Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

After a good night's sleep

I changed my mind and decided that this is the place to deal with my issues. Keeping in mind that editing wikipedia is not done for therapy. So I removed this "The monument misspells Gettysburg and says the battle occurred in Virginia instead of Pennsylvania. " from Tallahassee because the article is arguably already too long and adding stuff such as this just makes it longer. If you want to include this tid bit, write and article about the monument. I think it gets included here because it reenforces our stereotypes of Southerners as illiterate, uneducated clods, giving us another chance to point fingers and laugh at them. I would not be surprised to be reverted, please respond to me when you do. Carptrash (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I added that info sourced from a Florida newspaper. Never even crossed my mind there was any such stereotype (never heard of it) and it seems unlikely the newspaper is insulting their readers. I've been trying to add a little info to listings so it's not just "City: Confederate Monument (19??)" and trying to source correct monument names and locations. If a monument listing gets long enough, perhaps because there is a debate about removing it, a spin out would be warranted, but two sentence articles are not useful. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also a possible DYK Atlanta, Idaho was named for a reported Confederate victory at the Battle of Atlanta. By time the settlers way up in Idaho learned the truth, the name had stuck. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

References

@Legacypac: A "Confederate victory at the Battle of Atlanta". Did you read the article? It was a Union victory. Did you never see Gone With the Wind (movie)? Carptrash (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think he's saying that Southerners who had previously moved to Idaho received false reports (fake news!) about the battle which erroneously called it a Confederate victory. They named their town after the battle and since information traveled slowly, by the time they got the accurate info the name had stuck. It's just an interesting tidbit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What Volunteer said so well. Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with naming a town after a rumour. Carptrash (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Against "Former" subsections

I'm against adding a "Former" subsection for each state. We can just add "removed" at the end of those listings, but keep them all together. Is there no consensus for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How much good this is doing

Today, I had the pleasure of adding a missing monument in West Palm Beach, Florida, learning of its existence from a newspaper article motivated by its removal.

Note the local historian says this is the only one south of St. Augustine. So even someone to some extent knowledgable about history doesn't know how wifespread these were and still are. This is documentation we're assembling, and it's available, in its entirety, nowhere else. Note the conflicting statements about it.

I didn't know how to cite the Sun/Sentinal correctly; it's their app on sn iPad.

(I lived in Tallahassee 22 years and never learned that Tallahassee had been the center of Florida's slave trade. (I wrote History of Tallahassee, Florida#Black history.). deisenbe (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Military Bases: "neutral" language

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

---

Resolved

This doesn't appear to be neutral in language.

"In 2015 the Pentagon, contrary to popular opinion made the correct decision, declared it would not be renaming these facilities."

It certainly seems that "correct decision" is a definitive political leaning.

Never posted anything to Wikipedia before, so I apologize if stepping on a foot.207.203.244.20 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize; you're right. The statement fails WP:NPOV.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure not what I wrote in that section. Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Fork out list for any state(s)?

This list is quite long. Do we want to fork out sublists for any U.S. state(s), or do we want to try to make this single page as complete and concise as possible? Maybe we're not yet at a point where forking is necessary, but I can envision a more sourced, fleshed out, and illustrated version of this list needing some splitting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And now that we have decided that we should add little tid bits to the various items on the list it will get a lot longer. Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If we fork, start with the longest State. Not necessary just yet. The section by section seems to be working well. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials

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

---

Resolved

Please see Category talk:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials regarding the inconsistent naming of subsections within Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Washington and Lee University

There is more on the WLU campus, namely "reproduction Confederate flags" and "Stand-alone statues and portraits of Confederate leaders." See:

• Roll, Nick (August 23, 2017). "Robert E. Lee's Namesake". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved August 23, 2017.

Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Set it up like a city with multiple items, including the University name itself. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know what statues and portraits there are. We need more research on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

perhaps list the obvious ones like the school name, museum, big statue, horse grave, chapel, and then a catch all "paintings and other commemorative imagery" Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you mean. Would you like to do it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

These may be of interest...

... if we want to have some more background to the topic (I realize this is a "List of..." article): [1], [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement not supported by source

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

---

I deleted the following sentence:

"The organization has taken various states to court and each time has won the right to issue plates."

This was immediately put back in by @Legacypac

Look under Texas and you'll see that SCV has not won "each time". Also see Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia.

