Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 2

Where should this be put?
I ran across this little gem: Last weekend, Virginia — one of three states in the country that prominently display a statue of Confederate leader Jefferson Davis in its capitol — unveiled a historical highway marker for Ota Benga, a Congolese native and Lynchburg resident who in 1906 garnered global headlines when he was exhibited in the Bronx Zoo monkey house.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-1906-this-congolese-man-was-displayed-in-a-zoo-now-virginia-is-honoring-him/2017/09/22/23e910f4-8e62-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.31c2fc6ddd68)

Obviously he has nothing directly to do with the Civil War. But he should be on some list or category relating to Africans or African-Americans or racism, not just Male suicides and American people of Congolese descent Anyone have any suggestion? deisenbe (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a highway marker's significant enough to add to Benga's article. After some difficult searching I found this extremely specific article List of historical highway markers in Hampshire County, West Virginia, if only Lynchburg were in Hampshire County, West Virginia. I couldn't find a corresponding VA or county-specific article but I bet it exists. D.Creish (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

NY Post, WT and an undue section
NY Post and WT are NOT reliable or controversial info. The former is tabloid trash, the latter publishes fake news. No way we're using these here.

Furthermore the section overall is grossly undue. It's EXPLICITLY off-topic. What's the point of it? The only point as far as I can tell is to try and insinuate that the people who want Confederate monuments taken down also want to take down all kinds of other monuments, hence they're unhinged. It's total POV pushing nonsense. The section needs to go.  Volunteer Marek  13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my use of certain sources. That's on me; I will use better ones like The Washington Post. However, the creation of that section was agreed to on this talk page, that section is an extension of the anti-Confederate phenomena, and it's not POV-pushing to include information that relates to the topic at hand. It is undeniable that people have been calling for the removal of monuments to non-Confederate historical figures. User:MagicatthemovieS ( Talk ) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where this agreement to include "other monuments" was made on this talk. Maybe I'm just being blind - only two cups of coffee this morning so far. Can you point me to it?  Volunteer Marek   14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The agreement was made in the "John C. Calhoun" section of this page. User:MagicatthemovieS ( Talk ) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better sources than that are needed. with a Washington Post source is fine. The introduction covers the movement which began with confederate monuments and grew to include others. As long as we keep the others in an "others" section like we have that's fine. D.Creish (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fine. It's WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. A brief one sentence mention based on something like WP would fine. But not an entire section.  Volunteer Marek   15:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Protests/defacement of monuments in America that are not related to the Confederacy are far too widespread to be discussed in a single sentence in this article. User:MagicatthemovieS ( Talk ) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.34.143 (talk)
 * Which perhaps suggests that this is either a) non-notable or b) should have its own article. It's clearly off topic.  Volunteer Marek   01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Far too widespread" is an overstatement. Let's change the title of this article to "Monument controversies in the United States" and have Confederate monuments form a large section of the article.User:MagicatthemovieS ( Talk ) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. D.Creish (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The resulting article would be too long. It would be better to create a "Monument controversies in the United States" article and talk about confederate monuments with a short description and link to the main article here. But I do like the idea of a controversies article. Fluous (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a list-class article, right?
I changed the class type to list-class. Fluous (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a list-class article. It is (and should be) a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE narrative article. Any listing of defunct/passe/removed monuments should be/can be parsed out as a List of monuments once dedicated to the Confederate States of America. – S. Rich (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Colfax riot sign
