Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 12

Fine Tuning the Graph
Now that the RFC is closed I see two outstanding problems with the graph: first the image file has "Confedarate", a misspelling. Maybe someone familiar with commons can fix that. Second, I don't think "cumulative" belongs in the heading. Cumulative implies the sum of monuments constructed in year X and all previous years, not monuments constructed in year X as the graph shows. Is there an alternate (and applicable) meaning of "cumulative"? D.Creish (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For my part it lacks proper bookends on the front of the graph as it should show the reconstruction era, before Jim Crow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The graph covers the period from the establishment of the Confederacy to 2014. I don't understand the meanings of "bookends" and "front" in this context. Can you explain? D.Creish (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It covers the period from the Civil War to 2014, but leaves out the major period of reconstruction of the 1870s that came before Jim Crow and the removal of federal troops from the South. It says that things were not always as they were in the 1890s, and there was a time when different rules applied after the Civil War.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be dense but I don't understand what you're suggesting we change. Does Marek's comment about the RFC below resolve it? D.Creish (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What I have a problem with, is an account that refuses to disclose their previous accounts making suggestions regarding controversial matters in a topic area that is overrun with sockpuppets.  Volunteer Marek   20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Marek: If you'd asked politely and in the appropriate forum even once you'd have an acceptable answer. Instead you've chosen to harass me repeatedly and impolitely, so you get no answer, no matter how many times you ask. Let this be a lesson in manners. Now, if you'd like to explain what you meant by "cumulative" you're welcome to, otherwise this is off topic. D.Creish (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did ask politely and you evaded the question. So I asked again. You still refused to answer. At no point have you denied having previous accounts. And there's no way that a brand new user would know about WP:COAT to invoke it in their very first edit. And you immediately jumped into making controversial edits with your first edits. So, I'm pretty sure the reason you're refusing to answer has nothing to do with any "politeness".  Volunteer Marek   20:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , time to stay on topic of the issues and not to attack another editor. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking another editor. I'm asking if they had previous accounts since it's very obvious that a brand new user would not make an edit like this. This is pertinent because this topic area is over run with sock puppets of sanctioned and banned editors pushing various agendas. Historically, these editors have sabotaged or short circuited (which is why they're usually sanctioned in the first place) the consensus-building process on such articles - indeed, this very article is a potential good example since if you look over the discussion, originally we were actually well on our way towards a compromise/agreement until D.Creish showed up. And on a personal level, I don't see why I, or other editors, should waste our time on an article when we're getting "played" by such an account.  Volunteer Marek   22:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "originally we were actually well on our way towards a compromise/agreement until D.Creish showed up" I didn't/don't see it like that at all. You might have some good arguments, this is not one of them. Carptrash (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We had labels for the Jim Crow and Civil Rights eras, but they seem to have vanished. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was "sort of" the outcome of the RfC above.  Volunteer Marek   23:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:D.Creish - the image is not cumulative. Also, the SPLC version of the diagram is not monuments it is symbols; and not the stated types of symbols, it’s of the locations for the subset they had dates on ... orange seems to be for the ones at courthouses, grey is at schools, and blue is at other locations.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there additional changes you'd like to make to the heading? Do you think replacing the current graph with the SPLC's graph would be an improvement? D.Creish (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cumulative" obviously refers to the fact that it shows all three categories. If the wording is confusing, the word can be removed.  Volunteer Marek   06:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't show the sum of all three, unless I'm misreading it, so it's not cumulative. I think removing "cumulative" would be an improvement. D.Creish (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find the graph more useful when overlayed with the historical eras of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights.  It shows that the monuments rise and fall with the eras peaking and this context makes the graph more meaningful to the reader in historical context, in my opinion.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the sources explicitly make that connection. However, a number of editors preferred to go with their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT because apparently pointing out the obvious hurts their feelings.  Volunteer Marek   16:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See the RFC close above. It was decided not to include these labels in the graph. D.Creish (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * People got picky over when each of these eras started and ended, so the decision wad to just drop them all together, that is a shame as it leaves the graph without historical context of what was happening in the country politically and socially as monument building rose and fell. I, yet disagree and with to state it, for what it was worth.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See below. D.Creish (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Replacing Current Graph with SPLC Graph
Is there support for replacing the current graph with the SPLC's graph which includes markers for historical events?

