Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Disambiguation

I have removed the disambiguation template from this page and redesignated the page as a set index article. It may be more appropriate to treat it as a list. Considering the ubiquity of Confederate monuments and memorials that are referred to generically as "confederate monument", it is not tenable to treat the term "Confederate Monument" as a proper name uniquely belonging to places listed on the National Register of Historic Places under the title "Confederate Monument." --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored a short disambiguation page now at Confederate Monument, and moved the SIA / list-article that Orlady has been developing in mainspace, to List of Confederate monuments. --doncram (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that there are two confederate monuments in Luray, VA.155.70.39.45 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined

Resolved

to change the title of this article to Confederate monuments. Which is to say, remove the capitol M, because, why is it there? And then make it plural because that are many monuments. A lot more than are listed now. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and move this to "List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America" similar to a commons cat of the same idea. Brandonrush (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed

the following section from the Monument Avenue in Richmond VA section. it is in regards to the Arthur Ashe monument:

"The latter's addition to the Confederate leaders in 1996 was controversial. 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 contest do not do that".[1]"

Although it is referenced it does not (opinion) not belong in this article, which is a list. Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Times-Dispatch, ROBERT ZULLO Richmond. "As Confederate monuments come down elsewhere, can Richmond 'offer something else?'". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved 2017-05-28.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fort Bragg, California

All worked out Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd argue that, contrary to THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER source, Ft. Bragg, CA is not a monument/memorial of the CSA. The city was named in 1857 in honor of US Army Captain Braxton Bragg, who later went on to join the confederacy. I concede that this does not mean that Bragg was a "good person" by 2017 standards, but it is misleading to argue that Ft. Bragg is a CSA memorial since the name was given in honor of a US Army officer prior to the start of the Civil War.

Here is a counterpoint to my argument and also a source for my other claims (pulled directly from the Ft. Bragg wiki): http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-black-caucus-members-seek-name-change-for-city-of-fort-bragg-20150717-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.73 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Anything done in 1857 can't be a memorial to something that happened a few years later. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It was named as a tribute to him after he retired from the US Army to become a FT slaveowner one year prior. Missvain (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Given even California law makers are trying to change the city name, we should leave it on the list. I've tried to clarify [1]. Then we have Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a different case. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. They, lawmakers in CA and MD and other places are (opinion) trying to clean up some of the messy and unpleasant residue left behind by slavery. These are political actions. This article is not about slavery in any form or fashion. it is about (and I quote) " monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America ". We need to keep it that way. Carptrash (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Right now our article reads, "Fort Bragg: Established 1889. Named for then US Army officer Braxton Bragg who later became a Confederate General". What does that even mean, "later" became a Confederate general? No need for caps on "general" I don't think) This sounds as if he became a CSA general after 1889, which would have been quite a trick. I would go in and chop it off but I think we need to all agree on stuff such as this. Carptrash (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the 1889 city incorporation date that was already there. The old fort was named in 1857. Have fixed. So the original name was 1857. Civil War 1861 to 1865. By 1867 garrison abandoned. City founded in 1889 long after they knew Briggs was a Confederate General. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how the creation of a municipal corporation 32 years after a town was founded can be equivocated to a memorial. For example, there is a town near Fort Bragg named "McKinleyville", after President McKinley. If they incorporate in 2017, does it necessarily mean that they are incorporating as a memorial to McKinley? Or is it just a matter of name recognition and convenience? In the same sense, does incorporation occurring after the Civil War ended mean that the townfolk were memorializing a fallen CSA officer -- or was that just the name of their town at that point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.73 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated to include information about the California Legislative Black Caucus petitioning to change the name of the city due to links to the CSA. This article includes public spaces named after individuals linked to the CSA. It is not up to editors to ascertain the motivations of the public officials who named the spaces either initially or at the present date. It is merely to provide relevant information to the topic at hand. Tomtom284 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - I was just reconciling the various dates so we get the page straight. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note instead of ref

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I made a note at the city of Fitzgerald. How can I get it to go in the notes section rather than the references? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fort Monroe - Jefferson Davis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jefferson Davis Memorial Park, Fort Monroe, Virginia

