response was: "oh, they should click on the reference." No, references are not supposed to be "click here to find out why," the editor should put in the effort of putting that information in the statement so users do not have to visit the reference, except only to validate that the statement is real. The statement in itself is lazy and has no context; the editor should make the effort explain more or just leave it out. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I fixed it just now by adding the requested context (numbers, etc). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fluous (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We done here then, thanks. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Louisiana - New Orleans

The sentence "The Battle of Liberty Place Monument will remain in storage, although some white supremacist groups or individuals would no doubt be glad to have it.[124]" is a statement of opinion, and in no way supported by the cited source, and should be removed, altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.225.85 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The reference does not mention this; wiki editors should refrain from adding any color on what should be a neutral article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy, history and unrelated people

@Deisenbe: I realize this article is your baby by the sheer amount of edits you have done, but it seems you have a desire to pad it as well. I have recently removed some redundancy and events that happened before or during the American Civil War. I would like to remind that this is supposed to be a list, not something that is much more than that. It has parameters too: nothing before 1865, only people that served in the Confederacy, and removals/renaming because of controversy (basically was their a protest or rational given).

I am also annoyed by a bit of repetitiveness, because there really should not be any. One I left on the page was "Laws hindering removals," which duplicates again in the "North Carolina" and "Tennessee" sections; one of these needs to be removed. The goal should be a list that doesn't muddle or stray off course. Please use better judgment in future edits. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your points are well taken and I will try to do better. It would have been nice if there was anything I did you could have appreciation for. I appreciate what you're doing. deisenbe (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You do a lot of research and consistently update the list, which I do appreciate. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean anything pre-1865 is by definition not Confederate? I can see that for 1861. What is the rationale for your cut-off date? In 1862 there was a Confederacy, so there could, at least in theory, be Confederate monuments. deisenbe (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The reasoning is that during a war, building Confederate monuments would be the last thing they would prioritize with limited resources; which is why none exist. Places that were named after Southern statesmen (some of which did join the Confederacy) were not named because they honored them as a Confederate, but as a American. Thus 1865 would be the earliest in my opinion, though most monuments and memorials didn't churn out till after Reconstruction. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing the Point

The vast majority of confederate monuments are county memorials to local units (the ones that stand today in on courthouse lawns but which originally stood elsewhere, usually on main streets). They were funded by subscription, sometimes over decades, by women's groups, either local memorial associations or the Daughters in combination with Confederate veterans organizations. Since this was the era of the "lost cause" mythos, little or no mention was made of the institution of slavery or of the causes or justification of the confederate cause on the monuments themselves. They extoll the military and civic virtue of the men who answered the call to duty and fulfilled it. They were after all the husbands and sons of the women who erected the monuments and this was after all the great flowering of the age of romanticism. This is the fact which every single writer and activist forgets in this current debate. The monuments as some kind of civic symbol of white supremacy lording over the black community is more akin to Josef Goebbels than to Sir Walter Scott, and is one which a 19th century American would not even recognize. Loading a debate all one way is no way to gain any understanding of any subject. "First remove the beam from thine own eye." 184.20.96.249 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to make changes if the list page does not provide enough balance. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the Talk Page Guidelines, this post is inappropriate. The talk page is for discussion of the article, not the issues. deisenbe (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Only two of the people quoted in "Academic Commentary" in favor of retaining the statues are academics

James I. Robertson Jr. and Cheryl Benard. Robert K. Krick, Frank McKenney and Katrina Dunn Johnson are not. They should probably either not be there or the section renamed. All of the pro-removal people seem OK except Robert Seigler, whom I can't find anything about. Even though the section mostly focuses on pro-removal opinions, I think it still doesn't represent academic opinion strongly enough. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

edit history

I moved the warning template on the article page here. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to be fixed and yelling it at the beginning of article confuses readers and accomplishes little if anything. I'd be happy if the broken references got fixed. deisenbe (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: National Statuary Hall Collection

• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-push-remove-confederate-statues-us-capitol-george/story?id=71140758

---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 List Purge

I would like to remind all editors that the list is for what transpired after the Charleston church shooting, on June 17th, 2015, to the present; any Confederate monuments and memorials removed prior to that date do not belong on this list. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Washuotaku, why? Is that a magical date? Are you saying that no one could have come to their senses and removed Confederate monuments prior to 2015? Normal Op (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op Second paragraph: "In the wake of the Charleston church shooting in June 2015, several municipalities in the United States removed monuments and memorials on public property dedicated to the Confederate States of America. The momentum accelerated in August 2017 after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and in May 2020 after the killing of George Floyd. The removals were driven by the belief that the monuments glorify white supremacy and memorialize a treasonous government whose founding principle was the perpetuation and expansion of slavery."