Why here? The source doesn't indicate it was removed or discuss controversy over or calls for removal. D.Creish (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It nicely illustrates why the subject is controversial.  Volunteer Marek   21:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this particular marker was specifically referenced by Cory Booker when he called for removal of Confederate monuments from Capitol Hill, making it more notable than others .  Volunteer Marek   21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to agree with you when I saw the Booker reference but I read the article and he doesn't call for its removal. Unless there's a stronger connection than "it's a racist sign and people have mentioned it" we should remove it. This article is about removal. D.Creish (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it illustrates the controversy and there have indeed been calls for its removal.  Volunteer Marek   21:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If there have been calls for its removal I'll drop my objection, but neither of the articles you cited say that. I'll give you some time to find sources. D.Creish (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * .  Volunteer Marek   21:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * legalnews.com? Sorry, no. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's actually from the The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette). Also, there's some questions which you haven't yet answered up above.  Volunteer Marek   21:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a proper newspaper but there's nothing to indicate it's from there. What do you base that on? (Let's stick to one conversation at a time.) D.Creish (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . And we can stick to one conversation, if you put back the graph (since otherwise you're failing to discuss your objections and just edit warring). Otherwise it just looks like you're purposefully being evasive.  Volunteer Marek   21:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a stretch but let's let others comment. You're aware there's an ongoing RFC about the graph right? That's the "discussion", close to 50 editors involved, lots of opportunity for discussion. D.Creish (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your rhetorical question is in bad faith. The RfC is on another article as has been repeatedly pointed out. RfCs on one article do not apply to other articles. For it to apply to other articles you would need to have it in a general forum such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. This has also been repeatedly pointed out to you but you've both being ignoring it and failed to address it. You've still also failed to answer the above questions regarding 1) why you are removing the graph but not the text, both of which say the same thing and 2) how in the world in your first edit ever you managed to quote WP:COATRACK and whether you've properly disclosed any prior accounts you've operated under.  Volunteer Marek   00:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're arguing I can't address the graph without addressing other content and use of the graph depends on article content, but the 30 or so responses at the RFC that address the graph and nothing else say otherwise. The RFC is open, the status quo stays until then. Lack of response to constant pestering isn't consensus, enough said. D.Creish (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC is on another article. Stop edit warring and removing well sourced content. You still haven't answered the question that were asked.  Volunteer Marek   23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been 5 days and no one's commented in support or with better sources, so I've removed it. List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America would be a better place to include it although the images in that article are more notable. It shouldn't be too hard to find a picture of a monument that was actually removed or where there were prominent calls for its removal. D.Creish (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources are fine. "It's been five days" and NO ONE ELSE OBJECTED. Stop edit warring just for the fuck of it.  Volunteer Marek   20:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the Colfax plaque with the "Robert Edward Lee Sculpture", the removal of which resulted in significant controversy. D.Creish (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a bad faith action since there's nothing stopping us with... having both? You're trying to cover up a disruptive edit with a constructive edit. Please stop.  Volunteer Marek   21:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I explained, I removed it because the only call for removal was from a relatively unknown group in a weak source. It wasn't removed and there was no significant controversy about its removal. I replaced it with a removal that was very well documented. D.Creish (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, please answer the questions asked above. Here they are, for the third or fourth time: 1) Is this is your first account? How did a brand new account manage to find and quote WP:COATRACK in their very first edit? 2) Why are you objecting and removing the graph but NOT the text in the article which says the exact same thing?