The SCV itself has never had "the right to issue plates," and to my knowledge never has issued any. deisenbe (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a correct statement according to the 2011 source, and still true to a point since the SCV has always won the right to get plates, just not with their logo as of 2015 SCOUS case. Texas remains unresolved as far as I've found. I've revised the statement to be more clear. I restored as part of a block of text removed. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Oppose Removing Links to individuals in favor of stubs about statues

Another Believer has been stripping links to people from their names to create redlinks to proposed articles about individual statues. (In National section anyway). That strikes me as unhelpful. The typical reader is not interested in a little page about the history and maker of a statue, but in info about why that person got a statue. I'm not even convinced that the vast majority of these memorials are individuLly notable. It's hard enough to find solid sourcing to prove some even exist. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There are three parts here. 1) unlinking names, and 2) adding red links for individual monuments / works of art, and 3) creating stubs. I don't think "Robert E. Lee" needs to be linked so many times throughout the article. For this type of list, I think linking to articles about specific sites is better than linking to names of people. But I also understand the importance of linking to names, so your concern is fair. Regarding red links, I have turned half of them into stubs, and planned to convert the others as well, so that's not much of an issue. Regarding stubs, I assume these were all notable because they are depictions of notable people by notable artists, in a notable collection. There is likely information about how and why the works were chosen, how the memorials were received by the public, if there have been efforts to have them replaced or removed, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I support delinking of major cities, and many of the most famous generals. At one point we even had state names linked.

Within the National Statuary Hall Collection yes they are notable, but it may make sense to put the detail all in one article on the collection. For monuments in random citoes, no, we don't need so many articles. It seems you might be trying to create a lot of pages for some contest or something based on some links on the talk pages. Let's focus on quality amd reader usefulness over article count. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection are notable, then we should be encouraging the creation of their own articles, not adding lots of detail to this already long list. This list should remain just that --- a list -- and should only include minimal information about each monument or memorial. It seems the systematic article creation is rubbing you and another article the wrong way right now, so I'll focus on to other areas of the project for a while. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall Collection already lists the subject, artist, date and if there is a stand alone article. If you want to build pages link them from there, not directly from names on this page where a reader is going to be WP:SURPRISEd to get to a piped title about a statue instead of the article evidently linked via a person's name. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. When I'm reading a list of monuments, and I see a link to "Robert E. Lee", I'm expecting to be taken to a page about a Robert E. Lee monument, not the article about the person. Either way, I'll stop creating new articles for individual monuments and let other editors decide how names should be linked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind new pages as long as there is a good reason and meaningful content. I'm not picking on your pages overall, just cautioning. The fact some ladies raised a few hundred bucks in 1924 to buy a generic statue from a catalog and erect such statute in some small town does not make the statue notable. Even the quiet removal of that statue does not make it notable. On the ofher end of the scale, kkk riots and murder over a statue, yes notable. Somewhere in the middle is the line between notable on its own and just keep it on a list as notable in the context of similar statues across the south. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the things that we on wikipeida get to do in order to arrive at a more complete understanding as to what we are doing here is ask for a clarification of words, a definition as to exactly what we are talking about’ So I’d like to ask Legacypac, what exactly, or who exactly is the “typical user’ that you have referred to above? Since it appears that we are creating wikipedia for this person, I feel that I need to know who s/he is? So, could you help me out? Carptrash (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always do what is best for the reader. This page will attract a heck of a lot of readers with questions like "How many CSA monuments are there in Alabama?" "Is there a CSA monument in Durham?" and when they see there is a CSA Forrest monument two towns over, "who is Forrest?" That is a typical reader. Very rarely is a reader going to be looking for nitty gritty fine details about a specific statue rather they want context, magnitude, an idea of how many statues and their distribution, and for the reader like me that is not super familiar with who is who in the Confereracy, links to more info on who that guy on the monument was. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that this is what the average reader from Bangalore or Beijing is asking. You appear to be tailoring the article to a user that exists mostly in your mind. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should have referenced articles about specific statues. Our readers can always click on wikilinks to find out more.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* Oh well, I tried. And I was going to create new articles for these works... @Carptrash and Zigzig20s: I'll let you two decide if this is worth debating further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Just making sure you're aware of this discussion, since you replaced the red links with links to names of people. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is easy. (1) If there's a page about a monument, etc, then link to it. (2) If there's no page, then link only to the name of the person being memorialized. (3) If you want to create red links to a memorial page that doesn't exist, then do it (if that's what you want). Just make sure you ALSO write in something like "named after So-and-so" with a link to their page. That way people can find out who the person is. Fluous (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm still hesitant to link to names of some people over and over throughout the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer:Yeah, that's an issue. What do we do? Link once, period? Link once per state? Fluous (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll let others decide since I've already offered my 2 cents above. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall items

