Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 9

"Cemeteries and museums are not included in this list." ?
I see a lot of cemeteries included in this list, or am I misunderstanding what this sentence means? Dubyavee (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you referring? I know the reason for the cemetery in Seattle, WA, is because of a monument honoring 'Confederate Veterans' and often as private land, the cemeteries are the sights of many Confederate memorials.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC states, "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." Another place we should part ways with the SPLC. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a conflict within the article. Perhaps that sentence should be removed from the opening text. Also the cemetery monuments and memorials should be excluded from the Jim Crow attributions, as cemeteries in the south, as in much of the U.S., were segregated, so the purpose of the monument was memorial rather than political as very few Africa-Ams. would see them. Dubyavee (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Jim Crow discussion is supported by reliable sources. Do you have a source to back up your statement? –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The segregation of cemeteries in the south, as well as in many other parts of the US, is a well known fact. The placing of a monument in a segregated cemetery, cemeteries that were often outside of town, could not possibly be used as an instrument of Jim Crow to intimidate African-Americans, who would rarely, if ever, visit that cemetery. The early monuments in cemeteries would be for the dead, and often to commemorate the Confederacy, but had no purpose beyond that.Historically Black: Imagining Community in a Black Historic District
 * Out of the about 410 articles listed in the Lists of monuments and memorials article this article seems to be (please check this out) the only list that includes roads and schools and bridges and what not. Why is that? I imagine that American exceptionalism plays a part, we don't want to be like the rest of the world, so we don't use the metric system, we officially deny global warming (it's been over 100º here, in October), we don't sign anti-nuclear proliferation pacts, we won't give up the "first strike" option and we want to prove how racist the South is by including every possible reference we can find in this list.  Only no one else seems to feel that such lists are the place to score political points.  We are doing it (opinion) because the Southern Law folks DO want to make political points and for some reason we seem to want to go along with them.  Let's not. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went through the list and found one cemetery, Salisbury National Cemetery, which does not appear to have a Confederate memorial. Every other instance of the word "cemetery" is used to describe the location of a memorial which happens to be within a cemetery. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is non-sensical. In what ways are "cemeteries...not included"? Cemeteries that don't have Confederate memorials are not included? Well, that makes sense. Otherwise, cemeteries are included. I would like an example of a cemetery that has a Confederate monument that isn't included. That sentence should just be removed from the lede. Dubyavee (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other monuments and memorials pages you checked being incomplete but we commonly include roads/highways and schools named as memorials or to honor individuals. Desmond Doss is one example I've worked on. He has a school and several highways named for him. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So do you feel that every street in America named after someone notable should be listed in wikipedia? Carptrash (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read []and [].Slatersteven (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Holidays; license plates; and coins and stamps.
S. Rich has been making some fairly bold edits. He removed holidays; license plates; and coins and stamps to other articles. How do people feel about this? It's kind of weird that Confederate memorials aren't in the article about Confederate memorials. I personally don't share his desperation to shorten this article. Fluous (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials about the mass deletions this editor was making. In the lead of the article, the criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined: "These Confederate symbols include monuments and statues, flags, holidays and other observances, and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works."  If Confederate memorials have been removed from this list, and they were sourced and met the inclusion criteria, I'd support reverting the edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It is extremely common to say a person is commemerated on a stamp or coin - and it is a federal govt decision. The listed Holidays clearly commemorate the Confederacy. He shoild put them back or he needs to be banned from the topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The suggestions about spinning-out non-monument / memorial-objects items was made a month ago with very little action. Part of our overall problem is using a broad, generic term like "memorial". Expanding the inclusion criteria to "Confederate symbols" is unwise because then absolutely everything (such as Scarlett (musical)) could be included. (All of this stuff is WP:CHOKING the article.) Here is my solution: Revise the intro lede sentence to say "'This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established as public displays and symbols of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or notable Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War. These Confederate memorials symbols include monuments and statues, flags, holidays and other observances, and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works. This listing does not include cemeteries, museums, or markers of historical events.'" The flags, license plates, stamps, coins, cemeteries, then get proper mention via See alsos and hatnotes/ – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion was not actioned because most editors don't agree with it. Now stop and put things back. A note about these items is not the correct way to cover them. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not correct . Holidays and coins were suggested a spin-out items by another editor. I agree with that other editor. You alone opposed. Stamps and coins are basic equivalents. Same goes for license plates. Finally, links have been provided to these related topics. Thus there's been a small reduction to the kb load of this article. The next thing to accomplish is some consensus on a sensible parameter for fixing the WP:TOPIC of this list to something that keeps a limit to the bloat. My suggestion is above. Comment on the suggestion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have sensible limits. No one has added their next-door neighbor's Confederate-themed lawn ornaments. No one has added their local bridge club's Confederate-themed teacups. There is no "bloat" problem of exponentially-expanding additions. This article has been pretty stable with the exception of your edits— edits that several editors have now characterized as disruptive. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Fluous (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fluous - there are threads above for "Standards for inclusion", and "Discussion on limiting scope", plus a move/title change and several other points about scope and ... I think what is in or out is kind of up in the air at the moment. Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fluous: The current scope of the article is reasonable and there aren't any major categories that should be removed. It's a long article because there are a lot of Confederate monuments and memorials. –dlthewave ☎ 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A federally issued coin or stamp is definately a memorial to a CSA General just as a stutue or building is. The Licemse plates are well documented as an issue as a State issued item. We are not going to take out flags on State capital grounds for example - that has been one of the most controversial memorial items. There is nothingbwrong with the term "memorial' which rightly included a variety of instalations and "issues" like a single coin, 5 stamps, and a few state license plates, which collectively tale up way less space than court house statues in one state. How in the world less than 12 listings is WP:CHOKING the page is way beyond me. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia presents articles in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and lists must comply with WP:LISTCRITERIA. In this regard the article fails all three criteria in WP:CSC. E.g., it contains a mixture of notable & non-notable monuments (first & second criteria) and it is NOT a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." My efforts to refine the inclusion criteria and parse out non-granite memorials have pared down the listing somewhat. But if we do a "Ctrl+F" search on the article for "* ", we get >2,000 listings. This indicates we are listing items simply for the sake of listing them. Consider, Douglas Butler's book on N. Carolina monuments (used as RS at 3 points) has an appendix to list the over 100 monuments in the state. We have gone beyond the Butler listing and added the schools, roads, etc. Where does it stop? Editors need to address the issue of BLOAT as non-partisan editors rather than seeking to create the longest WP list-article ever. Please consider the criteria of WP:CSC.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All Confederate memorials here are notable. For example, there are no listings for Confederate-themed graphics on Bubba Gump's shrimp trawler. There are no listings for Confederate billboard advertisements. The listings here are, for the large part, public memorials. That there are a lot of them is not evidence of bloat; it's evidence that there are a lot of Confederate memorials. And I don't share your slippery-slope fears: this article has been stable with the exception of your edits. The current scope of the article is entirely reasonable. And for future reference, I will be reverting any attempt of yours to unilaterally limit the scope of the article. Fluous (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 400 other Lists of monuments and memorials on wikipedia. None that I have found include stamps, coins, roads, schools and that stuff.  None of it, much less all of it.   This article existed for 6 or 7 years without them.  Suddenly after the SPLC report comes out and we "decide" to add the graph, they are necessary.  I say that stuff should go.  The lede should be re-written or returned to what it was and that other stuff should go somewhere else.  It should be removed.  If someone wants to start an article about the USA's love of all things Confederate and how racism and racist culture is spread all of the country fine, do it.  But it does not belong in this article.  Here is the lede from April 2017. After this, the list starts.
 * Carptrash (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is on the SPLC's list we include it, as it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be happy having the SLPC write wikipedia definitions, I am not. Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We have had the discussion about SPLC's reliability, it has been found to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and Memorials to Abraham Lincoln.Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does Carptrash say "roads and schools aren't memorials." That's because they are, in fact, memorials. And his arguments are otherwise not compelling. (1) What other articles do is not controlling. (2) At any rate, your sweeping "survey" of other monument/ memorial list articles is wrong. Several articles do, in fact, include memorials like place names, roads, and schools.
 * List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials
 * List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic
 * List of memorials to Jefferson Davis
 * List of memorials to Robert E. Lee
 * Memorials to Abraham Lincoln
 * List of monuments and memorials to Christopher Columbus
 * List of monuments and memorials to Sam Houston
 * List of memorials to George Washington
 * List of memorials to Andrew Jackson
 * List of memorials to Lyndon B. Johnson
 * List of memorials to James Madison
 * List of memorials to Dwight D. Eisenhower
 * List of memorials to James Monroe
 * List of memorials to Woodrow Wilson
 * List of memorials to Franklin D. Roosevelt
 * List of memorials to John F. Kennedy
 * Memorials to Warren G. Harding
 * List of memorials to William Henry Harrison
 * Memorials to Theodore Roosevelt
 * List of memorials to Martin Van Buren
 * List of memorials to John Adams
