Talk:Wilder Brigade Monument

title and coordinates
On my screen, at least, the title and the coordinates in the upper right are overlapping. Since the coordinates are in the info box, I think the coordinates above the info box can be removed. (I don't know how to do it.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A recent edit and almost edit war
A recent edit (originally by me) that stated:

"The Monument made news in October 2022 when Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene visited the monument and stated: "Tonight, I stopped at the Wilder Monument in Chickamauga, Georgia, which honors the Confederate soldiers of the Wilder Brigade, I will always defend our nation's history!" Greene posted to Truth Social. However, the monument actually honors Col. John T. Wilder's Lightning Brigade of the Union Army. "Tonight, I stopped at the Wilder Monument in Chickamauga, Georgia, which honors the Confederate soldiers of the Wilder Brigade, I will always defend our nation's history!" Greene posted to Truth Social. However, the monument actually honors Colonel John T. Wilder's Lightning Brigade of the Union Army. "

has been removed and added almost 20 times since I put it in a day or two ago, which amounts to something like half the edits ever to the article. I would like to see the section stay in the article but am not interested in warring with serious editors. Part of my research on the article involves looking at the number of times the page has been viewed since that story broke and I find that I can not access those statics. I am not sure if this is because of my ancient computer and its limitation or whether those figures can not be found. SO I am hoping that someone with more computer savvy than myself can locate this statistics and share them here. Carptrash (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have returned the removed section because when looking at how many times the article has been veiwed in the last 30 days we discover that the hits jumped from zero or one or two to forty-five thousand on the day that this story hit the news.  This strongly suggests that folks are coming to wikipedia to learn what was going on.  That section should stay there. Carptrash (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this discussion here, . Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information as per What Wikipedia is not. If people are interested in current news, then there are other, better sources of information. However, many people may be interested in the actual information about the monument, and they certainly could learn a lot from the article, including who it is dedicated to, which is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead and discussed throughout the article. Except for your last sentence that merely repeats that information already in the article, the content you keep adding is simply a quote from a politician who was factually incorrect and probably intended to be inflamatory. I don't see how that would add any value to this article, and I'm not sure what long-term significance this quote would have. This seems to be exactly what WP:NOTNEWS discusses: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Additionally, the source you are using is considered generally unreliable for factual information according to WP:RSP: "There is consensus that The Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories." Also, please remember that we should try to treat everyone as serious editors under WP:AGF. I have removed the content for now per WP:ONUS, which says, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If your issue is with the source I used there is no problem finding another. However were I to come up with another one such as MSN or Newsweek, both of whom covered the story, I suspect that it would make no difference to you, that's really not why you are deleting my posting.  That 90.000 people came to the article in a few days and did not, or will not find what they are looking for means nothing compared to a wikipedia guideline, which is to say your consensus of one carries the day.  Carptrash (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Newsweek is also not reliable per WP:RSP, and MSN does not publish its own news content. You should also reread my previous response, as you seem to have ignored the majority of it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)