Hi there, I've been to Fort Monroe and that is where Jefferson Davis was imprisoned. There is a museum there, but there are also a tribute park to him. I wasn't sure where to put it in the list, since you have a place for forts/military bases named after Confederates but you don't have a spot for.... a more meta memorial. See pic to the right. Missvain (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a Parks section, so there? Carptrash (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
DOH! Ok..everyone...ignore this comment. I clearly need another cup of tea. :) Missvain (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's odd. My tea just ran out too. Carptrash (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Texarkana Confederate Monument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Texarkana Confederate Monument
Resolved

Currently, this list has "Texarkana Confederate Monument" under Texarkana, Arkansas, and "Confederate Soldiers' Monument" under Texarkana, Texas. I am struggling to determine if these are duplicate? I created the stub Texarkana Confederate Monument, and the ref mentions Texas the location (as does the description of the image at Commons), but I could use help verifying the exact location, if someone is interested. Once determined, we should link appropriately within the list. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's Texas for sure. I'm expanding even as we speak, Write. Whatever. Carptrash (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helping. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: So, on this list, "Texarkana Confederate Monument" is listed under Arkansas, and there is another monument listed in Texarkana, Texas. Do you suggest we move "Texarkana Confederate Monument" from Arkansas to Texas? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to find one in Arkansas. Not on SIRIS or in my "Confederate Monuments by Widener. Still looking. Do we low who added it? Who thinks there is one in AR?Carptrash (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Currently, this list says, "Confederate Soldiers' Monument, Texarkana, Bowie County, U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Texas. Two separate federal appeals courts from two different states share this courthouse, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The building is situated in both Texas and Arkansas. The Confederate statue is on the Texas side of the courthouse grounds. Dedicated on April 21, 1918" under the Texas section. This is the same dedication date as the Texas monument, so maybe this is duplicate? I'm guessing we should remove this entry and replace with the monument currently mentioned in Texarkana, Arkansas? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Waymarking, Google maps and google earth all show it in a traffic island on the the Texas side of State Line Ave. It's 100% in Texas. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/33°25'28.6%22N+94°02'36.1%22W/@33.4246504,-94.0432173,19z/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-ca See the north-south dashed line which is the state border running through the court house. I'll make sure the Arkansas listing is removed. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go ahead and mark this section as resolved then, since you're updating the list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Note I've moved the page to Confederate Mothers Monument which sure seems to be the correct name. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need help with format detail

Resolved

Jacksonville, Florida - Yellow Bluff Fort Monument should only have one dot in front of it. Would someone who can fix it (I don't know how) please correct this? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Woodlot (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

ya not going to happen. Close to focus discussion on improvements Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, I don't want to spam this list with dozens and dozens of "citation needed" tags, must there are many unsourced entries in this list. Any ideas for how to encourage citation additions, and warn readers of the large amount of unsourced content? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

{{Refimprove}} banner at the top? I know it's ugly, but it might be good temporary first step. RM2KX (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a high traffic page. We know cites are needed and people are adding them. Let's not make it ugly with cite needed tags. Instead of adding a cite needed, find a cite. It's only a little more work. Also many of the "uncited" entries are from the same few cited sources, the cites just are not at every entry. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree with Legacypac. Virtually every entry is cited in the SPLC report that forms the basis of this article. The report is cited in each state's main section lede about how many publicly-supported spaces dedicated to the Confederacy are in that particular state. We could cite each entry to the page number of the report (or elsewhere). It wouldn't hurt. But it's far from needing a refimprove template. @Another Believer: have you read that report? It would be a big help to have more people adding entries from there. Thanks! Fluous (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Also @Legacypac: could you post references using the proper format? It's somewhat onerous to keep having to clean up bare URL references. Just use the citation templates on the visual editor; it's so simple. All you have to do is paste the link and it automatically converts it to the proper format. Fluous (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I find filling in cites very tough, espec on my phone. I also find the visual editor hard to use. I know there is a tool for reformating them some editors use and there seem to be bots that do it too. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Oh, okay. No worries then! I can just use the reFill tool for your references. No biggie. (Also, that's incredible that you're doing all this work on your phone! Amazing.) Fluous (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rationales and explanations for memorializing the Confederacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

I removed this information:

  • "The Atlantic set the context stating the "statues’ inclusion in the Capitol carried powerful symbolic overtones during a period of rising black political activism and violent repression. Placing sculptures of Davis and Lee on Capitol Hill amounted to a symbolic consecration by white-supremacist politicians of their triumph over Reconstruction-era efforts to build a multiracial democracy in the South." (From this article in The Atlantic)

I agree that that's what happened, and I agree that it's important information that people should know about. But is it right to talk about it in a list article? Feel free to put it back if you feel otherwise. Fluous (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

All list articles need some context for why the list is not just a random collection of information no one cares about. For example, Oldest state leaders is a collection of trivia that only exists in Wikipedia. It is not a topic any RS talk about. All good lists include the reasons why the list is important.