This Removal page should be the alter-ego of List of Confederate monuments and memorials (and any and all of its subpages). Anything that was on the List Of page, that has been removed in real life, should be able to reside on this Removal page. Normal Op (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a catch-all list and in the past their have been attempts to broaden the scope to other people and organizations who's monuments/memorials were removed, this is not that list. If someone wants to create a list of every monument/memorial that has been removed in the United States, have at it; but this list page is focused on the continuing events that was triggered since June 17th, 2015. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This list was never intended to prohibit inclusion of pre-2015 removals. Including them helps the readers. deisenbe (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Deisenbe, I agree with your take on the page/list. Normal Op (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, at the moment it is two vs. one, so how do you all propose we handle those that have been removed prior? Here are my thoughts:

1. Add a separate section that lists all that came prior.
2. Revert most my previous edits and flag them in some way.
3. Revert most my previous edits and re-write the article to make it more inclusive.
4. Do nothing.

I hope other editors will also chime in with their proposals too. I'm not trying to be difficult, just going with the current intent of the article and want to make sure people keep to that focus (note - I say most and not all because some things that was removed didn't fit at all like the word "Dixie" or a song). --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Objection and request to revert

I object to the purge of 21 items by Washuotaku and I think they should be added back in. No, they don't need a new section. No, the page wasn't all about 2015. That a 2015 event was mentioned in the lede does not mean it was part of the criteria for inclusion in the list. It appears to me that this list is a partner list to List of Confederate monuments and memorials, and is the landing place for things removed from that list. I will be happy to clarify inclusion criteria in the lede. Normal Op (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Since many of the removals were done in section headings, and few edits have happened since then, it is possible that most of them can be reverted with the UNDO button. Normal Op (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are the recent removals:

1. Brazil: Completely removed Brazil as events happened prior to 2015.
2. Washington (state): Removed Blaine/J.D. Highway, Vancouver/J.D. Highway, and Seattle/Robert E. Lee Tree as all events happen prior to 2015.
3. Virginia: Removed Staunton/Robert E. Lee H.S. as it is poorly sourced and gives no actual dates when this happened (link provided is broken).
4. Virginia: Removed Lexington/City Council 2011 ban and Lexington/Lee Chapel Flags, as both events happened prior to 2015.
5. Virginia: Removed Front Royal/John Mosby Academy because it closed in 1969, outside scope of article.
6. Virginia: Removed Statewide/Confederate History Month as it was last celebrated in 2000.
7. Vermont: Removed Brattleboro/Brattleboro Union H.S. as event happened prior to 2015.
8. Utah: Completely removed Utah/St. George as the statue was removed prior to 2015.
9. Texas: Removed Houston/Westbury as the change happen prior to 2015.
10. Texas: Removed Austin/Texas Confederate Museum and Auustin/Johnston H.S. as both events happen prior to 2015.
11. Tennessee: Removed Murfreesboro/Image of Nathan Forrest and Sewanee/Confederate Flags removed as both events happen prior to 2015.
12. North Carolina: Removed Reidsville as event happened prior to 2015.
13. North Carolina: Removed Raleigh/Confederate Flag as event happened prior to 2015.
14. Nevada: Completely removed Nevada/Paradise/UNLV because event happened before 2015.
15. Mississippi: Removed "Several city and county govs... state flag" because it's not an actual flag change or anything, just a refusal; it's very general and does not add to this list. Removed Oxford/Univ. of Mississippi playing "Dixie," which is not related to the Confederacy, but states below the Mason-Dixon line.
16. Louisiana: Removed "Renaming of public schools" because all happened prior to 2015.
17. Georgia: Removed Athens/University of Georgia word "Dixie" because it is considered offensive, it is not related to the Confederacy.
18. Florida: Removed Jacksonville/Nathan Bedford Forrest HS, Tallahassee/Stainless Banner, and West Palm Beach/Jefferson Davis M.S.; all events happened before 2015 shooting (this is a list that happened after the event, not a repository of all former memorials).
19. California: Removed Quartz Hill High School - Events happened before 2015.
20. Arkansas: Removed Harrison/Jubilation T. Cornpone - Was removed before 2015, should not be on this list (it is not a list of every removal, just those after 2015 shooting event).
21. California: Removed San Rafael/Dixie School District - Not related to the Confederacy as it is possibly named after a person; even if it wasn't, the term Dixie refers to states below the Mason-Dixon line and not the Confederacy.