An editor added, in the Washington D.C. section:

Extended content

In the National Statuary Hall Collection, in the United States Capitol, each state has provided statues of two citizens that the state wants to honor. The following Confederate figures are among them, many in Confederate Army uniforms: Joseph Wheeler (Alabama) Edmund Kirby Smith (Florida) (Florida plans to replace this statue, but as of 2017 a replacement figure has not been chosen.) Alexander Stephens (Georgia) Jefferson Davis (Mississippi) James Z. George (Mississippi) Zebulon Baird Vance (North Carolina) Wade Hampton III (South Carolina) Robert E. Lee (Virginia) The following died before the Civil War, but were well known for their strong support of slavery: John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) Both appeared on Confederate postage stamps, and many counties, towns, and streets have been named for each.

This got deleted accidentally in other big edits, and I went to restore this addition, but I hesitate. This seems unsourced, seems like verging on original research, seems off-topic to subject of Confederate monuments and memorials. Up to this point I think all the monuments and memorials have been out of doors, and it seems like adding any and all statues of any Confederate leader is a change. These are indeed likely to be controversial, and worth someone else listing them and providing them as focus for potential changes, but I don't think it is encyclopedia-wise proper to include them here. Specifically, it is quite debatable that statues of persons who died before the American Civil War can be considered Confederate monuments. --doncram 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article National Statuary Hall Collection includes a complete list with a photo and every person depicted has an article. There is a confederate section that has existed for a long time. I don't think indoors vs outdoors matters much. Millions of people go by these statues every year. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a serious mistake to include John C. Calhounand Andrew Jackson and anyone else who was a slave owner or advocated slave ownership in this discussion because this article is not about slaves or the institution of slavery. It is very current to view all these monuments and memorials to be monuments and memorials to the institution of slavery and they were not. They are remembrances of folks who fought and died for a variety of causes, slavery being just one of them. Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the linked names with red links to specific monuments and works of art, to encourage editors to create new articles. I don't think the numerous duplicate links to names of people throughout the article are particularly helpful, and I created a couple new stubs myself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

yes there are too many wikilinks here to obvious stuff. Please Don't link people's names to pages about a statue that is a WP:SURPRISE. See comments below. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and am 'surprised' when I click on a link expecting to be taken to an article about a monument only to find an article about a person. This is a list of monuments, after all, not a list of people. But that's discussed further below... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Dixie"

First discussion

Cut out of some state.

• Dixie County (1921), named after the term for the states that comprised the Confederate States of America.
  

The song Dixie originated in the blackface minstrel shows of the 1850s. Forget the blackface bit if you wish,, but "Dixie" as a term for the South PREDATES THE CIVIL WAR. It is not, as wikipedia used to claim, a "term for the states that comprised the Confederate States of America." This article has been here for 7 years. About 90% of the edits in it have been done in the least few weeks. What is the hurry folks? Or shall we just drop all standards and publish whatever we want to the 50,000 or so people who are visiting the site every day? This is a list. Supposedly an accurate one.Carptrash (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if this is to be included it needs a specific reliable source which states that it was named after the states and not the song or the regional term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't misconstrue the nature of the edits here. About 90% of the edits came in the last week. And about 90% of the listings are verifiable from the SPLC report. At any rate, "Dixie" is not listed in the report. There's probably less support for it than other entries. I didn't personally add it but I still favor its inclusion. "Dixie is a historical nickname for the Southern United States, especially those states that composed the Confederate States of America." (emphasis added). This is good enough for me, and this is probably good enough for the majority of editors here. Fluous (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC) (Pinging @Legacypac, Deisenbe, Another Believer, Mcowley, and Bubba73:)

