Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

SPLC graph caption changes

Someone keeps adding that the major spike in Confederate memorials and monuments coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversary of the Civil War. I reverted it,[1] but I noticed that this has happened before, should this be discussed again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The statement about the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the CW is from the SPLC article.-Topcat777 13:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I not arguing for or against it. It was already discussed before and no consensus was reached on including that part in the caption. Frankly, I'm tired of all the energy wasted on that graph. I almost wish the entire graph was deleted, just to stop all the squabbles over it. Anyway, please layout your arguments and hope consensus can be established, this time, so we can move past this graph. I'm not the one you have to convince and what I suggested for the graph was rejected so best of luck. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the 50th anniversary of the CW was in the caption when the RFC started (12 September)- https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials#RFC:_Graph_of_Monument_Construction (scroll down to graph) -and VolMarek removed it 21 September. -Topcat777 15:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So what? That doesn't mean there is consensus to include it. You're right that the SPLC report mentions this, but it's also very clearly not the primary explanation for the spikes in monument building, per both the SPLC report and numerous other RS. I supported adding the anniversaries to the graph during the rfc - when the Jim Crow and Civil Rights labels were there - but would oppose doing so now that they are gone, and oppose adding it to the caption as well. This is just another attempt to dilute/distract from the SPLC report's primary conclusion, and the primary point that the graph makes - which, again is uncobtroversial and exceedingly well documented in numerous high quality RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on Image History Section

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.

---

I note the above page after page concern on the image neutrality and think a tag may have gone in and been reverted, so per guidance of Template:POV I am tagging the image section and putting in this section to discuss. Please leave the tag while discussion of addressing the topic is resolved, per that guidance. For background:

1 - The image file information states it to be the creation of editor Volunteer Marek. This editor apparently used the data from elsewhere, deleted their labels, and inserted labels "Jim Crow Era" and "Civil Rights Era" to paraphrase the writing.

2 - Image cites and discussion text link it to the Southern Poverty Law Center list in Whose Heritage? publication (pdf). Their image of conclusion 4 was apparently picked up by others. (Image shown here or here).

3 - WP:NPOV issues stated for the image include WP:BALASP that this gives excessive prominence to a crafted diagram or single SPLC publication disproportionate to a 'List of' article and especially drawing from recent events in the news (i.e. significantly Trump-bashing and Post-Charlottesville); WP:BALANCE fails to provide additional viewpoints on the topic; WP:WEIGHT that the proportion given to this exceeds prominence among the viewpoints on article topic; and finally that as the data source and interpretation is an advocacy group it should be regarded as WP:BIASED source that may need in-text attribution but the image note does not indicate the data source.

4 - Related to NPOV is that data is inappropriate or WP:OFFTOPIC as it is not about this article's list 'monuments and memorials'. It differs in broad areas of both excluding the 'memorials' in 'List of monuments and memrials' article topic and that it is mostly a count of 'Other' shown in blue (which largely creates the impressive spike visual) and schools in grey that do not fit within the article topic.

For addressing this I will propose initial steps of replacing the made-up diagram with the actual SPLC image, and putting SPLC attribution below the image. In addition I suggest the additional caueations mentioned be put in according to due weight and the group agree upon whether to word it as 'additional motives' (increasing teh effect) or 'also cited as cause' (indicating alternative explanation) or 'various motivations' (indicating individual caases apply). Please discuss below, cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion User:Markbassett. You should not have placed a tag on the image because your information is partially incorrect.

1. The underlying data used as noted on the image, is SPLC data which is further clearly sourced by them. User:Volunteer Marek indeed created the image because the SPLC version is not free use. The labels are reflective of the source (and MANY other sources listed here).

3. The single largest source for the contents of this page is the SLPC report the image is also found in. That is not undue. The data predates recent events. We already established that there is no BIAS problem with SPLC data. The image does show the data source clearly.

4. Markbassett incorrectly reads the graphic. It includes a selection of items that SPLC was able to date. We also have not managed to date everything, but there is no indication that their sample is not reflective of the dating off all items. Both the SPLC data and this page reflect both monuments and memorials and schools. Most of the data here is from the SPLC report.

No one has provided ANY sources for "alternative explanations" or "motivations" because the closer you get to what was said at the dedications and the rationals of those who erected these monuments the more blatantly racist the justifications given. "And on June 2, 1913, Silent Sam was dedicated on commencement day with speeches from then Gov. Locke Craig and Confederate Civil War veteran Julian Carr. Carr praised the Confederate Army as the saviors “of the Anglo Saxon race in the South” and recalled “horse-whipp[ing] a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds” for offending a Caucasian woman on Franklin Street." Let's avoid white washing here please. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