Update: I reworked the lede. Now I'm going to revert the 21 removals. Normal Op (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done All done. I put back the 21 items. The lede should now be more clear about the inclusion criteria. Note that the article is not actually a "list", but contains a list. It is an article in its own right. Normal Op (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you chosen option three. I have taken back off two of the items on the list as they are not connected to the Confederacy. Beyond that I will stand down since we are re-wording it to a more past and more speed-up present situation regarding the monuments and memorials. I do request to please keep it impartial as best as possible, this is a touchy subject and we do not want Wikipedia appear biased to any one side. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The word "Dixie" and the University of Georgia entry in this article

Re the removal of the content (twice) by Washuotaku:

The University of Georgia dropped the word "Dixie" from the name of its Redcoat Marching Band in 1971, and stopped playing the song, after some students said it was offensive.

with an edit summary of "The term Dixie is not connected to the Confederacy as it is a term used to describe the southern stations [(sic) states?] below the Mason-Dixon line, still used today".

Your point of view, Washuotaku, about the word "Dixie" is uncommon. Despite your objection that the word "Dixie" doesn't mean Confederate, it did in 1861, it still did in 1971, and it still does today for the majority of the United States. In the case of the University of Georgia, the content (that you twice deleted) is referring to the song titled Dixie which was adopted as a de facto national anthem of the Confederacy. As such, along with the fact that the song was dropped by the school because students objected to it and found it offensive, places this entry FIRMLY into the realm of a removed Confederate memorial. As such, it belongs in this article. Please read Dixie (song) for further information about how the song originated (blackface), how it became attached to the Confederacy (inauguration of Jefferson Davis), and how its use in schools has been challenged as racist. Normal Op (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The song was adopted by the South, as it was popular, but is not glorifying the Confederacy in any way. Also, it is not a "monument or memorial," it is a song. There needs to be a dividing line and again this is a not a dump of all things related, it is only specifically towards monuments and memorials of the Confederacy. In short, I could not disagree with you more. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Dixie School District, San Raphael, California

Re the removal of the content (twice) by Washuotaku:

San Rafael

• Dixie School District (1863). After a 22-year battle, bringing to light racism and anti-Semitism in Marin County, the Dixie School District voted in 2019 to change its name to Miller Creek Elementary School District. Some believe the district was named after Native American Mary Dixie, "Dixie" being a surname of the Miwok Indian tribe of California.

with an edit summary of "The term 'Dixie' is not connected to the Confederacy, also word possibly was a person's last name in this".

Washuotaku, I read the articles/citations; you should, too. Regardless of anyone's point of view about the word "Dixie" today, THIS decision to rename a school was based on a 22-year long legal battle by people who felt that the name of the school was racist, and even the historians couldn't prove it either way. To settle the growing divisiveness, they renamed the school. It is not our job as editors in Wikipedia to interpret which side of a legal battle had the better historians, or who should have prevailed in court, but we're here simply to record what transpired. And the facts in this case support that the REMOVAL of the name from the school was because the word was sufficiently tied to the Confederacy. Whether it was, or was not, is not our call to make. The content should remain in this article. (I do, however, recommend rewording it.) Normal Op (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because the term "Dixie" is considered racist does not mean it relates at all to the Confederacy. Again, Dixie is a word to itself and has no place on this list. --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

2015-2020 - several decades?

Hi, how comes the opening of the page says the removal is going on for several decades, while the chapter about the history starts from 2015?--Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a debate I'm having with a few editors here, is this list all inclusive or do we start at 2015. Right now I've been overruled and that it is all inclusive list of Confederate removal/relocation, but the article is long and not all of it sings the same tune, so that happened. You are welcome to share your thoughts on how the article should operate too, should it start at a point in time or expand? --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more of the conversation is here [1]; basically that the "List of Confed..." page was created in 2010 as a counterpart to the "List of Union..." page. Per edit histories, this Removal-article was started in August 2017 as a split from List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America (started March 2010, now called List of Confederate monuments and memorials) and Unite the Right rally (started August 2017). So "2015" was never a line in the sand. I would vote that ANY removal of a Confed memorial (removed because it was a Confed icon) would be fair game to include on this page. Normal Op (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Treasonous" and removal of "heroes"

