Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Confederate monuments and memorials. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"Public spaces" vice "publicly supported spaces"

The change may seem minor, but the NPOV rationale is important. As public spaces in the United States are open for freedom of speech and assembly, saying that monuments are in "publicly supported spaces" implies that the public in general (or local governments) may dictate what monuments are to be placed (or removed). In many cases the monuments were erected by private groups. This being the case, it is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for a government authority to remove such monuments or memorials. My recent edit removes the implication that "publicly supported" gives local governments any special rights. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Your edit is fine. I don't have a problem with it. But your rationale is way out in left field. I have never read anything that even hints at the legal issues you raised. Granted, news coverage of legal issues is notoriously bad. I know this because I'm also a lawyer, like you. But you'd think these issues would have been brought up in some way. I haven't seen it all. Nothing. So, can you provide any reference whatsoever that backs up your legal claims? Well, any link that isn't from some conservative/ libertarian blog? Fluous (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My comments are simply food for thought to justify the "publicly supported" revision. I do not think this will become an editing issue. (But, in fact, there has been some legal challenges brought. See: for example.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just cut this out fro Virginia

• • "Democratic state Rep. Eric Johnson, meanwhile, is demanding the removal of a nearly 60-year-old plaque rejecting slavery as the Civil War's "underlying cause."^[where?] Republican House Speaker Joe Straus has called for checking the accuracy of that plaque and nearly a dozen other Confederate symbols located around the state Capitol alone."^{[1][dead link]}
  • Mayor Levar Stoney of Richmond (2016– ) commented on the matter while talking about the Robert E. Lee statue saying, "At the end of the day, the way those statues stand at the moment is a default endorsement of a shameful past that divided the nation. And to me, it defies my mission of one Richmond. You, I want to be a city that is tolerant, inclusive, and embraces its diversity, and those statues without context do not do that".^[2]

This is a list of CSA monuments & memorials. These are not CSA monuments or memorials, therefore (opinion) they do not belong in this article. Carptrash (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And I do find myself wondering what African American Civil War Memorial is doing in a list of monuments & memorials of the CSA? Carptrash (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The first is obviously talking about Confederate symbols. The second a Lee Statue. The African American Civil War Memorial is a specificially Union soldier memorial and should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So, obviously, every conversation with a reference to CSA symbols gets on the list? And I am pretty sure that the Lee statue is already included. I think it even has my picture. Hopefully you are not suggesting putting this stuff back? It is hard to tell from your post. Carptrash (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

if there are symbols of the Confederacy at the state capital they belong on the list. Some limited commentary on specific listings is good. General commentary belongs elsewhere like the removals article. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

"of the" CSA v. "to the" CSA?

Including the Appomattox Court House in the list presents an interesting question for editors. E.g., is the Appomattox memorial (or any battlefield site – Petersburg, Gettysburg, etc.) a "monument", "memorial", "tribute", or even "dedicated" to the CSA? More importantly, the question leads to another issue – General Lee made great efforts post-war to reconcile the differences between the states. Are the memorials to Lee to him as a CSA general or to him as a post-war reconcilliator? (Also, President William McKinley (himself a Civil War hero) sponsored a great and emotional reconciliation between the GAR and Southern veterans.) How do these post-war reconcilliation efforts impact our 21st Century efforts to understand what happened? The answer for Wikipedians is to look at what the sources say. Do we include such-and-such monument simply because some name and an event that we now associate with the CSA happens to be the same? Clearly, no. Some RS is needed to verify that the naming was done as a memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are looking at a section about National Parks Service sites connected to the civil war I started, which did not get finished. I was thinking maybe a spin out. Some of these sites (Gettysburg for example) have hundreds of monuments to CSA leaders amd units. I've trimmed back some entries and will trim some more.

Why something is named for Lee might be discoverable amd included here, but that is really a very political issue subject to much interpretation. The reconciliation angle may have some truth, but so does the "push down the former slaves" angle. The story of Silent Sam errected in 1913 is a good example. Time magazine "repeatedly encountered remarks suggesting that if people don’t like the university’s Confederate memorial statue, affectionately nicknamed “Silent Sam,” then they should leave. Sadly, this was the precise message of the statue itself: in 1913, Silent Sam marked the UNC campus as a site of white supremacy, making it clear to people of color that they were not welcome." ^[1] for at the dedication it was very clear the purpose see the "Some contemporaries linked the monuments to the defense of white supremacy in shockingly explicit terms" section especially.^[2] Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

References

1. timeinc.net/time/3697578/unc-students-protest-kkk-legacy/%3fsource=dam
2. Some contemporaries linked the monuments to the defense of white supremacy in shockingly explicit terms

I've read a long article on the dedication ceremonies of this statue (Charlotte Observer, June 3, 1913) and there is nothing about race. The speakers focused mainly on the subject of the statue- students who left college to go off to war. The governor of North Carolina was there and ended his speech with these words: "Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people." Sound racist? Whoever is making this claim about a "racist" statue are lying through their teeth. "in 1913, Silent Sam marked the UNC campus as a site of white supremacy, making it clear to people of color that they were not welcome." Huh??? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. They didn't need a statue to establish segregation in 1913. -Topcat777 23:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1913 UNC did not need anything to help keep African Amemicans out. There was no question about that in anyone's minds. As far as ""Some contemporaries linked the monuments to the defense of white supremacy in shockingly explicit terms" goes, I guess I'd like to see (read) what was said for my self. Carptrash (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia

Page watchers may be interested in participating in this discussion re: creation of a standalone for the Lee statue in Richmond, Virginia, which I believe is independently notable. All are invited to share their thoughts. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about this one (Wyoming)

John C. Hunton's grave.

though have not removed it. Yet.