This is from Gov. Craig's speech at the dedication ceremony of the "Silent Sam" monument (UNC, Charlotte, NC): "Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people." (Charlotte Observer, June 3, 1913). Sound racist? I've read this entire June 3 article on the dedication ceremonies and there is nothing racist in it. Whatever Julian Carr said he is not quoted in the article..-Topcat777 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Topcat777 very nice you found a 1913 article but if you are disputing that Julian Carr (industrialist) bragged of horsewhipping a negro women, there are plenty of sources that disagree. Legacypac (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User generated ad hoc tag removed. Please join existing discussions. The graph had been covered widely enough by secondary sources that it, in my opinion, passes the "sniff test". We can refine it, but with the RFC and other stuff, it's gonna take time. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir Per your removal note over it being a nonstandard marker on image, I am willing and will put a standard marker onto the section, with notices to WP:NPOVN and to the originator of the diagram Volunteer Marek. Now kindly adhere to the guidelines of and leave it there until the process proceeds towards the means to improve NPOV are introduced and addressed in some fashion that satisfies the majority of the complaining side and convinces new and previously uninvolved editors. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

collapse offtopic content not proposing edits to narrow or mitigate POV dispute

À section tag would be better IMHO. Having it in the caption frankly seems like an attempt to throw enough at it until it topples (RFC, disclaimer statements, edited versions, and tags). Having a section tag would let the reader know there is a dispute without aiming directly at the image. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Which section is gonna get tagged though? Also the "guidelines of Template:POV" are not actually guidelines - it's just something somebody added to the language of the template. They're not guidelines in the same way as WP:MOS or WP:RS are guidelines. In other words it can be more or less ignored. The actual relevant guideline is WP:NPOV itself which states that the tag needs to be sufficiently justified. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Also this: "that satisfies the majority of the complaining side and convinces new and previously uninvolved editors. " is also not Wikipedia policy or guideline or even practice. The satisfaction of "the majority" doesn't matter. Because, you know, it's easy to get a bunch of sketchy accounts together who are willing to completely disregard actual policy and guidelines and have them brigade an RfC or something (the fact that this is SOP on other fora, like Reddit, and the fact that people think they can get away with the same tactic here is part of the problem). That's not how consensus works. Only arguments which are policy based count, not somebody's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT feelings. Volunteer Marek  04:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek] The History section has been tagged per voiced issue with trying to tag just the image. Now kindly follow the text at TEMPLATE POV in handling the tagging, and propose actions or movement that heads towards WP:CONSENSUS, which yes is going to mean suggesting ways that address POV complaints recently voiced and that new readers would also not find POV. Propose changes to the article that you would also accept and think going to reduce the concerns and dispute. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I can see that you've tagged it. I have also already responded to your "objections", right above. Can you please address my response rather than giving us this boiler-plate substance-free generic statements? Because that looks to me like "I'm just gonna keep the POV tag in place until I get my way or as a badge of shame" kind of obfuscation. Volunteer Marek  05:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek -- Having both objected-to material and a tag saying that is not desired as a permanent situation. WP:TALK is to discuss proposed changes, and for this thread to either propose changes to article content that you feel would move towards NPOV WP:CONSENSUS or discuss which proposed changes mentioned are preferred/acceptable. Changes that get to WP:CONSENSUS, i.e. not having the current situation of a large percentage of editors view things as POV, would fulfill the TEMPLATE POV When to remove. Please make efforts to accommodate the concerns of others. Thank you for any proposed changes or acceptance remarks on any proposed within this thread. Markbassett (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, we all know what the talk page is for, we all know about consensus. Now, can you actually make a constructive contribution to the conversation rather than writing up these substance-free comments which don't advance the discussion in any way? You're suppose to justify the NPOV tag. Saying "I object" and then some weaselly language which doesn't actually say anything is not sufficient. Volunteer Marek  15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: I both agree and yet strongly disagree. Definitely disagree that no one has provided other any other sources, since I have couple of times. Do not know how many times I must say that both SPLC and Karen Cox listed as ref's on this chart gives another motivation. SPLC actually gives two others, historical as well as anniversary. John Winberry gives 4 main reasons. I will give another, one is to honor confederate women, and sorry but no honor of females (true heroes imho) has nothing to do with racial tension, it is sex. 1) Agree that it is data from SPLC which is clearly sourced and also agree that labels are reflective of many sources including SPLC own article this graph comes from. However you seem to have missed the heart of the issue, it is paraphrasing / editorializing only one part of their conclusion. Selectively choosing which reasoning of the given two listed reasons to label from the sourced SPLC. Nor is that the only source to provide other reasons, the other listed source from Karen Cox mentions it as well, among others such as one provided in Distrubtion section of this article. 3) When have we established that the data is not biased? I would agree that decent portion of the data is not, but I have mentioned some irregaliteries (sp?) above with the data in choosing partial (~850 of its remaining ~1500 symbols) from its list. This in no way states it is biased, but neither does it establish it isn't. The bigger issue is that the source itself is biased, I still feel that SPLC attemtped and mostly succeeded in comprising the data, but that is my opinion and still does not negate that it is a biased source. It also does not address "the data source and interpretation is an advocacy group it should be regarded as WP:BIASED source that may need in-text attribution". Several attempts have been made to address this but they keep getting reverted. Which leads to biggest issue of Weight, especially with my statement in #1 above. As to balancing aspects, yes decent amount is still from SPLC data but I think it has moved on since than, which is good thing as any wiki article should not be mostly from one source. 4) I think you mis-interpreted Markbassett on this. It appears that you think this was in regards to the remaining ~650 from its 1500 list not being used. However I believe Markbasset was referring to the ~2600 that SPLC discluded due to historical nature, which does not best represent the list here that does include such symbols. This imho can be easily addressed by clearly noting this in the caption though or maybe in History section of the article itself. (again attempts to do this have been reverted). Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC) " it is paraphrasing / editorializing only one part of their conclusion. Selectively choosing which reasoning of the given two listed reasons to label from the sourced SPLC." - no it is not. This claim is completely false. There's one conclusion - the association between monument building and Jim Crow/Civil Rights era. That is their conclusion. There's nothing "selectively about it", the whole freakin' report is about this. That's why it's called, wait for it, wait for it,... "Whose Heritage". Yes it does mention ONCE, and IN PASSING, that the monument building COINCIDED with the centennials. But that is not a conclusion and it is dishonest to portray the source as claiming this. "but I have mentioned some irregaliteries (sp?) above with the data in choosing partial (~850 of its remaining ~1500 symbols) from its list" - this, as well as your comments about the data "being biased" is original research as has been repeatedly pointed out. You don't like the inclusion criteria. Ok. So what? Find a different source with different inclusion criteria. Your own personal opinions are irrelevant. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC) How can you say it is not editorializing when you pick one of three given reasons from one source and one of two reasons from the other source. To only include 'white supremacy' out of 'historical' and 'anniversary' is exactly that, editorializing and giving undue weight to only one of several reasons, thereby making it NOT neutral. ESPECIALLY when SPLC even gives two reasons in their Conclusion of the chart. Of course they mention it in passing, that is their attempt to be credible while trying to down play. Hench the NPOV tag. Stop reverting the NPOV tag. Yes both the section and chart has been disputed, by me and others. There is even a topic on this talk page called " Article violates WP:NPOV". You keep talking about historians, like they deserve undue weight, yet per wiki policy this is simply not true. Historians are only one small part btw, nor should it be only about the sources you provided when there are several others cited even on the article page. Jill Ogline Titus (associate director of Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College) states "most stand on ground that is distinctly historical in nature" MOST, but you only want to hilight the minority of symbols. Talk about being dishonest, especially when SPLC even states this from the source of chart itself. Jill also states "multifaceted motivations" as well as "honor their ancestors and the cause for which they fought" which can all be seen here. Yes a big part of that motivation for Civil War was slavery and yes this means that part of monuments are done for white supremacy, but this does not mean that is the only reason. John Daniel Davidson lists several reason including "Lost Cause, Historical (grief and remembrance)" as well as explaining why it took so long to start erecting lot of these here. Other monuments were even done due to 'Womens Suffrage' movement. Take note of when majority of CSA monuments to honor women were done. So no this is not making stuff up because I do not like it. (could care less what I like so long as it is neutral which means white supremacy MUST be mentioned but not only thing mentioned). But the absolute worst dishonesty is you are trying to ONLY portray minority opinion. Which gives undue weight plus makes it non-neutral. Again hence the NPOV tag and questioning about it not being neutral by several on this talk page. The majority of people simply do not believe this is true (they are wrong but that is irrelevant). Every poll I have ever seen reflects this and reflects that majority of people find these are Historical in nature and do NOT believe they offend people. NPR had Marist poll conducted recently see page 11 which clearly shows 62% of people do not find these offensive and do not think they are honor for white supremacy. Yet you insist on ONLY including what minority 27% believe. That is simply not keeping it neutral. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) What are you talking about? What is this "one of three reasons"? What source? What is "one of two reasons"? From the SPLC? Already explained - the fact that something is mentioned in passing as "coinciding" with the construction, in an article which is entirely about how the construction is a legacy of Jim Crow etc. is NOT "two reasons" except under a blatantly bad faithed reading of the source. And yes I keep talking about historians. Apparently according to you that's "UNDUE weight". Stop it. We use sources. You don't like that go somewhere else. I'm getting sick of this dishonest obfuscating and obscurantism. You haven't presented a single source. You're making up ridiculous excuses to reject solid, scholarly, reliable sources. Yours is the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Let me reiterate: first the completely bullshit argument was that "it's only SPLC, real historians disagree". Then when sources from actual real historians were provided it turned into "we can't use it because, um, um... um ... because it's in newspapers!" then it turned into "you're giving historians UNDUE weight!" Seriously, when will this crap stop? What are these "other sources"? Their existence has been asserted, yet none have been presented. You reference one which is completely irrelevant to ... well, anything here. And you know what's "absolute worst dishonesty"? Calling this well soured, academic research "minority opinion". Stop making shit up. Unless you can actually articulate a legitimate policy based reason, backed by sources, that there is POV in the section, the tag goes. I don't give a fig if it hurts somebody's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT feelings. Wikipedia isn't therapy for weird ass hangups. Volunteer Marek  02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Let me try to explain this again. Because you do not seem to be comprehending what I said. SPLC (source of chart) gave three reasons that symbols are done in honor to confederacy. Starting with 1) Historical - SPLC collected data and found majority (roughly 2/3) of them were of Historical nature. Any comprehensive study has found this out, just as any expert will readily say. Not even sure why I have to explain number one. After SPLC discounted all historical symbols, they came up with conclusion of 2) White Supremacy - nothing new since Civil War was in large part over slavery. Of course SPLC is going to stress this as it is an advocacy group originally founded to fight this (no it is not academic). Than they threw in 3) Anniversary dates - which was highly talked about and published during the time as well as since than for early 1900's memorials. One has to ask why SPLC even mentioned it, if it was not valid reason. Why did SPLC even bother mentioning if as you claim if it's not one of their given reasons, as it contradicts their agenda. Why not simply leave it out. Because even they had to admit it's one of the reasons. Actual academic studies and experts goes much further, seperating them at time periods over the entire history. Not purposely looking at two and trying to match it up with things that point to their agenda. Several cited sources on this page attest that many places wanted to erect them shortly after, but this was discouraged by leading people as well as by many confederate veterans. When veterans started to die off, places started erecting them, until big 1893 scare and following