This topic is talked about in RS and there is a lot of context to consider. Why have most major media outlets done a full story on these statues in the capital in 2015 and again in 2017? Why are lawmakers amd the public debating them?

We also have a length issue but removing good context is the last solution to that. Another solution might be Debate over Confederate and racist symbols in the US Capital Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Okay, sounds good to me! Fluous (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Should we have an article split to deal with the movement to remove monuments and memorials to the Confederacy? This article can simply serve to list the monuments and memorials (including the removed ones), while Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials can cover the push to take them down. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. And let's all watch Monument Avenue in Richmond Virginia for action. Carptrash (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Creating now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: The article was moved to 2017 removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Er, never mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Separating out parks, roads, and schools into lists of their own?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe we should also split the list by separating out parks, roads, and schools into lists of their own? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doncram: You seem to be removing content already. How do you feel about throwing some of these sites into separate lists? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Pinging you as well, since you just reverted Doncram's removal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trashing large parts of the list is a really bad idea. Spliting might make some sense. Places named for Confederate States of America leaders? That would cover counties, schools, parks, roads. However, seeing that a State has a long list of statues and places provides the best context for the reader. I only restored the listings, not the text that I and others added to broaden the scope. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed in section above, at #Article name change? (scope change). Please continue there. --doncram 22:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I only rolled back one edit, which seems to have been reverted, but there have been quite a few edits to remove schools etc from the page before any discussion. We may need to go back and restore a bunch of material unless there is consensus to split out to another page(s). I consider the mass deletions almost vandalism as they go against efforts by many editors. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed in section above, at #Article name change? (scope change). However, please note the title of this article has long been "List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America", and that the recent addition of roads and schools are against the obvious and longstanding purpose of this article. There is no way their removal was vandalism, and this is starting to add up as actionable personal attacks. Please be civil.
Again, please discuss suggested scope change at section above. --doncram 22:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am archiving this section is encourage participation in the ongoing discussion above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to consider this "discussion" on the talk page

removal supported Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just moved this from the article.

  • The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill's athletic teams are called the Tar Heels. The etymology of the term is unknown. Although it was undoubtedly used as a slang term for North Carolinians during the Civil War, its use may predate the Confederacy by almost a century. Anecdotal stories suggest its use refers to an earlier incident during the Revolutionary War, to the State's reluctance and delay in seceding from the Union in 1861, or to the performance of North Carolina troops (brave by some accounts; cowardly by others) during the Civil War. While it is true that the oldest surviving written instance of the term dates to the Civil War, the term had become common as a reference to anyone from North Carolina by the early 1890s when it was adopted by the University as the name of its athletic teams. Although some have proposed doing so, it would be a ridiculous stretch to consider the name a memorial to the Confederacy.

I too believe that Tar Heels does not belong on the list. certainly not until someone comes up with a very good reference. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a good inclusion Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this does not belong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hamilton, GA Confederate monument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

You left out a monument to Confederate Soldiers in the city square of Hamilton, GA. Here is a link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamilton_Georgia_Civil_War_Monument.JPG Merlin439 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Whom do you thing you are talking to when you write "You?" Carptrash (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The entry isn't sourced, but I am marking this section as resolved since the site has at least been added to the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by 107.77.222.106

Vandal reverted. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

That person just deleted sections wholesale. I see that the person is now blocked from making edits for 24 hours. But what on earth? Can we get some eyeballs to make sure all the content has been restored? Also, can someone please get this page protected? I think an administrator needs to do it Fluous (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

They are IP hopping. Protection in place now. I reported one IP. The first was already blocked. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think everything is back in place. Fluous (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also

I am going to start (or at least consider starting) adding monuments to individual CSA persons of interest in this article. Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee Stonewall Jackson and probably others. Carptrash (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

More to add to the list:

—Fluous (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This suddenly

has become one of the more active articles on wikipedia. Let us proceed with caution. Carptrash (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the increased activity is a good thing, and I hope to see many improvements to this list. I've copied this article into my sandbox, and I am working to isolate needed articles and create stubs for individual monuments. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I just did a stub for J. Maxwell Miller, one of the sculptors involved. It can use more work. Carptrash (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Roger Taney

I removed two monuments to Roger Taney in Maryland from the list, because they did not fit the criteria of honoring "Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general during the American Civil War". While Taney is notorious for his decision in the Dred Scott case, and the motivation to memorialize him may have come from people who were sympathetic to the Confederate pro-slavery cause, Taney himself did not join the Confederacy during the Civil War; he continued to serve as the Chief Justice in the Union until his death in 1864.

