Jump to content

Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Standards for inclusion

While this list has been around for some years, it was less than 100,000 k until mid-August. Since then it has quadrupled in size. Presently the lede has an interesting (and helpful) criteria from the SPLC – the exclusion of cemeteries, battlefields, museums, and historical markers. One small way we can limit the size of the article is to stick with that limitation. Thus the 10” Rifled Sea Coast Columbiad in Mobile (which was a CSA weapon) is excluded from the list we comport with the overall topic of the article while exercising some control over the article size. (Note, this issue was raised in August without resolution.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be some kind of standard/limitation. No reason we have to use the SPLC criteria, although I'd be fine with that, and it would be easy to apply. We do need to agree on and stick with a standard for inclusion though, or its just going to bloat up out of control. There are literally thousands of things that could be listed, there has to be some kind of standard. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: S. Rich and I are lawyers, so here's my initial rule statement. The criteria that we've been using (mostly): pretty much any (1) memorial; (2) of a person or group with direct ties to the Confederacy; or (3) to the Confederate States of America in general. "Memorial" meaning monuments, statues and plaques; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, ships, military bases, and other public works. Excluding/ including (?) memorials that are largely historic in nature like graves, historical markers, battlefields, museums, etc. "Direct ties" meaning Confederate soldiers, politicians, leaders, "Confederate women," etc. So, for example, here's two extremes: Memorials to CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee? Of course. Memorials to SC Sen. John Calhoun? No. There's a strong argument for Calhoun's inclusion, but ultimately the consensus was that Calhoun's ties were too remote: Calhoun had died a decade before the war. Fluous (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fluous: As a test, how would these rules handle exclusion or inclusion of the weapon in S. Rich's example? Also, the "excluding/including (?)" is getting me stuck in a mental "if" loop. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd first ask: what does the cannon memorialize? The cannon itself doesn't seem to memorialize anything. It's more of an historical artifact at a battlefield or historic military site. It's there for realism/ to show what the fort was like at the time it was used. What do you think? Fluous (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Good question, Fluous. If I may - some editors (understandably so) appear to be unable to correlate the title of the article and the relationship between the monuments/memorials/et al VS the actual purpose of the dedication. In order to be included in this "list", there must be more than a simple "connection" - as a core content policy, verification is paramount - example: was the memorial a dedication to the birthplace or to the 3 or 4 years the person served the Confederacy (and was it forced or voluntary) and to what degree is that birthplace monument actually a memorial to the Confederacy et al?

  • Let's look at former ships...
  • USS Buchanan: Three U.S. Navy destroyers have been named in honor of the highest ranked Confederate Admiral Franklin Buchanan <---"in honor of"? Where is the RS that verifies such an "honor"? And so it goes.
  • USS Buchanan (DD-131) 1919–1940 then transferred to UK Navy
  • USS Buchanan (DD-484) 1941–1949 then transferred to Turkey's Navy
  • USS Buchanan (DDG-14) 1960–1991 then sank as target in 2000