recession. After was the highly publicized 50th, along with end of reconstruction period. This is all well documented. I did not give that BS "it's only SPLC" so not sure why you are quoting it to me. I have always believed that slavery was big reason for the war so it is only natural for me to think that will carry over to some of the memorials. I have even stated this to you several times. Nor am I giving historians undue weight. The current historians opinion should be expressed, but that is not all of them, nor should they be the only thing talked about when the majority of people feel differently. Giving undue weight is what you are trying to do by only expressing one viewpoint from which does not make up the majority opinion. THIS is what I am talking about in regards to not abiding by wiki policy of NPOV. "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety" You have carefully analyzed one sides opinion, not a variety. You are attempting to give due weight to those sources that you have selected, which is fine. I have given other sources, besides the ones already cited on this article page. The fact that you want to dismiss those is not abiding by the "variety" part. "Editors should strive in good faith to provide complete information," Hmm yea not being done. "and not to promote one particular point of view over another." Again failed. "neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view" Guess you missed this part too. I have already shown that majority of people do not think this, yet you want to dismiss the majority opinion and go with decent sized minority. Where I want to include all points of view that bears due weight. Majority opinion should be expressed. This includes Historical, which practically all experts state is largest portion of memorials including SPLC and so should be given its due weight appropriately. I do not even recall historical nature even on the page, fails neutrality. Also fail Balancing Aspects "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable". As this list IS including all of those, which makes up majority of symbols, it should have the most Weight. Imho followed by White Supremacy and including Anniversaries. Others not so sure worth mentioning much, but there are several others. The rest of Balancing Aspects "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." You are wanting to do the exact opposite, by emphasizing all the current events spread around the news. Not even going to get into the Impartial Tone issue of neutrality policy. Will leave with imho the worst sentence that badly needs re-phrased, still included if can be done to meet Neutrality policy on many levels. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Confederate monument-building has often been part of widespread campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South, and assert white supremacy. Legacypac - POV tag is for the number of editors sharing a POV concern over that being a single source you state as dominating. I think in the recent RFC it was about 21 for deletion and 18 for keeping the image, and a few comments of concern; and further discussion in other TALK posts. Please provide suggestions to address the concerns voiced and move towards a consensus. If your remarks are indicating acceptability to you of alternative factors when identified with cites, and/or asking for quotes of a non-racial case to contrast to the one you showed, please clarify whichever as your proposal. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC) This is just getting silly. I am getting tired of seeing an editorialized caption on a reconstructed chart from SPLC and when anyone attempts to put this in more neutral tone to abide NPOV policy by using direct quotes from same sourced SPLC article and SPLC own conclusions, it gets removed. Worse is this has been a heated debate over this graph for some time know, yet any NPOV tag keeps getting removed from it, clearly not following wiki policy on how to resolve that dispute. It is put on there so that any user can see there is a debate about it and if so inclined can head here to Talk page. Without it no one would even have a clue there is this big debate over it. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC) I've added an inline tag to the caption as a compromise (though let me be explicit - this is pandering to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT obstructionism, and the tag does NOT actually belong in there). Please stop restoring the NPOV tag to the section unless you can articulate why there are neutrality problems with the section text. Volunteer Marek  17:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC) User:Volunteer Marek ? I see no alteration near the tag deletion. In any case, kindly adhere to the process described for which says it stays put and when to remove it. That is, let it alone until steps to improve NPOV are discussed and addressed in some fashion that achieves WP:CONSENSUS. Again I highlight that you should look for what satisfies others, in addition to yourself. It is desirable that you suggest steps that you prefer, or state which are acceptable to you, but your satisfaction alone is not sufficient to remove the tag. Please use this thread as intended -- discuss which proposed changes are desired/acceptable to you, and suggest additional alternative changes to the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) How about you kindly adhere to the actual policy as outlined in WP:NPOV and actually explain why the tag is being added. The tag itself is not policy and it does need to be removed when it's added for spurious reasons. You have not bothered to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way so far, just quoted irrelevant policies and lectured people. It's a simple freakin' question - what exactly is POV about the text? Your inability to answer it despite the fact it's been posed repeatedly evidences the fact that you're full of it and just trying to tag-shame the article because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  22:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note - section title belatedly altered to reflect tag was updated to be on the History section. Also collapsed lot of stuff above that was not discussing any article edits to narrow the area of dispute or mitigate dispute, the stated topic of a tag discussion thread. Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• From the guidelines on the usage of the {{NPOV}} template: "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." This means that you need to state which policies are currently being infringed by the content and what can be done about them, ideally referring to the specific text of the policies or criteria which is not being met by the content. When you add this tag you are basically saying to your editorial colleagues on the project, I have identified a specific problem and you are required to tell them what you need to be done in order for the tag to be removed. Typically you would add this tag if you have identified a piece of content, which infringes some specific neutrality policy but, you are unable, do not know how, or cannot be bothered to fix it yourself. It's a way of telling people to do work. You have to tell the people what work to do. Edaham (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaham - Not quite right. Note that part begins "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." An ongoing edit war over a single POV being given prominence and 21 folks in RFC being ignored plus a tag whacked suited as identifying "an issue". So I duly followed procedure to take it to TALK for proposing edits to help. Note that "explaining" is all it says, and "identifying issues".

