Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 1

Reference :52

What's that? It's absence broke the references. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish editors would just use basic inline references for articles which are new or fast developing. They are easy to see and simple to create and edit. Once the article is stable it can be changed to the more complicated to create but more concise and visually clean format. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Standalone article for statue of Robert E. Lee in Dallas

Resolved

Suggestion / reminder: The statue of Robert E. Lee in Dallas, which was just removed, likely qualifies for a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. Would you like to create it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Source: http://uomatters.com/2017/09/dallas-removes-lee-statue-by-uo-pioneer-mother-and-father-sculptor.html, which was posted on my talk page by another editor. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See Robert E. Lee (Proctor). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Name

There is some back and forth about the name. The topic should include the 2015 post church shooting removals and the 2017 post Charlottetown riot removals as well as ongoing removal efforts. Somethings come down over night while other things involve years of effort. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a bit about Mitch Landrieu calling for the removal of monuments after the 2015 shooting. There's probably more to add that isn't from 2017. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Key principle of Confederacy

This is the Cornerstone Speech of the Confederacy. I put it in and it was taken out saying it does not belong in the lede. Perhaps someone else could do something with it.

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

deisenbe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

It does not belong in the lead or in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge the list?

The list of a rough duplicate of List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Should it not be merged and kept it one place? We can simply say if they have been removed and where. I think this article should only focus on the context of the removal (the lede and history section).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess for some the first is a kill list and this is a killed list. But I say no to your proposal - this is an article containing a list of removed monuments, all sourced, which are notable through the fact of their removal. The other is a list article containing related monuments, many of which are not individually notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not duplicate. I had some agreement on the talk page to split this out into its own article. Maybe the removed monuments should be removed from the other page to reduce duplication. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

They should not be removed from List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. We don't delete people's jobs or ex-spouses once they got promotions or remarried. The list is fine. This one is a little overkill to be honest.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And User:Tiptoethrutheminefield: No, it's not a "kill list" or "to-do list". It's an encyclopedic article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a page about the growing movement to have these monuments and memorials removed. I don't see how it's "a little overkill". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic debate

I've just added a section called "Academic debate", with the views of three professors. Hopefully other editors will want to expand the section.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Resulting location

I would be glad if someone found information about these monuments' current locations. I haven't found any information thus far. For the historical merit of the monuments themselves due to these events, I hope they are preserved and given to museums rather than destroyed. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I am not quite sure if this is what you mean, but check out List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America.

Not what I meant, but thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources suggest they are often going into storage. Many would argue they should be destroyed. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic debate sourcing

The best sources on the academic debate section would be tertiary. Presently there are only primary sources (opinions by people who happen to be academics) in the section. Please provide secondary sources at least. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists of damaged, destroyed or looted heritage

An editor removed this template arguing that "this isn't "damaged", "destroyed", or "looted"". The template is fully justified. Statues are being removed from their original locations thus destroying their integrity as historical monuments, their original purpose is also being altered, again this counts as damage. Many are listed monuments, with integrity of location being a reason for their listing. Removing them from that location destroys that integrity, resulting in inevitable delisting. Removing a work of art or other heritage object from its original context and altering or destroying or denying its original identity is universally recognized as inflicting damage to that object. Even musealisation, the removal of cultural objects from their original locations and placing them in museums, is recognized as inflicting damage to heritage. For this particular subject, the damage is being done on a wide scale and as part of an organised campaign meaning the damage fits the intended purpose of the template. A large number of sources are also calling the removals the destruction of heritage. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Most of the statues that are moved from public spaces end up on private land or museums, where they are preserved. That's neither "damaged", "destroyed", or "looted". I don't think this article belongs in a template with ISIL destruction of pre-Islamic history, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I initially removed the template in accordance with the categories, lists, and navigation templates editing guideline. I would have removed it for the exact same reason had Muboshgu (talk · contribs) not done so first. As to whether this article belongs in a template titled "Lists of damaged, destroyed or looted heritage": it plainly does not. (a) This article is not a list article. (b) There is currently nothing reliably-sourced in the article that categorizes the movement/removal of CSA monuments as damaging, destroying, or looting "heritage". — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