Let me be clear. This is in no way an endorsement of Taney or an attempt to excuse him. I'm just saying that a monument to him does not constitute a monument to the Confederate States of America, because he didn't live in the Confederacy or participate in or serve its government. In fact, the main source used for the Maryland monument list (https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage_splc.pdf) doesn't list the Taney monuments there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I follow your rational, but was interested to see Baltimore removed one of the statues at night [2] with the article noting he authored a pro-slavery SC decision. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Metropolitan90. Good catch; well explained. Fluous (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Good move. But regarding monuments and memorials such as the Taney one, please keep in mind that this article is NOT about monuments and memorials to the institution of slavery, it is about monuments and memorials to the CSA. Let us stay focused here. What occurred in Baltimore was a political decision, not one based on wikipedia procedure. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Crossing out of removed monuments?

Isn't it sufficient to include the date the monument was removed? Or perhaps create a separate section within the page that lists removed items? Crossing out seems inconsistent with any other wikipedia framework I have ever seen. It also strikes me as mildly POV in that it reads at first glance like a task list someone is crossing off from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.136.236 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that strikethrough should not be used —--Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed them as per consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There should not be strikes in the text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: I don't know why my signature was added to all three comments above... I only made the third comment. The markup for this page has been problematic, as evidenced by the page's history... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC) See this edit and this edit by User:Zigzig20s. Sorry, not sure why the signatures got messed up. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I signed off again. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the strike-through as well as specifying they were removed, or remove the listing altogether. It seems inappropriate to have a removed statue on a page that lists such monuments, and having a tag-on that they were removed seems insufficient, particularly begging for justification for retaining them on the page. If such statues remain on this page, it implies that this is a trusted list of all such statues that have been removed--are we expecting an archival search for such removals to add to this page? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtownsle (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Strike thrus are not good. Adding the words "Removed 20??" and at least a source and preferably some commentary is a useful addition. Just deleting the listing is not really helpful as it maybe added back based on older sourcing. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Strike-throughs are inappropriate because they are not standard at all in articles (only on talkpages, when we want to remove past comments). Instead, we should say it was "removed" and when, ideally with some context. As for deleting the listing, no. We don't delete the articles of people who are dead, and we don't remove people's former jobs or houses when they get promoted or move. This is an encyclopedia, not a "to-do" list.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with User:Zigzig20s. Memorials that have been notable during their existence on a public square are still notable, even perhaps more notable, when they have been demolished or removed to storage. This, like other lists of historic sites, has been intended to cover permanently notable things. To others, please note that National Register of Historic Places list-articles in Wikipedia continue, as a matter of practice, to cover historic houses that have since been demolished by a hurricane or flood or whatever. Hmm, I started writing this thinking that "I have removed them as per consensus" above meant that an editor removed the items from the list, which alarmed me, but now I think it means they removed the strike-throughs, which is fine. --doncram 21:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I also think that there should not be strikeouts. A removal date should be used (with where it went, if known). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

See California Section for a potential solution to making it clear what exists currently and what has been removed. Tomtom284 (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I think that's unnecessary. I would appreciate it if you had not been bold in this case. There appears to be consensus to simply add "removed." People can read and that should be sufficient. Can you please restore the previous order?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Calf section is pretty good for California. Let's leave it for now, but not set up other states like it just yet. Watch to see if there are lots of other removals. We also have a seperate page for removed monuments, which is another way to go. A removed item is often going to be a more detailed story then an existing one, so maybe splitting them off the page completely to the other page is better since this page is so long. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's totally fine to have a list of all Confederate monuments, past and present. Please do not try to strike through or delete monuments. We've been through this before and there appears to be consensus not to do it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The removal article is unnecessary to be honest. It could all be kept in one place: in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been adding any removal details I find here. The Birmingham case is the most complex to describe so far, outside the Charlottesville situation of course. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Background info removal

this edit [3]took out some significant context. From the various sources I've seen these are all true statements backed by stats. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Yes, that is an interesting removal, but please keep in mind that this article is a "List." Somewhere there might be an article Monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America in which this sort of content, this sort of analysis, would belong. Does that make sense?
Drat, the article Monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America turns out to be another (opinion) misguided redirect to this article. So what, if anything, needs to be done about this? Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I like some paragraphs of context in a list article. I find lists without any context and question why the list is even a notable topic sometimes. Obviously this is a notable list, and we should say why. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects and stubs