Would including their graph comply with copyright? D.Creish (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Give credit to SPLC as a source and there should be no problem.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It places the rise and fall of monument building into the historical framework of the social and political climate of the times in which they occurred. Consider that after the Detroit, Race Riot, 1943 the lack of even the naming of schools for a few years, that would be missed if not pointed out this way.  Note that 'The Clansman' and 'Birth of a Nation' mark the key time of the rise and fall of the monument building peak. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC report is not copyrighted. It seems I'm wrong about this. Fluous (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC) edited 07:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Lack of a copyright symbol/statement does not mean it's not copyrighted - only way we could use this is if SPLC expressly gives permission to reuse and reproduce the report's contents somewhere. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not replace it with a graph made up of the monuments & memorials that we have listed? Carptrash (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That'd be WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki does not create original sourcing or works, but uses reliable sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Answering before me, above, makes it appear that my edit was incorrectly formatted. I have received stern warnings about this, now you are making me look bad. Or "notorious."  I agree that to assume the the SPLC graph is not copyrighted might be an error.  Often (I am not an expert) just publishing something is considered to be a copyright.  There would be no research, original or otherwise, involved in making our graph.  Just data entry. Carptrash (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Publishing something doesn't often mean it's copyrighted, it always does. Not everyone bothers to register the copyright but that does not mean it's free to copy or use. As for the "data entry" argument, you would effectively be using our article as a source for the graph. We can't do that, as it's WP:UGC and extremely unlikely to be an accurate representation of the number (and dates) of the monuments that are out there. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just leave the current attribution on the new graph, showing their contribution. IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I dislike using words such as "always" because, for example, international copyrights are controlled by the Berne Convention, which says more or less what you just did, and is signed by 100 countries. There are (to guess) about 180 countries in the world, that leaves about 80 not covered by the Berne Convention. Thus things are not covered by copyright in those places.  When you use "always" it means that one exception proves you wrong.  And if you are so afraid of errors in our article, why not root them out and fix them? The SPLC info is clearly not "an accurate representation of the number (and dates) of the monuments that are out there," just for the ones they surveyed, so why use it at all? Carptrash (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being pedantic. This being en.wiki, and SPLC being an American organization, its obvious that US copyright law is what applies here - and in the US work is under copyright protection the moment it is created. To reply about OR: the difference is that SPLC is a reliable source, while a list that wiki editors cobbled together themselves (and can't even agree among themselves what should be included) is clearly not. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * On copyright - ' summary of copyright is correct - In the 172 countries which are parties to the Berne Convention, copyright does not need to be asserted by the rights holder; the work is copyright from creation. Copyright must also be recognized throughout those countries. The US ratified the convention in 1989, so copyright in that great nation changed only relatively recently. It should be noted that copyright concerns also reasonably exist w.r.t. the currently used graph, which is a reproduction of a copyrighted work, not an original work or sufficiently transformative work in itself. Including within it the same historical event markers as the SPLC graph would take it further in that direction. Now, I think I hear the clanging of the JDLI bus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to the current graph, there's no issue here since the data itself cannot be copyrighted. Also, the labels were different than the SPLC's historical event markers.  Volunteer Marek   13:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's an original work based on that data then? With some additional information from somewhere else mixed in? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. No.  Volunteer Marek   04:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , take the warning from DS very serious, you will be reported by DS in a heartbeat, been on the receiving end of the joy and happiness.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're referring to. This page is not under DS.  Volunteer Marek   13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , DS is more than happy and very quick to report.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take your personal side conversation elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC graph does not appear to be copyrighted, however as others have noted above this does not mean it isn't. Plus wiki policies are different and rather strict in this regard. Anyway .... I actually submitted a request directly to SPLC couple weeks ago about the possibility about the reuse of their chart here in wiki. I got some auto reply that it could take think 6 weeks or more, so just awaiting official response. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Scope of data in the graph
Now that the RfC has closed, I'm bringing this up again from the While we wait for the RFC to be closed... section above. It should be made clear that the graph (and the SPLC report data underlying it) covers a different scope than that of this Wikipedia article. User:EvergreenFir suggested as possible solutions: "(1) moving the image to a section with a narrower scope (may need to be created first), (2) putting a footnote in the caption, (3) narrowing the scope of the article by splitting it." Should we add an "SPLC" section, where the graph would be most pertinent, and move other relevant content there where it can be covered in depth? Splitting the article? It's been suggested several times, but interest is not keen. I previously added a footnote to the graph caption, but it was reverted. I'm trying again with tweaked wording, we'll see if it sticks. Any thoughts on the matter? Mojoworker (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be supportive of those suggestions. But honestly I don't mind the image as is. It has a footnote explaining the data and it has the contentious labels removed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It had a footnote explaining the data – Marek reverted it again, claiming it's WP:OR. No idea where he comes up with that assertion, since the quote is directly from the SPLC report. I was hoping to avoid another lengthy RfC, but unless we can come to a consensus here through discussion (and one that Marek will abide by), I see it heading in that direction. I encourage other editors to participate in the meantime, but otherwise I'll start the RfC in a couple of days. Mojoworker (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "...the quote is directly from the SPLC report.". The quote is directly from the SPLC report, but the footnote changes its meaning. The SPLC report says: "For the final tally, the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature.". Compare with what someone here wrote: "This chart excludes the majority (64 percent) of Confederate monuments and memorials – "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature", many of which are within the scope of this Wikipedia article.". The difference is that someone here is calling the excluded listings "monuments and memorials" when the SPLC made no such claim. Fluous (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So how should it be worded? This seems important. The current implication is that the graph represents the data in this article, which isn't the case. Does "This chart excludes the majority (64 percent), "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature", which the SPLC examined, many of which are within the scope of this Wikipedia article." convey the situation accurately? Mojoworker (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The chart was a good idea. It did not work. It should go, along with the first three sections of the article.  It's a list.  That is what it should be. A list. If the SPLC chooses to not define a couple thousand monuments and memorials that does not mean that they are not monuments and memorials and thus fall with in the scope of this article. We have allowed our self to be held hostage by the SPLC.  Let's not develop Stockholm Syndrome and fall in love with it.  Carptrash (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They say the same thing. In the first footnote, the statement was explicit that the excluded listings were monuments or memorials. In the reworded footnote, the statement implies that the listings are monuments or memorials. So, no, the statement does not convey the situation accurately. The part about anything being a "majority" or "minority"- that's the problem. How to word it? How about: This chart excludes nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that SPLC deemed largely historical in nature." The chart also appears to exclude a huge number of listings that have no known year. In the report, years are often listed as "N/A." A cursory search for "N/A" yields something like 647 results out of 1503 listings. Fluous (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be an example of an item which falls within the scope of this article but would have been excluded from the data used in the chart? We do not include "markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" in our list. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The following are just a few examples of monuments at Vicksburg NMP which fall within the scope of this article but are excluded from the data used in the chart:


 * These are official, in a public space, erected by the government with great fanfare, all in the city of Vicksburg, and are not included in the SPLC data, since they commemorate events during the Siege of Vicksburg and so are "historical in nature". There are many more in Vicksburg alone, and I'll continue to add them as time permits.