• Cheyenne (Wyoming): CSA veteran and Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton's private grave in Lakeview Cemetery. Buried in 1928, Hunton's burial was updated with a Confederate marker designed by UDC in 2010
  

This is just a grave marker with "CSA" carved on it. Allowing this suggests that every gravestone with "CSA" carved on it is a separate listing? Given that there are (to make up a number) 250,000 of these I believe it to be a bad precedent. Carptrash (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think your logic is correct here. After doing some research this is a grave marker that is free for any CW Veterans grave that does not have an existing marker or for a grave that doesn't include their service dates. The markers are provided by the department of Veterans Affairs. A monument or memorial would need to be something in addition to their grave marker, even if they were a historically notable person such as Mr. Huton. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya take it out. It's just a grave marker. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The rationale for this is the reliable third-party sources:

• Shaw, Jerry (September 1, 2015). "Where You Can Find Confederate Flag Flying in Wyoming". Newsmax. Retrieved August 15, 2017. Confederate flags and monuments wouldn't seem to be linked to Wyoming, but connections exist because of Civil War veterans who traveled west after the war. [...] Long after his burial in 1928, Hunton's grave at Lakeview Cemetery in Cheyenne received a Confederate grave marker in 2010. [...] The Veterans Administration provided the gravestone, which was designed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
• Barron, Joan (September 5, 2010). "Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton gets Confederate gravestone". The Billings Gazette. Retrieved August 15, 2017. The grave marker is believed to be the only one of its kind in Wyoming, said Bev Holmes, a pioneer association board member.

User:Carptrash: You should have pinged me! It is the only Confederate marker in Wyoming and it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Now the list makes it look like there is nothing in Wyoming, which is not true.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have returned what I removed from Wyoming, we can now start the discussion as to whether every head stone in a cemetery should be listed as a separate monument or memorial. I oppose this. ````

• I also oppose listing individual headstones. I'd be surprised if there is any confederate monuments in Wyoming - it's Wyoming. There is a river in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming listed under National Parks Service if that makes you feel better. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this is the only Confederate monument in Wyoming makes it significant I think. Also that the marker was added in 2010. When we leave it out of the section, it makes it look like there is nothing in Wyoming, which is not true. The listing is very succinct (" Cheyenne: CSA veteran and Wyoming pioneer John C. Hunton's private grave in Lakeview Cemetery. Buried in 1928, Hunton's burial was updated with a Confederate marker designed by UDC in 2010.") with two RS. I am not saying we need to list every single grave marker across the USA, but RS suggest this one is significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the typical Confederate grave marker supplied by the US government. There are tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of these across the country. -Topcat777 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess if there's really no consensus to add it to the section, that's fine. I was just making a case based on reliable third-party sources. But ultimately we reach decisions by consensus here.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya it's a bridge too far. VA gravestones should not be mentioned. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about lengthy paragraphs in a list article

This article is supposed to be a list. I do not think any of this belongs.

"Charlottesville (Virginia):

In May 2017, the City Council of Charlottesville voted to remove and sell its statue of CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee, and renamed Lee Park, where the statue stands, as Emancipation Park.[672] The removal has been halted for six months by a court injunction, in response to a suit by SCV.[673] Self-proclaimed white nationalist Richard B. Spencer led "a large group of demonstrators" carrying torches protesting this plan, which has played "an outsize role in this year's race for Virginia governor," in which Stewart is a candidate. White supremacists and "nationalist" groups demonstrated in Charlottesville in favor of preserving the statues. On May 15, 2017, Richard Spencer led a white nationalist group around the Robert E. Lee statue. They rallied in support of the statues for, in their view, the "Confederacy is what represents us."[673] Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam commented on the appearance of nationalist and supremacist groups, saying via email, "These actions are totally unacceptable. These people are racists. They don't represent Virginian values. I condemn their action and beliefs. I call on all Virginians who are involved in efforts to advocate for or against Virginia's history to act responsibly and honorably."[673] Mayor Stoney called it "one of the most overt acts of racism I've seen in a very, very long time."[674]

On July 8, 2017, about 50 Ku Klux Klan members from North Carolina demonstrated in support of the monument. They were met by a large group of counterprotesters who, following the demonstration, blocked the Klan members from leaving. Virginia State Police intervened and used tear gas to open the streets. A city spokeswoman said at least 23 people were arrested.[675]

Another protest by white nationalists in support of the monument, the 2017 Unite the Right rally, took place during the August 11–12 weekend. Friday night, several hundred torch-bearing men and women marched on the University of Virginia campus. A brawl occurred between the marchers and a group of counterprotesters.[676][677] One white nationalist was arrested after deliberately driving his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring several others.[678]

On August 20, 2017, the City Council unanimously voted to shroud the statues of Lee and Stonewall Jackson in black. The Council "also decided to direct the city manager to take an administrative step that would make it easier to eventually remove the Jackson statue."[679]

The University of Virginia Board of Visitors (trustees) voted unanimously on September 15, 2017, to remove two plaques from the university’s Rotunda that honored students and alumni who fought and died for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The University also agreed "to acknowledge a $1,000 gift in 1921 from the Ku Klux Klan and contribute the amount, adjusted for inflation, to a suitable cause."[680]"

Carptrash (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an entire article dedicated to the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. It seems like these entries belong in that article.108.218.57.36 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Lists can and should have some context. This could be trimed and just linked though. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Do these people merit inclusion?