 * And so on. Fluous (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, pretty much all US Civil War lists, and all American lists. American exceptionalism again. Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You might well be right this is an American thing, but it is also being consistently applied. But this is not the place for a discussion about a wider problem.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, you've been going on-and-on about your "400 articles and none of them include schools, roads, etc" and, as it turns out, I'm hard-pressed to find a memorial article that doesn't include schools, roads, etc. In the future, please refrain from making arguments so easily disprovable. It's bad faith and a waste of everyone's time. And, I agree with Slatersteven: please follow the talk-page guidelines and keep your responses more focused and concise. This is not a general discussion forum. Your societal gripes have no place here. Thank you. Fluous (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are saying that every Washington Street,every Lincoln Street every Grant Street, every Jackson Street etc. belongs on that list of memorials? Interesting. Carptrash (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as they are named after the right Washington, Lincoln, Jackson maybe. It depends what RS list them as.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Maybe"? There's a definitive answer.  Actually as I look through the list above - most of which are not included in the Lit of m & M article (must fix that) I am finding very few streets and schools listed. Washington only includes colleges and universities. But if you folks really want every Washington Middle School in the country, every Washington Street, so be it. Carptrash (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot give a definitive answer to a theoretical question, issues such as RS, Undue and venerability come into it. As I said as long as it is the right person, and an RS says it is a confederate monument we can include it (we do not have to, there is not requirement for inclusion). By the way, is every street in Washington named after ma confederate official?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am taking the guidelines here and applying then to other lists such as the Washington, Lincoln and Pres. Jackson ones. The only reason the Lee and Stonewall Jackson roads and schools are allowed is that they are listed on the SPLC list.  The Holy Grail of lists.  So Lincoln School, and Lincoln Street in Ypsilanti, Michigan, to somewhat randomly pick some, could only be used in the Lincoln memorials list if there was a source saying "Yes, that Lincoln?"  This is right? Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am taking the guidelines here and applying then to other lists such as the Washington, Lincoln and Pres. Jackson ones. The only reason the Lee and Stonewall Jackson roads and schools are allowed is that they are listed on the SPLC list.  The Holy Grail of lists.  So Lincoln School, and Lincoln Street in Ypsilanti, Michigan, to somewhat randomly pick some, could only be used in the Lincoln memorials list if there was a source saying "Yes, that Lincoln?"  This is right? Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus what we should do on other pages. Moreover what we do here has no impact on what is done on other pages. Any such discussions should stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Sir! Carptrash (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note: From what I can see the SPLC list is on the conservative side of thing, at least for my state.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not the only source we could use, but any entry must be sourced to an (not A) RS. If you have any RS that list other monuments not on the SPLC list feel free to add them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Others have been sourced and listed beyond the SPLC list and that was my point: The SPLC list is on the conservative side of things with others being sourced and listed beyond what is on their list.  I see no issues with the SPLC listings and far more are actually on this wiki, because of just how conservative the SPLC was in making their list. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes by all means we should include stuff we find that is not on the SPLC list. And I have no problem about the notability of a US stamp or coin.  However:
 * Forrest Drive
 * Hood Street, named for CSA Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood
 * Jefferson Davis Drive
 * Lee Street
 * Longstreet Drive, named for CSA general James Longstreet.
 * Morgan Drive, named for CSA Gen. John Hunt Morgan
 * Stonewall Street
 * in some little town in Alabama are only notable because they are on the SPLC list and I don't agree that inclusion on someone else's list automatically confers wikipedia notability. Carptrash (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not find the SPLC list overly aggressive in list places and monuments, at least in my state. My local Robert E. Lee building, is not listed or any other questionable location in my state.  Perhaps it is different where you are... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability does not affect (and has no relevance) to article content, only to article creation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The proper term for ‘not enough coverage to mention in the article’ would be that it lacks WP:WEIGHT. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which means we only have to make sure that we do not give minority views undue coverage. So is SPLC's views on this a minority view?Slatersteven (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing concerns
NOTE: The original heading of this title was "Is this a joke", which given the nature of the discussion is a legitimate question.  Volunteer Marek  06:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it User:D.Creish if you answered my previous question about your previous accounts. I have asked you this several times and each time you were evasive which is a pretty clear admission that you did edit with previous accounts. Your initial edits on Wikipedia confirm it as well. I'm pretty sure you are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on WP:SOCK and abuse of multiple accounts. I suggest you dump this sock account and make a clean start on non-controversial topics, or, if you are actually banned from Wikipedia or this topic area, follow formal procedures for an appeal. Thanks.  Volunteer Marek  06:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:ASPERSIONS very carefully. D.Creish (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not denying it there buddy.  Volunteer Marek   07:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

-

The phrase "The semicentennial of the Civil War, 1911 to 1915, served as a motivating factor in the construction of monuments" was added to the caption of the graph. The source for this is... An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments by Timothy Sedore, a professor of ... ENGLISH. Not History. English.

So let me get this straight.

The editors who were complaining about the graph first tried to pretend that "real historians" disagree with the idea that monument building was motivated by Jim Crow/Civil Rights era.

Then these editors, once presented with over a dozen sources from "real historians" tried to exclude these sources because "they were written in newspapers"

Then these editors, when rightfully told to stop playing games, tried to tag shame the article and the section by adding a bullshit NPOV tag because "it's disputed", while whole time pretending that the problem was that "there are multiple explanations" but failing to provide any sources of their own.

Finally, these editors who were trying to remove or tag-shame over a dozen sources from actual freakin' historians went and found 1 - one, single, unity, uno - just one source to support this alternative thesis of "motivated by centennial". And it's not even by a historian. It's by an English professor. And it's not even about Confederate monuments in general, just in Virginia.

Can we have any stronger evidence that the editors who are playing these games are acting disruptively and are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia? Because I can't think of how you could possibly demonstrate your bad faith any better.  Volunteer Marek  21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The source for this is... An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments by Timothy Sedore" which was nominated for the Society of Civil War Historians book award.-Topcat777 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nominated. That means very little - publishers nominate any eligible books for prizes like this as matter of course. It's also clearly a guidebook. This does not carry a lot of weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Writers of the SPLC article "Whose Heritage":
 * Booth Gunter - Prior to his association with the SPLC was a writer for the Tampa Tribune and communications director for a lobbying group in Washington, DC. Nothing about history.
 * Jamie Kizzire - Writer for the AP, the Birmingham Post-Herald and Montgomery Advertiser.
 * Cindy Kent - Nothing found prior to association with the SPLC.
 * This group has no background in history. -Topcat777 13:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are over a dozen OTHER sources which back up what SPLC says (your shoddy original research on these individuals aside). Please stop pretending these other sources don't exist. Please stop being so blatantly dishonest.  Volunteer Marek   13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I see that somebody managed to sneak in the wrong version of the chart without the labels despite the fact that the RfC is still open.  Volunteer Marek  22:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try to express your particular concerns in a civil manner, VM? Condescension doesn't work, PAs don't work, and neither does WP:OWN behavior. Try COLLABORATION - discuss in a civil manner, not in a "civil war" manner, on this TP. I know you're capable. Atsme 📞📧 00:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See, that's all you got. All you can do is make up complaints about other editors supposed "incivility" (sic) because you have no Wikipedia policy as far as the actual issue goes. I am civil. I am also critical. Of this constant, dishonest attempts at WP:GAMEing. One more time. What is suppose to be wrong with the section or the chart? Why is one source - written by an English professor - being given the same prominence as over a dozen sources, including those written by academic historians?  Volunteer Marek   02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a succinct explanation of what these POV tags are referring to. What specific things in the article are POV? I'd like to work towards resolving this so that we may all feel comfortable removing the tags. –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If those of you who are edit warring over the tags could please state your concerns in clear, concise terms here then we can answer/address the issue and move forward. Some comments above - from both sides of the dispute - have been pretty vague and/or unhelpful. Let's cut to the chase (and try to stay in topic) shall we? What are the  specific concerns of those of you who keep adding the tag?  Fyddlestix (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have stayed out of the edit war, but I have concerns about the graph. First of all, someone was removing the comments from the SPLC article "Whose Heritage" which stated "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." which were in the caption of the graph. The SPLC graph was taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry, and they put the spin to the graph about Jim Crow. Dr. Winberry concluded at the end of the study that there were 4 various reasons for the monuments 1. the need to preserve the memory of the dead, and returning veterans; 2. to celebrate the rebuilding of the south after the war; 3. the promotion of the Lost Cause, and; 4. to unite the white population against the interests of African American southerners. He stated: "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."


 * I posted several articles above on criticisms about the motives of the SPLC who get donations by fear mongering. This is from the Politico article I cited above:


 * Touches such as these have led some journalists to nickname Dees, with irony, “the Mother Teresa of Montgomery.” And as Dees navigates the era of Trump, there are new questions arising around a charge that has dogged the group for years: that the SPLC is overplaying its hand, becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog. Critics say the group abuses its position as an arbiter of hatred by labeling legitimate players “hate groups” and “extremists” to keep the attention of its liberal donors and grind a political ax.


 * J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague, stated in the article:


 * “The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” he says.


 * This was printed in an open letter from Stephen Bright, a prominent professor of law at Yale, about Morris Dees, the head of the SPLC:


 * I also received the law school’s invitation to the presentation of the “Morris Dees Justice Award,” which you also mentioned in your letter as one of the “great things” happening at the law school. I decline that invitation for another reason. Morris Dees is a con man and fraud, as I and others, such as U.S. Circuit Judge Cecil Poole, have observed and as has been documented by John Egerton, Harper’s, the Montgomery Advertiser in its “Charity of Riches” series, and others.