 * As for wording, it seems we are making progress. Fluous I think you're saying just focus on the facts – how about: This chart is based on data from an SPLC study which identified "1,503 publicly sponsored symbols honoring Confederate leaders, soldiers or the Confederate States of America in general." The study excluded "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that SPLC deemed largely historical in nature", many of which fall within the scope of this article."? Mojoworker (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Fluous (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Is anyone opposed to including that wording? Mojoworker (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a "study" per se. Suggest "publication" or "article"; both of which are used as descriptors by the SPLC. Perhaps "survey"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a spot check and found several RS using "survey" to describe the report so that seems fine. "surveyed" is also used in the current caption.
 * Beyond that, I'm not really sold on the need such long quotes in a photo caption. It seems clunky and unnecessary when the current caption would basically say the same thing if we just tacked a sentence about how the SPLC excluded historical markers on the end. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a preference for either "study" or "survey". "Study" is used by the SPLC in the report itself. As to the long quote, the reverted text was in a footnote to the graph caption, not in the caption itself, but I agree that "excluded historical markers" at the end of the caption is appropriate. Mojoworker (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing no dissension and no additional input in half a week, I've gone ahead with the footnote wording: This chart is based on data from an SPLC survey which identified "1,503 publicly sponsored symbols honoring Confederate leaders, soldiers or the Confederate States of America in general." The survey excluded "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that SPLC deemed largely historical in nature", many of which fall within the scope of this article. and added the suggested For this survey the SPLC excluded historical symbols. to the caption. Mojoworker (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Carptrash, please save the grandstanding - we just had an rfc closed with consensus to include the graph (albeit without labels) so angling to have it removed is pretty pointless. The caption that Mark added is obviously OR, but if people really feel the need to further qualify it I am fine with adding the text fluos proposes above: This chart excludes nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that SPLC deemed largely historical in nature.". My problem is with people adding text which is obviously meant to suggest that the graph is somehow not representative - a conclusion which they've reached through OR (or by applying their own personal biases) but which no RS that I've seen actually supports. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So the way I am reading it, the SPLC lists about 1500 m&ms, there are 2,600 more not included by them, that's a total of about 4,000 and we feel a need to include a graph that shows 800 of them. Is that about it? Carptrash (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about anyone's "feeling a need" - there is a consensus to include the graph because it illustrates & summarizes a fact that numerous RS verify and treat as significant. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem – until someone does a study that includes the relevant items from the 2600 that the SPLC excluded, we have no way of knowing how representative the dates in the graph are of the dates of monuments in general. I believe there's a non-zero correlation, but to apply this subset to the whole is certainly WP:OR. The more I think about it, EvergreenFir's suggestion of a new section specific to the SPLC report makes sense. Don't misinterpret me – I think the graph should be here in this article, as it illustrates the important point, that many of these symbols were created with a racist motive. But I also see the point of those arguing that the graph is painting the entire list with a broad brush and implying that they all were created with Lost Cause racism in mind. Take for example the Missouri State Memorial, another monument from Vicksburg NMP that was verifiably created under different circumstances. From the NPS webpage: "It is one of two state memorials on the battlefield dedicated to soldiers of both armies. The height is symbolic of the forty-two Missouri units, 27 Union, 15 Confederate. It stands where two opposing Missouri regiments clashed in battle.The monument features a bronze figure which represents "The Spirit of the Republic," as well as bronze reliefs depicting both Union and Confederate soldiers. The sculptor was Victor S. Holm. The memorial was erected at a cost of $40,000 and dedicated on October 17, 1917, during the National Peace Jubilee." The National Peace Jubilee was also known as the National Memorial Celebration and Peace Jubilee, or commonly simply called the National Memorial Reunion and is described as follows: 'By act of Congress approved September 8, 1916. the sum of $150,000 was appropriated for this celebration to be held at Vicksburg. Miss., on October 16 to 19, 1917, inclusive, "by the survivors of the Armies of the Tennessee and of the Mississippi who participated in the Battle of Vicksburg. July 1863, in commemoration of a half century of peace and good fellowship which happily exists throughout the Republic, to be expended under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of War". Mojoworker (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consider making all this a Missouri State Memorial (Vicksburg) article? Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: until someone does a study that includes the relevant items from the 2600 that the SPLC excluded, we have no way of knowing how representative the dates in the graph are of the dates of monuments in general This is straight up incorrect. Numerous other RS have been produced which verify the point the SPLC Graph illustrates independently and without relying on the SPLCs report/data. The graph is an illustration of a broader point that is verified by numerous RS and uncontroversialy factual. That the SPLC’s count doesn't include anything-anyone-has-ever-called-a-confederate-monument, ever does not change that and is not a compelling argument for excluding it. It also doesn't change the fact that there's already a consensus to include it, which makes this whole discussion a pretty pointless waste of time... Fyddlestix (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this the graph is painting the entire list with a broad brush and implying that they all were created with Lost Cause racism in mind is a totally absurd argument. The graph does not such thing, and no one has suggested that it should be interpreted that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right next to the graph the text states, "Confederate monument-building has often been part of widespread campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South, and assert white supremacy." could lead a reader to believe that the graph should thusly be interpreted. Carptrash (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what the word "often" means? And that it does not mean the same thing as "always?" Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what the word "could" means? In this case it means proximity indicates a connection. Carptrash (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how a graph-that-doesn't-make-the-argument + text-that-doesnt-make-the argument somehow = making the argument that mojo worker suggests. Nothing in either the text or the graph suggests that they all were created with Lost Cause racism in mind, so any imagined/assumed connection between the two cannot possibly make that argument either. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I made a !vote earlier, but I have generally just watched this stuff for vandalism, but I have to say: If there is an actual debate about a graph that doesn't include everything in this LIST article, wtf is it here? If this is a LIST, that's all it should be, unless maybe, RS's do a article ABOUT this LIST. My pinky now hurts. Arkon (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Mojoworker - Options 1 or 2 -- moving the image to a subsection or footnoting it seem doable, but removing it to a new article seems unlikely to be as easily accepted and might be viewed as a content fork for POV. Although, the report might deserve a section in the Southern Poverty Law Center article as a mention of it's impact seems notable.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * :Mojoworker - p.s. after all the talk below, I'm thinking there is too much to say for a #2 footnote, so #1 own section is now looking like best choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Fluous - your totals are somewhat short -- the total number of Confederate Monuments and Memorials I've seen mentioned at 9,000 to 13,000. (debateable, obviously). That SPLC apparently started with 4,100 is simply due to the sources they started with, looking at what is on public lands and particularly for courthouses. They are an advocacy group and were doing analysis for what is or could be portrayed as objectionable so filtered down to 1,503 and then a timeline of about 750. I've no reason to believe they were trying for a complete list or full analysis. Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the SPLC report, there are at least 1503 publicly-supported Confederate monuments and memorials. Period. Not the "objectionable" ones. Not the "unpleasant" ones. All of them. All of them (1) that they've found so far, (2) that are publicly-supported/sponsored, and (3) that honor Confederate leaders, soldiers or the Confederate States of America in general. If you dispute that number, you'll need reliable sources.
 * SPLC has also identified 2,570 Civil War battlefields, markers, plaques, cemeteries and similar symbols that, for the most part, merely reflect historical events. Aka, they are not Confederate monuments or memorials because they do not honor Confederate leaders, soldiers or the Confederate States of America in general..
 * As far as I know, there is no estimate of the number of private Confederate monuments and memorials. For any estimate, you'll need reliable sources.
 * Regardless of whether SPLC is an "advocacy group," for this purpose, SPLC has been judged a reliable source. We've had this debate many times. You're free to challenge it at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * Where in the report does it say the timeline is based on "about 750"? Serious question. I can't even find what data they used at all. There are 1503 listings—718 are "monuments;" the rest "memorials." Of the 1503 listings, something like 647 have no dates. (Please someone double-check this). So, I'm assuming they based their timeline on the 856 listings that had dates.
 * Fluous (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite following the logic in your first two bullet points. The Vicksburg monuments in our article are not in the SPLC report. In fact the SPLC list of 1,503 does not appear to include any monuments which are located on battlefields. The SPLC couldn't have missed all of those, so they must be part of the 2,570 excluded. Don't the Pemberton, Jefferson Davis, S. D. Lee, Mississippi, and Texas monuments honor Confederate leaders and soldiers? They are not merely reflecting historical events: Davis wasn't at the siege of Vicksburg; The location of the Pemberton statue isn't marking some specific historical event that took place at that spot; As far as I know the same is true for the S. D. Lee, Mississippi, and Texas monuments. Mojoworker (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't assume anything about which items were excluded among the approximately 2,570 Civil War battlefields, markers, plaques, cemeteries and similar symbols that, for the most part, merely reflect historical events. It would have been helpful had they compiled a list of excluded items. Fluous (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Fluous and others bring up a good point, which is that the SPLC chart is only accurate according to the SPLC findings. In the context of List of Confederate monuments and memorials, the SPLC chart is misleading, as it does not reflect the data presented in the article.  Way back in September I left this talk page message suggesting that the chart was inaccurate.  Since then, I have used the dates supplied in the article to plot the construction dates of all the monuments in Mississippi, and my graph only somewhat resembles the SPLC graph.  Moreover, any graph which uses data supplied in List of Confederate monuments and memorials would be far more accurate, because it is based on a wide variety of sources, entered by a random group of contributors.  In a perfect Wiki world, this article should have been formatted in chart form, which would have enabled the easy aggregation of data.  But according to my original research, which compiled data supplied in the article, the SPLC chart does not reflect the reality of the data in the Wiki article.  I'd personally support removing the chart completely.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument was raised during the rfc and (obviously) did not prevail. Can we stop trying to upend the consensus of a just-closed rfc please? Fyddlestix (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument was raised during the rfc and (obviously) did not prevail. Can we stop trying to upend the consensus of a just-closed rfc please? Fyddlestix (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fluous -
 * your post of 06:36, 26 October 2017 is the one I was nudging as still a bit short.  You had mentioned the SPLC excluded ones without dates "something like 647 results out of 1503" as well as the "excludes nearly 2,600" (SPLC pdf pg 7 says "approximately 2,570").
 * I am pointing out that still more is missing -- the study and hence the chart also excluded anything not in public spaces or that they did not find research self-described as "far from comprehensive".   Other sources I recalled said 13,000 total (media so may be high-end) or approximately 9,000 (historian but casual remark).  Debatable according to what is a 'Confederate monument', so counts will vary.
 * A further tweak re your count being a bit short - they indicated 718 monuments in the end so math says 785 out of 1503 were filtered vs "647 out of 1503".
 * Per my saying it is an advocacy group doing analysis on what is or could be portrayed as objectionable -- That's my paraphrase on what the "public spaces" and other statements in their report is describing the report intent. Following the Charleston massacre they launched an effort to catalog and map Confederate place names and other symbols "in public places", and the study to catalog these is stated as an effort to assist the efforts of local communities to re-examine these symbols.  Also the study stated it was "far from comprehensive" (pg7).   If you want further V on that they were filtering to the ones that were potentially objectionable, it's in their own pdf, though they do use harsher language at times.
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Counts will vary only if there are reliable sources for those counts. You have provided none.
 * There is no information about what SPLC based the graph on. Zero. At any rate, your math is suspect. The entire study identified 1503 monuments and memorials. They explicitly classified 718 as "monuments and statutes;" the rest (785) are presumably memorials other than monuments and statues like (flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, high- ways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works. You're saying they counted only the "718 monuments and statues" in the graph. Why? Show me the evidence. Provide a factual reference. I don't see it.
 * There is ample justification for distinguishing between memorials in public spaces and memorials in someone's private back yard. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. And, as it turns out, you were active on that RSN (Is an SPLC report a reliable source for List of Confederate monuments and memorials). You in fact repeated that line about SPLC being an "advocacy group" five times. And on this page, eleven times. Per WP:LISTEN, the results of that RSN, and the results of the RFC here, please refrain impugning the reliability of the SPLC source again.