The start of this thread and the NPOVN captures my summary (however well or badly done) of the "explanation" with the background, and stated NPOV issues involving the image of WP:BALASP, WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BIASED, along with my suggesting some specific edits to the article.

But -- this thread is for TALK to would discuss alternative edits or further POV concerns or whatever ... it's not stated *I* am "required to tell them what you need to be done in order for the tag to be removed" because it is not a matter of my dictating the measures or limiting TALK to my proposals or just my views of the POV issues. The label itself notes that ~other~ resolutions will do which the documentation says in more detail. Assuming of course that folks other than me actually discuss edits to the article to reduce or narrow the POV dispute. Certainly it would be desireable for you to suggest any ideas on what might make everyone semi-content as a resolution.

So far though, it's been a bollocks of the tag being edit-warred (repeatedly) and lack of alternative edit proposals or even understanding that consensus means most of the opposing side have to go for your proposal. Frankly the whole article has since run a bit amok and TALKing is about symbols and changing the title and scope substantially so things have fairly lost the plot. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett sure. Nice interpretation of the guideline. A practical application of it has taken around 10,000 words to affect zero kbs of change to the article, but at least you got to tell someone they aren't right. Luckily you aren't being paid and there's no deadline so it's quite acceptable to watch everyone's faces turn the color of one trying to suck an insufficiently greased pig through a garden hose pipe as they debate the proper usage of the tag as opposed to following concise instructions as to the means of its removal. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaham - sorry if you felt dissed by that, but had to point out that I already had put in what you were asking for, and the simpler goal here -- that the Tag thread is to discuss narrowing the pov dispute by WP:TALK and WP:CONSENSUS. Now I will ask you to please demonstrate good intent by actually walking your talk and voiced impatience by doing a bit to do so and talk about specific edits. Per Tag documentation and my own request, please either indicate which of the offered suggestions suits you, or contribute suggested edit idea(s) of your own. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what feeling "dissed" is. If it means inpatient, I don't feel impatient because I'm a Wikipedia editor which means I don't have feelings like impatience, as we don't have a deadline. I've read your explanations and requests at the top of this thread. Perhaps because of of the strangle hold you have on the English language, perhaps because of complexity of the argument you are putting forward, I don't fully grasp what your issue is. In any case the tags seem to be gone now. Recommend for future you keep things simple, address specific parts of policies and state required changes clearly from the outset. Edaham (talk) 01:51, 13 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.