I have reinserted and sourced the word "treasonous," inserted by Deisenbe - the Confederacy was, by definition, treasonous. That no Confederate was tried for treason is not relevant; we are not charging anyone with a crime and BLP does not apply here - rather, sources do. The objection was made by Washuotaku that "treason" was some sort of modern invention - a source from 1861 neatly defeats that. The Confederacy was, is, and always will be treasonous. Moreover, the word is used in context to explain why people support removing monuments and memorials to the Confederacy - to wit, that they believe an unrecognized, treasonous government whose founding principle was the perpetuation of slavery is unworthy of glorification through triumphal memorials. That Washuotaku may believe the Confederacy was not treasonous is irrelevant - many people do, including U.S. Army General Mark Milley, and they specifically cite treason as a reason to remove memorialization of Confederates in America. The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution. Those officers turned their back on their oath - Gen. Mark Milley.

I have also changed the word "Confederate heroes" to "Confederate generals" - the word "heroes" there was not sourced and is dubious... whether or not Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood were "heroes," even to the Confederacy, is questionable at best - both are remembered as some of the worst generals of the war. I don't think we'd describe John Pope as a Union "hero" either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I still believe the word "treason" should be left out of this article because it is a known word that provokes/offends people that disagree and the article should strive to be neutral (not picking sides), like with all articles on Wikipedia. The Confederate States of America explains well about the word treason in its article, so I do not feel we need to say these monuments are of treasonous people because it sounds like your picking a fight.

As for heroes to generals, I don't see a problem with this because again we should be neutral. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Why have events prior to 2015 been removed?

the article clearly states this is an ongoing progress since the sixties.103.131.193.6 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral terms

Why insist on using "incidents" to describe killings? Why link to the UTR rally, and not the killing that made it notorious? Why is it non-neutral to describe the statues removed outside the US as "associated with racism"? Whether one believes they're statues of racists or not, they're definitely associated with racism. Konli17 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

128 photosof Confederate monuments removed or bring removed

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2017/08/16/confederate-monuments-lose-standing-across-the-us/104666262/

deisenbe (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristina Dunn Johnson

I removed this entry because it's attributed to a primary source, and is blatant Lost Cause propaganda. I suspect somebody snuck it in for POV-pushing purposes. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As a reminder, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral party in only providing information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. There isn't anything abhorrently wrong with having a different viewpoint, matter of fact the more the merrier. But we should let others chime in their opinion too before deciding if we add back or keep off. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely how wikipedia works. You are conflating neutrality with false balance. Neutrality doesn't mean we need the opinions of fringe WP:Lunatic Charlatans. The lost cause myth is an ahistorical revisionist nonsense, wholy rejected by science. The academic consensus is that confederate monuments were built by white supremacists as a show of force and intimidation and as such, that is what wikipedia will treat as the fact of the matter. We don't put opinions from flat earthers on the article on Earth, we don't put opinions of creationists on the article on the Theory of Evolution, we don't put opinions of antivaxxers on any articles on vaccines, we don't put the opinions of holocaust deniers on articles on the Holocaust, we don't put opinions of climate deniers on the article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and in the case of Kristina Dunn Johnson, we don't put lost cause revisionism on ANY article that has to do with the Confederacy, under the guise of "a different viewpoint".

Furthermore, a quick google search for the name of Kristina Dunn Johnson, only turns up websites selling this particular book - a book that seems to be popular exclusively with fans of other pro-confederate propaganda. Furthermore, the citation referencing her was a primary source, namely a link to the book itself on Google Books, rather than any relevant academic publication. There are zero reliable sources talking about her as far as I can tell, which means her inclusion could even have been self promotion, rather than simple POV pushing. This was the most flagrant example. There are two more "different viewpoints", that I'm still undecided on, but they don't appear to be up to standard either. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Science has nothing to do with this list, this is strictly ideology and societal matters, so opinion matters. Also, sourcing from Google books is fine, they are publications which are used in Wikipedia too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing Google books is fine of they are RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES. Kristina Dunn Johnson's book is a PRIMARY source (1), is WP:FRINGE (2), and isn't referenced by any secondary sources, so it's not WP:DUE.

From the linked site policy: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." These are the rules. We stick by them. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)