 * To leave the graph as VM constructed it means that we would have to believe that every Confederate monument to the dead from 1867 onwards was not actually built out of grief for the loss of hundreds of thousands of sons, brothers and fathers in the war, but were built instead to keep African Americans from their rights. It is too broad a brush and cannot be justified in those terms. This article will be in a state of contention for years if reason and compromise are not reached. Dubyavee (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In no particular order:
 * "To leave the graph as VM constructed it means that we would have to believe that every Confederate monument to the dead from 1867 onwards was not actually built out of grief" - pure nonsense, we don't have to believe anything like that. All we "have to believe" is that the spikes in monument construction occured during the Jim Crow and the Civil Righrs era. So please stop it with these fake-ass STRAWMAN. I hope people here are intelligent enough to pick up on the fact that's exactly what you're trying to pull.
 * (most of the monuments were in fact built instead to keep African Americans from their rights though - and this is impeccably sourced. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but that's tough noogies. Wikipedia ain't therapy. It's an encyclopedia based on reliable sources)
 * "The SPLC graph was taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry" - no, you just made that up. How do you know there's ANY connection between the SPLC report and the outdated Winberry paper? You don't. You're just making up a connection - which is original research - because it allows you to construct a convenient, but false, narrative. No go. Nope. Not unless you can show us sources which link the SPLC report and Winberry paper. Stop making shit up.
 * The Winberry paper is from 198fucking3. We have over a dozen sources of much better vintage.
 * What does Dees have to do with anything? This ain't an article about Dees and, as has been repeated ad nauseum, there's more than a dozen reliable sources, from reputable, academic historians who say the same thing.
 * Stop it. Just stop it. It's disgusting and shameful to watch this kind of behavior.  Volunteer Marek   03:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have an RfC regarding the graph which you are welcome to contribute too. I think it's appropriate to include a "Disputed" tag in the caption of the graph until the RfC is closed. The following tags were also added to the top of the article:
 * 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.
 * Could we please have an explanation and proposed solution for each of these tags? –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, now we are getting somewhere - thanks for raising specific issues.
 * In response I'll start with a question - what's your basis for saying that the SPLC study is "taken and expanded from the 1983 article by John J. Winberry?" If you read the section of the SPLC report on their methodology, it states pretty clearly that this is new research they did more or less from scratch, and that as far as they are aware it's unprecedented (see also the passage about there being "no comprehensive database of such symbols" and about the extent of confederate symbols being "largely a mystery" on pages 7-8). I would also question whether this is a matter of the SPLC applying "spin" about Jim Crow, since American Historical Association and many other sources also state quite clearly that the monuments were "part and parcel" of the post-reconstruction movement towards disenfranchisement and segregation (ie, Jim Crow). This does not seem like "spin," since it's consistent with what historians say. (Winberry, by the way, was a geographer not a historian. He also wrote that in 1983, making it more than 30 years old).
 * RE: the anniversaries of the civil war, where does the SPLC report say that "These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War?" I can't find it. I've actually advocated adding those anniversaries to the graph in the RFC above so I definitely see your point here, but the SPLC does not appear to make that point themselves (would be helpful if someone could produce a quote or page number - I looked but don't see that quote in the report anywhere). I'm not opposed to mentioning this but we have to do it in a way that's not OR and that can be properly sourced.
 * As for criticism of Dees/SPLC, it's no secret that a lot of people on the right don't like them, but that's basically an ad hominem here - the SPLC report has been widely cited and referenced by other major news sources, which suggests that it has considerable weight. SPLC reports are usually deemed RS at RSN, BLPN, etc., including in some quite recent discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article I linked to is by Politico, not a right wing source, and the people quoted in the article are not right wing. This article and the articles in Harper's raise questions about the SPLC as a reliable source, as the gentleman from the Hague expresses his concerns of them being both and advocacy group and a source of information. The trouble with the graph is that it tags ALL the monuments as racially motivated. And here is the article mentioning the 50th & 100th anniversaries. The age of the Winberry article is not material if it is correct and I have seen no one disputing it. Winberry was a cultural geographer, which is a bit different from map making. Dubyavee (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they do not "raise questions" (how passive aggressive and phony is that?) The reliability of SPLC has been discussed previously and extensively and despite coordinated efforts to smear them, they are reliable. You can, I guess, try one more time. WP:RSN is thata way. In the mean time, stop trying to make up silly excuses for your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * And yes, we all know that there is one passing sentence in a report otherwise completely about how monument building was related to Jim Crow and white supremacy, about how it also "coincided" with the anniversaries. So what? You are trying to pluck out, cherry pick and blatantly misrepresent the source.
 * And of course the age of the Winberry's article is relevant - as it the fact that he's not a historian. Sure, we can probably include something from him. But stop trying to use the existence of this one single outdated article to remove or tag shame other reliably sourced information.  Volunteer Marek   06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I edit-conflicted with VM and Dlthewave's replies, Dl raises a good point though that the graph is (quite rightly) currently being discussed in the RFC. I still don't see a good rationale for an article- or section-wide tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Winberry compiled data from sources. Made a graph. SPLC compiled data from sources. Made a graph. There's literally no relationship between the two. It's odd that you're claiming one. I don't even know what you're trying to achieve. As others have pointed out, you're just making things up. Fluous (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SPLC used the basic graphic from Winberry's article and added data as well as editorialization. Here is Winberry's graph . The SPLC mention of the 50th & 100th anniversaries are here, There was a previous database of the monuments that was published in 1982 by Ralph W. Widener, cataloguing about 700 monuments, organized by states. Dubyavee (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One more time - and this isn't hard to understand - this is your own personal conjecture. Something you made up. Original research. Something you invented. OF COURSE the two graphs look similar since they graph the same phenomenon. But it's also obvious it's not the same graph. (And really, who cares one way or another?)  Volunteer Marek   06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also add that the Winberry article isn't very good - he makes claims which are demonstrably false (though perhaps at the time when he wrote the article, 34 years ago they were taken for granted), for example the idea that all monuments to Confederate soldiers face north.  Volunteer Marek   15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument boils down to: citing an English professor who's published books on the topic (the one in question covered by CSPAN's American History channel ) is a problem, but citing lawyers for an advocacy organization is not. That's not convincing. D.Creish (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is NOT "what my argument boils down to" at all. Please stop making up shit. What is it with the dishonest STRAWMAN arguments? My question to you, and a few others here is - why are you trying to remove sources - a dozen of them - by actual historians while at the same time trying to insert a source by an English professor? Here is another one of my questions - why did you claim that "historians disagree with SPLC" but then attempted to remove sources by historians when these were actually presented to you?
 * You know what's not convincing? That you are HERE to build an encyclopedia. That you are acting in good faith. And oh yeah, that this is your first account - wanna answer that question? You've had plenty of chances.  Volunteer Marek   07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is NOT "what my argument boils down to" at all. Please stop making up shit. What is it with the dishonest STRAWMAN arguments? My question to you, and a few others here is - why are you trying to remove sources - a dozen of them - by actual historians while at the same time trying to insert a source by an English professor? Here is another one of my questions - why did you claim that "historians disagree with SPLC" but then attempted to remove sources by historians when these were actually presented to you?
 * You know what's not convincing? That you are HERE to build an encyclopedia. That you are acting in good faith. And oh yeah, that this is your first account - wanna answer that question? You've had plenty of chances.  Volunteer Marek   07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So... nobody wants to explain how and why sources by academic historians should be removed from this article or at least "tag-shamed", but one single source from a non-specialist which hardly deals with the subject should be given prominence? Didn't think so.  Volunteer Marek  03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the studies that support the opinions of these historians? I am actually not aware of any studies of all the Confederate monuments that have researched the various Ladies Memorial Associations who built them and their motives for building them and how exactly those monuments were built for racial purposes rather than in remembrance of the dead. Dubyavee (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop making up ridiculous thresholds for inclusion. Are these people historians? Yes? Are these reliable sources? Yes? Are they experts in their field? Yes? What else do you want? If you really want to look them up yourself. It's not difficult.  Volunteer Marek   06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How many Topics do we need on the same issue? I will not address the Single Source, nor the OR tags. This article still could use more cites, but again not addressing that tag. Regarding the NPOV of the article tag though, instead of repeating myself once again which no one really address, I will rephrase what wrote in above POV Tag topic. The Neutrality of this article has improved somewhat, but it still is not neutral enough. Memorials and Monuments erected in honor of such complex topic of American Civil War and Confederacy. There are simply so many reasonings for these, yet most of the article stresses only one point of view and opinion, due to White Supremacy. I agree that is 'one' main point and is big part of it, but it is way overdone and has not been kept in neutral manner in accordance with NPOV. Every expert I have ever read or heard from will say that a majority of these are of Historical nature. Several historians say this, every poll of americans reflects they believe they are mostly of a historical nature. This is not given due WP:Weight in accordance with NPOV policy, it is actually not mentioned at all, merely alluded too. White Supremacy being only one opinion on the other hand takes up the majority giving it Undue Weight. The History section, 1st paragraph mostly talks about when and where, but ends with a dig at Lost Cause per 2 art historians. The inclusion is fine, but it really needs to not be part of 1st paragraph if that is the ONLY thing it is going to list or mention. It should also list other reasons .. or simply be moved to another paragraph. Way it is currently is setting the tone for rest to follow, in an attempt to hi-light one opinion or one main opinion as to why. This is NOT neutral nor abiding by wiki NPOV policy. 2nd paragraph mostly talks about Jim Crow and White Supremacy ... again this is fine to be included. The problem is again giving it undue weight as the majority viewpoint for the Memorials and Monuments should be expressed here, Historical covers the majority of these as even the SPLC has stated. As such to give it proper Weight, Historical is what SHOULD be discussed next, instead it is not even mentioned in history section at all. 3rd paragraph is where it can start talking about other reasons. Instead it re-iterates again more about Jim Crow and White Supremacy. Ending with short one sentence about Beautifying locations. Why even bother including that one sentence after 2 whole paragraphs of Jim Crow and White Supremacy, it just gets lost and disregarded. The inclusion is again fine, but should be elsewhere prolly towards the end ... or maybe put that as end of first paragraph. 4th paragraph mostly brings up organizations mostly funding, which is mostly attributable to driving the White Supremacy cause, so I can fully understand it coming after 2 paragraphs talking about that. Ending with 5th paragraph which talks about 1950's and 60's Memorials is prolly the most neutral of them all, except for the point the one opinion tone was already set in preceding first four paragraphs. Removal section is given proper Weight and NPOV kinda, my problem is this is where more of the controversy over these should be discussed. This is where all those opinions from historians stating these are for White Supremacy and Jim Crow laws should really be mentioned more. The point is Yes one opinion of White Supremacy is a big part, but entire article keeps stressing this in an attempt to portray this is the ONLY and correct reason over and over again, and THIS is why the article does not abide by wiki NPOV policy the most, it is supposed to be kept neutral. Mention sure, even hi-light what some historians have stated, but not make it the repetitive theme of the entire article, especially when majority of Americans (let alone readers) simply do not agree with that point of view. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Verification of SPLC data
Did anyone actually do any verification on list of data from SPLC before adding to wiki page here or was just blindly manual input? I can understand couple things falling through the cracks, but if no one even attempted to do verification that is another matter. Because I am certainly not going through this entire page to look for them all at this stage, if I had known this before I could have been doing it all along with ones I have found, but I do not recall what all those were. Anyway, removing Midway, AL for town marker. It is for town that has nothing to do with CSA and was named long time prior. You can see text and marker here: http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMFN36_Town_of_Midway_Midway_AL Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-added the listing. You have to read the back: :
