Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

How to Shorten Article

I removed a "too long" tag because we all know this and it is a high public traffic page. How could we shorten this up? Some ideas for discussion follow. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

All great ideas. I don't know; this is a really hard question. Can anyone point to examples of how other articles have dealt with this problem? Particularly large, list-class articles. Fluous (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on ISIL and personally spun out several pages and helped spin out others. It's not list, but the principle is when a section gets too big we spin it out and summarize.

There are several ways this can be done. I would suggest doing it one of two ways though.

1) Changed to list only Monuments on this page (and renaming page) and putting all other Memorials on new page as Zigzig20s suggests below. A monument is only type of memorial, but this could easily split down the list and length.

2) Forking out certain sections by creating new pages as one sub-heading for certain state gets too large. (ie Roads, Place names, etc) Specifying what all sub-headings can be forked and setting what x number amount when that should happen.

If using the second option I listed, is there a way that can auto calc the number on newly created stub page? Like say leave Roads sub-heading under state but simply stating "There are x number of roads for this state. A complete listing can be seen in List of Confederate Memorial Roads in x State." Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

actually the "there are X monument in State" lines are sourced to the SPLC list are misleading because our crowdsources list is more comprehensive. We could replace the * with # which would give us a count. We would need to change the lists around so the town is listed after the road or statue or whatever like this because we want to count items not towns:

1. Lee Ave, town A
2. Lee Rd, town B
3. Kirby Smith Rd, town B
4. Rebel St, town B
5. Confederate Rd, town C

Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out Confederate States Section

Stuff named by the Confederacy during the Confederacy seems different than post war memorials. Perhaps take the list of ships out to a seperate page and put it as a See Also? Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out individual states

If we did that we could provide a short summary and a link to the Alabama page with the detailed listings under the Alabama heading. I would not suggest spinning out states with very few entries, just the ones with the really long lists. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could have:

• a single article for Union states;
• a single article for Border states; and
• individual articles for each state in the Confederacy. Fluous (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

might be a good way to go, if needed. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This sounds messy. The Civil War is OVER. Either we have an article for each state of the Union, or we have this article with all the states. But a state like Wyoming would only have one listing. So instead, it may make sense to keep this list but split off some states, like Alabama, and just mention the main monuments/statues in Alabama on this list.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I created a drafting copy User:Legacypac/Alabama to show numbering and what a spinoff State page might look like. It's still in progress. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Wyoming would be too stubby. So would Montana. Instead, if we take out the schools for each state here, it's a great improvement. We can keep the historic buildings on college and university campuses (monuments), but we don't need all the middle and high schools (memorials).Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting we would only spin out the states with lots of listings and summarize the detailed state articles here. I've been working on the User:Legacypac/Alabama example, which includes a section of what would go in this page instead of all the detail. It's not a good idea to have a seperate Wyoming page.

There has long been a public debate over "practical monuments" like a school or road vs erecting a statue or stone with no practical use other than something to look at. This debate occured specifically over Confederste memorials but also for other wars, people etc. A named school is absolutely a monument/memorial just like or more so than a statue or carved chunk of stone by the courthouse. Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's "absolutely" different.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is no different at all, especially if you use the proper terminology, like wikipedia's definitions. School or road is a memorial. A statue is a monument (which is a type of memorial). I do like how they are attempting to rename the word into 'practical monument' though lol. Why not just use what it is called, memorial. Anyway they are all memorials in honor of CSA and so should be listed, only difference is that a school or road can be renamed and in theory no longer be a memorial in honour of, but renaming a monument (ie statue, etc) will make no difference as it is still clearly in honour. I would also argue that a school being named after Lee especially in VA, where he emphasized and encouraged that precedence should be on rebuilding and educating the youth to accompolish that is not in honour of CSA. A school elsewhere is admittedly more debatable. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out the License Plates Section as its own page

We could then do a simple listing under each involved state with a link over. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be split into another article and just mentioned in the "see also" section. This article should be primarily about statues and buildings (as it used to be).Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

We could split this whole article thematically.

• Monuments and memorials of the Confederacy (Perhaps no longer a list-class article. It probably deserves an article on its own merits. It can include an overview of the list-class articles we split out. And we can delve more deeply into the controversy part of why these memorials happened in the first place— something we've largely avoided so far. Yet much has been written about it in the news.)
  • List of monuments of the Confederacy (monuments, statues, plaques, sculpture, carvings, etc)
  • List of places named after the Confederacy (inhabited places, parks. maybe lakes, rivers, and public works like dams, too?)
  • List of roads named after the Confederacy (roads, highways, bridges, etc)
  • List of schools and the Confederacy (schools named after the Confederacy, the use of Confederate iconography in schools: nicknames, mascots, traditions, etc).
  • List of Confederate holidays and observances by U.S. states
  • List of Confederate license plates by U.S. states
  • List of U.S. military facilities and ships named after the Confederacy
  • List of [insert legacypac-type stuff]

Fluous (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we should keep all the buildings and statues in one place. Those are "monuments"; memorials (license plates, coins, etc.) are a little different...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I much prefer a State by State listing rather than a list of all schools across all states. It is much more informative to know that Alabama has a lot of statues and schools and roads compared to Maryland. Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Schools are not monuments; they are memorials and can be renamed easily. That's not the same thing as removing statues completely or scrubbing "Confederate" from historic buildings.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

To split the article into separate articles on coins, streets, license plates, schools would make what is going on less significant as a whole. deisenbe (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an activist news website. This is an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

License plates now spun-out. See hatnote (10k reduction) – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

National Parks Service Civil War Page

I'm thinking the treatment of the Civil War by the National Parks Service would be a useful notable topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

See National Military Park, and List of areas in the United States National Park System, specifically List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Military Parks, List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Battlefield Parks, and List of areas in the United States National Park System#List of National Battlefields. (edit) I just read what you said again. Can you explain more about what you mean by "treatment"? Mojoworker (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Treatment = how the NPS presents and commemorates the civil war. Do they have monuments, confed flags etc celebrating the CS. Not federal, but Jefferson Davis State Historic Site is definitely a celebration of all things Davis. Legacypac (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Spin out holidays, coins

Holidays and coins are not monuments. Maybe this list has become too long because it includes not only monuments (buildings and statues), but also memorials (coins, holidays, etc.)?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

check the title of the page. Anyway, holidays and coins are not a significant portion of the content. The gazillion statues are the biggest part of the content. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The list was stable until a few weeks ago. We didn't use to list all the schools and roads. We used to focus on monuments (statues and historic buildings).Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The holidays are now listed at Public holidays in the United States#Confederate States of America, with the link listed in the SA section. Deleting the holidays. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Coins and stamps are now linked via hatnotes or text notes. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spin out CSN

There is a List of ships of the Confederate States Navy which has ships listed in this article. In fact many of the ships in the CSN listings are in honor of the CSA, CSA states, events, etc.. Recommend we delete the CSN ship section and add the list article as a See also. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Note. The CSN ship listing article is 27k (do we need to expand this article by so much?). Many of the ships are named after geographic locations in the CSA. By comparison, the listing in this article is 1.8k, and has been removed. Editing rationale: the ships were not monuments per the common understanding of the word; nor were they memorials as they were on active duty when named as "CSS" vessels. As many were named after geographic locations, we cannot say (today) that they were named after the CSA as a larger entity. With this section removal the article has been reduced by a fraction. And readers are directed to the List of ships of the CSN article in two locations. – S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Negative reviews of the SPLC study

WP:RSN Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: removed hat, apparently negative reviews were not intended by poster for RSN, so was not related and material (if any) from posters did not get incorporated to RSN so ... just unrelated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) WP:RSN Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC) https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/whose-heritage-well-splc-whos-counting/ http://amarillo.com/editorial/opinion/2017-09-15/editorial-use-logic-when-erasing-history https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/why-were-confederate-monuments-built/ -Topcat777 01:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Yeah, none of these are RS. The last two in particular are just garbage. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Topcat777, based on the following sources, they have raised some brows.... The Atlantic; Politico mentioned above; A list of sources posted at RSN; Atsme📞📧 04:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Here is another article critical of their information gathering and exaggerations from RealClearPolitics which, like the articles I posted from Harper's and Politico, is not right wing, but more left. Here is a quote from this article: "The most scathing assessments of Dees and his group have always come from the left. Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor and president of the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, calls Dees a "shyster” and a “con man.” Bright’s primary complaint is that Dees does precious little litigation on behalf of poor people with the amount of money it pulls in. SPLC’s alarmist fundraising scams, shoddy collection of information, and longstanding practice of character assassination has been on the record for years—along with its “F” rating from the respected nonprofit watchdog group Charity Watch." The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee Dubyavee (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC) What's your agenda here? This material might be appropriate in the SPLC page but an agenda to discredit their report as a RS is very wrong headed. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC) This has reached the point where it's become disruptive. Y'all have been repeatedly asked to either challenge the SPLC report at RSN or drop this stick. Continually reposting the same cherry-picked blogs, opinion pieces, and other low-quality sources with an axe to grind does not change the fact that most, actual high-quality, RS make it clear that the report perfectly acceptable source. This needs to stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)  agreed - this discussion of the source falls outside of the scope of what it is being used for in this article, which is an address list. If you see POV or addenda pushing in the article, edit it. If you want to dispute that the source is insufficient to state that some piece of rock is sat in what ever location it can be discussed at RSN Where it will be filed under a pile of stick operated horse carcasses Edaham (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC) End unhatting Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Edaham - That does not seem to be a RSN, since there was no stated article context of a SPLC quote they are unqualified for. There isn't enough to say what line (if any) they want to add to the article. But I will check it with the editors involved and clarify. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Topcat777 and Atsme - is this intended for an article edit, or is there some current content where you are leading to say SPLC is not RS for that context ? Is this intending to bring forward that ther are differing definitions of 'monument' so additional POVs should be representd, or is it intended to bring the named items into edit, or what ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Markbassett, yes - and the above comment should not be hatted. Any information that cites SPLC should be verifiable by multiple 3rd party sources or a reliable secondary source that is not mirroring SPLC. SPLC is considered to be a self-published primary source - they do the research, file the litigation, create the lists, and argue the cases in court. Look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism which is relatively the same thing but with a different focus. There are hundreds out there just like them and they're all primary sources. Refer to WP:OR which states: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I think it's best to leave the information unhatted so editors can make a proper determination about whether or not to include a specific monument/memorial, etc. in the list. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Atsme The hatted discussion was about criticism of the SPLC study. How would that information help editors understand that the study is, according to your point of view, a primary source which requires verification? That's a completely different discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) SPLC is considered to be a self-published primary source That's not correct. And I'm pretty sure you've already been told that it's not correct a bunch of times. Now look, how many times does someone have to link you WP:STICK? If you're so confident that you're right about this, it should be an easy matter to persuade people at RSN. There is nothing to be gained from making the same arguments over and over again here - clearly most of us disagree with you. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I've brought it up at WP:RSN. I believe the two questions I posted are sufficient to address all of the concerns regarding the reliability of this source. If anyone feels otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can describe the issue accurately. –dlthewave ☎ 22:56, 13 October 2017 Topcat777 and Atsme - is the RSN as stated by dlthewave what your concern was, or not? Atsme is apparently questioning SPLC as a self-published primary source; I do not see reflection of that in the RSN statement. Need to know if there is consensus that is the question -- or if it is not relevant to this thread. Markbassett (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) When I posted the question "Is the SPLC report a reliable source for the name and location of a monument, without verification from another source?", I assumed that editors would consider all necessary factors including whether is was a self-published primary source. Folks are welcome to raise this issue at RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC) dlthewave (inserting) - Interesting but -- since they did not input there (it ran amok after a bit over 2 days and got shut down) .... I think this is just some links from Topcat777 and some links from Atsme, and an unrelated RSN or at least that Atsme input wasn't related to it and negative reviews did not get included there by them. I don't see any existing article text challenged or any proposed new text from any of the three so ... I think this was all just a few negative reviews mentioned by two editors and otherwise just pointless squawking. I will unhat the links since Atsme said it should not be, and think this Chinese firedrill is then done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the Methodology section of the SPLC report makes it clear that they compiled the information from a number of primary sources. This would make it a secondary source. –dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Of course the SPLC report is Reliable Secondary source widely referenced in the RS media. Anyone claiming otherwise is not paying attention. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) I disagree per WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The latter also applies to an entire list. Also WP:WPNOTRS: When editing articles and the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern. I'd prefer to avoid the tags and ask that consideration be given to the reasons SPLC has been challenged as a legal advocacy (directly involved in the politics/litigation/moral constructs in resolving specific societal issues regardless of whether or not we agree with them). Adherence to WP:V is equally as important to ensure the monument/memorial being listed was indeed an honorarium dedicated to or because of the Confederacy. Secondary sources will have published articles (independent of SPLC) providing the reason for the dedication. I've already provided an example regarding the naming of the Buchanan ships but see they are still included simply because he served a small fraction of his life in the Confederate navy. Atsme📞📧 21:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion at RSN was closed with a consensus that the report is an acceptable source. There is nothing further to discuss here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

bare "Lee" mentions

We have a lot of Lee Streets, Roads, etc. That is, "Lee" without "Robert E." or "General". While many of these Lee mentions are for RE Lee, we do not have RS which confirms the connection. These mentions have been tagged 'cn'. Keeping in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on the editor to prove or disprove the reference/data, I submit that a simple presumption that a bare "Lee" refers to RE Lee is not sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the CN's for bare Lee mentions. They were all in the SPLC study— except "Old Lee Road" in Chantilly, VA, which I can't find anything about. Fluous (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fluous - that doesn't help avoid presuming Lee is Robert E., as the SPLC report seems to say that is what they did -- presuming a "Lee" meant Robert E Lee. While that seems likely for most of the time, there are other possible Lees and even many Robert Lees. Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this at WP:RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We really need to be careful about using SPLC - perhaps another round at RSN is needed if the intent is to use them without adherence to WP:V? We don't want the same kind of craziness erupting as what happened here. Atsme📞📧 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Maybe you could go to the RS notice board and open a discussion thread on whether SPLC is a reliable source.... oh wait! It looks like there are already quite a few discussions there! You could make an informed decision about the probable outcome of such a debate, but I think you left your stick in one of those discussions. Would you like to pop back and get it? Edaham (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC) The SPLC report is widely cited in the media as reliable. If it says a road is named for Robert E Lee that is good enough for this page unless someone can provide a RS citing otherwise. I'm tiring of the editors that keep challenging well cited inclusions in this page. There are hundreds of cites - burden is on YOU to show the page is wrong NOT throw out random speculation. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Well said. Y'all need to either stop pretending SPLC is a suspect source or put your money where your mouth is and raise the issue at RSN. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Well said! Fluous (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Not all are in lockstep with the SPLC article. Here are some negative reviews- "So because an obviously deranged person [Dylann Roof] is influenced by garbage he sees on the Internet, counties in Texas must change their names? We are not following the logic here." http://amarillo.com/editorial/opinion/2017-09-15/editorial-use-logic-when-erasing-history SPLC methodology "As it currently stands, the SPLC listings are simply unable to support the premise offered in the article.  It is not 'firm' or 'solid' data.  Is that to say their conclusions are wrong?  No.  But I am saying that we cannot, with a straight face, accept the data as an argument to support the premise that is drawn.  It is a structure placed on a wet sand foundation." https://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/whose-heritage-well-splc-whos-counting/ -Topcat777 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) An editorial and a WordPress blog - color me unimpressed. At the risk of repeating myself: it's way past time for those of you who are still harping on this to either take it to RSN or drop the stick. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Craig Swain ("markerhunter") knows more about Civil War monuments than everybody at the SPLC combined. -Topcat777 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) You can think that if you want. Others (including me) will disagree. Her academic expertise is clearly not in that area. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC) It wouldn't matter if they were advocating the neutering of all sculptors of bearded men and their pets. We aren't promoting their ideologies, we are sourcing from a contemporary report they made containing addresses and descriptions of monuments, while hopefully being careful to strip out anything which seems to coat rack their views. I've personally found the peculiar objections some people raise with regard to using this particular source to be a useful canary for detecting bizarre pov edits in other areas, so do by all means pop over to RSN and let's round up another thirty or so pages to stick on our watch lists. Edaham (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) "We aren't promoting their ideologies"...LOL -Topcat777 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Is this where we are now, repeating others comments back to them and adding an "LOL"? You're not going to convince anyone of anything with juvenile crap like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that not everything with the name Robert. E. Lee is named after the Confederate General, as in the case of the police building in Kent, Washington, which is named for a former long serving police chief. One must be careful on how far you try to stretch this.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is "trying to stretch this"? We use secondary sources that cross-check and confirm the naming. Fluous went through the "bare Lees", added citations and removed one that they could not find a source for. The police building in Kent does not appear in the article. If you find an entry that is questionable, you can help by finding a source or challenging it on this Talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a general reminder; as with Pickett's bridge in Bellingham, WA, which was named because it was built by him before the Civil War while he was a Captain in the U.S. Army; things are not always what they might appear at first glace and for everyone to do as you suggest and dig into the source material before rendering a judgement. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Many of us do not agree that commemorations count only if they're after the civil war. The mere fact that someone with strong connections to the Confederacy is memorialized is enough to merit inclusion here. Strong connections meaning he was a Confederate soldier, politician, etc. They don't even have to be memorialized specifically for their contributions to the Confederacy. Again, the mere fact that they had strong connections to the Confederacy is enough. It's like memorializing Adolph Hitler for his contributions as a painter. People are going to have problems with that. Fluous (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

-Of course, I've seen his paintings.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Confederate monument in Gainesville, Florida

The Confederate monument in Gainesville, Florida has this RS: "Widener, Ralph W. (1982). Confederate monuments: Enduring symbols of the South and the War Between the States. Andromeda Associates. ASIN B0006E9TUC. OCLC 8697924.". Does anyone know the page number(s) please? Could you please send me scans of the relevant pages?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Page 34. Scans run into copyright issues, I can scan and post elsewhere and send you a link, it will take a few minutes. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Try this [1]. I will too. Carptrash (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As you can see from my scan I am not afraid to deface my books with additional information. But no reference given. Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it has a name, doesn't it? "Old Joe"?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bye-by Old Joe, see you at the cemetery. Carptrash (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Or on Wikipedia. Would Old Joe (Gainesville, Florida) be a good title please? Are we sure it was dedicated in 1904 though?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't find articles about its dedication in 1904 on Newspapers.com so far. I can find articles about another monument in Ocala, but not Gainesville...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not use a nick name in the title. I think (opinion) something like Confederate monument (Gainesville, Florida) is better. Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Confederate monument (Gainesville, Florida) it is then. And it was dedicated on January 19, 1904 apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This has the unveiling year [2] This also has a date [3] and a name for the work. Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That SIRIS link (the 2nd one) also has the sculptor's name, unusual for these works, and the guy also did Lincoln at Gettysburg. All in a day's work. Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the referenced stub under construction!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer: Just in case you're interested in working on this!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think (about wikilinking UDC)

that since the United Daughters of the Confederacy play such an important part in the proliferation of these monuments and since readers are likely to just jump to a particular state, that they, the UDC, should be wikilinked the first time they are mentioned in every state with a "UDC" next to it, or as part of the link, and then "UDC" used without a link thereafter. Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. But please follow the talk-page guidelines and use descriptive section headings. Fluous (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They definitely made an impact on 'The Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway' as they and the 'Sons of Confederate Veterans' have still been active in maintaining what they see as 'their cultural legacy' throughout the USA.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo of African-Americans being Intimidated by a Confederate statue. Shocking!

You think we might could get this included in the article? Unveiling of the Lee monument, Richmond, VA, May 29, 1890- https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/media_player?mets_filename=evm00001716mets.xml -Topcat777 00:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate to another page [4] where it can stand in historical context as this page is already over stuffed, also that other page is linked to this one. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be inferring something into the photograph which is neither stated, nor documented in any reliable source, that 'commentary' is not to be given to the voice of Wiki. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, it says nothing about who they are or what they are thinking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources

[Post revised given that the promotion is over] --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture by Karen L. Cox and
• Recalling Deeds Immortal: Florida Monuments to the Civil War by William B. Lees and Frederick P. Gaske.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. On page 9, Cox mentions this monument. "Unveiled in May 1868, it was one of the first built as a result of women’s fund-raising efforts." Perhaps we could create an article about it. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I pounced on it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)