fourthords - You are misunderstanding a template's purpose. The "list" in its title refers to the articles inside the template listing monuments. It does not mean only list articles can have that template! Almost all the articles in that template are proper articles, not lists, and this article contains a long list of removed monuments anyway. The template is not there to be judgmental, it is there to link together articles of similar subjects. This article deals with the mass destruction of monuments connected to a particular historical era. An assertion that there is no destruction since they might be going into museums or private collections is a perverse argument. Destruction of an object's function, destruction of its setting, destruction of its historical integrity - all that is destruction and all sources and international treaties that deal with cultural heritage take that opinion, and that sort of destruction is what this article is detailing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You're arguing then that the template is inappropriately titled. That may be. Secondly, it remains inappropriate to include here due to being out-of-compliance with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (as I've mentioned and linked-to at least twice now). Lastly, I have no position in the argument of whether this article concerns "damaged, destroyed or looted heritage" because I am not a reliable source. In summary: If the article cited reliable sources that call the removal of CSA monuments/memorials the damaging, destroying, or looting of heritage, then we could include the article in such a template, and transclude such a template in the article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A bronze statue, which is what most of these are so far, gets destroyed when it is melted down and used to make bullets or something. The idea that, "Many are listed monuments, with integrity of location being a reason for their listing." is (opinion) silly quibbling. I assume that "listing" refers to a listing on the National Register of Historic Places or some state or local version and I would like to see someone name one that is included because of where it is placed. Monuments such as those on Monument Avenue might gain some additional points (or whatever) for being there but that's about it. Describing the current process as "damaging, looting and destroying is rediculoius. Carptrash (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A bill to remove monuments from the Capitol Building

Senator Cory Booker has introduced a bill to remove confederate monuments from the US Capitol Building. Should this be mentioned in any way? It's probably not going to go anywhere and needs Congressional approval. Passage hasn't happened yet. Should this be mentioned or should we not put proposed removals on this page? TenorTwelve (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Is it in the Congressional Record? What ever that is? If so, I think it could go in here just fine. Whether it wins or looses, it does appear to be a part of the process. Carptrash (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Works for me. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, this is a primary source on something that hasn't happened. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This process will draw all sorts of political grandstanding and spotlight grabbing from both sides. Or three or four sides, if they exist. Let us not get involved in this process. If something is passed by Congress it belongs here. That some politician is trying to obtain headlines does not. Carptrash (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Abductive: just noticed what you said: he plans to introduce a bill; he actually has not introduced it yet. So yeah that would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. Having said that, if he does end introducing the bill, it can be added to the article as long as it meets WP:GNG. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Chronological order

Many of the items are given out of chronological order. I am rearranging them. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For the list of monuments removed, perhaps it would be best to put them in a table that could either be sorted by state or date. 2601:644:0:DBD0:FD3D:C4A3:BDA4:5FEB (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Kirby Smith (sculpture)

Unresolved

I'm not sure if the statue has been removed yet, but this article might be worth adding: Edmund Kirby Smith (sculpture). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Removals prior to 2010s

I hope someone can do some research regarding removals that took place prior to the 2010s. Are we 100% sure this is only a post-2016 action? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ohio Statue Debate

While some have argued that the Ohio Statue is to be repaired there is no citation to support this claim. The assertation that this monument doesn't belong on the list because the base still remains disregards the vandalism of the statue being toppled and decapitated. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC) This article should still cover the acts and attempts of removing CSA monuments, even if they are unsuccessful.

Re: Walk of Flags, Oregon State Capitol

Unresolved

Should this article mention Oregon's removal of the Mississippi state flag from its Walk of Flags at the Oregon State Capitol grounds because of its Confederate emblem? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Article problems

The large number of citation required tags in the lead is troubling. The lead should be for summarizing the content of the article and not there to go it alone, so there should not be a need for citations in the lead if the body of the article actually contains the required content and is referenced. There is very little article content, and even less that justifies the current lead. Although it contains a list, this is not a list article, it is an article on a subject so should have a proper amount of content. I have a problem with the raw use of the word "iconoclastic" in the lead. If it is to remain, it should be worded that certain commentators have called it iconoclastic. The idea that "Most Confederate monuments were built in periods of racial conflict" is a classic example of synthesis for effect to support a particular pov (to weasely imply that they were put there to function as tools for racial conflict while avoiding the need to actually produce evidence to support such an implication). That text is not appropriate for the lead. If this claim is to be in the article, it should be in the body of the article, and should be worded to make it clear that is is what some have opinioned. In reality it is an illusory correlation - most monuments commemorating Confederate figures or forces were put up during an era when those alive during the events were dying of old age, and that was the prompt for their erection. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• The article is a mess because it's new and because it's being edited back and forth. Regarding the statement about the building of the monuments: I agree, it should be carefully worded. Originally it was attributed to historians but then someone changed it and made it a statement. I'd rather not start a revert war so other editors can chime in. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I too don't like all the tags, but right now these issues are supported by a million blog type sources, but probably it's not a place we want to go. I'll keep looking. Carptrash (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Academic studies show spikes in Confederate monument construct during the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights eras. The rational for building these has been clearly stated by the Confederate groups as well. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at many of the monuments dates of commission versus the dates of dedication you will see that it took many of the artists almost 10 years to finish a statue. The correlation with the Jim Crow era gets more credence than it deserves. 108.218.57.36 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

RE the longer-term historical historical relationships here need to be covered. Iconoclasm and the mass hysteria phases of the past should be discussed The co-option of historical and nationalistic monuments by the extreme political groups of the right and left worldwide should be covered? The role played by the media both in forming and then in shaping these events should certainly discussed. When 200 students show up to protest in Durham and the dean calls it a "state of public emergency," and calls for the immediate removal of a confederate monument, what does that mean? Most authors concerned with the issue tend correlate the erection of the monuments with rebirths of the KKK or to the desegregation struggle. The fact that that they also happen to coincide with economic upturns (slow as they were) in the south or with the celebration of the civil war centennial of the 1960s seems to have evaded them. How were these monuments paid for? By whom? 72.173.240.138 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC Notice: Monument Graph

At Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America D.Creish (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Renamed schools, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure

Are we including renamed infrastructure to this article? I recommend including the removal of all Confederate symbols, including renamed infrastructure. For example, the city commissioners in Hollywood, Florida recently voted to rename streets named after Confederate officers.[1] Should that go into the article? Waters.Justin (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

More on Calhoun

I think the article would be better if removal of monuments to Calhoun were included, even though he died in 1850. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&diff=800088193&oldid=799793824.)

Of those not alive in 1861, Calhoun is the person most named (13 times) in the article Origins of the American Civil War. He was on the Confederate 1¢ stamp.

He is also noted and criticized for his strong defense of slavery. These positions played an enormous role in influencing Southern secessionist leaders by strengthening the trend of sectionalism, thus contributing to the Civil War.

Calhoun is often held in high regard by the Southern Lost Cause historians.

Recently, Calhoun's reputation has suffered particularly due to his defense of slavery.[145] The racially motivated Charleston church shooting in South Carolina in June 2015 reinvigorated demands for the removal of monuments dedicated to prominent pro-slavery and Confederate States figures. That month, the monument to Calhoun in Charleston was found vandalized, with spray-painted denunciations of Calhoun as a racist and a defender of slavery.[147]

(From John C. Calhoun#Historical reputation.)

An exception has already been made for Taney, who never set foot in tbe Confderacy. The article Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials says: "Monuments to him are being removed at the same time, and for the same reasons, as Confederate monuments."

The same is true of Calhoun. It would be helpful to the user to mention him here. No one else, including Andrew Jackson (Calhoun was Jackson's Vice President), is as important in the Southern ideology which led up to the Civil War. Perhaps the article could be retitled more inclusively (though so far I haven't come up with one to propose). deisenbe (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See List of places named for John C. Calhoun. deisenbe (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

The renaming of a Yale building named after slave owner John C. Calhoun is mentioned in this article. The title of this article is "Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials" and Calhoun was not a Confederate (he died before the advent of the Confederacy). Either remove Calhoun from this list or change the title of this article to "Removal of U.S. monuments and memorials considered offensive" or something to that effect. Your pick. User:MagicatthemovieS _(Talk) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The trouble is, it is mentioned in many reliable third-party sources about the removal of Confederate monuments. Could this be an exception?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, we have 3 options:

1) Treat Calhoun as an exception (the simplest option).

2) Rename the article so that it can cover a whole host of different removed/smashed monuments considered offensive like this one to Columbus http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/21/christopher-columbus-monument-in-baltimore-smashed/

or this one to Lincoln

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/

3) Have a separate article for non-Confederate monuments that were smasheded/removed

User:MagicatthemovieS _(Talk) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Exception, in keeping with reliable third-party sources?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I worded that poorly. What I think we should do is not mention Calhoun in this article at all, unless it is renamed. We could also create an article for non-Confederate monuments being targeted. User:MagicatthemovieS _(Talk) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Such as? I don't think Christopher Columbus is on the same level as Calhoun.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You may not, but some people do. The article would mention the controversies over Columbus statues, Andrew Jackson statues, the Lenin statue in Washington, the Lincoln bust, the vandalized Joan of Arc statue etc. User:MagicatthemovieS _(Talk) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Universal Church's Washington Times isn't a reliable source. If there aren't better ones it shouldn't be included even if it is relevant. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I Propose creating a sub-section within the article for "Impacts to other monuments & memorials" where you can then list the renaming of Calhoun's building, and the vandalism of Lincoln and Columbus statues. Creating an entirely new article for just a handful of incidents doesn't seem logical and it appears their removal or vandalism was the direct result of the larger push to remove Confederate monuments. The only other thread linking all of these removals is their views on slavery (yes, Lincoln said many things that could be considered pro-slavery), but re-titling the article "Removal of monuments and memorials linked to slavery" doesn't seem right as there were a great deal of Union and Confederate soldiers that simply got caught up in the war. Attributing all Confederate monuments to slavery seems like a large historical, and judgmental generalization.108.218.57.36 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a section should be created for non-Confederate symbols that were removed, vandalized, or called for the removal. If the section gets large enough it can be WP:SPLIT from the main article. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we are rapidly approaching the need for a WP:SPLIT with the recent vandalism of the Francis Scott Key memorial in Baltimore. Propose "Removal and vandalism of Slavery related monuments and memorials" 108.218.57.36 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's on the right track but it's too narrow. Need to get Columbus and American Indians somehow. deisenbe (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It must be more broad to include Columbus, the monument with the Pilgrim, Frank Rizzo, William McKinley and Joan of Arc.User:MagicatthemovieS _(Talk) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Columbus statues (6+) were vandalized primarily due to his writings on slavery, and racial inferiority. But you are correct that this could be a larger trend of "historical backlash for social justice" that we are seeing.108.218.57.36 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Attacks on monuments in the United States

I have moved everything not directly related to the Confederacy to the above article. Somebody please check the notes and references format.

I still think Calhoun should be with the Confederacy rather than elsewhere. deisenbe (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the thinking: we have enough now to justify a separate article or we will have enough when all the sources are added? I'm not really familiar with the rules for when to split articles so I'll read up. D.Creish (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine but the title is POV and OR. Volunteer Marek  16:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please discuss this at Talk:Attacks on monuments in the United States?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

the graph

Of when confederate monuments were built - it's well sourced, it's on topic, it's relevant, yadda yadda yadda. Please stop removing it per some misguided WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No point repeating the ongoing RFC discussion at Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America here. The majority oppose and it stays out until the RFC's closed. D.Creish (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Different article needs a different RfC. And you got it backwards as already pointed out. An RfC - even if you did start one as you're suppose to - is not magic pixie dust you sprinkle on your reverts to protect your edit warring. Volunteer Marek  16:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" This is getting disruptive. D.Creish (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is getting beyond disruptive. The graph violates Don't Draw Misleading Graphs and includes inaccurate dates. The dates don't even correspond with those from the listed SPLC source. I don't know what SPLC was thinking when they made this graph, but it isn't based on history.108.218.57.36 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worse than that. The labelled dates in the SPLC's graph are historically accurate [2], only the monument data is disputed. This graph, created by Marek, adds historically inaccurate labels to the disputed monument data. D.Creish (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Marek created the graph. That would explain why he has been so vocal regarding it's inclusion. In that light the graph clearly violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and Don't Draw Misleading Graphs. The inclusion of sources on the graph is done in a way to make it seem as if it is coming from a legitimate source, which is borderline unethical considering the data was manipulated. It is infuriating that he has caused such a mess. This graph needs to be removed from all articles immediately, if the data is deemed valuable a new graph can be found to replace it.108.218.57.36 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"I didn't realize that Marek created the graph. (...) In that light the graph clearly violates blah blah blah" - so... what you're saying is that you were fine with the graph but then you realized I'm the one who created it (do we know each other or something, cuz you sure act like it?) and THEN all of sudden you had a problem with it. Right. So in other words, it's total BS. Also, you really should stop it with the sock puppetry. Volunteer Marek  20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"data was manipulated" - stop lying and making shit up about people. The graph shows exactly the data that source graph shows. Prove otherwise or go away. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree but he seems willing to edit war indefinitely to include it. That's the reason it's still in the main article (List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America) despite the ongoing RFC. I assume he'll be back here soon to resume the edit war. D.Creish (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph is fine; it's well sourced, it's pertinent to the topic and it literally illustrates article text. If you object to the graph so much, why aren't you trying to remove the article text which says the exact same damn thing? What, the POV would be a little too obvious then or something? Anyway, this is a different article, so you'd need a different RfC, whatever the outcome of the other one is. Either that, or have a general discussion in a centralized place such as NPOV noticeboard. Volunteer Marek  20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The various objections to your graph are included in the RFC where Exclude is supported 2:1 over Include. You voted there so I won't rehash the arguments. Suffice it to say you're aware your edits don't have consensus. D.Creish (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a different article, that RfC hasn't been closed yet, and RfCs aren't decided by counting the number of (often brigaded) !votes but by their pertinence to policy. And the policy says that if it's well sourced and due weight then you shouldn't remove it.

Let me ask you again, if you object to the graph, why aren't you objecting to the text in the article itself which says exactly he same thing?  Volunteer Marek  20:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My objections are to the graph itself so the article is irrelevant, I made them clear in the RFC. Read WP:ONUS carefully and WP:DROPTHESTICK. D.Creish (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Why are you objecting ONLY to the graph, when article text says EXACTLY the same thing?  Volunteer Marek  21:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text and image

Just would like to point out that the graph which D.Creish wants removed literally represents visually the text of the article: "Many of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s." It is absurd to try and remove the graph but not the text, but I guess doing the latter would be sort of transparent. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The graphic has been discussed and its removal is very appropriate. Perhaps the text that you point to should be further revised, but it is not the same as the graphic. The graphic specifically/precisely labelled certain spans of years, and in so doing overstated the relationship you wish convey. As has been abundantly discussed, the creation of monuments and memorials also coincides with 50th and 100th and 25th year anniversaries; perhaps the text should point that out and thereby back away a bit more from the opinion suggested in the graphic. --doncram 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How in the world is the text not the same as the graphic? The text says:

Many of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

This is exactly what the graphic shows.

The 50-th and 100th anniversary stuff is neither here nor there since it's original research. Volunteer Marek  23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the war was 1901 and the 100th was in 1961 is original research? Very interesting, but what does it mean? Carptrash (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that it is related to the peaks in monument construction is original research. Actually, the idea that the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the war was in 1901 would indeed be original research. Innumerate original research. Volunteer Marek  05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well good point on my math, however 1911 actually works much better on the graph than 1901. Carptrash (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing that the statement

I am proposing that the statement in the second paragraph, “Historically, the vast majority of these Confederate monuments were built during the Jim Crow Era and Civil Rights Movement as a means of intimidating African Americans.” be removed. One reference (NPR) claims,

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?”

Fortunately there is an answer to that question. The money ($100,000) was left in the will of J. Henry Ferguson who died in 1928 for the purpose of erecting a statue of Lee & Jackson, childhood heroes of Ferguson’s, after the death of his sister. She died in 1935 at which point a competition was held, won by Laura Gardin Fraser who then took 12 years to create the monument. (Kelly, Cindy, Outdoor Sculpture in Baltimore: A Historical Guide to Public Art in the Monumental City, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2011 pp. 198-199) How is this motivated by an attempt at “intimidating African-Americans?”

The other source (The Week) states, “The chart illustrates upticks in the construction of Confederate monuments on courthouse grounds after the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 upheld state segregation laws.” If Plessy v. Ferguson upheld state segregation laws why was there a need to intimidate anyone? The trouble with this type of stereotyping is that it does not look at the individual histories of the monuments.

Remember just because a few sources make a claim it does not mean that we have to accept it. Both of these references are based on the SPLC information. In order to make this sort of claim we need to look at the monuments & memorials as individuals and ask, "why was this erected at this time" rather than making a blanket, one-size-fits-all statement and then trying to cram everything into it. Carptrash (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement is well-supported and if you need more sources, high-quality academic ones can no doubt be found. It is accepted historical fact. It is not "stereotyping" to note the clear correlation and the well-documented causation for erecting triumphal monuments to slavery-supporting traitors. Remembering history is one thing, but there are no statues of Adolf Hitler in Berlin, nor of Wehrmacht troops in Normandy. Those who fight for causes based upon enslaving or exterminating entire races of human beings are not remembered as historical heroes. And yet people are asked to believe that triumphal memorials to an army founded upon the principle of enslaving Africans is not meant as a message down the years that their cause, though defeated in battle, was nonetheless just and honorable. It was neither. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: We in wikipedia are not supposed to make judgements, particularly moral ones. Your statement, "Those who fight for causes based upon enslaving or exterminating entire races of human beings are not remembered as historical heroes." Well except for in the United States. The CSA leaders are "remembered as historical heroes" by a large part of the populace and who are we as wikipedians to say whose other people's heroes should be? As fas as enslavement and extermination goes, that gets us to a large group of American heroes, starting with Columbus and running through a bunch of heroes who killed many, many Indians. This is not wikipedia's task. Carptrash (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the one proposing to removed sourced material from the lede because you disagree with its conclusions. It is not Wikipedia's task to reject a consensus historical conclusion on the grounds that you don't like its implications. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The monuments were not intended as public art—art for a public setting—in the sense that we normally understand the phrase. They are political statements whose meaning was clearly understood by their targets. They were part of a campaign to reaffirm white supremacy during a period that the historian Rayford Logan called “the nadir” of American racial politics, one that took many forms, including Jim Crow laws, disfranchisement, the rewriting of state constitutions to deny citizenship to blacks, and legal and extralegal terrorism. They stood as affirmations that the American polity was a white polity. -Dell Upton, chairman of the Department of Art History at the University of California, Los Angeles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is another good reference for you on the 1948 Baltimore monument. Read it and then re-read what I posted above about why that work was unveiled at that time. Carptrash (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why were two traitors devoted to killing Americans in perpetuation of chattel slavery the "childhood heroes" of J. Henry Ferguson? Hmm, I wonder. THEY WERE GREAT GENERALS AND CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS AND WAGED WAR LIKE GENTLEMEN. Yes, because waging war to keep black people enslaved because you consider their entire race to be subhuman is the keystone of Christian theology. You can make a million different arguments about the American Civil War, but they all come back to the unadulterated evil of chattel slavery. It cannot be alloyed with anything more noble or acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

We all pick our heroes in different ways. In any case these work had nothing to do with the political, social and/or racial climate in 1948 as these experts claim. The statue was designed and paid for long before then. I do, however, agree with you about Christian theology. Carptrash (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @NorthBySouthBaranof. deisenbe (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

one more time

Re [3]. There's an RfC on a DIFFERENT article. Not this one. A different one. The outcome of that RfC is unknown at this point. You can't cite what you think will be an outcome on an RfC on a different article in order to justify removing well sourced material from THIS article. This is just disruptive and tendentious. You can if you want to start an RfC here. But it is a different issue. Even if that graph is thought to be inappropriate for a "List of..." article it might very well - in fact, IMO it most certainly - belongs in this article.

This is basically just another lame excuse in an already too long list of lame excuses to edit war on the basis of a simple WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The evasion of discussion on talk and refusal to answer queries just compounds the problem. Volunteer Marek  05:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is about the validity of the graph itself, not how or whether the graph is valid in article context. Any interested editors involved here were directed to the RFC with my link above, so it's equally valid. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this. D.Creish (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what that RfC is about. That RfC is about the use of this graph in THAT article. That's it. That's how it works. If you want to have an RfC/consensus-building-discussion about the reliability of the graph itself then you need to have that discussion at either WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Until you do that, and until that (hypothetical) discussion says the graph is no good, then you can't just remove it from here because you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you thought, that explains the confusion. Since I opened the RFC and wrote the description I can tell you definitively you're mistaken. Glad we could resolve this. D.Creish (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way D.Creish, you still haven't explained why you are edit warring to remove the graph but are not objecting to the article TEXT it illustrates. Because the graph and the text says the same thing. So either both go or both stay. It's illogical otherwise. But yet... you are leaving the text alone. Is it because it's so obviously well soured that you think your WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior would be a little too obvious in that case?

You also haven't explained how a brand new account knows what WP:COAT is, or what would lead them to mention it in their very first edit. Volunteer Marek  20:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)