 * Fluous (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I DID read the text on the Marker. The full text (front and back) can be seen on link I gave, including your quote. It does not say 'this' marker, it is talking about another different granite boulder marker. The granite boulder marker needs to be included, not this one which is for the Town. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fudge, lol. Since you seem so antsy on including it. I have been attempting to verify if this was seperate one than marker listed block away before I was going to include it. Other than Town marker, I have not been able to find any other reference to this granite boulder, however it does not appear to be same one as far as I can tell. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm.That's actually a really interesting question. The sign says there was a granite boulder erected to commemorate the Jefferson Davis Highway and Soldiers of the Confederacy. But I also can't find further information about the boulder. EDIT: This might be it at Highway 51 and 82. Fluous (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea that is prolly it, sorry did not actually look at your link. I was trying to find an actual link somewhere, but yea finally looked at satellite image, where I could definitely tell they are two seperate things. I could easily see the sign marker, which already had link for anyway. I could also see the boulder and could tell it had something on it, just not good enough to really tell what. However since there are two seperate things, along with Town Marker stating what the boulder is for, sounded good enough for me to add them both. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The data was added because the SPLC report is a reliable secondary source. Further cites and verification are an ongoing processs. The noted sign is not a memorial, but the google maps link with the evidence from the sign verifies the boulder is the correct item to list. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So, correct me if I am wrong here, but it's not our job to verify original research by somewhere like the SPLC. Rather, we verify that reliable sources report what they found. I think this is the thrust of WP:TRUTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is what the majority of this controversy on the talk page comes down to. Some editors just "know better" than what the sources say and even when you put articles written by prominent historians in front of them they'll insist that their opinion is more important than some stupid historians (that's if they're not sitting there and claiming with a straight face that historians don't say what they actually say).
 * If somebody ever wanted a perfect illustrations on how to try to get your way on an article while ignoring Wikipedia policy by trying to force POV through sheer numbers, this right here is it.  Volunteer Marek   20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no this is not what all it comes down too and no it is not a matter of some editors knowing better. That study was a huge endeavor in which even SPLC on its own article asked for help and welcomed any feedback because they knew some things which may appear to be named for someone may indeed be named for someone else entirely as just one point. Lee is such one example. The Lee family was a prominent family ever since arriving to the US and Virginia. Robert E. Lee father and grandfather both had things named for them, such as Lee county named for Light Horse Harry Lee the Gov of VA way back 1793. I would guess SPLC was aware of this because they did not include that on their list, however am sure they were also aware that certain things may slip through the cracks because Lee High School in Jonesville of Lee County is on the list. Simply because SPLC was smart enough to realize that they may get some things wrong and would not always know better does not equate too because some editors here know better. Besides SPLC is a biased source, a fact that I am sure even they are aware of. Talking about getting your own way bears no weight coming from the one who keeps trying to dicatate what is included in the caption of the graph. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's EXACTLY what it comes down to. As has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over again, there's more than a DOZEN sources which say the same damn thing. Did you miss the part which says "even when you put articles written by prominent historians in front of them they'll insist that their opinion is more important than some stupid historians". So it's not just editors questioning the SPLC report. This is editors - in a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy - ignoring or rejecting ACTUAL historians and scholars as sources. And then making up crap as excuses or pretending it's only about the SPLC. It's shameful behavior.  Volunteer Marek   19:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lee Hall Elementary School in Newport News, VA is another such example. It is named for Lee Hall mansion, which that family fled their great mansion during Civil War and was not part of the war. I recall hearing about that controversy as a kid back in 70's or 80's in which all historians and experts put an end too showing clearly its correct history. Apparently that may have only been more of a locally common knowledge, because SPLC appears not to have been aware of this as it is included on their list. I am sure SPLC was aware they would not know history of local areas as well as people from the area were. This has nothing to do with some editors knowing better either, that is the locals know their history better, confirmed by all experts and historians that looked into it. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Kevin "Hawk" Fisher - your statement "It is named for Lee Hall mansion, which that family fled their great mansion during Civil War and was not part of the war" suggests that Lee Hall was not part of the Civil War. It's well documented that Lee Hall was occupied as a Confederate headquarters by Major General John B. Magruder and General Joseph E. Johnston in early 1862. On May 4, 1862 a small skirmish was fought there as the Union troops moved to control the Lower Peninsula.   CBS 527 Talk 02:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the history of Lee Hall, yes many buildings (including this one) were used during the Civil War for headquarters, some were even used by both sides. However, you seem to have missed my points. First is that Lee Hall Elementary School is in honour to a historical building, NOT the CSA. It was the first prominent and noteworthy building in that area and this is the reason for the school being named in honour for. Second was my point that SPLC overlooked this, prolly thinking it was either named for Robert E Lee directly or maybe that particular Lee family of Lee Hall being in VA and built just prior to Civil War was part of CSA which they were not. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Was it, source please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Was it destroyed?
Someone keeps saying the courthouse was destroyed. It was not destroyed, it is still standing and is registered on the National Register of Historic Places. Dubyavee (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well here is then source they used, here is another , here is one saying it was rebuilt .Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the National Park Service application for historic designation which states "During the forthcoming war, the building in which Brown was tried was seriously damaged,". The sources that incorrectly state that it was "destroyed" are using an old book called Military Operations in Jefferson County, which incorrectly stated that the courthouse had been destroyed. This is totally wrong, as it was still standing and still had a roof. I don't know why this is even in the Wikipedia article at all, as this is not about the history of the Jefferson county courthouse. We don't need extra verbiage on an article this long. Dubyavee (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I put in that it was “seriously damaged”, and someone took it right out. I have better things to do with my time than go through the lengthy history to see who it was. deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability
I find the statement about a West Virginia monument, " The local newspaper, ‘’Spirit of Jefferson’’, and a group of six local African Americans have called for its removal.[730] quite uncompelling. Or rather "not notable."   A red linked newspaper and a group of six?  That will get you into wikipedia these days?  I guess it depends on what you are saying.  Anyway, I am considering removing it.  But let's talk about it. Carptrash (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree, far too many notes for a 'list' as it is without adding non-notable ones. IF it gets removed than add note, otherwise do not see point of mention unless it is from some really notable like Governor or something is asking for the removal. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you mean undue. By the way is it mentioned by other RS as a confederate monument?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * .Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not considering removing the monument, just the comment. The monument, in my opinion, is fine for the list.  It should be on. Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Under the Charles Town West Virginia Court House, where there is a plaque, I added that the courthouse was destroyed by Confederate troops during the war.

@Dubyavee, in his wisdom, took it out, saying the courthouse was not destroyed. 

Although this was stated in one of the articles I cited, I put it back in with a quote from the source.

The source says: "And why was a plaque honoring Confederates on the building that replaced the original courthouse, which was shelled and destroyed by Confederate troops?"

The source is the Washington Post, October 17, 2017:

@Dubyavee then takes it out a second time with this unhelpful note: “Good god, the courthouse was not destroyed, it is still standing, Your ref. cannot be read and is wrong in any case. Look it up on google)”

I would appreciate it if someone more experienced could intervene as I don’t know what to do. This is wasting my time. If he has better documentation then he ought to cite it specifically. deisenbe (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I now see that @Dubyavee discussed this above. (He did not have the courtesy to inform me.) The appkication to the National Park Service says the building was “seriously damaged”, so much so that the county seat was moved. The “lot” where it had stood was about to be sold. If this isn’t “destruction” it’s pretty damn close. deisenbe (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on including this in the article or arguing about it? It isn't germane to the article, it takes up room in a very long, too long, article, and is essentially irrelevant. The courthouse was moved for political reasons, and the building was still standing. The entry for Charles Town courthouse should just mention the plaque and the protest against the plaque, that is all that is pertinent to this article. Dubyavee (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is what I found: "Charles Town itself hosted two significant actions, and the Jefferson County Court House was badly damaged by artillery fire and often used as a horse stable." And "The courthouse has been renovated at least twice–once following the Civil War and again in 1916."  -So badly damaged but not destroyed and rebuilt at least twice.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet the comment was made, and was given (in part) as to way it is unsuitable as a monument. So I think we should include it as an attributed qoute.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the marker was not placed until 1986 (when the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday was first observed), so it is well within the context of this page and the use of Confederate symbols whether it was totally destroyed or partially destroyed and renovated. Put a note in that it was renovated after the civil war battle damage, should be all that is needed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the county commission voted on whether or not to remove it I think that’s enough to justify inclusion. deisenbe (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)