John C. Calhoun

Why is John C. Calhoun showing up here? He died a decade before there was a CSA. This is not a list of monuments and memorials to people who supported racism. Or who we don't like. Or who might have been an inspiration to the CSA. Or is it? So we should include St. Paul because he seems to defend slavery? There is such a Rush to Judgment going on that I feel a little embarrassed about wearing my 'I Edit Wikiprdia" tee-shirt in public. Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Confederate president Jefferson Davis once say "John C. Calhoun is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So? Everyone Jeff Davis said nice things about should be recognized as a Confederate memorial? So @MShabazz:, does that mean you feel Calhoun should be recognized. Than what about St. Paul? Because there are probably dozens of references to him from the justification of slavery days.Carptrash (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Obviously a memorial to Calhoun, who died before the CSA was established, is not a memorial of the CSA and has no place in a list of such memorials. I thought my quotation of the orange moron who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was obvious—evidently not! Earlier this year, the alleged president of the United States said that of Frederick Douglass, suggesting that the long-dead Douglass was still alive. I was making a bad joke that maybe Davis was equally confused and thought Calhoun was alive during his presidency. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Good joke @MShabazz:, , bad reception. Years ago I was informed in a very serious way that there was no place for humor on wikipedia. I shouldn't have listened. Carptrash (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think we should do about men like John C. Calhoun. If he doesn't merit inclusion in this list, what would be a good list article to create instead? I think it would be useful to have a list of monuments and memorials of pre-civil war proponents of slavery. Or something better phrased. Fluous (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For starters I think men such as Calhoun should not be on this list. Do you @Fluous: think he belongs here? @MShabazz: did not rally defined keeping him here, so if no one else speaks up I'm going to start peeling him off. Tomorrow. I don't feel that we need a list of every racist or jerk in the world, or even in America. If you start one what are you going to do the first time someone wants to put our beloved President on it? Carptrash (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: No, probably not. Calhoun is pre-secession. If you do anything, please paste what you removed to the talk page.

Btw, can you fix that "Widner" reference you just SFN'd? Two issues: (1) The name is "Widener;" not "Widner." And (2) you're citing it to a duplicate reference; we already gave a full citation of his book much earlier. Fluous (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a bibliography of many of my books, I add them as I use them, and I had Widener spelled wrong there. I am also just learning about the short citation format and will be using it more. Carptrash (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just removed: * Tallahassee: Calhoun Street Carptrash (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a Category:American proslavery activists (where I've put Calhoun). deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Landon Garland

(Two Garland Hall buildings)?

Should we add the buildings on two campuses named for Landon Garland? He owned 60 slaves or so and defended slavery (see the "views on slavery" section in his article), but it looks like he was the president of the University of Alabama throughout the war and did not serve in the CSA.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually I am an inclusionist, but I feel that this is list is borderline out of control. Sidney Lanier is another one. he was in the CSA army but that is not why stuff is named after him.. I say "NO" to both of these. Carptrash (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. It's beyond hyperbole to say this list is "out-of-control." There may have been a few listings that didn't merit inclusion here, but only a few. Fluous (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to go beyond hyperbole. But thanks for attributing to me the impossible. Carptrash (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• • • List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I say skip Landon Garland because it is really not a memorial to the CSA. Just some guy who was in it. Carptrash (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that RS tend to conflate the CSA (which only lasted a few years) and slavery. Garland, Calhoun and many others connote slavery but not necessarily the CSA.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bubba73: On second thoughts, don't you think there is a difference between owning slaves like most rich people did at the time (George Washington) and being an apologist for slavery by saying, "The negro has, through slavery, been taken up from a condition of grossest barbarity and ignorance, made serviceable to himself and to the world, and elevated and improved socially, morally, intellectually and physically." (Garland)?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a list of racists, though it includes many. That Garland made hateful statements still does not necessarily make a monument to him a memorial to the CSA. Garland was the President of UA through out the war, but had been the president of it for 5 years before the war. Reconstruction probably cost him his job which is okay with me considering what the war cost so many others. Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Garland was not a member of the CS military or political leadership so exclude him. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The UA building was completed in 1884, nine years before he died. However, it's not clear from Emporis if it was named in his "honor" that year or renamed later.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It may not be a Confederate (CSA) monument, but isn't it a NeoConfederate/Lost Cause monument? Should we create another list for those? Are there enough RS about this?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, be bold. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

More graph discussions

SPLC numbers too low

I am also a bit surprised at how many monuments I am discovering that don't seem to be in the SPLC graph or data. I am interested in just the monuments because (1) that's what I am interested in and (2) because the discussions, some of them, in the press seem to just talk about "monuments" as if they are all statues. So I went through the data on the SPLC "Whose Heritage is it" document to create my own graph of just monuments and found myself going, well they don't have this one and they don't have that one and then thinking, so how many missed ones would it take to be able to claim that their data was screwy and the answer is, "It doesn't matter" because that's the dreaded original research. Even if I discovered (which is not the case) that they had missed half the monuments, unless Huffington Post or the Washington Post or the Saturday Evening Post publishes it, it doesn't matter. Even if I show it to you here, it doesn't matter. So, do you think a letter to the Sun City Post would count? Carptrash (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We are struggling with the idea of RS here. The Wyoming marker is backed up by RS, but it's been removed from the article by consensus. There are also RS about Garland, but there is consensus not to add the buildings. Yet somehow this list apparently includes unreferenced content as you suggest.09:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. Crowdsourcing combined with the efforts of journalists across America localizing the Charlottesville story uncovered additional monuments that SPLC could not locate in their research. That does not make their research bad, for SPLC very clearly says their list is incomplete. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not that simple, SPLC reports that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States. To put this into perspective, listing only two of the 15 or so National Military Parks, there are 1,328 monuments (both Confederate and Union) at Gettysburg National Military Park, and more than 1,400 at Vicksburg National Military Park. I've added that info to the article. Mojoworker (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A letter to the editor would not count. However, you can identify that their list differs from this articles topic as the bulk of their numbers are 'other' which is not the article topic 'monuments and memorials'and their list says it excludes memorials that we would include. As for flaws in their data or premise, well there was enough blowback at the time of release (e.g. over army bases or mostly-black schools not being symbols of such) and enough pings about ones they had missed (e.g. California cemetary, Pennlive marker) or ones that they had listed that were in errror (e.g. roads attached to battlefield or road in heavily-Union PA where 'Lee' was actually named for a local merchant). But ... really a single report by an advocacy group is not the topic of this article -- this is supposedly a 'List of' except the preface remarks getting in the way has has grown excessively and I think better to trim much of it away rather than put in yet more pages of flawed stuff then remarks about how the non-topic stuff is flawed. Markbassett (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's some nice original research there Mark. Actually, it's just original research, not really nice. Where is this "blowback"? You keep making assertions and offering your own idiosyncratic opinions on talk but as always, fail to provide any sources. Let's see the sources. Volunteer Marek  11:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many SPLC listings have no dates