FYI: Category renaming discussion

The discussion can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_5#Category:Confederate_States_of_America_monuments_and_memorials

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

National Park Service

"This list includes NPS administered sites where the primary history is Civil War, and sites that include features named for significant figures in the Confederate states" I removed all battlefields and historic sites that are not memorials or named after Confederates. These sites are preserved for their historical significance, not as a monument to either side of the war. I also propose removing this section entirely and moving the monuments to their states. In particular, natural features such as rivers and mountain peaks don't need to be in the National section. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a path I went down but it did not work out as planned. I'm ok with dispersing that section. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the National Park Service section should be removed and the items dispersed to their appropriate states. There is nothing significantly different, from the perspective of this article, of say Antietam National Battlefield vs. Mill Springs Battlefield or Shiloh National Military Park vs. Port Hudson State Historic Site, that warrants a separate section for the NPS sites. Mojoworker (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to removing this section (which was added in September), and dispersing the items to their appropriate states? As Legacypac (the editor that added it) says it did not work out as planned. Mojoworker (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as the information is yet listed on this article, I have no problem with your plan.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we handle multi-state sites such as Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park (Georgia and Tennessee)? Should we list it under both states or break out the individual monuments by state? –dlthewave ☎ 04:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think individual monuments by state makes most sense. Mojoworker (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Titan 1 missle in Cordele, Georgia

This is obviously not a memorial to the "Confederate Air Force". There was no Confederate Air Force and they didn't have intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is a joke. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is funny, but it's clearly a memorial to the Confederacy. The missile was procured by the president of the local Rotary Club in 1969, and in it's own weird way it commemorates the Confederacy, kind of like naming a park "Confederate Park", or something like that. There seems to have been an intentional nod to the Confederacy in the naming of the missile. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Like [The Confederate Air Force] "commemorates the Confederacy"??? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't make this stuff up: [2]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, this was Cordele, Georgia in the 1960s, a city that already had a Confederate monument since 1911. So the president of the local Rotary brings a huge roadside attraction to town and calls it "Confederate Air Force Pad #1", a name that has stuck for nearly 50 years. As wacky as it is, this really seems to fall under the umbrella of a Confederate monument. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

All very true, so is the fact that it makes me chuckle at the absurd oddity of it all. I don't question it belongs, just that I can't keep a straight face when I think of it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 thank for all your work, I'd be overwhelmed if I were dealing with Georgia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree and say that this shouldn't be in the article. It's sourced to a blog (not a RS), and the source doesn't even call it a confederate monument, just that it appears to be a "local reference to Georgia's role in the Civil War." This is why the page needs a more clearly defined criteria for inclusion and significant trimming, OR inclusions like this are just going to overwhelm the page and are completely unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This article in the Los Angeles Times said the missile was "affectionately dubbed 'Confederate Air Force Pad No. 1.'" in the 1960s. The article goes on... "the missile remains a source of civic pride in Cordele. 'With the Georgia Veterans Memorial State Park just east of here and our high veteran population, we're a pretty militant bunch'". And of all the names in the world they could have giving this missile, they chose one that made reference to the Confederacy. Is it silly? Kind of. But does it meet this Wikipedia article's inclusion criteria "Confederate monuments and memorials that were established as public displays and symbols of the Confederate States of America"? It sure seems to. Moreover, how is a roadside attraction named for the Confederacy--which appears to be a symbol of civic pride --any less encyclopedic than the monument in Berryville, Virginia commemorating where Robert E. Lee hitched his horse? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the article about Georgia Veterans State Park mentioned. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How is a US Air Force Titan missile from California a symbol of the confederacy? The article linked to above calls the name "Confederate Air Force" an "inside joke". "Pad #1" is not a launching pad. Also, although it may be a coincidence, note that it was dedicated the day after Apollo 11 left for the Moon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a question to ask the local Rotary Club that had it installed in 1969, the fact that they claimed it as a Confederate memorial and it has been know as such every since; this is all we are concerned with... not speculating on they motivations. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73, what does a giant fir tree in Seattle, Washington's Ravenna Park, nothing until Mrs. John Ewing Price slapped a plaque on it to honor Robert E. Lee.[3][4] This is the point of it, that tree had no connection to the Confederacy until one of the Daughters of the Confederacy said so, if they can do that to a tree in the Pacific Northwest; thing says they can not do it to a decommissioned rocket in Georgia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is what the LA Times said: "The Cordele rocket came to town as part of a project undertaken by the local Rotary Club and its president, John Pate, who served in the Air Force for 10 years and used his military contacts to secure the rocket." etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As with that ancient fir tree in Seattle's Ravenna Park, it had nothing to do with the Confederacy until someone said it was so and put up the plaque to the fact. Yes, it odd, but it is. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that tree, but I take your word on it being named for Lee. But Atlas Obscura (article{ Atlas Obscura) says "Not wanting to simply honor the United States Air Force with a plaque or an artful statue, the city of Cordele and the Rotary Club therein made it their mission to obtain an actual missile to proudly display in their town. And they succeeded." So it is a tribute to the US Air Force. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's is a tribute to the US Air Force, then it would have been named after the Air Force and not the Confederacy. The sources were only added so I wasn't adding unsourced content and to verify I wasn't making all this stuff up. It really doesn't matter if the source says the missile stopped at McDonald's for lunch, what matters is that when it got to Cordele they gave it a Confederate name. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bubba73, I gave you the source for the ancient fir tree [5][6], but the point is that once it is labeled a Confederate monument and plaques installed, it does not matter if it's a tree, or am old nuke or a public bathroom. It gained the reputation as a monument to the Confederacy over time as it become part of the local fabric of the environment. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we include removed monuments?