I've created many, many redirects to this page, for monuments I assume might be notable enough for standalone articles. I invite editors to help convert these redirects to stubs, at least, for future development. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s and Fluous: Can either of you tell why this section is not showing up properly? Something must be wrong with the markup on this talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles to create

Extended content

Feel free to add or strike once created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I hate that you did that. It is one thing to identify that the topics are probably valid for articles. Then there should be redlinks for them. You have gone through this process before, about other topic areas such as notable works by one artist, and about NRHP-listed places in the states of Washington and Oregon. I suppose that all of these should be deleted, and I suppose I will probably open a MFD and simultaneous multiple AFD to see to their deletion as a batch. Your creating redirects and too-minimal articles does not help Wikipedia, it causes work to fix, and it demoralizes other editors and hurts the community. It seems as if (not saying this is true exactly) you want to attach your name as creator of each of these topics, forever. And all you did was cause roadblocks. --doncram 22:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. I'm just trying to identify missing articles, create redirects for people who maybe be using these names as search terms, and tagging redirect pages with specific WikiProjects. Additionally, I am inviting editors to help create entries for these potentially notable topics (and therefore, missing Wikipedia articles). I am spending a lot time doing this, and I'm sorry you see these as nonproductive and detrimental to Wikipedia. All my efforts are to encourage article creation and expansion, and getting "credit" for starting the page is not my concern. If someone prefers to create a draft and override my redirect, fine, but redirects do serve a purpose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: Right now I'm working to survey the list, but I plan on expanding many of these redirects into stubs. I hope you will not nominate these redirects for deletion, especially if the nomination interferes with actual attempts to create new entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I added a lot of those Alabama monuments to the bulleted list, and I would add that many of those monuments probably are of too little interest for an article. For example, the Auburn Guard monument is just a placard on a rock. Other monuments are just carbon copies of each other -- the same soldier at parade rest. I'm currently trying to figure out if many of these monuments came from the same designer, who just used the same idea over and over. AppaAliApsa (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Not sure if you'd be interested in helping to create new stubs or help with formatting of existing articles about Confederate monuments and memorials. Pinging just in case! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Naw, I'll stay out of this one, but thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I also do not find this approach appealing. I think that red links are the established way to go. What it seems to me that you have done is created 20 or 30 (this is not math) articles with zero content in them and redirected them to another article that does not mention them at all. What you show us (opinion) as Articles to Create is actually Acticles I have created and want you to do the work on.Carptrash (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. This is just confusing and there's no obvious way of knowing when an article's being created. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I won't create any more redirects then, but have we forgotten that redirects do serve a purpose? I am creating these pages in case people are searching for information, in which case they will be redirected to this list, which is better than nothing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

All the redirects are places mentioned on this page, so they are valid redirects. Redlinks may be better because anything mentioned is going to be found on search. This page keeps coming up as a top result when I search anything about the topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming their validity. Red links should not be used unless we're certain the subject is notable. This is exactly why redirects are helpful, in case people are searching for info about notable monuments as well as those that do not qualify for standalone articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see any confirmation. There is no additional information on this list. If I search for Confederate Soldiers' Monument (Denton, Texas), what happens is that I get sent to a page that says Confederate Soldiers' Monument (Denton, Texas). Not that helpful. Maybe we should add dates to the list, then at least folks who are redirected there will get something for the trip. Carptrash (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
emphasis on ones with photos available at least? Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RS for new articles

I would like to see

@Tomtom284: a reliable source that describes the Daughters of the Confederacy as being a "pro-Confederacy group." Other wise I will consider it to be editorializing. (Unsigned)

The sourced lead of United Daughters of the Confederacy uses "neo-Confederate", "Lost Cause" and "supporting White Supremacist ideas" so "pro-confederate" seems pretty tame. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The minutes to annual United Daughters of the Confederacy conventions (early 20th century) are available to read online, and they are OCR'ed. I don't have the time at the moment, but perhaps someone could find a good welcoming address or something to refer to. A pro-Confederate speech will not be too hard to find at all. AppaAliApsa (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Proper place?