Another interesting point and a reason that the graph has got to go. Remember, just because something is referenced however many times by however many sources, this does not mean that we have to use it. My interest is in monuments, statues and I am will to include bronze plaques as sort of a poor person’s bronze statue. The SLPC folks say that they have found 718 of those, out of a total of 1,503 monuments and memorials. I am in the course of identifying statues that are not on the list and am rapidly approaching 70, which means that their count is off by at least 10%, which to me is unacceptable. But wait, it gets worse. In my making of a graph that showed just the monuments that they list in their data last night I was surprised by how many of their listings had no date. So this morning I counted them. I got 645, please double check my math, which has already proven to be marginal (when I added 50 to 1861 and got 1901). They are making much, and so is wikipedia with our graph, about the dates (i.e. “Jim Crow era” etc) and yet they do not have or do not share with us the dates for over on third of their sample. How is this okay? Are we suggesting that we must blindly follow sources that we know are questionable? It has been suggested here somewhere that I am in a group of wikipedia “lost causers” wanting to “whitewash history.” This is not so. I am in a group of wikipedia editors who want to get it right.

Meanwhile I think the 48 hours for the graph is up. It goes very soon. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually if something is referenced many times and it's pertinent to the topic... yeah we DO need to use it. Otherwise what's the point of having policies such as NPOV and NOR when users can just decide to ignore reliable sources and just put their own POV into the article? And these sources are NOT "questionable". If they were you'd be able to find OTHER secondary sources which call it such or which question the statements made by these, more than a dozen, sources.

As to your own original research - nothing wrong with that, in fact it sounds interesting and I'd be interested in seeing it - it's just Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. In particular, even if SPLC missed some monuments, for the trends and the peaks to look different, the sample of the monuments they did have data on would have to be non-random. Otherwise it's gonna look the same. Again - for the purposes of this article none of this matters since we're discussing (admitted) original research here. Volunteer Marek  11:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the chart

Chart illustrating the number of Confederate monuments, schools and other iconography established by year. According to the SPLC, most of these were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension.^[1] The year 1911, which was both the 50th anniversary of the start of the Civil War and part of the period referred to by historians as the "nadir of American race relations", saw the largest number constructed.

The neutrality of this graph is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs)

Yeah, you shouldn't have. The RfC is ongoing.

I've also noticed that someone has tried to remove the pertinent and well sourced info from the text as well. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  10:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Article violates WP:NPOV

What started off this morning as a fairly mild and balanced article meant primarily as a list has become a polemic soapbox over the course of the day, and now violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'd like to have an admin weigh in on this one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. How? This appears to be a revenge edit by you for the message I left on your talk. Also, given your past edit history (particularly 2012 and before), here and on Wiki Commons, I'm gonna ask you to NEVER post on my talk page again. (At the time I left the message on your talk I had forgotten who you were - but don't worry not gonna go near your place again). Volunteer Marek  11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read WP:AGF, not my problem where you imagine "revenge edits" lurking everywhere. The language added today drips POV that was not there earlier. It has nothing to do with your paranoia.

I wouldn't have posted on your talkpage, I had forgotten about you, had you not left the nastygram on mine. Apology accepted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't just say "I think it's POV". You have to explain why and how something is POV. You haven't. Hence that naturally suggests that your edit was motivated by something else - payback for my comment on your talk.

How's your Wiki Commons gallery doing?  Volunteer Marek  11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Watch yourself there, tinfoil. I didn't engage you-you accused me of something right out of the gate, and even here you throw in ad hominems. Much as I'd rather avoid your talkpage (and that you'd never soiled mine), I must when I report you at AN:I.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove tags