We are not tied to only what the SPLC report lists, it is obviously incomplete and says so itself. I added a couple places named Dixie to Idaho. My sourcing was very specific that (in these cases) Dixie, Robert E Lee Creek, Atlanta, Idaho and Greyback Gultch were all named by Confererate settlers to commemorate the CS. I'm not familiar with the origins of the term "Dixie". This page does not take a moral stance or advocate for removal or decided what is objectionable. Rather it reports what was named for CAS and its leadership. Arguably some items are not objectionable to anyone. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe I added Dixie County to the Florida listings and assumed that the information in the county's article was sufficient. (I have quite a bit to add to it when time permits.) This 1937 account of Dixie County's history[3] makes clear the link to the Confederacy: "Though the line of Mason and Dixon is a vanished legend, yet to every true American, the name of 'Dixie' evokes sacred emotions." Mcowley (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What BS!. The emotions stirred by the name "Dixie" could just as easily, in fact MORE easily, be describing feeling about the Ante-bellum era than the Confederacy. QUIT PROJECTING! (yes, I am yelling, after saying the same thing repeatedly in a quite voice. Or am I the only one who feels this way? Carptrash (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Please respect the talk-page guidelines. Fluous (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the first paragraph of Dixie and note ante-bellum was specifically a slave based economy, which the Civil War ended. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. That ante-bellum article redirects to a page literally called the "Plantation Era." Fluous (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That is sort of my point. Dixie = ante-bellum or Plantation Era or even "Slave Era" if you prefer, and all of that = before there was a CSA. Things named Dixie are being named for something that existed before there was a CSA, therefore should not automatically be considered to be monuments to it. And thank you @Fluous: I will be more careful with my respect for talk-page guidelines, and my cut & pasting. Carptrash (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. It's a great point. But I personally feel there's enough of a strong connection between "Dixie" and the "CSA" to merit its inclusion here. Again, you made your point. It's a really good point. Going forward, we have to be careful about what gets included here. After all, it's a list of certain things; not other things. Fluous (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A clearer statement of intent in the naming of Dixie County, FL is unlikely, particularly because at the time it was named the area's booming economy depended heavily on debt-peonage and convict-lease. Until an unequivocal statement is found, it's best not to include it. Mcowley (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Second discussion

• Dixie, Elmore County, Idaho unincorporated. Dixie is a term for the Southern states that rebelled"

The term Dixie as referring to various areas in the South, both in and out of what was to become the Confederate States of America PRE DATES THE CONFEDERACY. They are not the same thing. It is NOT a term for "the Southern states that rebelled." get it.? it was a term for parts of the south BEFORE THEY REBELLED, get it? Is it necessary that we parade our ignorance in front of the whole world? I would just remove this stuff but we have a relationship, which means that we talk about things, so, your turn. Carptrash (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

well I added that because I found a good source that quotes a Boise State Univ prof who seems like he knows what he is talking about:

"there are a number of places in Idaho named after Confederate battles, and figures such Atlanta, the Robert E. Lee Campground, Leesburg, three places named Dixie and even Grayback and Confederate gulches." “Idaho had a pro-union and a territorial government and pro-Confederate territorial legislature,” says Shallat. Many of these symbols of Confederacy in Idaho and around the nation have been appropriated by different groups for different reasons.

Calling me ignorant is a flat out personal attack and absolutely false. I suggest you read Dixie before you start defining words for us. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also a Dixie in Canyon County, Idaho with a good cite from Idaho Place Names (1988). Mcowley (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps these will help:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Dixie, the Southern U.S. states, especially those that belonged to the Confederate States of America (1860–65).
• Merriam-Webster: Dixie: the states of the southeastern and south central U.S. and especially those which constituted the Confederate States of America
• Dictionary.com: Dixie: Also called Dixieland, Dixie Land. the southern states of the United States, especially those that were formerly part of the Confederacy.

A geographical region vs a mythological plantation era South created by adverting and pop culture. Mcowley (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dixie stuff in Idaho, according to the source, was done by Missourians which was not a Confederate State. To them, it appears, "Dixie" is looking back at Missouri. @Legacypac: I am sorry for the personal attack, perhaps if you get an Admin in here and get me banned from the article we could all sleep better? The "vandalizing" of your signature was something that happened during a badly executed cut & paste, trying to send you a message, I guess you got (i.e. "I sent) the wrong message. The definition above pretty all say, "especially" I'd think we'd want "exclusively" if we are going to use it like that. The article that you sent me to includes several states that were not in the CSA as being acceptable as Dixie states. I'll repeat, the famous song Dixie (song) "Wish I was in the land of cotton" and all that was written prior to the CSA being formed. Yet by our criteria, should we include songs as "memorials" that one would fit in. There is a huge rush here, propelled by the news we read every day, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Carptrash (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the article on Missouri secession, please check the refs in the Idaho section, including the one titled Lower Boise Historical Marker-Confederates in Idaho which has not yet been quoted here. It includes an explanation by another historian and references documents on the Idaho state govt site. Mcowley (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't see how vandalising my signature [4] by replacing my username with another term could happen by accident. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I had "Missourian" on my clip board (or whatever) when I thought I was copying your name to "Yo" you, I somehow pasted that there. Anyway, you make it sound as if being from Missouri is a bad thing? Is that how you see it? Calling someone a Missourian is a nasty word? An insult? Okay, this is helping me understand what is going on. Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