Where would be the proper place to mention the ongoing public discussion of removal of some of these monuments? Likewise the various states that have added things like "Heritage Protection Acts" to prevent their removal (North Carolina, Georgia, et al.) Wcmaney (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This discussion and associated removals by now merit their own article, in my view. (Alabama has also by recent statute prohibited their removal.) deisenbe (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Wcmaney and User:Deisenbe: I've just created Alabama Memorial Preservation Act. Feel free to expand it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
A possibly interesting collection of readers' views on this question is "Confederate or not, which monuments should stay or go? We asked, you answered," Washington Post, June 6, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/06/06/confederate-or-not-which-monuments-should-stay-or-go-we-asked-you-answered/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na Note the appended comments. deisenbe (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I created a category of Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America on May 10th. It was deleted on May 18. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_10#Category:Removed_Monuments_and_Memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America) deisenbe (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I like the mentions in the article as they are, with this suggestion: The church attack in South Carolina seems to have led to the current trend of removal/relocation everywhere, so that information might be moved from under the Louisiana list to the closing paragraph of the article lead. Also, the format of lists for states in which monuments have been removed or relocated is not consistent and could be cleaned up. For Arizona, 2017 info is before the list, for LA and VA it's after, under its own subheading, and for Missouri it's included with a particular item (I did that before examining the others). I would recommend lists first, noting monuments no longer standing or in new locations, then additional information in a paragraph after to clarify. I seek any thoughts before I do bold edits. RM2KX (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done (info relocation) as no objections were raised. RM2KX (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the issues

list type of articles such as this one always need to deal with is, do we include just monuments that have articles about them, or are referred to in other articles, or do we just list every CSA monument that we can find? I am inclined to keep the focus of this article on other wikipedia links, but will not start to slash and burn until I hear from you. Of course, "don't hear from you" has the same effect. No comment is the same as a "GO FOR IT, CARPTRASH posting. Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

in case someone missed it, this page covers all we can find and source. No article required. It's a list. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Galleries

The galleries of monuments for some states add a lot of bytes. Can they be moved to state level Monuments to the Confederacy in Alabama type pages, leaving just a few of the most significant monument images here. I realize image gallery pages are discouraged, but photos of every rock and plaque is a little much. Maybe better to add a link to the commons image from each listing that has an image rather than just a bunch of images that float seperate from the text about them.Legacypac (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate license plates and military bases

Why not put license plates as an item under the national section, listing the states that have them with refs? There are a number of sources discussing them. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:
  1. State license plates should probably stay in the state-level listings. These are state license plates; they are based on state law. There's no national license plates. I mean, right?
  2. I agree that it's useful to see a "list of states that issue license plates that honor the Confederacy." But it's also useful to see a list of public symbols of the confederacy in each state. For example, someone who reads the section on North Carolina should think it's a complete list of symbols in that state. That's not the case if those entries are removed, and then they may (or may not) stumble onto the section later in the article. "Oh, there's more? That's confusing."
  3. Great idea to move military bases to the national section. U.S. Congress decides the name, right? If so, then, they're national-level listings. Fluous (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at what I've been building. It could use more work. It's a bit of a weird situation since, yes the state issues the plate, but getting plates approved has been a national effort and the issue has gone to federal and supreme court. On balance, it's easier to combine into the one section and deal with as a multi-state issue. If you still feel strongly, a section link from the 8 or 9 states sections might be the solution.

I prefer to see the National list up at the top - National precedes State which is followed by local listings within each state. Flow is better. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Support. The National section was a mess before, but now it's looking great!! Fluous (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: But I still oppose listing state license plates, state holidays, and state observances in the national section. As does deisenbe (talk · contribs). These are simply not national or federal-level memorials. They are state-level.