Marek's edit warring to remove tags like this, this and this with active talk page discussions and to restore disputed content with an active RFC in two different articles. I think it's time to get admins involved. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A POV tag here is completely unwarrented. This is a high traffic article that does not need a POV tag to discredit it it at the very top. That tag is you pushing your POV that you can't get concensus for. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Calm down and remember WP:NPA. We actually edit-conflicted, I was in the process of removing the same tag you removed because (I think) the content Kintetsubuffalo objected to had been removed. Now it's been restored so I restored the tag. Don't remove it until content concerns are addressed. D.Creish (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The tag is completely spurious, it appears to be motivated by "pay back" and the placer has failed to even justify it, which is a requirement for adding the tag. Volunteer Marek  15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If the graph stays - and the last time I removed it I was asked/told to give it 48 more hours, which I did and now it's "Oh it's an ongoing discussion" - then the tag stays. How about we onto the discussion with the graph gone? It is the graph that is "completely spurious." One third of the monuments and memorials that the SPLC list in their data do not show up on the graph because they don't have dates for them. How is that acceptable? Why is that acceptable? 1/3. What historian (or lawyer for that matter) in their right mind will issue conclusions with 1/3 of their data unaccounted for? It is acceptable because so many people like the stereotyped version of history that seems to appear. Carptrash (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the usual one month period. If someone said 48 hours, then that was wrong. The "1/3 missing" is your own original research, as you yourself admitted, so it's irrelevant. Volunteer Marek  20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how the 1/3 missing is irrelevant. The source (SPLC) even admitted in the article several were not included, and if it really is that high would you really expect them to say that? I personally noticed it was a large amount and yes even wondered briefly if was not some hanky panky on SPLC part to not include so much. I did not think much about it though for couple of reasons. Brief glance at some of sources used does show several incomplete data or inconsistencies, plus as far as I can tell it would not really change the biggest peak much. It is more than that though, it is also the other types of data that were included or not included, which if all were included does muddy it some but still does not appear to change the biggest peak period. It does raise the point however, that maybe it should be noted the data for chart is incomplete or not all inclusive just as SPLC article does itself, since I doubt many will not bother to read the source and the whole article. I doubt many will even read such a note put in either, but at least an attempt at accuracy will be done plus attempt at trying to remain as neutral as possible. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because it's original research. I just wrote that, didn't I? You would need a third party secondary reliable source which says "the SPLC graph is missing 1/3 of the monuments" or something like that to include this. Volunteer Marek  20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: so you counted 858. Interesting as that is not far off from the sum given in articles main headings of 852. Wonder where other 6 included came from. 2) 109 public schools + 3) 718 monuments + 5) six Southern states w/Confederate flag + 6) 10 major U.S. military bases + 7) nine official Confederate holidays. Which confirms what I thought about chart inaccurately sourcing data compiled from 2017. Nowhere does it say when it was compiled in article, but article was originally posted in April 21, 2016, the chart actually goes to 2016 and is couple vague references of things that were done in 2016 in article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What is also interesting to me is that 101 of these monuments and memorials that we have labeled as belonging to the "Jim Crow era" are not in former CSA states. We are suggesting that a monument built in Montana in 1916 is somehow related to Jim Crow. Oh yeah, that's okay because the sources say it. Not. Carptrash (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think in fairness this line from the SPLC study should be included in the caption for the graph.

"These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War.". Dubyavee (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this whole 1503 thing - it looks like you're just confusing "symbols" with "monuments". That's it. The definition of "symbols" is just more encompassing than the definition of "monuments". Like I said, original research. Confused original research. This is exactly why we follow sources and not Wikipedians' personal opinions and feelings. Volunteer Marek  15:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

THe 1503 has nothing to do with ~2600 that were discluded. Neither is confusing symbols with monuments thing. It starts with their findings and makes note they discluded so many. THAN it goes on to talk about the 1503 "symbols" that they do include. "There are at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces." (my bolding for emphasis). It even goes on to say what all those symbols are. I will bold out for you the majority ones that are NOT counted from those 1503 to arrive with ~850 value. "These include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works." I do not know about other public works, but guessing not counted either. Schools: most High Schools are in the count, most Middle and Elementary are not. Makes me wonder how you re-constructed the graph without even knowing what all the data was. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do you get that schools, bridges, dams and roads are "NOT counted"? Where do you get that "most Middle and Elementary are not"?  Volunteer Marek  11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If I have to answer this, than thank you for clarifying that you have not looked at SPLC data. Where do you think roughly half of them are not being shown from? Did you really think they were just unable to find dates for that many symbols or something. Bah, just go actually look at the data yourself, taking note when date listed is "N/A". Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I just cut this out from (maybe) the second paragraph

"Many memorials were dedicated in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War, and some have been built in the early 21st century, 150 years after the war. "
It is not supported by the references, one of which is from 1993 so for sure did not discuss what happened in the 21st Century. Of course I could have missed something, so please double check.Carptrash (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty anodyne thing to remove. And it makes no sense to remove temporal information from the history section. It's kinda important in a history section to know the history of these monuments, like when the monuments were generally built. Are you now disputing when the monuments were built? Enough is enough, Carptrash. Fluous (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Put it back. A 1993 reference can support the main thrust of the statement. This page has hundreds of refs that show when individual items were built or named and many refs supporting the statement you just removed. Stop with the agenda pushing. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine put it back. If you are willing to use a 1993 reference to explain what happened after 2000 then perhaps we need to look at who has an agenda? Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two parts to the sentence. Perhaps you would feel better if you moved the 1993 ref to the middle of the sentence. I'm sure you are smallrt enough to figure out I'm not making the point you claim I'm making. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• A brief glance at the section's cites near-instantly found three other citations that supported that statement; more generally, it's not a particularly controversial statement (I mean, just glancing up at the debate over the graph, above, would tell you that it was true.) When you don't think a statement like that is well-cited enough, it's usually best to throw a cite tag on it to ask for references rather than immediately leaping to removing it - that's what the [citation needed] tag is for, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New caption to "the chart"