First discussion

Having to enter the same information twice - once here and again in the Removal article - is inefficient at best.

In the Removal article there are eight cities under Florida, one with three items. Here there are four. If there are any guidelines about what gets included here and what doesn't, they have escaped me. I think it depends on who's adding the item. deisenbe (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: We should remove all former monuments and memorials in this article to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

Two reasons:

1. It cuts down on the size of this article
2. Keeping removed monuments completely duplicates the contents of that article

Fluous (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe and Another Believer: Okay, I moved all former/ removed listings to the main article! It saved 47,597 bytes. Fluous (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That was/is a terrible idea. See WP:NPOV#Point-of-view forks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Whoops. If anyone wants to change it back, and feels strongly about it, then feel free! Either do the reverts or copy-and-paste from Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials (it was basically the exact same content).

Not sure I understand the "POV fork" argument. It's not really a POV fork, is it? I mean, this is a list of monuments and memorials, and the other article is a list of former/ removed monuments and memorials. They're two different things.

If what you're saying is true, then what do you propose? Should we nominate Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials for merger/ deletion and combine everything here? Fluous (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I think we do a disservice to readers—whose interest ought to be paramount—by telling them that half the information on a subject is in this article and half is in another, based on whether the monument has been removed yet. What if the reader doesn't know a monument's status? In which list can the reader expect to find a monument that's been covered but not physically removed, or moved from one site to another?

Second, can you imagine starting a list called "List of monuments of the Confederacy kept"? If not, why should there be a list—not an article—a list of monuments removed? (In my opinion, an article about the movement to remove such monuments, without a list, is a different story.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: So, if I understand correctly, you would prefer if we:

• Re-add all former/ removed monuments/ memorials to this list;  Fixed
• Keep the other article about the movement to remove monuments/ memorials; but Not sure
• Delete the list part of that article (because it duplicates the content here) Not sure

That's fair. I can do that. Fluous (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Fluous. For the time being, I think that's best.

I'm not a big fan of RfC's, but I think that we should try to solicit more editors' opinions about the duplication between the lists. Do you think posting questions at the WikiProjects under whose purview the two articles/lists lie would help? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a monument, having made this list, should stay here. Not be removed from the list just because the monument is gone. If, for example all the monuments get removed, wouldn't you still want this list? Adding a "Monument removed" or "renamed" or "whatever" on the list is not a big problem. Is it? Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Ok, I see what you mean. It makes sense! :) Fluous (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Second discussion

Could we remove references to 'Former' monuments as they are listed in Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials already and they clutter up an already cluttered page? Suggestions? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That was discussed here: Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#Duplication of information about Removed monuments needs attention. And I dispute that this page is "cluttered." It's a long article, but it's extremely well organized. Fluous (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC) edited 20:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone could help reduce the size of this entry for Washington State?

• Blaine and Vancouver: Stone markers at both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the "Jeff Davis Highway" were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with state approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state. Markers are now in Sons of Confederate Veterans owned "Jefferson Davis Park" in Ridgefield right beside I-5.

It's a long entry and perhaps move the Bellingham entry to the Former section as well, if possible? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think we should remove monuments that no longer exist.Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

At least we can remove details about those monuments, placing the details in the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials page. This is a very long article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Third discussion

@Dubyavee and I have a difference.

Opinion polls are not very important anyway, in my opinion; if they were accurate Hillary would be President. At least you have to say who has been polled and when, and follow it up to see how views change over time, as they usually do.

I deleted a poll here primarily because exactly the same information, in exactly the same words, is also found in the Removal article, which seens to me the best place for it. To include exactly the same information in two different articles may be a violation of a WP principle, does anyone know? It seems more efficient to include it in one place, with a reference to it from other briefer mentions.

Anyway Dubyavee disagrees with me. What do others think?

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&diff=next&oldid=808816416

deisenbe (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Opinion, that there should be a slight bit of overlap as often the removal is not clean cut and there are complications. Recall North East Independent School District trustees, in the San Antonio, Texas area, voted that Lee High School, (named for Gen. Robert E. Lee) will be renamed 'Legacy of Educational Excellence High School', i.e. LEE High School.[7]

Now somebody needs to make agree (because they don’t agree) the removed items here and in the Removal article. And it ain’t gonna be me. Better things to do with my time. I tried to solve this problem already (see above).

I want to say clearly right now that I am not taking the time to enter identical information in two different places. I’m not consistent in which place I put them, until somebody fixes this mess.

Wasting my time I have no tolerance for. deisenbe (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Please comment in the appropriate section and don’t create duplicate sections for the same topic. Fluous (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the talk-page archive bot broken?