Thanks, maybe we can move this discussion forward.  Volunteer Marek  20:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. See comment above ("constant pestering") and read WP:BLUDGEON. D.Creish (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about you actually answer the questions rather than continually evade them? How about you disclose your prior accounts? Your previous sanctions?  Volunteer Marek   21:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * VM, if you suspect illegit socking, take it to SPI. Don't harangue the user here. It won't resolve this dispute.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please. There's so many banned users in this topic area that there's several good candidates for a sock master. I can't go fishing. But I do know that there's no way in hell that a real-to-goodness honest brand new user would quote WP:COATRACK in their very first edit. Sketchy is as sketchy does. Hence, my request for D.Creish to disclose their prior accounts - notice that at no point have they actually denied having prior accounts or socking. They just keep evading and refusing to answer the question. Given the WP:SPA nature of their edits and the disruptive activity they're engaged in, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them about it and to bring it up. AGF is not a suicide pact and I don't see why Wikipedia editors should ignore something that is blatantly obvious and common sense.  Volunteer Marek   11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the Colfax Riot sign doesn't really belong here. It's not talked about anywhere else on the page, and just having a picture of it with a text description isn't very useful. The article is better served with the statue of Lee, and it is much more relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again. I know it's crazy but the article can have BOTH the Colfax Riot picture AND the statue of Lee picture. Please stop acting like anyone is trying to remove the statue of Lee picture. Making this into an EITHER/OR kind of thing is dishonest since no one actually has proposed that.  Volunteer Marek   11:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it can have the Colfax picture, but that doesn't mean it should. I can't see the relevance or point of having such a monument on the page about removals of such monuments. Has it been removed? Then it should be removed from the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it because I don't find it relevant to the article topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * " I can't see the relevance or point of having such a monument on the page about removals of such monuments." <--- there's your freaking relevance right there. The marker is an example of a memorial that should be removed but that hasn't. Please stop making ridiculous excuses for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits.  Volunteer Marek   14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer Marek well I feel a bit silly now. I actually thought that the Colfax sign was commemorating the Negroes who were killed. I read your source above (should have done this earlier...) and understand it now. I hadn't heard of the Colfax Massacre before. Please don't characterize my arguments as ridiculous; I think misinformed would have been better ;). On a side note, I was on my iPad when I reverted you and meant to leave the edit summary "Don't add it again without consensus." I will self-revert and await further discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you.  Volunteer Marek   14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Though, umm, you shouldn't write "commemorating the Negroes who were killed" - even if the sign uses that language. There's a reason the caption has it in quotation marks.  Volunteer Marek   14:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mr Ernie: My position is the Colfax riot sign should be removed from this article, about monument removals, because it's not an example of a removed monument nor have there been notable calls for its removal (the one call was from a relatively unknown group in a local source.) If this were the "list of confederate monuments" article I wouldn't raise that objection. So, what do you think? D.Creish (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:D.Creish I understand your position and I also understand VM's position. Even though there have been no notable calls for its removal it does seem to be a sign representative of the controversial monuments that are being removed. At this point, I really don't have a strong opinion whether it should stay or go, but I would like to hear from other editors. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. No objections to waiting (assuming patience won't be interpreted as implied consensus.) D.Creish (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why this image is on this article, as this page is for removal of confederacy, it belongs on Ante-bellum History of Civil war, Jim Crow, racism or w/e related page. This sign honors some despicable event that happened long after confederacy, so is no way is this a symbol of confederacy. Even the ref cited does not state this is in honor for confederacy. It is a good image that should be used in more appropriate article that is relevant, just not in this article where its not relevant. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging participants in the last couple of months who haven't weighed in.         . If I missed anyone please ping them. D.Creish (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My removal of content restored in was accidental. Thanks for restoring it. D.Creish (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a tendency here and elsewhere to equate "CSA" with "UDC" with "racist" with "all the same" and the fact that this article is about monument removal and the fact that this monument probably should be removed, but has not been so as of now, doesn't make any difference. If we want to show how racist these monuments are let us pick one that fits the scope of the article, "a sign representative of the controversial monuments that are being removed" as one editor put it.  To me a "representative" one is one that folks are moving to move.  This image needs to go until it is up for removal. Carptrash (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of all the battles, I don't get why this one is being fought. The Colfax Sign is not a Confederate memorial. Whatever point it illustrates doesn't seem clear enough to my eyes. Fluous (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