User:Kevin "Hawk" Fisher has made two edits to the caption on the chart, and both need discussing. First, both edits are grammatically awkward, which would otherwise not be a problem to fix, except that this editor provided no source to support their edit, so I am not sure what meaning this editor was attempting to convey. Having contributed significantly to this article myself, I have found zero correlation between the erecting of monuments and any anniversary dates. If there is a source to support that roughly five years before and five years after the 50th anniversary of the Civil War was a time of increased monument building, it needs to be added. Else, the edit needs to be removed or tagged. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Was one of @Kevin "Hawk" Fisher:'s edits removing the "The neutrality of this graph is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." tag, because, if so, yes it definitely should have been discussed here. As the tag states. Carptrash (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"The semicentennial of the war, 1911 to 1915, served as an impetus, as was the Spanish-American war-era of reconciliation between North and South, the nationalist fervor aroused during World War I, and the maturity or passing of the first generation of descendents and the deaths of most of the veterans. By 1914, according to Charles Reagan Wilson, over a thousand monuments had been erected in the South." An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments, Timothy Sedore, pg. 3 Dubyavee (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm looks like I am in error. I could not figure out why was such problem when the source (or so I thought) originally given for this chart listed gives the info right under the chart that I was referring too. "The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War." The problem is that I assumed the PDF version matched their web page version, so never bothered to actually download and look at PDF. They are similar but not the same. As can be seen at Whose Heritage Public Symbols Confederacy. Feel free to revert my edit, as I am not going to give another same but similar source until issue about graph is resolved. Will address it after if chart is decided to remain. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: In the article, of the 51 courthouse monuments in Virginia (that are dated), 7 were erected between 1911 and 1915 (14 %). In North Carolina, it's 24 %. There is no correlation between the erection of the monuments and any semicentennial. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it would take more than a cursory look to determine this. Even the SPLC admits the two bursts of building coincide with the 2 anniversaries, I don't think this is a controversial idea. I will add a paragraph to the article from John J. Winberry's 1983 study when I finish it. Dubyavee (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

1911 was the highest year of memorials, followed up by next ones the preceding years after up to 1915. No coincidence those seen the peak years. However, yes I still agree that it takes much more than cursory look or even the highest peak period. As can be seen in that chart, there had been a growing trend starting around 1886 with many plans and funding being made to continue. 1890's was a recession and delayed many of those plans or funding efforts, and would not be surprised they than held off for several until anniversary. Complex topic and why imho some simple chart will never be more than starting place and one small piece of the puzzle. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

this is nonsense. Schools were not named for Lee and Forrest because of an anniversary, all the sources say they were named as a protest against integration? and to send a message that blacks were not welcome there. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Who said that schools were? You are going to pick 5% of the list? Everything is not black and white you know. Yes most schools were named after the desegregation and imho anyone trying to say they were not named for that is fooling themself and not being objectionable. However, some schools were named long prior to that time, are you going to tell me they were named in protest too? Lee in particular after the war stressed about unity and especially talked about rebuilding. Lee thought best way to rebuild was via the youth and educating the youth. It is why he became dean at WU after all. For example Robert E. Lee High School (Staunton, Virginia) from 1926 so clearly was not due to protesting against segregation, nor was it for any anniversary. HUH! You mean it might be possible it was named for some third reason! Maybe, just maybe it was not even named for anything to do with confederacy at all. Maybe it was simply a nod to local virginians efforts in attempt to make their state better. That did not seem to fit the caption in that chart, so should we list all of possible reasons for all the various types of monuments? Now that sounds like nonsense. Or just simply list two of more common and probable reasons which also counter each other out to give NPOV. Plus list the two actually provided by the SPLC source. Nonsense would be to pick one and ignore the other. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of new image to top of page -- WP:NPOV violation?

A historical marker in Colfax, Louisiana, commemorating the murder of 150 "negroes" which supposedly "marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South". A nearby monument also celebrates the three whites, who died during the massacre of Colfax's black citizens, as heroes who died "fighting for white supremacy".^[1]

I'm bothered by the POV implications of the new image that was added to the top if the page, and particularly by its caption (both reproduced here). Does a monument cited as possibly "the nation's nastiest monument" by the Daily Beast really belong at the top of the article? The majority of what I have read, by a variety of historians, indicates that white supremacy was often a motivating factor in building the monuments and memorials to the CSA, but does that have to be highlighted in the first image in the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I moved it to Louisiana. We have enough trouble with the graph. Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good place to put it. Volunteer Marek  00:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Colfax? 1873? The SPLC doesn't even have that on their list. What the heck is the time limitation of events on what is counted as a "Confederate" monument? Can a marker noting some event of the 1920s be counted as "Confederate?" No? Then what's the limit? 1910s? 1900s? 1890s? -Topcat777 13:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Topcat777 - the SPLC missed more than one, and incorrectly counted many, and put in leading labels and ... basically they are an advocacy group so they don't have a scholarly interest in accuracy here and just gave it a bit of effort. Athe time it camd out there was some huffing over calling army bases confederate monumnets, but basically this is an advocacy group and not a secondary source to rely on. Markbassett (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Says you. As the kids say "citation needed". Seriously, have you bothered to present even a single - just one, uno, ein, 1, .999999999 - source for any claims that you have made? No? Then please leave the discussion to the grown ups who make their arguments with sources and evidence. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of newspapers for historical claims

We've added several opinions from historians commenting in newspapers. We can do better than newspapers for history, we have published academic papers and thoroughly-researched books. I say we cut out newspapers for everything but the current controversy. D.Creish (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I firmly disagree; what mainstream historians say in reliable, published sources such as news media is no more or less reliable than what they say in books or papers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but the selection of historians is relevant. Do we know if the historians chosen by Washington Post published books or papers on the topic? Should we choose them over others who have? These are relevant concerns. Newspapers don't override medical journals for medical claims because journalists aren't experts. The same goes for history. D.Creish (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We aren't citing journalists, we're citing historians cited by journalists, which is precisely what we should be doing as a tertiary source. It's not our job to decide whether these secondary sources are themselves wrong; that is original research. Our job is to reflect the viewpoints published in mainstream reliable sources in proportion to their prominence in those reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