How about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Multi-state [6] Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I oppose. The category does not fit with the rest of the article. Again, it's definitely useful to group some of the listings thematically, as you've done, rather than by state. But that's not what this list article is. It's a state-based list article. These are state-based listings; entries should be listed under the states where they can be found. At any rate, I highly respect all the work you've done throughout this article, so feel free to keep it how you have it unless some kind of consensus emerges. Fluous (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Would adding a note or link under the relevent states to the National and Multi-State sections help you out? Say under a "Other" heading say license plates and highways, military bases and Statuary Hall with section links? I see the benefits of having info by state but feel the benefit of seeing the license plate info gathered together due to the federal court cases and national SCV effort outweighs individual listings. Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Memorial in SW Washington

Good find. I worked that listing earlier. The stones are Jeff Highway markers from Blaine and Vancouver WA. The link provides good detail about cost of land etc and how they will defend the rocks by any means necessary. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And let’s talk about sources.

A statement, in the lede, so it must be important, claims, “Many of these memorials were dedicated in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War, and have some relationship with campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South.” So who is this credited to by wikipedia? Well by Marc Bain, of course. And just who is Marc? Well please allow me to quote from the website, Quartz, that we quote:

  • Marc is Quartz's fashion reporter. His background includes time spent working for a designer menswear label, a turn as the literature editor at SparkNotes, and years as a general-assignment reporter at Newsweek. He covers anything and everything related to clothes and footwear, whether sneakers or luxury, business or design. If you can wear it he'll probably write about it.

Really. Can we get serious? The fashion reporter? If you folks think I am some right wing, pro Confederate type I am not. I am a wikipedia type and feel that we here at this article are getting carried away by this tidal wave and are desperately close to loosing our objectivity. So if the best we can do is to quote the fashion reporter, I think I will bail out of this article, go work on Monuments and memorials to the winners for a while. ciao. Carptrash (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right, this should have a better source. However, I presented such sources above. So it's not the text that needs to be changed, just the sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that make the exact same point. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
But it's not a very good point. "Jim Crow" started right after Reconstruction (1877), but it was 20+ years before there was any significant increase in Confederate monuments. The high point was 1911 - 50th anniversary of the Civil War. The formation of the second KKK (1915-1925+/-) coincides with a significant decrease in Confederate monuments. 1950s-60s (baby boom years). Needed more schools. What were they going to name them after? William T. Sherman?  :-Topcat777 23:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Nah, Jim Crow era is traditionally dated by historians to Plessy v. Ferguson, which is 1896, not 1877. The decrease in monument construction between the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights movement appears to me to coincide with World Wars - perhaps because materials were scarce and also it may have occurred to some people that building monuments to folks who fought against America, at a time when America was at war again was sort of a shitty thing to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Also "What were they going to name them after? " - Magnolia trees of course, what else? Just kidding, though if you've lived around the South you'll know what I'm talking about. But another common naming practice is/was old Native American names. Or even politicians who were from the antebellum period but who were not associated with the Confederacy. So there certainly were other choices.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"There are numerous sources that make the exact same point." Actually I think all the "numerous sources" can be traced back to one source. It just went viral and now is everywhere.Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Topcat777: for the Baby boom point, I was headed that way too. Also that period the decade following the mid 1950s was when the US interstate and connecting state highways system was built and suddenly there was a need to name roads. Again, few Sherman Highways, even running through Atlanta, where such a name might seem appropriate. Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting point and to check if this is indeed a driving factor we could compare the number of new roads named after Confederates vs. number of new roads named after Union soldiers vs. old roads whose names were changed. Indeed, that would be a very interesting research project. But we're getting way deep into original research territory here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Tampa Monument

I just wanted to point out that the city of Tampa has raised enough money to relocate the monument in front of the Hillsborough County Courthouse. The Florida Daughters of the Confederacy will be relocating it to a cemetery. Anyone, who is monitoring the Florida section of this page may want to edit as new information comes in?? AppaAliApsa (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I updated the listing with a cite to an article that covers the fundraising and the subsequent lawsuit filed to prevent the statue's relocation. Mcowley (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And can some one please explain what this is about?

    • National

Commemorations by the federal government

What does the phrase "Commemorations by the federal government" mean? Right at the beginning of the article? Is it about the National Statuary Hall Collection? [User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
an attempt a lede for the National section which includes various things. Maybe I don't understand the question? Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The National Statuary Hall Collection is not the Federal government commemorating anyone. It is each state commemorating whom ever they wish, and many Southern states wished to remember the heroes of the Lost Cause. Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
and Congress controls which statues are accepted. Congress can remove statues too. It's being debated. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_monuments_and_memorials/Archive_1&oldid=1184915319"