caption/text
Article text:

Many of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, in many cases the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future".

 the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era"

 "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."[

'' According to the AHA, most Confederate monuments were erected during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and this undertaking was "part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South." According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period "were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life." A later wave of monument building coincided with the civil rights movement, and according to the AHA "these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes."''

The statues were meant to be symbols of white supremacy and the rallying around them by white supremacists will likely hasten their demise

Caption to the graph:

''Chart of public symbols of the Confederacy and its leaders as surveyed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, by year of establishment. Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension''

The caption has two reliable sources supporting it.

Images illustrate article text. The caption describes the image and the source it is based on. There's no excuse for removing the accurate and well sourced caption which accurately describes the Wikipedia article text.  Volunteer Marek  22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The text is fine in the article. Adding it as a caption to the graph gives the point undue weight. The current caption is uncontroversial. D.Creish (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. The image and the caption illustrate the text. If you don't object to the text you have no basis for objecting to the caption. The caption is also well sourced.
 * Now, can you please disclose your previous accounts?  Volunteer Marek   23:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC closed with consensus the labels were undue. Moving the text from the labels to a caption doesn't make it any more due. D.Creish (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the RfC on several levels. Also, the RfC, held on another article entirely, had nothing to do with this article. Try again. Think up other excuses for removing well sourced text. In the meantime, please disclose your previous accounts.  Volunteer Marek   23:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your was the RFC that you're now saying "had nothing to do with this article." Between that and the personal attacks I think we're done here. D.Creish (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Another falsehood. Doesn't it get tiring after awhile? The RfC was NOT my "entire justification" for adding the graph. My justification has always been the sources. The RfC was YOUR "entire justification" for removing the graph. And it's been closed with consensus to include. And none of this matters - as I've said time after time after time - because the RfC was on *another* article.
 * And your little "we're done here", along with the false (seriously, doesn't it get tiring?) accusation of personal attack is just a weak ass way of evading the pertinent questions. Specifically, you're evading these questions:
 * 1. Why are you removing well sourced text from the caption?
 * 2. Why are you removing text from the caption which is virtually the same as the text in the article itself, even though you are not objecting to the text in the article?
 * 3. What are you previous accounts and are they under any sanctions in this controversial topic area?
 *  Volunteer Marek  02:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is factual, it should stay in
Most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension.

deisenbe (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are right there. And more in the article itself. And more can be found.  Volunteer Marek   02:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wóuld you handle it? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jim Crow lasted from soon after the Civil War up through the Civil Rights Movement. If it's not obvious that's the period in question then the caption is misleading; if it's obvious that's the period in question, do we really need to explain in the caption that most Civil War monuments were erected before '68? Do you see the caption as different than the labels, which there was no consensus to include? D.Creish (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your original research. Sources specifically mention Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement. So does the text of our article. The caption is not misleading. The RfC was on another article. And it wasn't about the caption. And "no consensus to include" is not the same as "consensus to exclude". Etc. etc. etc. Stop making excuses for your violations of Wikipedia policy.  Volunteer Marek   02:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has been re-formatted
, and others, please check it out and see if you feel that it is an improvement. Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is. deisenbe (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Roger B. Taney
Roger Taney was not a Confederate, so why is discussion of his statue here? unless you want to have the title be "removal of racist statues" to include others that were not Confederates. Mcpaul1998 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree in part - no he was not a Confederate but a sentence that his statues were removed in Maryland at the same time as the others, because of the Dred Scott case, would be fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the Dredd Scott language, Taney was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States during the war, he never joined the confederacy and stayed loyal to the union and his office until the day he died (in office during the war).XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources tie him to the evils of slavery and to the horror of the Civil War. Their reasoning is that he is forever tainted by what he did, and consequently he cannot be honored in the present. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasoning to include Taney (Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court during the Civil War): "Monuments to him are being removed at the same time, and for the same reasons, as Confederate monuments."  The same could be said if a Christopher Columbus monument was removed (such things are being proposed) or what about a Union general that owned slaves?  Taney is a ridiculous inclusion. -User:Topcat777 19:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an article about monument & memorial controversies, Monument and memorial controversies in the United States. His statue coming done can (opinion) go there fine, but it does not belong here.  This is Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials and his is not that. Carptrash (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. deisenbe (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chris Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ben Franklin...the list could be very long. Even Lincoln was a white supremacist. -User:Topcat777 22:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fort Breckinridge.
Not named for a Confederate, at the time of naming, Breckinridge was the US Vice President; and the fort was not called after him as such soon after he lit out south, with the spelling changed to "Breckenridge" once it was re-occupied by Federal troops -this was also done in Breckenridge, Colorado; the (Union) California troops who occupied it named it for Leland Stanford, and it wound up named for U S Grant. This is not a "Confederate Memorial" in any way, shape, or form. Anmccaff (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Albemarle, North Carolina
I can find no source, but I'm fairly certain a Confederate memorial was either moved or removed in Albemarle, North Carolina. One is listed here as being erected in 1925 and a photo was taken in July 2007. The statue is clearly standing in front of the Central United Methodist Church on North Second Street. However, when I visited in November 2017, the statue was gone, and there was a parking lot in that location. - Kzirkel (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found city council minutes from 2008-09 which mention moving the statue due to the parking lot construction. It's not clear whether this was for symbolic reasons or a matter of convenience. They approved moving it to Liberty Gardens:
 * Page 7
 * Page 11
 * The statue was vandalized in its new Liberty Gardens location in 2015:
 * 
 * These sources aren't sufficient to include in the article, but they're a good starting point for further research. I couldn't find any news stories covering the move which is interesting because it would attract significant media attention if it happened today. –dlthewave ☎ 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I might suggest to check with the local newspaper, but beyond that, I have found that sometimes things in small towns are done off the record and quietly. At least in the small Texas town I'm familiar with, this way the least amount of attention is drawn to it as it is still very polarising in the community and region.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Montreal?
In 1957, the Daughters of the Confederacy paid to have a plaque put up outside a department store in Montreal, commemorating the fact that Jefferson Davis had sent his family to live in that building during(?) the war, and after the war he went and lived there too.