When historians cite previous works in books or papers they don't cite the Washington Post. Better sources are available and we should use them. "Our job" is not to reflect the Washington Post's views on history which are irrelevant. The Washington Post's views (to continue with that example) are reflected in their choice of historians. A pro-life journalist could find plenty of (pro-life) doctors to say abortion isn't safe. The bias of the journalist in that example affects the choice of experts. The best way to minimize that is to cite those considered experts by other experts in their field, not by journalists. D.Creish (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't reject mainstream reliable sources just because you or any other editor think they might be "biased." We certainly aren't going to omit viewpoints published in one of the leading newspapers in America. The solution would be to add more reliable sources, not take them away. If there is bias in mainstream sources, we will inevitably reflect that bias. That is a feature, not a bug. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If we can't agree that academic journals and recognized works are better sources for historical claims than newspapers, I think we're at an impasse. D.Creish (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's NOT what anybody is saying. Please stop trying to manipulate the discussion by making stuff up and falsely claiming that other people said it. Academic journals are better sources sure (depends on the journal actually). But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with articles written by historians and printed in magazines or newspapers. It's also noteworthy that you haven't actually presented any academic journals. Indeed, you have not provided ANY sources at all.

See, the real reason we're at an impasse is precisely because you do things like completely... "misrepresent" about what other people say and then expect them to assume good faith towards you. Tell you what, YOU stop ... "misrepresenting" about what others said, and others might consider taking you seriously. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:I mean, this seems like bad faith on D.Creish's part. He's going on-and-on about academic journals, but what sources has he ever found? What work has he ever done here? Here are the academic journals and history books that I've personally found and cited since I began editing this article:

• Gulley, H.E. (1993). "Women and the Lost Cause: preserving a Confederate identity in the American Deep South". Journal of Historical Geography. 19 (2): 125–41. doi:10.1006/jhge.1993.1009.
• Winsboro, Irvin D.S. (2016). "The Confederate Monument Movement as a Policy Dilemma for Resource Managers of Parks, Cultural Sites, and Protected Places: Florida as a Case Study" (PDF). The George Wright Forum. 33: 217–29.
• Wiggins, David N. (2006). Georgia's Confederate monuments and cemeteries. Charleston, SC: Arcadia. ISBN 9780738542331. OCLC 67612617.
• Winberry, John J. (1983). ""Lest We Forget": The Confederate Monument and the Southern Townscape". Southeastern Geographer. 23 (2): 107–21. ISSN 1549-6929. doi:10.1353/sgo.1983.0008.
• Davis, Michael. In Remembrance: Confederate Funerary Monuments in Alabama and Resistance to Reconciliation, 1884–1923. Master's thesis, Auburn University. Accessed August 15, 2017.
• Dirickson, Perry (2006). School Spirit or School Hate: The Confederate Battle Flag, Texas High Schools, and Memory, 1953-2002. (PDF) (Thesis). University of North Texas.

Fluous (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be opposed to wholesale removal. In some cases we could focus on transitioning from papers to papers and books, certainly, since those are generally better sources; but most of the time an opinion represented by an established mainstream historian in a high-profile, mainstream newspaper is going to also have lots of books and academic papers written about it; and the newspaper itself, while not as high-quality, is at least usable under WP:RS until / unless someone digs up better sources. If there's specific things you feel are WP:UNDUE, highlight them and we can dig through possible sources, but I don't think wholesale removal of newspaper sources would improve the article - we can find better sources, but this isn't "nuke from orbit" level sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point generally but I think what we had before was fine. Continuing to add newspaper sources doesn't move us in the direction of improvement. D.Creish (talk)

The version you edited to was not remotely an improvement - it entirely omitted the mainstream, predominant historical viewpoint that the monuments were erected at least substantially in furtherance of Jim Crow and celebration of white supremacy. Ensuring that this mainstream viewpoint is properly reflected here is critical to the article's content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Newspaper sources are an improvement if they cover something that wasn't adequately covered previously, especially if they are high-quality and numerous enough to demonstrate that WP:DUE weight requires that aspect be covered. If you can find even higher-quality sources that support the same statements, feel free to add or substitute them; if you feel that something is being given WP:UNDUE weight for whatever reason, highlight it specifically in another thread so we can go into more detail and hash it out. But "we could theoretically find better source for this" isn't an argument for omitting something entirely when usable sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this is complete bullshit. First the argument was that "the SPLC graph is not supported by actual historians". Then when actual historians were added as sources it's "we can't use actual historians because they're being interviewed in newspaper". WTF? Where does this even come from? It's not Wikipedia policy, that's for sure. This is about as transparent instance of an attempt to WP:GAME and WP:WIKILAWYER the rules to win a WP:BATTLEGROUND dispute as I've seen in a while. It's a ridiculous flimsy pretext to remove well sourced material - from actual fucking scholars - because D.Creish WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The amount of bad faith required to make this suggestion just shows that D.Creish is WP:NOTHERE and that their activity has become disruptive.

(of course nobody's stopping anybody from including these published academic papers and thoroughly-research books. Go ahead. Hell, the historians cited are actually the freakin' authors of these published academic papers and thoroughly-researched books!)  Volunteer Marek  16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you rewrite this without the ranting and unrelated links? D.Creish (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop being passive-aggressive? The statement is not a rant, it articulates the point exactly and the links are quite relevant. You're engaged in disruptive editing on this article and are playing various games to try and remove reliable scholarly sources from it to introduce a particular POV. Which is fuckin' WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek  16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's preferable to use the historians' own books and articles, but it's impractical. If a reliable source says "historian X said thus-and-so", that's good enough for me. deisenbe (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The newspapers are interviewing the historians we are quoting because they are experts that write about this topic. Keep this nonsense up D.Creish and sanctions like a topic ban become possible. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Using newspapers and activist groups over expert sources for historical claims is a legitimate concern. If you think that's nonsense, I think a lot of history editors would disagree with you. I've been browsing Portal:History and surprisingly enough, none of the articles I clicked cite the Washington post or Herald Sun. D.Creish (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we do this without “complete bullshit.” “Hell,” “fucking” “bad faith” & “fuckin’ “? It's difficult enough as it is. It is probably time to get professional help at this discussion. Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Aggressiveness and swearing don't help things. D.Creish (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we do without the bad faithed attempts to POV this article by first making false claims about supposed historians' opinions, and then when somebody actually provides sources with actual opinions from historians, coming up with some lame ass excuses to reject these historians from the article? You know what doesn't help things? WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:GAMEing. This is a silly discussion - these are reliable sources, it's on topic, these are scholars and academics. End of story. Cut it out with the obnoxious obfuscation. Volunteer Marek  17:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you really not capable of discussing this civilly? D.Creish (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was perfectly civil. Critical, but civil. Are you really not capable of actually addressing the issues rather than trying to derail the discussion?  Volunteer Marek  20:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If by "End of story" you mean that you are going away, that's cool. Carptrash (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't control your reading habits D.Creish, but I'll note this is not a history article per se only about some past event. It's very related to an ongoing situation. Many history articles rely on contempory newspaper accounts so don't dismiss the papers. If you want balance, provide high quality scholarly historical works to ADD to the article to support your POV. You set the high bar yourself so show us how it's done. Don't try to remove good content.

By removing info and adding tags - is the point you are trying to make that the monuments are unrelated to the Lost Cause narritive or Jim Crow Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are asking but my opinion is that there is scant evidence linking the monuments with the Jim Crow era other than they happened at about the same time. What the graph suggests is a huge stereotyping of all the monuments. What is not happening, that I can see, is an attempt to look at each monument in any way other than when it was dedicated. Many of the memorials have carved on them what the purpose of the monument was. Many of these memorials have long histories going back decades before they get unveiled in 1911 (or whatever). All we are suggesting with our graph is that if a monument was dedicated in 1911 then it is a monument to Jim Crow. That is about the only conclusion that the viewer can get from the graph. So we all (or many of us,) hate the CSA, they were a brutal, racist, violent regime but that does not mean the memorials are memorials to brutality and racism and violence. Read on the monuments themselves why they were made. Some are really creepy, one in particular, but we should not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon. As far as sources go, I think we have to allow the NY Times and those folks to do their thing. This is not the time to get into how unreliable they all (or most of them) are. Carptrash (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash:

All we are suggesting with our graph is that if a monument was dedicated in 1911 then it is a monument to Jim Crow

What on earth? This is about as head-scratching a comment as I can remember. No one on God's Green Earth thinks Confederate monuments are monuments to Jim Crow laws. Is that what you think? These are clearly monuments to the Confederacy in general, confederate soldiers, politicians, women, etc. It couldn't be any clearer. The argument is that, for a certain time period, Confederate monuments were used to further entrench white supremacy; they honored the past (Confederacy, slavery) to (at least in part, and, at the time of their dedication) justify and entrench the present (Jim Crow laws). Fluous (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur @Fluous: about your overall statement. I disagree though on couple minor issues. Even going by the lede, these are not all clearly memorials to the confederacy, and even looking at several they are not as many has no reference to confederacy at all except simply by association. Yes it could be much more clearer, since according to a poll I did asking non-americans showed anything but being clear. I will also concur that yes CSA memorials I am sure were used to entrench white supremacy, but no that is not the only reason or sometimes the reason it was done at all. I especially disagree with for a certain time period, and am really curious as to which time period you think this was done? Imho it has been done all along in some instances, especially when supported and funded by certain organizations, which afaik has been throughout entire history. As to Jim Crow laws, I would think it is more (although not all of) the exact opposite. From as best as I could tell when reading most things from the time, raising memorials and drawing attn to confederacy and 'some' of confederacy purposes resulted in Jim Crow laws coming about in the first place. From both points of view, pro and against, but especially from some of the hatred and increased lynchings. Although that had been brewing long before the civil war, if not ever since nations foundation. As to use of newspapers, sure it is better source taken directly from a historians published work, but I do not see issue of using newspapers. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Again this is mostly just derailing of the discussion.

We have info.

This info is relevant to the topic.

This info is sourced to actual scholars and academics.

We have multiple sources.

Don't remove it because you don't like it.

And especially don't try to play bad faithed games such as first claiming that "real historians disagree with this" and then when actual historians are brought up argue "can't use it because this historian is writing in a newspaper"

And especially especially while not taking the bother to actually provide any sources yourself.

Thank you, that's all. Address the above or quit wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I posted a link to the RFC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Hopefully that brings more editors accustomed to editing historical articles and less likely to be intimidated by bad faith accusations. The NPOV noticeboard might be the best next step. D.Creish (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If your objection is to the use of newspapers as sources, surely you mean WP:RSN? --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• D.Creish - You're mostly right. NPOV guidance WP:BESTSOURCES is basically use the best and most authoritative sources. Sometimes there is only a website or some article, and then that's all you have. When there is a variety, WP:IRS points out that for historical matters a newspaper of the time is best for primary sources eyewitness account, and current textbook would be better for secondary or tertiary sources. And yes, any newspaper or press release might pick the statistics or quotes that suit it's POV. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

For the millionth freakin' time - where are your sources???? Where are these "best and most authoritative sources"? Guess what? They've already been presented and it's you guys who are inventing ridiculous excuses to try and remove them. So stop quoting links to Wikipedia policies like you actually give a crap about them, because you obviously don't. Volunteer Marek  01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)