To say persons, places or things are dedicated in honor of anything requires a RS. Atsme📞📧 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And I'll add that when I tried to distinguish the list as in "rememberance of" in lieu of "in honor of", my edits were reverted twice; therefore, the list needs to be reduced dramatically because the majority of the persons/places/things that are included in this list, are not (per WP:V) "in honor of" the Confederate States of America, et al. Atsme📞📧 22:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with an inclusion standard that would exclude memorials of the man who was literally the highest-ranking officer in the Confederate Navy. Especially when there is a public debate about removing memorials of him precisely because of his ties to the Confederacy. Fluous (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Besides V, we should consider WP:NOTEWORTHY. By doing so we can exclude some people who are not Notable (with redlinked names). (Along the same lines, I deleted the place where David Owen Dodd might have been executed.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence cites SPLC which uses "honor" to describe, among other things, the 1,503 public symbols and 10 military bases. This should cover the majority of items in the list. –dlthewave ☎ 01:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding to my comment above, we could improve the standard for inclusion by limiting the list to Notable monuments – those with a WP article about them. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd support that. Good way to limit OR inclusions. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: Strongly, strongly oppose. There is absolutely no need to severely limit the scope of this article to something like that. This is a truly terrible idea. S. Rich, I'm shocked that you would suggest something so radical. Fluous (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose limiting the scope that severely. And as I've mentioned previously, I also oppose adopting the SPLC's criteria for this article, which has from day one, 71⁄2 years ago, included monuments largely historical in nature. Mojoworker (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. I strongly support the proposal by S. Rich re: inclusion based on notabilty of a person/place/thing, otherwise we're dealing with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Fluous, you stated above, "I strongly disagree with an inclusion standard that would exclude memorials of the man who was literally the highest-ranking officer in the Confederate Navy." The inclusion standard is actually based on our core content policies. Example: the reason the 3 Buchanan ships were named after Buchanan was for his life's service from 1800-1874, not because of his service to the Confederacy, much less in honor of it. To include those ships in this list is misleading and inaccurate, and noncompliant with WP:OR, WP:V and WP:ADVOCATE, and are actually what regulates "the inclusion standard". If the intention of this List is to name every single person/place/thing that was constructed during, or named specifically in honor of, then it must be compliant with the aforementioned policies. You might also want to review the many articles that are already in place regarding the Confederacy, such as List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Confederate), List_of_Confederate_States_Senators, List_of_ships_of_the_Confederate_States_Navy and so on.
  2. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for noncompliance with PAGs.
  3. Regarding SPLC as a source, please understand that they have a COI which at the very least, makes it a questionable source; therefore, unreliable for the purpose of naming monuments and memorials that were honored in the name of the Confederacy. When looking at the business aspects of SPLC primary purpose is their need to exist, "its headquarters is testament to the fact that, in America, even fighting racism can be very good business" (cited via link to Politico) and to do that they must create racial controversy which generates the lawsuits that motivates their base "makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders." (cited via linked Politico) According to Politico, "SPLC has been criticized for spending more of its money on fundraising and overhead and less on litigation than comparable groups like the American Civil Liberties Union." (cited to Politico) and the contributions that fund the organization, and I would imagine, the settlements that pay their bills and the extremely high salaries of its lawyers/directors. SPLC is an advocacy. Drmies is this acceptable? Atsme📞📧 17:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed Encyclopedia Britannica excerpt, struck my 1st comment, and properly cited the corrected version per noted concerns of Drmies.
  • CORRECTED VERSION for #3: Regarding SPLC as a source, we must consider the fact they are a legal advocacy with a COI which makes it a questionable source; therefore, per WP:QS, it would be unreliable for the purpose of naming monuments and memorials that were honored in the name of the Confederacy, the latter of which has become far more politicized than when this list was first created. To further support why I believe WP:QS applies in this case is evidenced by numerous discussions at WP:RSN and by the sources cited to support statements made in the criticism section of SPLC's WP article; a search for "SPLC" in the archives at RSN will provide numerous discussions from which editors can draw their own conclusions. Politico's Ben Schreckinger said of SPLC, "its headquarters is testament to the fact that, in America, even fighting racism can be very good business,"[1] which I feel justifies concern over potential COI when combined with other criticisms over their spending in comparison to similar groups like the ACLU. Regarding political involvment, Schreckinger said "SPLC's hate groups and extremist labels are effective", and further stated, "This makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders."[1] In summary, SPLC's suitability as a RS for this list makes it a questionable source because they are a legal advocacy with a COI, and while they are not a political organization per se, some of their activities may be considered within the realm of American politics. Atsme📞📧 11:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
4. The simple fact that a person served time in the Confederacy does not, in itself, make them notable nor does it satisfy the requirements for inclusion here. On the other hand, if their notability and the memorium was actually dedicated specifically in honor of their service to the Confederacy and nothing else, the latter of which is verifiably the reason, then yes, they belong in this list. There is no ambiguity in this instance. For us to "assume" without meeting the requirements of WP:V is WP:OR, and I am strongly opposed to it. Quite frankly, it makes it appear that WP is being used as a soapbox to support a particular advocacy and as GF editors, we are responsible for making sure that does not happen, so if that requires limiting the scope of this List, then so be it. Atsme📞📧 16:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?". Politico Magazine. 2017. Retrieved October 8, 2017. {{cite web}}: Text "August 2017" ignored (help)
Atsme, I am dismayed to see you utter such rhetoric as "Included in SPLC's primary purpose is their need to exist, and to do that, they must create racial controversy which generates the lawsuits that motivates their base, the contributions that fund the organization, and I would imagine, the settlements that pay their bills and the extremely high salaries of its lawyers/directors." This is not a forum, and it's certainly not a forum for this kind of POV nonsense. What's next--you're going to call them racists? Do you know some of these people are still under 24/7 police protection because old school racists with guns routinely utter death threats? You can cite some accusations from some source, but that they "create racial controversy" is ridiculous, and on a par with "there's good people on both sides". Chattering about salaries is likewise...well, just completely inappropriate. I hate to break it to you, but their lawyers went to law school and could probably rake in much more money elsewhere; Donald Trump Jr. showed up in Montgomery for an evening of ranting and got paid $100k and for which he did not have to get any kind of degree--so let's have some perspective here. You may discuss issues of neutrality or reliability, that's fine, but you cannot do it in this kind of inflammatory language: I am uninvolved enough to impose a discretionary sanction for it. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I cited the Britannica (a tertiary source) for the biggest part of the supporting argument. Do you want me to delete my comments and use in-text attribution to other sources? I will do whatever you ask, you know that. I'm not here to be controversial. My concern is/has been the fact that this list has included memorials as being "in honor of the Confederacy" when that is not the case (and FYI, having been born and raised in New England during my early childhood, I'm no supporter of that time in our American history, but my personal biases are not/should not be a consideration here). My only goal is compliance with NPOV and V, and OR. I have neither asked for nor expected the impossible here.Atsme📞📧 16:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
We're not saying that all of the memorials are in honor of the Confederacy itself. The current lede states that it includes monuments and memorials in honor of the CSA, Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers. –dlthewave ☎ 14:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mojoworker: The fact that the article is 7+ years old is a poor rationale. At that time the inclusion of historical sites may have been helpful to the reader. But now the article is unmanageable in size and rational exclusions are needed to keep it encyclopedic. Also, the current interest in the CSA monuments stems from the recent political concern about glorifying the CSA, whereas the purely historical markings were created for coming generations to note and consider. – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Srich32977: Let me see if I can explain more thoroughly, since there seems to be a misunderstanding. My point is (and has been) that there has existed a 71⁄2 year consensus on the scope of what this list includes. It is (and has been for those 71⁄2 years) the complement to List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials – a list that surely ought to exist, I hope we all can agree on that. Yes, the recent racially motivated events have spurred interest in the subject, which is a good thing – the more people understand about history, the better. But the interest (and the convenient list in the SPLC report to pull from), means that this list has swollen. I have no problem with a list article, maybe List of racially motivated Confederate monuments and Memorials or something, covering the same scope as the SPLC's list. I think such a list should exist. However, commandeering this list for that purpose is what I disagree with. The SPLC report covers some 1,503 items, while eliminating nearly 2,600 markers, and other items "that are largely historical in nature". If the long standing consensus of this list's scope is narrowed to match the SPLC data, then where should this historical content, the confederate counterpart to List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials, be forked to? I suppose that if the move discussion currently underway is successful, it could be forked to the old (current) title of List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but that seems messy and confusing for the reader. I welcome any thoughts or suggestions on a way forward. Mojoworker (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Mojoworker forking can be dangerous. [FBDB] On a more serious note, a word of caution - using the words "racially motivated" in a title can bring unwanted results, and possibly be misconstrued as a POV fork. Atsme📞📧 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was just an example...something like List of Lost Cause Confederate monuments and Memorials might be better. Mojoworker (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Atsme — kind of forking, it seems, by breaking off monuments or memorials that are not within the racial narrative, though it is not a literal fork as there is no second article with them and any alternative POV. Also it is adding non-statuary categories from the SPLC item that were not previously monuments. I am thinking it’s moving away from being a WP:LISTS article, and being something of different title and nature. Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