The plaque was taken down in August 2017 as part of the wave of removals. Is that worth mentioning here? DS (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's already included in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow I didn't see that. DS (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Montreal" was sort of buried in the sentence. I rearranged it so it's easier to find. –dlthewave ☎ 03:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Laws impeding removal
Can you cite an instance in which a statute totally prohibits removal? All the ones I know of require some type of permission, and that's impeding.

There are laws in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia (7). Of the states that seceded in 1861, Texas, Arkansas, Florida and Louisiana are missing (4). 7 out of 11. I’d call that “most”, not “some”. deisenbe (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The previous wording was fine and you are not providing any references to back up your claim. The intent for most, if not all, is to leave the monuments as is.  Also, you can't categorize the South as just 11 states that left the Union, on most maps it also includes other states and those states also have monuments. The easiest solution, of course, is to show those references.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is on _Confederate monuments_. The article isn’t about the South. I think limiting that sentence to the states that joined the Confederacy is reasonable.


 * You’re the one with the burden of showing the laws’ _intent_. I’m talking about what the laws actually say. They don’t outright prohibit.


 * Would anyone else care to weigh in on this? deisenbe (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Then you should rewrite to correlate that thought, however Jim Crow laws were not just in those states after Reconstruction. No, you are saying one thing and I am saying another and we are both not wanting to do the work that is needed to be completely accurate here. I do encourage other people's opinions on this too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am correcting what I believe to be a factual error: none of the statutes outright _prohibits_ removal. They hinder, impede, or complicate removal, but don’t prohibit it. I agree that their intent, presumably, was to prevent their being moved at all, but that’s a different issue. I’ll dig out tbe text of the statutes if someone challenges me about what the ststutes actually say. deisenbe (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I still believe it is a bit of both, but doesn't seem anyone really wants to discuss it. Since you are the most vested in this article, I'll just yield. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

From Tennessee, the Nathan Bedford Monument
I removed: because even though it appears in a newspaper article, what is "a certified work of fine art" and a newspaper can't make this sort of claim, that it is "one of the three best equestrian statues in the United States." Well they can make it but we can't be expected to spread it. I mean, pick the best three from here? Carptrash (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * " The memorial headpiece is approximately 2x life-size and "likeness is a certified work of fine art regarded as one of the three best equestrian statues in the United States."

Dispute between two editors re Memphis statues
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=prev&diff=843811525 which is undoing my restoration of what he had deleted.

says that the statues of Forrest and Davis should not be included on a list of Removed monuments, because they’re being relocated.

My position is:
 * The whole campaign, covering several years, was to remove them from the Memphis parks (which also got renamed).
 * At present they have not been relocated, they’re in a warehouse.
 * If they are relocated I would think they should be relisted under their destination(s). So far this hasn’t happened and especially with the Forrest statue, there’s no guarantee it will ever happen.
 * At present their status is “Removed from public display”.

Would others please add their views? deisenbe (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Forrest & Davis on the list. I hope I understand what this issue is.  Very few, if any of the dislocated CSA statues are being melted down or pulverized into nothingness.  All that I am aware of are being moved to other locations, even if for now it's just a storage room in some musty basements. And even if they do resurface at the DAR headquarters of something, they should stay on the list because they were removed.  Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  After posting here I noticed that  had said almost exactly the same thing one thread up.  Well said, WashuOtaku Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say that this topic encompasses any Confederate statue that is moved, removed, destroyed, put in storage, etc. because it is perceived as being objectionable. In general we should follow the lead and the "spirit" of the article rather than the dictionary definition of the title. Note: I unwatchlisted this page several months ago and was asked to comment by another user. –dlthewave ☎ 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument and Memphis statue of Jeff Davis
In Memphis, the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument and a statue of Jeff Davis were taken down. They are now up for sale on the condition that the buyer display them in a publicly accessible place. See link https://www.memphisflyer.com/NewsBlog/archives/2018/05/25/confederate-statues-ready-to-go-just-not-to-shelby-county I think that these statues are simply being relocated, not removed, and that this article should be a list of monuments like the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument, which is no longer displayed in public. Can we get consensus on this?--MagicatthemovieS


 * Keep - The Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials is a current movement in the United States, this means that any results from it should be noted here. The fact that the statues were removed from their original locations identifies that they were impacted by the movement and should be listed on this article. The results, be it they are scrapped, kept hidden in a warehouse or relocated to a different location are the results. The goal is not to keep a checklist of all statues melted for scrap, but provide an unbiased article identifying what happened and what became of them. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Then why not call the article "Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials Movement?" Apparently the "Progressive" editors aim to pad the list with everything from football team mascots to people who were never Confederates (Taney).  It's a silly, partisan crap article and the sort of thing that discredits Wikipedia.-Topcat777  16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, mascots, school name changes and such should probably be removed from the list; my last comment is in regards to monuments and memorials, since it was centered on the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument. If others agree, we should do a clean-up of the article to better align its focus. Otherwise we should consider a renaming of the article to expand into a broader implications of the movement (which I feel would be difficult to completely wrap around because it has so many moving parts and that we should stay focus instead). --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that you missed all the brouhaha at List of Confederate monuments and memorials about what should be included and what should not. I strongly urge us NOT to use the guidelines that were used there which includes, or would like to include, every street, alley, and outhouse with any possible CSA connection. Which is to say that I agree that schools and mascots do not belong on this list. Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the reason for excluding this content? If your arguments didn't hold up at the other article, it's doubtful that they'll hold water here. This article isn't very long but we could always spin it off as a split if necessary. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not party to that because I never edited that article. We should draw a line in the sand on certain things; for example, the "Cornelia Phillips Spencer Bell Award" has no connection to the Confederacy as the person was a poet during Reconstruction (thus we should probably remove it). We should look at them as followed:
 * Is it a Monument and/or a Memorial?
 * Has it any relationship with the American Civil War, Confederate States of America or people that fought/supported the Confederacy?
 * If we can answer yes to both and its been impacted by the current movement, then it should be listed here. I added the wiki links to both Monument and Memorial because they are very much defined; I mean, when something is memorialized, it is usually in the name. I agree, we should not worry ourselves on honorees (i.e. street or school names). However, some exceptions should also be included; for example the statues and monuments removed in New Orleans included a monument not related to the Civil War, that should be noted but not in any great detail (a wiki link should suffice). Does my input help? --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume, that your comment is to me.  My argument did not hold water at the CSA Monuments & memorials article because those that wanted to include every possible "memorial" as well as feeling wedded to the SPLC POV prevailed was that after being called a racist and hate group member for my perspective I took the article off my watch list, though I had been editing the article for 5 years and the average time for those of the other perspective all dated from when the story hit the front pages. Because a bad idea gets through once there is no reason to repeat it. Carptrash (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The renamed streets currently in the article are clearly part of the removal/renaming movement. They were named in honor of Confederate leaders, which is the reason for the renaming. A monument or memorial doesn't have to be a statue; it can also be a place or a structure named in honor of someone or something. –dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Memorials typically have the word "Memorial" in the name; while most others are honorees. I think we can cast a wide net that several states and cities have made name changes because of the movement (be it streets, buildings or events), but not go into any details unless it was a particular case that made headlines. -WashuOtaku (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Streets and schools are absolutely memorials and should continue to be listed as such. They are clearly intended to memorialize a specific person or thing. To name a street after someone is clearly a commemoration. By contrast, an "honoree" is, as best I can tell, something you appear to have made up. An honoree is a person who receives an award. It's not a road name. Here's a very good research article on Street Names as Memorial Arenas that appeared in the journal Historical Geography. Fluous (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)