The last archive was made on Sept 7, 2017 —almost two months ago. The last comment in many threads was made longer than 31 days ago. Fluous (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I started archiving sections manually with OneClickArchiver. Turns out the bot was still set to use the old article title. I fixed the name, so we'll see if it works next time it runs. –dlthewave ☎ 06:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, the bot now works! No need to manually archive. Please don't. I noticed that you archived some discussions that had recent responses (responses in the last 30 days). No bueno! But thanks again for fixing the bot. Fluous (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone had set the bot to 10 days at one point and then another editor bumped it up to 21 as a compromise just before it ran. It's now back at 31 where it belongs. Looks like most of the premature archiving was done by the bot but I apologize if I got any of the dates wrong. –dlthewave ☎ 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Private buildings, hotels, and rooms

Whoa, guys. @Deisenbe:, I think we need to reconsider adding things like "Stonewall Jackson Inn." Yes, it's a memorial, but private memorials should have a MUCH higher bar for inclusion here. Deisenbe just added a handful of these listings: various private buildings, hotels, rooms, etc. I removed them here to the talk page to discuss.

* [[Fort Smith, Arkansas|Fort Smith]]: Stonewall Jackson Inn
* [[Gettysburg, Pennsylvania|Gettysburg]]: Robert E. Lee Room, Doubleday Inn.
* [[Harrisonburg, Virginia|Harrisonburg]]: Stonewall Jackson Inn Bed & Breakfast
* [[Lexington, Virginia|Lexington]]: Robert E. Lee Hotel
* [[Staunton, Virginia|Staunton]]: Stonewall Jackson Hotel & Conference Center
* [[Clarksburg, West Virginia|Clarksburg]]: Stonewall Jackson Hotel
* [[Roanoke, West Virginia|Roanoke]]: Stonewall Resort

Fluous (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

General Lee’s Headquarters Museum goes too? deisenbe (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Fluous - as I said before, there are threads above for "Standards for inclusion", and "Discussion on limiting scope", plus a move/title change and several other points about scope and ... I think what is in or out is kind of up in the air at the moment.

Staunton 1920s built downtown large building with "Stonewall Jackson" on it isn't quite a statue, but a lot more prominent than oen especially when they put the big neon sign on top, so it does kind of fit the SPLC narrative to whom that matters. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Question for Markbassett. Did the SPLC include it on their list? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Why are you asking that question? The SPLC report doesn't drive the inclusion criteria here. Mojoworker (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I ask because from my experience with this page and with SPLC's listing; is that if they include it on their very conservative listing, then it's a good indicator it should stay on this list. If it is not on their list, then there should be a dive into the local resources to search out supporting information. I find the SPLC listing to be incomplete, at least for the scope of this article, that is why I asked. I've on the other side of the country and have not heard of most of these places before, so it's just an honest question. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just concerned with all the focus that the SPLC report is getting in this article recently, as if this article never existed prior to the SPLC report. Mojoworker (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And all the time wasted arguing over a graph. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone answer my question? deisenbe (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Headquarters appears to be historical in nature (only) and not a memorial or monument to General Lee or the Confederacy. In my opinion, it does not belong here but on the Battle of Gettysburg page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Albemarle, North Carolina

I can find no source, but I'm fairly certain a Confederate memorial was moved or removed in Albemarle, North Carolina. One is listed here as being erected in 1925 and a photo was taken in July 2007. The statue is clearly standing in front of the Central United Methodist Church on North Second Street. However, when I visited in November 2017, the statue was gone, and there was a parking lot in that location. - Kzirkel (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking but haven't found a thing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? I expect they were afraid of controversy, and took it down when nobody was looking. It's frustrating because if it was moved, I would have liked to have found it. - Kzirkel (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

See my reply here. It appears to have been moved to Liberty Gardens. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214056/http://apps2.coj.net/parksinternet/parkdetails.asp?parkid=397 to http://apps2.coj.net/parksinternet/parkdetails.asp?parkid=397

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Confederate monument in Franklin, Tennessee

The Confederate monument in Franklin, Tennessee is listed as ""Our Confederate Soldiers" Monument (1899), UDC monument known locally as "Chip" memorializes soldiers who died in the Battle of Franklin" with this article as an RS. I can't find "Our Confederate Soldiers" in the article, however. Is there another RS with that name please?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Waymarking is not an RS, is it?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Should it simply be created as Confederate monument (Franklin, Tennessee)?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided to create it as a stub, but we could still move it.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

SIRIS calls it, "Our Confederate Soldiers", Widener calls it just "Confederate Monument" so your article is fine. I was a Waymarker for a while, until I lost my GPS unit between Santa Fe and Cleveland on an epic road trip and have always found them to be very accurate. There is a lot of peer review involved, if someone makes a mistake it likely will be pointed out. SO that's how I feel about them. Carptrash (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved