Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 5

A Modest Proposal withdrawn by proposer
D.Creish, Icewhiz, Dubyavee, Carptrash, deisenbe, Grayfell, Topcat777, Fluous, S. Rich,  Volunteer Marek , Legacypac, Waters.Justin, PeterTheFourth, AIR corn , Magnolia677,  do , Bubba73, Snooganssnoogans, My very best wishes,  —Мандичка , Markbassett, Great scott, SMcCandlish ☺, Arkon, MShabazz, Aquillion, De Guerre, Mojoworker, Heyyouoverthere, Pincrete, talk,  Eve rgr een Fir , talk, Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher, Lockley, K.e.coffman,

It seems pretty clear that consensus is not going to reached on the thorny issue regarding the nefarious graph, particularly the labeling of the monument building spike as “Jim Crow era.” I am planning on alerting everyone who either supported or opposed the motion to remove the graph. I likely will miss someone, it is not intentional as it is my desire to actually reach consensus here. I propose that the label “Jim Crow era” be replaced with one that reads “The Lost Cause”. There are lots of reasons why this is appropriate, but for starters, in this article at, or near, the very beginning, we state, “Cynthia Mills and Pamela Simpson argued in their critical volume Monuments to the Lost Cause ….”. We have already asserted that these are monuments to the lost cause.

Another well documented factor in the raising of monuments was the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was founded in 1894, just at the point where the spike in monument construction takes off and pushing the saga of the Lost Cause was one of their primary missions. This can be documented in such works as Burying the Dead but Not the Past by Caroline E. Janney, “Challenging the notion that southern white women were peripheral to the Lost Cause movement until the 1890s,” Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (New Perspectives on the History of the South) Karen Cox, "A vital and, until now, missing piece to the puzzle of the Lost Cause ideology and its impact on the daily lives of post-Civil War southerners.”

And it goes on and on. One great resource for this “Lost Cause” approach are the monuments themselves, which frequently mention “the Cause”, the cause” “the sacred cause” and even the “Lost Cause.” We are talking about the meaning of the monuments and what better source to jump off from than the monuments themselves? We may not wish to end there, but that should be be square one. Soderberg in Lest We Forget: A Guide to Civil War Monuments in Maryland in the section “Interpretation of the Monuments: The Meaning:" writes “A person viewing a monument in a later age may receive a different message than that which was sent by its builders.” They, the builders, say the monument is for the Lost Cause.  That is good enough for me.

As a wikipedia editor I can make this change myself, but I’d rather hear that it’s okay with you, my fellow editors. I can hardly imagine how much work went into making the graph and it does present a nice visual of something, but, of what? I think there is ample reason to determine that it was the Lost Cause. Carptrash (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing it, and it doesn't have the "wait, this doesn't agree with the time line at all" problem of using "Jim Crow". PS: When does the kid-cooking start? I brought hot sauce.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing it Forgive me, but what sources specifically are you referring to here? From what I can tell none of the sources Carptrash referred to even uses the term "lost cause era," much less says that monument building peaked during the "lost cause era." If I missed something (pretty sure I didn't) please point it out. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Jim Crow era", depending on the source, starts in 1877 (or 1894) and goes until the 1950s or 1960s depending on the source.  Our graph shows it as from the mid 1890s to the mid 1930s. You are okay with that? Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - We have multiple RS saying that monument building peaked in the Jim Crow era. Where are the sources saying it peaked in the "lost cause era?" Also the "lost cause" is an narrative about the civil war, not a period of time. The term "lost cause era is not very widely used. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fyddlestix ... Lost Cause is not an "era" but a movement and belief that persists today. The "Lost Cause Era" doesn't exist or isn't widely known/understood. And labeling it as such would be grossly inaccurate and is a bizarre suggestion as a replacement for the Jim Crow era. This is reaching denialism levels. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The RfC about the graph, posted by User:D.Creish on Sept. 12th, is still active and no clear consensus has yet been reached. I know that darned graph is causing a lot of lost sleep, but RfC policy (which was reached by consensus) advises that after 30 days (the default RfC length) we request formal closure.  What say?  Magnolia677 (talk) 21: 17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Also, these are not monuments "to the Lost Cause." These are monuments to the Confederate States of America, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. The Lost Cause is a literary and intellectual movement about the Confederate cause. Statues, monument building, and other memorials are part of how Lost Causers spread their narrative. Fluous (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have removed the word "era." These are monuments to the Lost Cause, not to Jim Crow. I was just trying to work toward consensus. Carptrash (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, no! The monuments are NOT memorializing the "Lost Cause". They're NOT memorializing "Jim Crow." They're memorializing the "Confederacy". The movement to build monuments was part of the Lost Cause. Lost Cause ideology is expressed in many monuments. But the monuments don't memorialize the movement to build monuments, which is basically what you're saying. Please explain to me how I can help clarify this distinction. Fluous (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, so this attempt to reach consensus was ill advised. So let's go back to the "Jum Crow era" label.  Of the 11 references lister for it above, I think (please double check) only 3 mention the "Jim Crow era." One sets it in time as "post-reconstruction" (1877) and says "vestiges"remain in 1996. How does this jive with the time lines on the graph?  Another one that mentions the era has 1949 as the only date I could find.  Well outside out parameters.  USA Today, one of the sources that does not mention Jim Crow era, says, "“The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that in the 150 years that followed the end of the Civil War hundreds of Confederate monuments where erected in almost every state"  Actually the data from SPLC says 30 states.  And of those, 14 had 3 or less. Yet the source says "almost every state" so that is what we use?  I suspect that it is time for me to take a wikibreak. But think about it, 8 of 11 sources that we are using to justify "Jim Crow era" don't say it. Carptrash (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, so this attempt to reach consensus was ill advised. So let's go back to the "Jum Crow era" label.  Of the 11 references lister for it above, I think (please double check) only 3 mention the "Jim Crow era." One sets it in time as "post-reconstruction" (1877) and says "vestiges"remain in 1996. How does this jive with the time lines on the graph?  Another one that mentions the era has 1949 as the only date I could find.  Well outside out parameters.  USA Today, one of the sources that does not mention Jim Crow era, says, "“The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that in the 150 years that followed the end of the Civil War hundreds of Confederate monuments where erected in almost every state"  Actually the data from SPLC says 30 states.  And of those, 14 had 3 or less. Yet the source says "almost every state" so that is what we use?  I suspect that it is time for me to take a wikibreak. But think about it, 8 of 11 sources that we are using to justify "Jim Crow era" don't say it. Carptrash (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

While we wait for the RFC to be closed...
Carptrash has done good work in the list-article and here on the Talk page. Consensus about the graphic will in fact be established by closure of the RFC in a section above. Please don't anyone argue with my forecast here (it is my forecast of what will happen and there is no point to debating it): I predict that the RFC will be closed with "delete the graph" decision, because of the nature and quality of arguments made, specifically that the graph is biased, original research which is embarrassing for Wikipedia to be presenting. As Carptrash and others have pointed out, there are serious problems with quality of data/research by the organization which made a report, then there are further serious problems with the construction of the graphic by editors here, and there are further serious problems with the quality of many statements made in RFC and otherwise on this page. That said, I hope/trust that administrator(s) who close this will do a good job and that will establish what a consensus is. It remains possible, as has happened with other high-profile RFCs, that the "wrong" decision is taken and that further RFCs and dispute will run on. It is not the end of the world if that happens, it will just continue. It may continue to be embarrasing what is displayed on this article. Anyhow, I want to thank User:Carptrash for their very constructive and patient participation here, and to say that i hope they can continue to be involved but not to be too stressed out about the sorry situation that has gone on and that is somewhat likely to continue. Thank you for trying with a proposal here, but I think we have to wait for the RFC to be closed. -- do ncr  am  17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The graph is not original research. We have long established that it's a re-creation of the SPLC graph with well-sourced labels. If I had to guess, the "embarassment" is on those who continue to support the public display of monuments to white supremacy. And you should be embarassed. It's embarassing. By contrast, I am proud of this wikipedia article. The quality of the work here we should be proud of. Including the graph. I am confident that the right decision will be reached and the graph will stay. Fluous (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fluous - Be ashamed, not proud. Pride in championing an agenda other than NPOV presenting all views in due weight?  The graph is exaggerated data from an advocacy group, as one should expect of an advocacy group, and while a decent if flawed listing has conclusions that are ...  not the only interpretations from less-biased scholarly sources.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's NOT "exaggerated data from an advocacy group". Stop making shit up. Stop substituting your own prejudices and original research in place of actual sources and historians' scholarly work and then pretending that you're actually following Wikipedia policy. You're not. Not even close. You're shamelessly ignoring it, spitting on it, shitting on it and running roughshod over it. Wait... you're the guy who argued with a straight face that A DOZEN reliable sources, most written by historians and academics constituted "cherry picking" because because because... there are potentially millions (why not billions? Why not go the whole hog there buddy? I mean, as long as you're making shit up, do it with style!) of sources out there which maybe just maybe say something different. Of course you never bothered to present a single one.
 * You got no business lecturing others about shame.  Volunteer Marek   01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that according to the graph source, it excludes the majority (64 percent) of Confederate monuments – "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature"? Is that "exaggerated data from an advocacy group"? I hope not, but in any case, while the graph may accurately represent the 36 percent scope of Confederate monuments covered by the SPLC report, it doesn't accurately represent the 100 percent scope that this Wikipedia List class article has. I would hope that nobody editing here is supporting the romanticized Lost Cause revisionism that the Confederacy was all about the noble goal of states' rights, and that slavery had nothing to do with it – in truth, the Confederacy fought one of the bloodiest wars ever, for one of the most ignoble causes in history. And undoubtedly confederate symbols were appropriated by racists and white supremacists. It's also undoubtedly true that some monuments and memorials are commemorating certain historical events on battlefields, such as marking the site of a turning point in a battle, or the place of death of a confederate general. We need to adhere to NPOV and be accurate about whatever we state in Wikipedia's voice in this, or any other Wikipedia article. The Civil War was a complex issue – probably the most complex event in US history. It, and its aftermath, can't be oversimplified just to fit certain points of view, whichever side that happens to be. It remains a divisive subject, but the discussion here has generally been civil. Now, I see above, some evidence that the civility may be crumbling, so please, please stop that behavior, and respect everyone's point of view without making personal attacks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything? To answer your badly posed and largely rhetorical question, no, it does not make it "exaggerated data from an advocacy group". People. Find sources. Quit making your own shit up. That's Wikipedia policy.  Volunteer Marek   17:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many historians have stated that there were several reasons for the memorials. Some of those have stated especially more so depending on the time periods built. The majority of those 2600 discluded were built in first couple of decades after civil war. Per several historians this was the time memorials were being built mostly for historical purposes such as marking battlefields, major events, etc and/or memorials honoring the dead. Markers and obelisks were quite common during that period and for these type of memorials. So no it is not making stuff up, and this means IF they had been included it would definitely show completely different graph .. hench the exaggerated data bit. Guessing the biggest peak would be in the first 50 - 60 years, which is NOT what SPLC wanted to show. HOWEVER, I have no problem with discluding those historical and gravesite memorials, as it only takes common sense to figure out why those were erected for. I and am sure most people are curious as to why the rest of memorials are for. What I do have problem with is SPLC than pick and chose what all data to include of rest ~1500 they found and more importantly with this graph only labeling one of two probable reasons for the memorials given from two of sources clearly leaving out the anniversaries and going against NPOV policy. Something any other respectable source will admit. Wiki job is not tell people what to think about it (which this graph does), but to be source of info and let readers come to their own conclusions, nor is it an opinion piece.Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Many historians have stated that there were several reasons for the memorials." - yeah, which ones? Let's see the sources. You guys keep offering your opinions and keep making these, often ridiculous, claims, but continually fail at providing sources. On the other hand, I've presented more than a dozen sources, including from "many historians" which back up the notion that these monuments are tied to white supremacy and Jim Crow. Sources vs. some Wikipedia editor's opinion.... guess which one matters more?  Volunteer Marek   11:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the ones included on the graph you did, SPLC and Karen L. Cox, give at least one other. Not sure how many times I must say this, but do not see point of listing other sources if you do not know what other reasons are listed from your own sources. Besides I have never claimed that some are not tied to any of this (Imho many of them are), what I am claiming PER even your own sources that this is not the only possible reason. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) That's not "Many historians", 2) they mention something else in passing while forcefully arguing for the "it was Jim Crow" view, so that claim is a pretty serious misrepresentation of the sources.  Volunteer Marek   20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "making shit up", that the graph "excludes nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" that are within the scope of this Wikipedia article, comes from the cited source of the graph data. Mojoworker (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "making shit up" is the "The graph is exaggerated data from an advocacy group" part. You got no evidence or sources to back up that statement. In other words, you just made it up.  Volunteer Marek   11:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you notice, much as you did yourself directly above where I did, I was quoting someone else about the "exaggerated data from an advocacy group" and it was a question (there was a question mark after it) about whether that was true or false – I said I hoped it wasn't true. I never made any claim as to its veracity. To be clear, I think there is a place for such a graph in this article, perhaps in its own section as EvergreenFir suggested with option (1). But it needs to be clear that it covers a different scope than this article does. Perhaps we need a formal RfC, but I'd rather wait until the current one has concluded. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possible solutions include (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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For now, I've implemented your suggestion (2) of a footnote as a temporary measure, but I'd favor your suggestion (1) or (3) since the graph as it currently stands near the top of the article, implies it covers the same scope as our article, while in actuality it covers only a small subset. Mojoworker (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the "footnote" is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. It'd be fine to include something about how the chart may not be an exhaustive list (and neither is this Wikipedia article) but we would really need to do so in a neutral manner. What we have here is just underhanded attempts at poisoning the well and trying to discredit the chart because you can't remove it.  Volunteer Marek   11:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you claim it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, when the footnote is a direct quote from the source for the graph? Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it tries to synthesize the info from SPLC graph with the ... edit history of this Wikipedia article (!). So it's actually sort of original research about original research.  Volunteer Marek   20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. Please explain your premise in more detail. This article clearly covers battlefield monuments that the SPLC excluded from their data. It has nothing to do with the edit history, other than editors added the monuments to this list starting 7 1/2 years ago. Mojoworker (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: the "subset" argument, this looks like a non-issue to me. SPLC "excludes battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" because it doesn't define those as monuments. That editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader (borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE) definition of what a monument is (specifically including plaques, flags, and holidays, for example) does not invalidate or reflect poorly on the SPLC source. It merely suggests that splc has put some thought into what should and should not be included. The suggestion that the SPLC's count is invalid because they don't include every little plaque or flag that anonymous Wikipedia editors have chosen to add to this list at some point is absurd. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep.  Volunteer Marek   19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, can I remind everyone that the SPLC survey was specifically limited to public and publicly supported monuments? Their survey was never intended to be an exhaustive list of all confederate monuments so it's hardly a "gotcha" to point out that that's not what it is. All we need to do is tweak the caption to make it clear what's being displayed. The chart is no less valid or worthy of inclusion for having been based on an actual standard/methodology for inclusion though. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyddlestix, before you make that sort of accusation, you should at least check your facts beforehand. It's not that "editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader" definition, rather it's the contrary – the recent headlines that have drawn in many editors that have never previously edited on the subject – and they are trying to make this long-standing article all about the SPLC report. As I stated above, the confederate monuments at Gettysburg have been in this article since before the 25th edit to this article, and the monument at Perryville was here the first day this article existed. The SPLC doesn't include those – so what? This is not the SPLC's list of Confederate monuments designed to support white supremacy article, and I would strongly oppose overturning the 7$1/2$ year consensus about the scope of this article. If you want to make that article (which would be item (3) of EvergreenFir's proposals), have at it. Mojoworker (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that as an accusation - but the article IS bloated, probably since long before the current controversy. The point is that the graph isn't (and shouldn't be) represented as accounting for every monument listed here, much less every monument, everywhere - not least because that's not even what the SPLC survey set out to do, reasonable people can disagree over what counts as a "monument," and the standard for inclusion in this article seems very broad/unclear. But it doesn't have to include everything listed here to be relevant - though it does need to be clearly/accurately labelled. The written (non-graph, non-splc) sources make it clear that the point made by the graph is generally valid and does apply to confederate monuments in general. The graph is simply a useful illustration of a broader trend, which is well documented in other rs and obviously relevant to this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on your edit summary here it does look like this is the heart of the issue - if the graph is clearly labelled as a graph of public and publicly supported monuments to the confederacy and its leaders (which is the criteria the splc actually used) and the data is attributed to them, what's the issue? No one is claiming that the graph lists all confederate monuments, much less all monuments listed here. (Even though we DO have sources stating that what's true of the monuments graphed is also true of confederate monuments generally). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, I would agree with you, but no, the criteria the SPLC used for the data the graph is based on is not of all public and publicly supported monuments to the confederacy and its leaders, only some – according to the SPLC "nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" (about 64% of the total) were excluded. The monuments and markers located on battlefields such as Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Antietam, Shiloh, Chickamauga, etc. are also public and publicly supported. That's the problem. They eliminated the historical markers which make up a large portion of the scope of this article. Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markers, and Gettysburg has a similar number (note that these include both Union and Confederate). Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? SPLC makes it quite clear that they're cataloguing not just "publicly supported" but public monuments (as in: official, in a public space, erected by the government). In other words, they're drawing a distinction between obscure battlefield markers and cemeteries on the one hand and giant, equestrian statues of Robert E Lee that were erected with great fanfare in a public square on the other. Those are two very different categories of things, and the distinction is a perfectly reasonable one for them to have made. Essentially, you're faulting them for not doing something that they did not set out to do (and which they clearly state that they're not trying to do), which is pretty silly if you ask me. Also, your statement that Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markers just highlights how patently ridiculous the ideas that anyone could (or should) catalog all such monuments is.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. I'm not faulting the SPLC – they made their list of data as they saw fit. I'm faulting the graph of the SPLC's data being used at the top of this article with the implication that it's representing the same data in this article, when the scopes of the two are very different. As you said above, "though it does need to be clearly/accurately labelled." That's why I implemented option (2) of EvergreenFir's suggestion, but Marek keeps edit-warring it out. Looking at his prodigious block log, it seems that's his MO. He appears to be the only one opposed to the footnote, despite what seems to be the consensus of the discussion here, so perhaps another RfC will need to happen. Or his behavior becomes so egregious that someone takes him to a noticeboard. As to the "obscure battlefield markers", the following look a lot like "giant, equestrian statues of Robert E Lee"...


 * ...well, not the equestrian part, but they 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", and were not erected as tools of oppression. Mojoworker (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to jump in...but this article in The Washington Post suggests the construction of Confederate monuments was partly the result of a marketing campaign by Monumental Bronze Co. of Bridgeport, Connecticut--a manufacturer of bronze statues. About 2,500 of the company's soldier statues were erected in the North, and about 500 in the South. "Many of the South's Silent Sentinels turn out to be identical to the statues of Union soldiers that decorate hundreds of public spaces across the North. Identical, but for one detail: On the soldier's belt buckle, the 'U.S.' is replaced by a 'C.S.' for 'Confederate States.'" Kinda funny. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC chart is basically cribbed from John J. Winberry's 1983 essay "Lest We Forget". At the end of his essay Winberry gave 4 reasons for the construction of the monuments. 1) to honor the memory of the dead and recognize returning veterans, 2)to celebrate the rebuilding of the south, 3) to support the idea of the Lost Cause, and 4)to unite whites against the interests of African American southerners. He concluded-"No one of these four possible explanations for the Confederate monument is adequate or complete in itself. The monument is a symbol, but whether it was a memory of the past, a celebration of the present, or a portent of the future remains a difficult question to answer; monuments and symbols can be complicated and sometimes indecipherable." Dubyavee (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except... it's not.  Volunteer Marek   19:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was the person who added the Winberry (1983) article. No, the SPLC chart is definitely not "cribbed" from his article. Winberry's article focuses almost exclusively on courthouse monuments.
 * The SPLC study is far, far broader:
 * Fluous (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Shelbyville, Tennessee
Should we add the Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Willow Mount Cemetery, Shelbyville, Tennessee? Cunningham was the founding editor of the Confederate Veteran.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A gravestone where he was buried. No unless you are going to start listing gravestones for all confederates (~1 million). Memorials in honour for him elsewhere, sure. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I agree with Kevin. Fluous (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - Memorial is a decoration dedicated to the dead, and as this does not look like a gravestone it might well be included. The article is leaning towards inclusion, widely interpreting monument and memorial, so this is not as big a stretch as other items.   The Dodd scroll photo from his gravestie is the only other one I see but ehh..   Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

National Battlefield Parks
Really? These are memorials for the Civil War, not for Confederacy. I can understand that they are related, but this is a list for confederate memorials and symbols. Maybe have in the National section some short blurb about battlefield parks with link to Civil War Battlefield Park page. What next, are we going to list all Union things too cause they are related as well. I might understand if it is actually named such (ie: Richmond Confederate Battlefield Park) but this is not the case because they are memorials for Civil War. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that battlefield monuments don't really belong. The SPLC feels the same way:
 * and
 * This issue came up before. I think the consensus before was inclusionist/ keep the monuments. Because some people don't buy the distinction between symbols that are largely historic in nature vs. symbols that honor the confederacy. The distinction seems clear to me though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fluous (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point entirely. Kevin didn't say anything about "battlefield monuments don't really belong", how can you be agreeing with something he didn't say? He's talking about the section on the battlefields themselves, and what he's saying is that these NPS Military Parks are not confederate memorials – although most do contain confederate monuments (along with Union monuments and general interpretive signs and monuments). I agree with Kevin that the section should be removed. Fluous, why are you trying to foist the SPLC's article scope onto this Wikipedia article? From the start this article has included monuments largely historic in nature. The confederate monuments at Gettysburg have been in this article since before the 25th edit to this article, and the monument at Perryville was here the first day this article existed. The SPLC doesn't include those – so what? This is not the SPLC's list of Confederate monuments designed to support white supremacy article, and I would strongly oppose overturning the 7.5 year consensus about the scope of this article. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only Fluous can clarify what they meant, however I did not interpret it that way. Yes taken literally, you are correct. It sounded to me was supporting what I said, just did not phrase it very well. Ofc monuments inside of NPS battle field parks in honour for CSA should be listed, just not the NPS Battle Field parks themself, unless maybe it is actually called such. Gettysburg National Military Park is a perfect example, the NPS park itself is not listed, however several of monuments inside of it are. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought I was agreeing with you! I also think monuments/ memorials inside the parks clearly honor the Confederacy or Confederate soldiers. But battlefield parks, no. They're not monuments or memorials. Fluous (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only Fluous can clarify what they meant, however I did not interpret it that way. Yes taken literally, you are correct. It sounded to me was supporting what I said, just did not phrase it very well. Ofc monuments inside of NPS battle field parks in honour for CSA should be listed, just not the NPS Battle Field parks themself, unless maybe it is actually called such. Gettysburg National Military Park is a perfect example, the NPS park itself is not listed, however several of monuments inside of it are. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought I was agreeing with you! I also think monuments/ memorials inside the parks clearly honor the Confederacy or Confederate soldiers. But battlefield parks, no. They're not monuments or memorials. Fluous (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a List, not an article about history of. However after looking at them all, I do see where some should stay, as some are listing the CSA memorials inside of it rather than simply listing some significant CSA event / others are named for. Arlington House, Lee Memorial (except it is duplicate as already listed on VA > Buildings); Augusta Canal listing memorial inside; Fort Davis (named for Jeff Davis); Fort Donelson (named for); Great Basin listing memorial in; Yellowstone listing memorial in. Idk might be one or two others I missed, but most rest really should not be here in a list of article. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Arlington is probably not a confederate monument – yes, it was Lee's home, but its significance is its role as national cemetery (and was put there purposely to spite Lee, not to honor him). But to your point, should these battlefield monuments (within these battlefield parks) be consolidated into their own section (and perhaps broken down by state with subsections) or merged in with the other monuments in the individual states? I guess I'm leaning toward the former. Mojoworker (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The Article was created in March 2010...
...and the "racism" angle makes its first appearance in May 2017. -Topcat777 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not object to inclusion of 'white supremacy' as it is valid argument and imho should be included to show weight that current historians think this is one of reasons for such symbols being built. For neutrality puposes it should be mentioned. What I oppose is it went from one extreme to exact opposite extreme and is still not neutral. Of course for a so called "list" page, it is getting to be rather descriptive turning it more into an actual article instead of simply a list. Maybe it would simply be better to only have a lede, completely removing the History and Distrution section and replacing it with list of related articles. Those sections really should have there own stubs created if none exist for them already. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What is your point Topcat777? Legacypac (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

SPLC and POV
I think the promotion of the SPLC as an unimpeachable source has not been questioned enough. I knew very little about them but became curious by the zealotry exhibited here on their behalf and found this article from Politico, which is a well regarded news agency. These are a few things they mention about the SPLC-

'''J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague stated “The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” He went on to say-

'''"Berger says that defining a hate or extremist group is notoriously problematic when using extensive, technical criteria, and that the problem becomes greater in the case of the SPLC, which reserves discretion in how and when it applies those labels. 'There’s no consensus academic definition of extremism, and the SPLC’s methodology for making that call isn’t clear,' he says. 'So it’s very subjective even within academia, and even more so for a motivated organization.'" '''

"Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors. 'The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote,' he says." '''

Harper's, which is hardly a right-leaning publication, has published several articles critical of the SPLC in recent years. They say the founder, Morris Dees, became a multi-millionaire through the organization, and locals refer to their new headquarters in Atlanta as the "poverty palace".

Letter from Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor, regarding Morris Dees

I think this should raise questions about leaning too heavily on them as a total source for information in the article. Dubyavee (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point out what claims by the SPLC you consider to be dubious? Are we using an instance of the SPLC defining a group as extremist in this article? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dixie
While Dixie was discussed earlier (archive), there was no conclusion. As "Dixie" pre-dates the CSA, and applies to the region (not the political entity), it is WP:SYN to assume that the Dixie Highway is a monument or memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America → List of Confederate monuments and memorials – This title is shorter and also more logical: the momunents do not belong to the Confederate States of America, but were established to commemmorate the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy. Also compare with Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Opton A: List of Confederate monuments and memorials
 * Option B: List of public symbols of the Confederacy
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is still a redundant title, Monuments are Memorials. But meh I know that is prolly how most will still be searching for anyway. Do not really object or support. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Another option that I mentioned in an earlier discussion is "List of public symbols of the Confederacy". I have a slight preference for the latter, but wanted to be consistent with the "Removal..." article. I added both options above. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternative - List of memorials honoring Confederate soldiers. Seems more neutral.  Most of these memorials were not erected to honor the Confederacy, but the men who fought for it (there is a difference).  They were erected well after the Civil War ended - around the time that the generation that had fought in that war were dying off. The same phenomenon (constructing memorials honoring "heroes" of a passing generation) occurred in the Northern Stares as well (honoring Union soldiers, of course) and around this same time frame. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Option A. Blueboar's alternative is not good because every grave is a memorial to each particular soldier. Option B is ambiguous in that "public symbols" may mean "symbols in public view" or "symbols established by a public entity". – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Option A. I personally prefer B, however wiki is not about me and I have feeling most will be looking for A. Not only that but A would also cover broader range guessing being searched for (one reason do not like Alt but more neutral one given above). With Option A: Search for "Memorial" should find result, search for "Monument" should find result, searching for both ofc better find the result lol. Even if on odd case someone does search for symbols, just believe they will also use one or the other terms of Memorial and/or Monument. As much as I like option B, I had to admit to myself it prolly was not best for the whole of users. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Option A however we should make sure that it won't be confused with any other Confederacy. I don't think titles need to be overly precise or literal, since the lead explains what the article is about. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A - concise and accurate. Neutralitytalk 16:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both Options have merit. Option B, "List of public symbols of the Confederacy," is one that I proposed (based on the SPLC title). But I think the consensus was that there are notable private memorials that we want to include here. So count me for Option A. And I agree with Kevin that the title is redundant: monuments are memorials. It should be "List of Confederate memorials." Fluous (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A but this list looks more like an article than it does a list with its 2954 words of readable prose size (excluding actual lists). List of Confederate memorials in America would work, too, provided it's made into an actual list less all the lengthy prose. Atsme 📞📧 23:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We actually have international memorials here, too. So, "...in America" wouldn't work. Fluous (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Option A; the B version is ambiguous (if Banksy graffitis a confederate flag on a wall does that count?). If the long name is kept, BTW, change it to use "to" instead of "of", per nom's observation that the monuments are not part of the CSA. Basic grammar fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments - Just to point out that this RFC has phrased it as being is A better than B, so it hasn't done a clear check of if there should be a move at all.  Otherwise I'll note this seems three somewhat different topics -- 'Confederate monuments' are not quite the same as 'monuments of the Confederate States of America', nor are monument, memorial, or symbols necessarily even closely related.   For example, a symbol could be a logo or seal, a painting, a hand gesture, a song, or a token object -- and what it symbolizes depends on POV.   "Confederate monument" would be just a bit broader than "monument of the Confederate States of America" as it for example could be cited to statues of Calhoun or Taney.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Tags
This page is full of discussions of the chart and the SPLC, but nobody has explained the purpose of the article tags. I'm starting this section to specifically address these tags: What specific concerns are the tags referring to? '''This is not about the chart. Please discuss the chart above.''' –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed.
 * This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.
 * This article possibly contains original research.
 * This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * In response to tags and their application, perhaps Template_messages may provide some insight. My primary concern over this list is the fallacious assumption that everything in the list was an "honorarium"; i.e., that it was named in "honor" of or "for service in" the Confederacy, et al. That is not the case at all. Example: this Time article includes a quote from Brigadier General Malcolm Frost. He reaffirmed that “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history.” He went on to say that "historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies." He also stated "that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” Regarding how it all relates to this "list" is rather evident that not all were erected/constructed/created as honorariums to the Confederacy et al. In order to justify inclusion in this list, they must have been dedicated specifically for the purpose named in the article title and lede, and cited to a RS that verifies the dedication - but that is not what we're seeing here. SPLC is not a RS for this purpose. They clearly have a COI and by that I mean when they target persons, places or things, they create legal challenges, and as lawyers, that puts money in their pockets, regardless of how good their cause may be. Hope that helps, . Atsme 📞📧 19:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is it implied or assumed that everything in the list is an honorarium to the Confederacy? The lede opens with "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." Would you agree that this covers individual soldiers and leaders as well as the Confederacy/CSA itself?
 * As for the SPLC source, I would suggest bringing it up at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you are concerned about its reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC source is a RS, full stop. You're welcome to challenge it at RSN but I wouldn't expect to get very far. Beyond that, this seems like an argument for removing unsourced items or items that don't belong in the list, not an argument for the tags. I'm all for ensuring everything is sourced and a clear standard of inclusion, but that's hardly a pov issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyddlestix, we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge. SPLC has major issues, and those issues have been acknowledged in numerous RS, including the Encyclopedia Britannica.
 * Dlthewave - in answer to your question, "Where exactly is it implied or assumed that everything in the list is an honorarium to the Confederacy?" I encourage you to read the second sentence in your response to me...The lede opens with "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." What part of established in honor are you not understanding? Atsme 📞📧 21:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge. Can you link the discussion you're referring to please? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Fyddlestix. Also a source's "COI", even if there is one (and it's false that one exists here), is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors can have COI. It doesn't apply to sources. Just like it's perfectly fine for sources to do original research but it's a no-no for editors.
 * As for the "honors" thing - if you want some other wording please propose. But that's a very weak peg to hang a whole series of "badge of shame" tags on, which sort of suggests it wasn't the actual reason for the tagging.  Volunteer Marek   21:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No sir, COIs in sources are not irrelevant - bias may be, but even then we're asked to look for other sources. I find your "badge of shame" comment rather distasteful. Why would you say such a thing, and what exactly does that mean? Atsme 📞📧 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "COIs in sources are not irrelevant" - yes it is. Show me in WP:RS where it talks about sources' "conflict of interest". And just to be clear, there actually IS NO conflict of interest here, you're just making it up. But even if there was, it wouldn't matter.
 * Adding "badge of shame" tags is exactly what you are doing. What exactly is, uh, "distasteful" about calling it that? Are you misunderstanding something here?  Volunteer Marek   00:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the "honors" thing,, you suggested bringing forth a proposal so here is my proposal: the dictionary definition of "in honor of" = a celebration of or expression of respect for. Therein the problems lie and why it is the incorrect terminology for this particular list. The statues, monuments, memorials are not all in honor of, many are in rememberance of...and there is a big difference between the two. Among the best explanations I found for the latter is the following statement by Brigadier General Malcolm Frost: "Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history." He further explained that the historic names chosen "represent individuals, not causes or ideologies," and that it was done "in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.” The point being, many of the memorials-monuments et al are a "rememberance of", not in honor of unless it specifically states same in multiple RS. Atsme 📞📧 22:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's possible or necessary to come up with a single word that reliable sources use to describe every monument, memorial, etc that meets the inclusion criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it seems like a bit of a waste of effort. I prefer "honor" over "remembrance" in part because remembrance just strikes me as an odd word to use (subjective, I know), but also because I have seen very few RS use it in this context, which makes it a poor choice IMO. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, maybe we could use "associated" which is used at List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials. –dlthewave ☎£
 * That might have worked if the lead didn't say "in honor of"...perhaps the following will give you a better idea of what I'm trying to relay:
 * Massachusettes confederate memorial
 * Confederate_Memorial_(Arlington_National_Cemetery)
 * A new Confederate monument stating: "That's why we're here is to honor our Confederate dead, to honor our ancestors," Notice the term "HONOR"
 * Hollywood Forever Cemetary - a memorial that "commemorates the military service of Confederate veterans buried there."
 * In other words, it's not a difficult chore to cite the subjects to dedication ceremonies and the like. Most will have plaques that state "in honor of" - if there are no sources that distinguish the memorial et al, then it doesn't belong in this list - WP:OR, WP:V. Atsme 📞📧 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

General description of how tags are used
dlthewave - ??? Think you'll have to explain a bit more on what you're asking or why, and the tags have been edit-warred deleted again so perhaps it's OBE but in case any of these help: Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want the purpose of tags, entering template:pov into the search box will bring up the WP documentation about neutrality dispute tag, covering purpose of the tags along with some procedural information.
 * If you're interested in specifics of what particular concerns there were, see what is stated in threads above. (Though I think it's fairly self-evident what each concern is about -- the neutrality of the article is disputed in the above; there is a single source extensively present and discussed; and so forth.)
 * If you want to know why a specific instance of POV tags was put in place, one can go thru the history and visit the talk page of whichever editor put it in place and ask them directly. There are a number of editors who posted such and the reasons for each case would likely vary.
 * This isn't a helpful response. The discussions above are a mess/all over the place, hand waving along the lines of "its up there somewhere" isn't enough. If you want to add the tags clearly state the issues in this section of the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And to be perfectly clear - what it says in the tag is NOT policy. The actual policy is WP:NPOV. And yes, spurious tags CAN and in fact SHOULD be removed.  Volunteer Marek   13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

dlthewave - again,
 * This thread may be OBE because that tag (plus a section tag and the image remark about disputed) all got edit-warred out again,
 * but feel welcome to clarify a bit more on what you were asking for and why, or whether you feel this thread is over.
 * Meanwhile I again offer the possible helps for some aspects of this ...
 * -- For 'the purpose of the article tags' there is purpose generally stated in the template documentation.
 * -- For 'specific concerns' of what may be of concern there is a lot of prior TALK with specifics, and seems fairly obvious meanings /links to each item
 * -- For 'specific concerns' why that particular tagging instance was done, the editor who did it is the only one who can say what he did it about.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what's "OBE"? Out of body experience?
 * Anyway, you keep linking to policy, as well as making false claims about policy but you consistently fail to explain the reason for the tags. Absent such an explanation the tags go. And your failure to engage constructively and address the issue does not signal good faith.  Volunteer Marek   15:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See Glossary – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a general description of how tags are used. I'm looking for a specific explanation of why each of the article tags were added. Most of the edit summaries say something like "do not remove without discussing" or "see talk page", but I'm having trouble finding an ongoing discussion of why each of these tags was added to the top of the article. We all have the common goal of building an article that does not have issues that require tagging, so I'm trying to start a discussion to identify those issues and work towards resolving them. Several editors are posting on this Talk page and advocating for keeping the tags in place, so they are well aware of this request. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * user:Dlthewave - why D.Creisch added each of the tags 5 Oct. can only be answered by him, you can ask him directly.  I think Atsme added the same tags so you could ask him what his reasons were.  I am not sure why you ask since the tag got obliterated, but those are the only two who could have thatinternal knowledge, if they recall it.  The “do not remove without discussion” likely comes from the template documentation describing that the tag is to stay while discourse is ongoing but ... was being edit-warred.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)