 * Fluous (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fluous I'm glad you're now onboard that SPLC did not include monuments and memorials outside of public space, and that 1,503 minus 718 is filtering 785 (not your prior 647).  Those are the two spots your count of how much the chart had filtered seemed short.  Though 1,503 is not stated as "memorials" (e.g. Memorials) but "symbols" including flags, holidays, the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, etcetera.  The chart here is believed to be VM duplicating what SPLC presents as a timeline, and added some numeric on the left that seems simply presenting those items of the 1,503 which they had with a date and totalling roughly 600+ by eye.  Agreed we have no reliable source stating that the VM chart is such or exposition of the SPLC method of choosing what is in or the rest of the catalog beyond the 1,503 listed in the PDF.  But again, my point was simply your count of of 06:36, 26 October 2017 on how much the chart filtered was a bit short.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no evidence that 785 of the 1503 listings in the SPLC were "filtered" or excluded from the graph. Fluous (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fluous one more time : Your numbers above seemed a bit short to me on counts of what SPLC data was filtered. Take it or not, up to you but here goes again:  First, the largest filter seems filtered for 'in public spaces', getting about 4100 symbols versus elsewhere estimated circa 9000 or 13000 total monuments.  (Monuments there meaning stone and metal constructions.)  Second, was the filtering out of historical, footnoted in SPLC pdf as approximately 2,570 and leaving the 1,503 symbols of confederacy in public spaces listed in the pdf.  Third, the timeline of SPLC (and I think the chart of VM looks the same) ordered by date and seems the 855 with dates -- 718 monuments including memorials, 65 schools, and 72 counties/parks/lakes/flags/holidays/buildings.   That about covers the filters/layout by SPLC, hope it is understandable.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't just WP:OR on your part. It's bad OR, as you seem to be confused both about the SPLC report itself, as well as what the "scope of this Wikipedia" article actually is. Come to think of it, what IS the "scope" of this article? How about you define that first, before going around claiming something is or is not within or outside the scope.  Volunteer Marek  13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm, look, there's no consensus for inserting the original research about the "scope of the project" into the graph caption. Please don't falsely claim there is such consensus. Please stop pretending that it is anything but OR.  Volunteer Marek  00:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The current caption already makes it clear that the graph is based on the SPLC's data, as opposed to being a graph of what's listed in the article (which would be OR). We don't need to further belabour a point that is already quite clearly stated. This really seems like people who are unhappy with the rfc result trying to use OR and an unreliable source (this article itself) to cast doubt on reliable sources (the SPLC's data & report, along with all the other RS that say much the same thing). Fyddlestix (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Volunteer Marek - thread topic is what is scope of the chart. So is your !vote to (1) put it into a new subsection, (2) work the footnote, or (3) spit it to its own article ?   I'm starting to think explaining the VM chart is going to take more words than fit in a footnote so maybe will p.s. my prior input to say #1 is favored ... Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following what it is you're saying. What "!vote"? What subsection? What spit of an article?  Volunteer Marek   04:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "accept the result of the just-closed rfc, and leave the graph where and as it is," exactly? This is getting ridiculous. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC question, which I wrote, didn't ask about the caption. The closing administrator said nothing about a caption. There is not now nor was there ever consensus for the current caption or any caption at all. There was Marek edit warring his graph with the caption into the article until other editors agreed to let him have his way until the RFC closed. That's not how we define consensus, and now that the RFC's closed we can discuss an appropriate caption. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've misremembered. D.Creish (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah and the closing administrator said that "there is no consensus about whether the current graph should be included" which means that if I wanted to be a jerk about it I'd restore the graph with labels, since that means there is no consensus to exclude that version (that's the "whether" part in that sentence, and given it was written by Sandstein I'm sure he chose his words carefully). And Fyddlestix basically sums it up - some people are pissed that the graph was kept so now they decided they're gonna fuck with the caption just to keep on causing trouble and disruption, and as some kind of "payback".
 * BTW, those previous accounts of yours. Wanna disclose them? Or explain how you knew to cite WP:COATRACK in your very first edit on Wikipedia?  Volunteer Marek   04:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"largely historical in nature"
What is the justification for the "largely historical in nature" caveat? We don't include mere historical markers in our list either. It looks to me like the SPLC compiled a very long list of various items related to the Confederacy and then pared it down to include only monuments and memorials. Historical markers are tangentially related to the methodology but there is no need to mention their exclusion in the caption. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The "largely historical in nature" is a direct quote from the SPLC report, and they do explain their methodology in the report. The "historical in nature" monuments that are missing from the SPLC report are not "mere" historical markers. Earlier in this section (scroll up to the pictures), I gave you several examples from Vicksburg (and there are many more from Vicksburg alone), when you questioned this previously and asked for examples. Do you honestly characterize the Pemberton monument as merely a historical marker? The assertion that the SPLC report has a different scope than this article comes directly from their report: "...it became clear that hundreds of public entities ranging from small towns to state governments across the South paid homage to the Confederacy in some way. But there was no comprehensive database of such symbols, leaving the extent of Confederate iconography supported by public institutions largely a mystery. In an effort to assist the efforts of local communities to re-examine these symbols, the SPLC launched a study to catalog them. For the final tally, the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature." Emphasis mine – and that's a noble goal and one that I applaud. Those monuments and memorials in the SPLC list should be re-examined. But from their own statement, the SPLC list clearly has a different goal and scope than what this Wikipedia article covers – we are not creating a list to assist the efforts of local communities to re-examine these symbols, and that would run afoul of the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy anyway. We don't know the details of exact methodology the SPLC used to come up with their list, though they mention their researchers used federal databases from the National Park Service, among others. But as far as I can discern, the SPLC report contains no monuments from the Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Shiloh, Antietam, Chickamauga and Chattanooga, Pea Ridge, Manassas, Fort Donelson, or Mill Springs battlefields, and those are just the ones that come to mind, there are probably more examples. They were excluded from the SPLC report for some reason, and if the SPLC used NPS databases, they were surely aware of them. But in any event, we would include them in this article, just as we've always done, and would do the same with Union monuments in the companion to this article, List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials. As has been stated previously, this article from day one, 7 years ago contained monuments at Gettysburg. Are you suggesting a change to remove these "historical" monuments from our article? Mojoworker (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are calling 'tangentially related', others call the honoring of traitors, and those that supported human trafficking, torture and curtly; so there is a wide range of positions. The fact that they exist and are directly related to those that served the Confederate States, is the consensus for inclusion on this page.  Everything from Fort Davis and Davis County in Texas to Pickett's house in Bellingham, Washington are included even though they were historical and pre-date the Civil War.  The fact is that they still honor those that served the Confederacy. The fact that they still raise controversy to this day, makes them of note. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (or anyone else) any response? Mojoworker (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC thoughts?
We've given it a month, and discussion has seemed to have petered out, so unless it resumes, I suppose it's soon time to start an RfC. I don't think multiple choice RfCs are optimal, so I'm initially leaning towards whether or not a new "SPLC report" section should be created with appropriate details, and the graph moved there. Any thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Error in Tennessee, Other public monuments
There seems to be an error at Tennessee, Other public monuments, Columbia. It's empty, and there is a red link due to a typo. Is anyone able to retrieve the info please? This may have been removed by a vandal but it's not obvious where in the history. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been empty ever since it was added on November 29. I went ahead and removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page Lede and Coca-Cola
Going by prior discussions on talk page, Coca-Cola meets the criteria for addition to this list, being created by CSA Lt. Colonel John Pemberton and therefor associated with a CSA soldier. I find it silly to add such a company that so clearly has nothing to do with CSA, let alone a symbol for, as it is clearly if anything a symbol for drug addiction or pharmacy. But because it is simply associated with a prior CSA soldier, going by Talk discussions, it meets the criteria. Nor going by a poll I conducted of over 100 non-americans do most think a list would include such a thing reading the actual lede on article page. Just as I find it silly that any other such products/companies with CSA soldier should be listed simply due to association. Like for example a university or college founded by CSA soldier ... now if that university was founded by CSA soldier PLUS has many CSA symbols, than yes I would expect to find it on this list. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh?  Volunteer Marek   05:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Fluous (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Intro at the start of several sections
At the start of several sections, such as North Carolina, there is an introduction that states something like: "There are at least 140 public spaces with Confederate monuments in North Carolina." These introductions are sourced by the SPLC article, and are likely a vestige of a much earlier version of this article, but the information is no longer correct. Is there any concern with removing them? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The real concern is not removing them but since this article is (opinion) really just an illegitimate offspring of the SPLC report, maybe they should remain? Carptrash (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That SPLC list is on the minimal side for the states I have looked at, the numbers can be much higher in some states, such as Texas or the Carolinas. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's both unnecessary and inaccurate in the current version of the article.–dlthewave ☎ 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree the remarks are unnecessary and inaccurate, and may be removed. Markbassett (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The introductions should stay. They are accurately sourced (SPLC), and reasonably qualified (the "at least" language adequately deals with arguments that this list is more expansive than the SPLC list). The introductions are also the only effort to quantify the number of Confederate memorials in each state. And that's important. Fluous (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Monuments to Civil War Battles, here?
I noted that in the Arizona section is listed the monument to the Battle of Picacho Pass and the three union soldiers that are buried at the site. I thought that we were excluding war monuments from this list, per consensus, is that correct? Should it be removed? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording was confusing, so I've edited it. There are both a sign and a plaque. The sign is 'dedicated to Capt. Sherod Hunter's "Arizona Rangers, Arizona Volunteers" C.S.A.', while it's the plaque that lists the three Union dead. The sign, with the dedication verbiage, is commemorative. I'd say the plaque is an historical/Union marker, and mention of it could possibly be removed from the entry, however that might create confusion with the other marker. Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for that. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

SPLC data is fine, the caption is questionable
I have no problems with the accuracy of the SPLC timeline. I also do not think nothing in the caption is patently inaccurate. However, the caption is drawing an original conclusion which isn't enclyopedic. Its leading in the regard that it makes it sound like Confederate statues correlated with times of racial tension. I think the caption should be eliminated or re-written to make it more holistic. (talk) 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The conclusion is supported by three different sources. What exactly do you mean by "drawing an original conclusion"? –dlthewave ☎ 05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not this crap again.  Volunteer Marek   06:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Link for those who are new to this page or aren't clear why some people might not want to reopen this just now. The recent RFC was quite contentious but did (eventually) result in a relatively stable consensus. I very much doubt that there's much appetite for re-opening that issue right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Too much time and energy has already been waste on this subject. I for one am tired of it.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually do still object to the inclusion of the SPLC chart...because the data in the chart is not reflective of the data in this Wikipedia article. I have twice taken data from this article, added it to a spreadsheet, and plotted a chart showing the year the monuments were established.  In both instances my charts looked different than the SPLC chart.  Not a lot different, but different enough to lead me to feel that including the SPLC chart in the article is misleading to readers.  The SPLC chart is only reflective of SPLC data.  Because this Wikipedia article includes data from a much broader sample of sources, a chart based on our data could appear different (and in fact does).  I think we should instead be asking if the chart should be removed, per MOS:IMAGES, because it is primarily decorative, and not accurately reflective of the content in the article.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE WP:DEADHORSE. Please stop trying to waste other people's time.  Volunteer Marek   05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, you are correct that the SPLC chart does not exactly match the list, but that is only because their list appears to be more conservative than the scope of this article. Secondly, what the graph shows is not so much about the exact number of monuments, but the time frames in which the building of them surged, during Jim Crow and again during the height of the civil rights movement.  