Establishments within a town

There are several instances where a place named after a Confederate is listed, along with several institutions within that place. Example: Forrest City, Arkansas, Forrest City High School and Forrest City Junior High School. I think it's fair to exclude these schools from the list because they were named after the town, not as memorials to Nathan Bedford Forrest. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact I made such edits but ran into resistance. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that's silly... I would have no problem with removing them. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC
There's a previous discussion about this here. I initially shared your view. But then I realized that federal prisons don't have to be named after the town; it's a choice. And especially schools don't have to be named after the town, and very frequently aren't. We contrasted that with something like "Forrest City Municipal Works Department" which can't conceivably be called anything different; it's entirely derivative of the town. That would be silly. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Which of these List of U.S. federal prisons are named after something other than the town? We are conducting SYN when we say the Forrest City prison was named after the CSA figure simply because Forrest is part of the name. – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Rather than trying to second guess the nomenclature, adhere to policy and cite it to a RS that satifies WP:V, the latter of which serves the realistic purpose of avoiding such arguments, and WP:OR. Atsme📞📧 16:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Which of these List of U.S. federal prisons are named after something other than the town?
* USP "Big Sandy" in Inez, KY
* USP "Allenwood" in Gregg Twp., PA
* USP "Coleman" in Wildwood, FL
* USP "Hazleton" in Bruceton Mills, WV
* USP "Lee" in Pennington Gap, VA (It's in Lee County)
* USP "McCreary" in Pine Knot, KY (It's in McCreary County)
* FCI "Allenwood" in Brady Twp., PA
* FCI "Beckley" in Beaver, WV
* FCI "Elkton" in Lisbon, OH
* FCI "Coleman" in Wildwood, FL
* FCI "Hazleton" in Bruceton Mills, WV
* FCI "Gilmer" in Glenville, WV (It's in Gilmer County)
* FCI "McKean" near Lewis Run, PA (It's in McKean County)
* FCI "McDowell" in Welch, WV (It's in McDowell County)
* FCI "La Tuna" in Anthony, TX
* FCI "Williamsburg" in Salters, SC (It's in Williamsburg County)
* FCI "Schuylkill" in Butler Twp., PA (It's in Schuylkill County)
Fluous (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think my point is made. Our own article Federal Correctional Institution, Forrest City says it's named after the town. So we are inserting our own opinion when FCI, FC gets included in the listing. It is NOT a memorial or monument of the/to the/for the/in honor of the CSA. Same rational applies to the schools, candleshops, and bakeries in Forrest City. Perhaps we agree, but I'm not sure. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
withdrawn suggestion for more formal DR

Options for settling the debate over what to include?

Clearly there are strong feelings on both sides here. I'd suggest an rfc or at least a straw poll of this page's regular editors to firmly settle the issue, but we'd need to determine what the most valid/viable options for an inclusion criteria are. Atsme, am I correct in thinking that you are saying we should only list things that RS directly say are a confederate monument/memorial? And Srich you're saying that it not only has to be sourced, but notable right? How would those of you with a more inclusionist vision of the article phrase/present your standard for inclusion? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting inclusion criteria for whether or not the symbol commemorates the Confederacy, or whether or not historical/non-historical markers should be included? I think it will be cleaner to discuss those issues separately. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking more generally what your criteria for listing something is. If your position is that any symbol that commemorates the Confederacy can be listed, then that's my answer. If you think historical markers should (or should not) be included then that's part of it too. There's not much chance of cleaning the article up if we can't agree what exactly this is a list of. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: You're a new editor on this article who is re-litigating these issues. We've long operated on a fairly expansive, inclusive criteria for inclusion here. We do not need quarrelsome formal procedures. The ONLY reason it's an issue at all is because one editor is on a personal crusade to exonerate the reputation of Franklin Buchanan, a man who was literally the highest ranking officer in the Confederate Navy. This editor has written endlessly, on-and-on; desperately repeating the same points over-and-over. Enough is enough.
If you feel this article needs shortening, then the focus should be on forking out sections; not deleting content. And I encourage you to read the previous ideas on this talk page about forking the article. Those discussions are unresolved. We should focus our efforts there. Fluous (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
If you (and others) really think there's a consensus on what the standard for inclusion is I'm happy to drop the suggestion. I'm skeptical though, As there appears to be broad dis-agreement over what should be listed, both above and in recent edits to the article. I don't see how saying "this is how it's always been" is going to resolve that. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
What is the confusion? The lede states specifically: "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established in honor of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." IN HONOR OF...so the realistic response is to include what was established IN HONOR OF, and cite it to a RS to meet the requirements of WP:V. Why would anyone find that confusing? Atsme📞📧 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Defining What Is a Confederate Monument/Memorial

Fluous - adding to your lawyerly definition talk above with my own offerings.

  • You had said "pretty much any (1) memorial; (2) of a person or group with direct ties to the Confederacy; or (3) to the Confederate States of America in general. "Memorial" meaning monuments, statues and plaques; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, ships, military bases, and other public works. Excluding/ including (?) memorials that are largely historic in nature like graves, historical markers, battlefields, museums, etc. "Direct ties" meaning Confederate soldiers, politicians, leaders, "Confederate women," etc. So, for example, here's two extremes: Memorials to CSA Gen. Robert E. Lee? Of course. Memorials to SC Sen. John Calhoun? No. "
  • Here is one based on direct links I think would be something that is accepted as belongs here : "A monument, or plaque, erected by the veterans themselves, or by an auxiliary group, like a Ladies Memorial Association, United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter, of Sons of Confederate Veterans camp, that denote some event, or a group of people, that played a part in the Civil War."
  • And another based on RS : "Something which is predominantly described as a Confederate monument/memorial by RS". In other words, if enough people SAY it is then we just accept that as the common name given to it.

I was also trying to come up with something to cover statues of major Confederate Leaders, but stumbled over that has difficulty of deciding 'major' unless we just state a small set of names. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation project

There are probably hundreds of listings here that have no citations. We need to fix this. Fortunately, the vast majority (likely 99.999%) of un-cited listings can be found in the SPLC report: Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy.

The problem for me: I'm not sure exactly how to go about citing these listings. We could just have 1500+ citations to the same report. That's easiest, but that's probably a very bad idea. They should probably be cited to the page number of the report. Is there an easy way to do this using short footnotes or another method?

Here's the main citation: 

{{Cite web|url=https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage_splc.pdf|title=Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy|last=Gunter|first=Booth|last2=Kizzire|first2=Jamie|date=April 21, 2016|format=PDF|editor-last=Gunter|editor-first=Booth|website=Southern Poverty Law Center|access-date=August 15, 2017}}

What short citation format do you guys recommend, and could you provide an example? Should we use short footnotes (sfn, etc). Something else?

Take, for example: "Robert Lee St." on Pg. 32 of the report. Fluous (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Edited 01:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fort Davis National Historic Site

I just added Category:American Civil War military monuments and memorials & Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials to this article because we are insisting that this is a CSA memorial. Right? Carptrash (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not about that article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay @Slatersteven: let's make it about this article. Fort Davis was named before the Civil War, thus can not be a monument to the CSA. It should be removed. Carptrash (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ohh and [1], so yes there is a confederate monument there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ohh and Fort Davis National Historic Site is not on this list.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Well there you have it. Looking at the marker there it probably should be on the list. Carptrash (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the marker should be, but do any RS list this park (or marker)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
No need for the fort, but the picture of the marker that you posted is fine with me. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
And it is on the list as Fort Davis National Historic Site, which might need to be tweaked a bit. Carptrash (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Which is odd as it is not on the SPLC list, so is OR (The monument is fine, the park is not). I missed it (on our list) however, so appoligise, I was looking in Texas, not national parks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
No apology needed, it's nice to agree on something. But this is another reason why the SPLC list, graph etc. is not significant and should be (opinion) tossed out. it is 700 or 800 memorials out of. . .what are we up to? 7 or 8 thousand? Carptrash (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not on the SPLC's list, so says nothing about it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It says that the list is missing significant m&ms.Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So? if it does not list this as a monument then it is not an example of a mistake by them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It's an error of omission. Or perhaps of "definition." In any case I believe that this monument should be moved to the Texas section. Carptrash (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Carptrash said: Fort Davis was named before the Civil War, thus can not be a monument to the CSA. No, we've had this discussion many times. When the person was memorialized is immaterial to whether it merits inclusion on this list. If someone is memorialized and they were a Confederate soldier, leader, politician, etc., then that's enough to merit inclusion here. The issue here is not whether, at the time of their memorialization, they were memorialized specifically for their contributions to the Confederate cause. The issue is that they were memorialized and the memorial remains despite their subsequent contributions to the Confederate cause. For people who don't understand, it's like if Adolph Hitler were memorialized before the war for his contributions as a painter. Is that a "Nazi" memorial? At the time of his memorialization, no. But given what he did in the war, letting that monument stand absolutely would be a "Nazi" memorial. Fluous (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It is also immaterial what we think, do RS list this as a confederate monument?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It has often been remarked that by the time one is using Hitler or the Nazis in an argument, the argument is already lost. But never mind the references, it makes the list look foolish, appear to be the polemic that it is. By using that argument this statue, Young Abe Lincoln would be considered a candidate for List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials, right? Carptrash (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Which is also irrelevant, as we go by what RS say, not what we know.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The source that I added refers only to the monument at the fort, not to the fort's name its self. Another reference that I have here, Texas History: Carved in Stone by Jones (p.317) says that the county was named for Pres. Davis but that the fort was named for "then Sec. of War" Davis, so don't count it. Do you feel that Young Abe belongs in the Union article? I know, I know, you don't have feelings, only references. Carptrash (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That is correct, I do not try to allow my feelings to trump policy. One of which says that any material not sourced to an RS can be removed. Another says that we talk only about how to improve the article that a talk page is about, not any other article. If you wish to talk about another articles take it to their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Wel I don't try, it just happens. So how long do we wait for the reference? I've looked, to no avail. Carptrash (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
If you cannot find a source tag it, as to how long we wait. There is not defined time that I am aware of. But I would say a month.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it was tagged (OR) but the tag was removed with no reference added. Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

So can any one explain why this is not OR, if no rationale can be given it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, What we get is the "Hitler Argument." Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First, Fort Davis is in the National Park Service section which includes NPS-administered sites that contain features memorializing the Confederacy, such as Gettysburg and Yellowstone. This does not necessarily mean that Fort Davis itself is a Confederate memorial.

Second, the Old Fort Davis Monument within Fort Davis does have a reference. The text on the monument ends with "A MEMORIAL TO TEXANS WHO SERVED THE CONFEDERACY ERECTED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS 1963". What exactly is the controversy here? –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Because as it stands we say the park is a memorial to the confederacy, not that it contains them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I just added the reference to the memorial to prepare moving the memorial to the Texas section where it belongs.Carptrash (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The convention in this article is to put memorials administered by the NPS in the NPS section, but I would be OK with eliminating the section altogether and listing everything state-by-state. Let's pick one style and use it consistently. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That hasn't been the historical convention in this article. The NPS section was added last month. I agree that it should be removed and the items moved to the relevant states. Mojoworker (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What you need to do is find a reference that claims that Fort Davis is a memorial to the CSA. Otherwise it does not matter where you put it.Carptrash (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the opening sentence of the page "This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were established as public displays and symbols of the Confederate States of America (CSA), Confederate leaders, or Confederate soldiers of the American Civil War." so this list should only contain places (or objects) that are memorials, not places that just contain them (but are not in and of themselves) memorials to the confederacy. There are (it seems) major issues with OR and synthases) going on here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The name of the park/battlefield is a way to organize the list. The entire article uses (Location):(Name of monument) format. Are we implying that Ashville, Alabama is a Confederate monument by including it in the list? –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
OR issues where? In an article with almost 800 references? I doubt if there are OR issues *at all*, never mind "major" issues. Please explain. Fluous (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: You'd probably like a word here. Fluous (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Because as it stands we say the park is a memorial to the confederacy, not that it contains them. No, we don't. We say the park is a memorial to someone who was a Confederate leader, not to the Confederacy in general. See the lede. Fluous (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Then I think there is a major problem, because it make little sense to me as the fort was named after him when he was not a confederate leader. It is worth noting that no RS has been provided saying this is a memorial to the confederacy. It is OR because no one says it was a memorial to a leader of the confederacy (because it was not, it was a memorial to a secretary of war), except people on this page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This is because this is the first one I have seen, looking at it we have quite a few that are not memorials to anything confederate. Either RS say it is or we do not (was that not the whole point of the SPLC debate, the sacrosanctness of RS?). You cannot play the RS card and then ignore it when it suits you.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash:, Fort Davis was named for someone that served the Confederacy during the Civil war. It does not matter that it was named before the Civil War; just the same for Pickett House and Pickett Bridge in Bellingham Washington, they are also on this list. The key factor seems to be if it is named for someone that served the Confederacy, not the reason why it was named in the first place. So says the consensus, so we must do.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"Consensus?" Do you think places named before the Civil War should be seen as being monuments or memorials to the CSA? I'd like @C. W. Gilmore: to see you say "yes." Then we can discuss "consensus." And of course come up with a reference since we can decide what ever we want but if there is no reference there is no listing. Carptrash (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
My only point of reference is from my state and how it has been handled. Pickett Bridge and Pickett House, which were built in the 1850s, are not listed by the SPLC, but local news call them out as being "named for Confederate leader."[2] So if the local media is making the connection, I can't argue against them being listed.[3] However, I can note it on other wiki articles that are linked to this page, the fact, that they predate the Civil War. Sorry it is not the answer you wanted. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus cannot trump policy, Wikipedia:No original research is clear that we cannot say something (or infer something) RS do not. Thus if RS do not claim that X is a confederate monument neither can we, consensus cannot trump that. It does not matter who Jess Davis became, this fort (and many other sites on this list) were named named in honour of confederate officials (in any capacity).Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your focus on reliable sources. However, there are sufficient reliable sources for the disputed listing to merit inclusion here. (1) There are reliable sources that Fort Davis National Historic Site was named for (memorializes) Jefferson Davis. (2) There are reliable sources that Jefferson Davis was President of the Confederate States of America. (3). There is no Step 3. Among other things, this is a list of memorials to people who were Confederate soldiers, leaders, politicians, etc. What you ask is only necessary if you consider this a list of people memorialized specifically for their contributions as Confederate soldiers, leaders, etc. That's not what this is. Fluous (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
And this is synthesis, if a source does not explicitly make the link neither can we. The article is called "List of Confederate monuments and memorials", so either we rename the liszt, or removes this as it is not a monument to the confederacy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: it is not a monument to the confederacy No, the listings here are *not* all memorials to the Confederacy in general. They're also memorials to specific people like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. Many listings are memorials not to the Confederacy in general but to specific people who were Confederate leaders, politicians, etc. It's right there in the lede. There is absolutely no synthesis to state that Fort Davis National Historic Site was named for someone who became a Confederate leader. I'm sorry that the article title does not sufficiently prepare you for the article content, but titles are hard. Any ambiguity in your mind as to the article content should have been resolved by the lede. Fluous (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Tiles are supposed to reflect what the article is about. Either the article is about Confederate monuments and memorials or it is not. This is not a Confederate monuments and memorials and weasel wording in the lead to make force inclusion of monuments that are not to or about the confederacy does not alter the fact the tile does not reflect the articles content. And no problems with the title should not be worked out by rewording the lead (I have no issue with the lead, just how it is being applied), but by either name change or removal of content that does not reflect the articles title. Changing the lead will not alter the fact that there are monuments here that have no links to the confederacy beyond what happened after they were created.Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
People can reasonably anticipate that an article titled "list of Confederate monuments and memorials" will include memorials to Jefferson Davis, the man who was President of the Confederate States of America. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fluous (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven - the phrase used is "public symbols of the Confederacy" rather than "confederate monument", but Texas Tribune does list Fort Davis four times in their expansion of the SPLC list here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is what the Texas Tribune has for Fort Davis:
Fort Davis Jeff Davis County County 1887
Fort Davis City of Fort Davis Municipality N/A
Fort Davis Fort Davis AEC School School N/A
Fort Davis Fort Davis High School School N/A
None of them is the FORT. It's the county, named in 1887, it's the town (municipality) and two schools. Not the Fort. Cheers too @Markbassett:. Carptrash (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
They are on the SPLC list as I recall, and I am not arguing they should not be on our list, just the park.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash, for what it is worth, the SPLC list is on the conservative side of not listing unless they see a clear link and given[4] local evidence of the links, it may be to let this one go.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

General Barnard Bee monument Manassas, Virginia - missing?

Doing a bit of background work and noted that the General Barnard Bee monument[5] in Manassas, Virginia appears to be missing from the list or am I not seeing it? It is notable as he was the first general to die in the beginning of the civil war and the monument was erected in his honor.[6] If it is missing, should it not be added?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be added. Mojoworker (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I wanted to check in case I had missed it. I will do it when I get to a computer, unless someone beats me to it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope it's correct formatting.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I moved the listing to the National→ National Park Service section, as that's where we list NPS-administered sites like Manassas National Battlefield Park. Fluous (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I new I would get it wrong as this is such a large page, I'm not always sure what goes where. Thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What to do, if anything, about length of article

This article is now longer than those on the American Civil War and Martin Luther King Jr. put together.

You could make the argument that the topic (reaction to the war) is more important than the war itself, since the war covered 1861-65 and the aftermath 1865-2017.

I'd hate to see the article reduced to a series of links to articles on each state. Its huge size makes a point and IMHO it's a point that is well worth making.

If anything is to be done, collapsed sections within the article - click Here to see the streets with Confederate names in Texas - would be, in my opinion, preferable to splitting it into many articles. deisenbe (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, something must be done to reduce the length of this article. I appreciate how compressive it is, but it's way too long. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it is so long, is a point unto it's self and part of the reason it should stay that way for the most part. Consensus is to leave everything, including those that have been removed, at least for now.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How detailed should listings be?

We need to talk about how much detail we should (or shouldn't) add to each listing.