For this fact alone it is very accurate and very reasonable to include, showing the two spikes in the building of the public monuments to the Confederacy and those that served it, thus the sources supporting this information in the caption.  Not only should it stay, but we, here, should stop rehearing and re-arguing the issue every few weeks.  Time to move on to improving the page and stop digging up old issues.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes of course plotting all the data from list here will vary from the SPLC one, as this list in particular includes the majority of CSA symbols done for primarily historical reasons. Those started to be erected right away and continued to be entire time as opposed to other monuments which several actual CSA soldiers opposed having done. This will naturally fill in gaps prior to 1890's a lot more as well as I am guessing other time periods. But generally speaking, people are not going to want to see why and when historical symbols were done (they were of course done for mainly historical nature). But what were all the other CSA monuments done for and when? The next biggest group besides historical that SPLC seems to not have included on their chart is roads (sure good portion of those were harder to obtain years) and besides I for one am not really interested in that as much either as those are not really monuments imho, the name is but the actual roads were built for being needed, and as such could be more indicative of something else entirely such as simply needing more roads. I would guess adding all roads would fill in 1930's - 1960's a lot more, as well as rest of time periods. At any rate as others have stated, consensus was already reached and will not change in such a short time later. I personally am not totally happy with caption either, but not going to keep beating a dead horse. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677 - Yes, SPLC is an advocacy group, so it shouldn't be surprising they filtered down to 700-ish they could make an issue about, and does not convey the thousands of other monuments nor match to the list section of the article. And the image done by VM has some mis-labelling still.  There was no consensus to include it or exclude it despite this, just to exclude the prior labels about 'jim crow' or 'civil rights era'.  But perhaps fixing some text content would do for you ?  The state sections here do sometimes start with a phrase like "There are at least xx public spaces with Confederate monuments in state", (previously said 'symbols'), which seems drawn from SPLC so does not match the list content -- would you prefer the count be changed to how many are shown, delete the line, reduce/add content to match the number, or what ?  Markbassett (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is this supposed "mislabeling" that's "still"?  Volunteer Marek   05:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the shape of the SPLC chart is not accurate according to the data in the article. A chart based on data in the article would have a different shape.  Not a lot different, but different enough.  I just feel that no chart is better than a half-correct chart.  Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What in the world does this mean? The shape is fine, what the hell are you talking about? What kind of "shape" would it have? What are you talking about? What the hey does "not a lot different, but different enough" mean? You're making stuff up and it's stuff that is not even comprehensible. And how does the "shape" make it "half correct"? Just no.  Volunteer Marek   01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677 - OK, got it. The SPLC chart just is not the data here, and I don't see a good way to make a chart to match the data and follow along with future edits.   I think SPLC would be better as a separate subsection but ... the mob demands the item of the hour be on top.  Cheers  Markbassett(talk) 01:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The SPLC chart just is not the data here" - can you guys please start using complete, grammatical sentences, written in comprehensible English?  Volunteer Marek   01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How difficult would it be to build a rough chart based on the listings in the article for comparison purposes? There's a lot of speculation about how such a chart would differ from the SPLC version but I have yet to see anything to back that up. In my opinion, a chart is useful for illustrating broad trends and can still serve that purpose if it's based on a slightly different dataset. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, any such chart would be WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * dlthewave It's not too hard to copy-paste the text and extract the dates in parens like "(1923)". But it's just not the same data.  Say we look at Alabama -- well SPLC says 107 symbols, the article shows maybe 120 (90 of those in the SPLC list) and 80 of them have dates.   In that there will be the monumentalism surge of 50 done from 1895 to 1925, and then 6 schools being built in the baby boom,  and a bump of 10 monuments in the 1970s.  Not seeing how that kind of alternative chart would help the discussion, but there you go.  CHeers Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the greatest improvements we could make to this article would be to turn the entire article into a table (one table per state). It would be a Herculean task, but it would enable readers to easily cull data from the article. Moreover, tables would allow mapping of each monument. Anyway, back to my original point, which I have already stated above, on the two occasions when I took data from this article, added it to a spreadsheet, and plotted a chart showing the year the monuments were established, in both instances my charts looked different than the SPLC chart. If this article was called "Confederate monuments according to the Souther Poverty Law Center", I'd say for sure leave the chart in. But it isn't. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've made some claims above which appeared to be incorrect. I asked you questions about them. Can you please reply rather than constantly trying to change the topic?  Volunteer Marek   14:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The chart is really only the supporting evidence to the claims sourced and referenced in the caption, that the main periods of monument building to the Confederacy was during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era. Any way you spread sheet this out, that fact stands.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * About tables: I've wondered this, too. Are there examples of extremely long tables on Wikipedia? Would we have one for each state? Fluous (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All we would need is a simple table, such as at National Register of Historic Places listings in Adams County, Mississippi, with a few sortable headings. It would really neaten up the article.  Maybe some of the regular editors would each want to take a state?  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)