I favor listings with minimal detail. We should keep it a clean, simple list. Pretty much the name of the monument, where and when it was erected (or removed and where it was removed to, if applicable), and in certain cases by whom it was erected (UDC, SVC, etc). Maybe an inscription if it's particularly notable (like praising "faithful slaves" or the "justness" of the Confederate cause). But not if it's just praising the soldiers of a certain county. We also shouldn't include things like what physical material the monument is made of, who made it (sculptor, etc), how much it cost, etc. There should be a reference that leads to that information anyway; it's not essential that it should appear on this list article. Fluous (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, link to other wiki pages from more details, but this page is already too long, IMO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Since most of the things on the list (unscientific assessment) are from the SPLC report how is this linking thing supposed to work? If there is an article about the particular monument, fine, just a link to it, but part of what we are offering here, or rather part of what I feel we should be offering here is information about the sculptor, if it was motivated by the UDC etc for monuments that don't have articles. You suggestion that we only use the inscriptions that confirm your prejudices would be laughable, if it didn't make me want to cry. The idea of letting the people who raised the monuments tell us why they were erected is, what, a throw out because they were dishonest racists? A clue. Most of the monuments were put up for the very reasons that are carved on them. Carptrash (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"How is this linking thing supposed to work?" Well, say you have a citation to information about a listing's sculptor, cost, etc. It's simple: only add the citation to the listing. People can click on the citation to find out more about the particular monument. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand your position. Should all monument listings include inscriptions, sculptors, cost, physical material, etc? Please clarify. Fluous (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry maybe In should have been more clear, link to a wiki page if there is one, link to a source if there is one (both in the cases where there is both.Slatersteven (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"Maybe an inscription if it's particularly notable (like praising "faithful slaves" or the "justness" of the Confederate cause)." This is one of the most biased, naked admissions of tailoring the article to fit into some political agenda that I have ever come across. And you are giving me warnings? I have tried several times, now archived, at least one of them, to have this article be just a list and no one seemed interested. Now that I am allowing the monuments to speak for themselves, suddenly more content is a bad thing. The truth shall set you free, something you do not seem to want. Carptrash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Who are you replying to, as I did not say anything like the above, this is also A PA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Not replying to you, but are you comfortable with only picking inscriptions such as if "it's particularly notable (like praising "faithful slaves" or the "justness" of the Confederate cause)" as being a neutral guideline? What does it mean other than we want the article to reflect this, and only this POV? I am attacking the idea, not the editor who wrote it. Carptrash (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No I am not, and have never said I think we need any inscriptions. So I ask you to please stop ascribing views to editors they have not uttered.Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. Picking-and-choosing inscriptions would open-up a can-of-worms. Two options: (1) include all inscriptions. But this would make the article too long. Or (2) exclude all inscriptions. Given the political circumstances, this would be my pick. Fluous (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I have just removed archive-boxing done by editor User:Fluous, who also earlier removed a different comment (which I restored). Fluous, you should not be editing or removing other editors comments on this Talk page. You are a wp:involved editor, and from the several interactions I look at, you are seeming to take aim at another editor, in a harrassing way, possibly personal attack-like, possibly bullying to get your way. You happen to disagree with Carptrash's comments, for example. I happen to agree usually with Carptrash's comments. You might experience Carptrash's comments as "strong" or perhaps sarcastic, but they are extremely well justified in my view, and they are well within normal bounds for Talk page discussions, especially on a contentious page like this. I don't want to get highly involved in personal attacks back and forth. You need to stop, possibly take a break for several days. You have certainly NOT been appointed judge over what is extremely on-topic vs. off-topic on this page. --doncram 19:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash: -Not using SPLC as a single source, only as a referencing source that has compiled a list we can cross check against, then find good local documentation as listed references. Yes it is reliable, but biased so it should never be used alone. But we do not need to recreate the wheel, and SPLC is a starting point from which to work. It is more helpful to find local sourcing where missing, than raging on about SPLC, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@C. W. Gilmore: Yes it is reliable, but biased so it should never be used alone.. No, we've had this discussion many times. See Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#Negative reviews of the SPLC study. The SPLC report is a reliable source, period. It does not require additional sourcing. Fluous (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
C. W. Gilmore first let me caution you about your lack of correctness in formatting (fixed by another editor in the last 2 minutes) your reply. To continue to do it incorrectly could result in one, or more, WARNINGS - as it did to me. (this is a joke, as were the WARNINGS I received - which were intended to be serious, but . ..) Secondly, I don't believe that anything I have written in this thread should be considered to be "raging on about SPLC". What I said, or intended to say, was that most of of the items on the list are referenced to the SPLC list. If they are referenced at all. A look at the Virginia courthouse monuments & memorials shows about 50 examples, the only ones actually referenced, I think, are ones I expanded and added references for. I am assuming that the rest are from the SPLC. Is that a bad assumption? Should I be tagging all of them as citation needed? No. However occasionally there is a monument that has its own article, so there the listing is, or should be, linked to that article. I feel that this list is the best place to include information about monuments that don't have their own articles. Oh yes, the other piece of information that is included is the monument's date and that is, I presume (please correct me if my presumption is wrong) because the dates are included in the SPLC report, thus making it sacrosanct. Because that info is needed to prop up all the political points being made at the top end of the article. Things such as "Confederate monument-building has often been part of widespread campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South, and assert white supremacy." I think including who the sculptor was, information that is not always available, and the inscription on the monument which often tells us why the monument was erected, is important, is necessary to a balanced article. Carptrash (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The focus should be on finding and adding other reference sources, not tearing down what has already been built, IMHO. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any talk about tearing anything down. or removing anything, except a few sculptors' names that I have added. But you @C. W. Gilmore: seem to not want that level of information yet are comfortable adding "Blaine and Vancouver: Stone markers at both ends of the state designating Highway 99 the "Jeff Davis Highway" were erected in the 1930s by the Daughters of the Confederacy, with state approval. They were removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state.[729] Markers are now in Sons of Confederate Veterans owned "Jefferson Davis Park" in Ridgefield right beside I-5.[730]" because . . . . . . .? Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash, I did not write that section, I only added links and some update. If it were up to me, I would remove it as it makes my state look better, but I prefer bringing changes up on the Talk page and gain consensus on major changes. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
It is also reasonable to consider that as lengthy as the article currently stands, that details should be placed in connecting pages and efforts should be made to build such pages if they do not already exist. Just a thought- C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Minimal detail - I agree with the arguments above, this article is bloated enough as is. Details on notable monuments can be fleshed out on that monument's page, details on Non-notable monuments aren't really something we need to cover (at that point we're just choking out the article with unencyclopedic trivia). Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The sculptors of some of these monuments are some of this country's (as well as a few notable foreigners) most respected artists. To consider them to be "unencyclopedic trivia" is not, in my opinion, good process. Carptrash (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
If some of these monuments truly were sculpted by some of the country's most respected artists, then wouldn't you agree that those monuments should have their own article? And thus we could wiki-link to further information about the monument here. And thus we could avoid duplicating that information here. Fluous (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC){
I am for minimal detail, and have briefly expressed this couple of times. The problems are this is difficult to do in practice especially as many of these without some detail are difficult to find correlation into why it made this list. Especially since so many do not have any cite ref's (also why I think all of them should have at least one cite listed or link to relevant wiki article). Also problem of agreeing to what all should be included as basic minimal detail. I see both viewpoints about whether to include sculptor or not. Yes if it is done by respected artist, it should have it's own article. The issue is how many will know one exists or not, or even bother to look for one? Would I even recognize if its respected artist or not? Nope, prolly not. I recommend one of two suggestions. If it includes by whom had it erected (UDC, SVC, etc) it should also include the sculptor. Otherwise it should leave both off. IMHO, personally prefer: City, Monument/Memorial, date unveiled (removed date), whom in honour for if applicable, sculptor, whom had erected if applicable, and cite ref. No other details unless its required. I know this was mentioned about waymarker.com in Talk page above and understand about it not being best source, but I find it useful as lot of them have pics where you can read actual inscriptions. Ofc if is better source that gaves that info, most definitely use it instead. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I can see where this is headed, so the sculptors and the UDC and all that stuff goes. However this suggests to me that a lot of other detail should go too. But I won't be sneaky about doing it, we'll talk.Carptrash (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kevin "Hawk" Fisher: I think all of them should have at least one cite listed Fortunately, all listings without citations can be found in the SPLC report. I've avoided doing the work; it's a tedious job. But I understand it has to be done eventually. What I think what I'm going to do is create new citations to the page number of the report. That way, we can avoid 1500 cites to a single reference. And it's more convenient and accurate for the reader, too. Fluous (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with Minimal Detail, but would default to Einar's and Kevin's formulation to include sculptor and whomever (whoever?) commissioned them where possible- Wikilinks would be ideal for those with more to add, and my quick look at the list again leads me to believe many of the monuments with lots of detail here already have their own articles. The others might be a project for a bored IP on another day. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well thanks - I am on to writing articles about monuments, and will add links to them as they happen. Which will, I suspect, be slowly. Yes, some do already have articles, but (to make up some figures) that is perhaps 30 or 40 out of, what 1,500? 2,000? Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
A labor of love, indeed! 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Please provide links between the pages to fill in the gaps, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think what came out of that discussion was that we are not going to include inscriptions, what the monuments are made of and who made them. All of these I disagree with but it seems that this is where we ended up. So I am going to start removing that stuff and other filler. Do you want/expect me to post here what is cut out? Carptrash (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
For my part, I make sure details are on other articles that are linked before I begin to cut information from this page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash, I have moved as much details as I thought I could from this page to other pages, in an effort to keep the size of this huge page down to a more manageable size. [7] I really do try to practice what I preach, but it takes time to find the correct page or in some cases, make the page from scratch; but I am trying.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For those wishing to move details of these monuments to other linked pages, it may not always be easy as can run into editor opposition:
This seems to sometimes make it difficult to slim down this page when editors from other pages stand in the way of moving the data. Does anyone have suggestions? It might be a labour of love, but it can be very labourious. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_monuments_and_memorials/Archive_10&oldid=1184915326"