One (the newest posted) source refers to Missouri as the source of settlers for one of the three Dixies in ID. See Missouri secession which debunks the idea MO was completely outside the CSA. There is nothing wrong with people from Missouri, there is an issue with changing someone's signature. BTW I'm not from MO but it's a lovely place I enjoyed living in. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

We need photographers

File:My favorite Confederate Monument.jpg

Seen in phoenix during Pres. Trumps visit, 8/22/17

We need photographers all over the country willing to take pictures of those statues, plaques, buildings, etc., before they get removed. Is there a way to coordinate this productively please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw someone on a Facebook discussion recently suggest Wikipedia:Wiki Documents Confederate Monuments, but I think posting requests at U.S. state WikiProjects might be a better option? I've added photo request tags to unillustrated articles, but that doesn't help identify unillustrated monuments without standalone articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If we're not wanting a start a whole campaign page, a WPUS subpage might be a good option: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Confederate monuments, or similar. Would be nice to copy over this list and then reduce to show which monuments are illustrated, and which are not. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects might be one way, but I'm not sure too many editors look at them. I have no doubt there are many Wikipedians in most states who do not know we need pictures for these monuments because they are interested in other topics, but would be willing to help (for example I've asked one in Wyoming, and I'd asked another one in Montana for the Confederate Memorial Fountain). We have missed our chance for the Confederate Monument (Hollywood Forever Cemetery) for example, unless someone has a picture they took before it was removed... This may also be a way to attract new editors, if we can ask local residents (or college students) to take pictures and upload them on Commons...For example, is there a way to find Washington and Lee students who might be interested?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am planning a trip into Phoenix to shoot the one in front of the Old State Capitol. I might have random scattering of others, but figuring out exactly what they are is not always easy. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Funny you mention Confederate Monument (Hollywood Forever Cemetery), which is now illustrated. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Very nice!Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Maybe a place to start is by creating a list of unillustrated monuments? Would require searches at Commons first, since there are many monuments not illustrated on English Wikipedia that might be at Commons. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Former namesakes

What about former namesakes like this, which was closed down in 1986?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The name described the facility's scope and purpose, so no, I wouldn't include it. Mcowley (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

South Carolina Heritage Act

Unresolved

Hello. Could someone please create an article about the South Carolina Heritage Act? This might be useful, too. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Song

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

---

Resolved

What about this song? Is it notable? Not really a monument but, if we are to believe the The Birmingham News, a popular song about the flag. Or is it too fringe? (I think it might be.)Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not approved by any city or state, and not location based so no. It might be worthwile to add it to Confederate Battle Flag Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

California Bear Flag

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

---

Resolved

Does it merit inclusion here?

From the Flag of California article:

During the secession crisis and the early part of the American Civil War in 1861, California was divided between supporters of the union and supporters of southern secession. Sympathizers of the south in Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County showed support for secession by flying the Bear Flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.[23]

I'm not sure. Fluous (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bear Flag predates the Civil War and is a sign of independance in California. It's display today is not associated with the Confederacy. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh, "predates" is a bad reason. After all, the Nazis weren't the first to use the swastika. But yeah, with the Bear Flag, there's probably not enough of a connection here. Confederate Californians did fly the Bear Flag in support of the Confederacy, but it seems more like a brief episode in that flag's long history. Fluous (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Highways

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

---

Resolved

There are two national scale highways. Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway. These pages should be expanded with state by state listing of markers. Then link once to the highway page from each state road section. The designations don't fit into city by city listings very well because highways connect cities and states. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Background information

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

---

Found at CSA monument, Phoenix AZ

While digging around I discovered that in 1911 the Kansas State legislature passed a one time county tax levy to allow counties with a population of over 70,000 to build Civil War monuments. Which is right at the hight of the Jim Crow Era. Kansas? Who knew? Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll grant that was 50 Years from the Start and 46 years from the end of the ACW, and at a time when the vets would be dying off quickly, but still. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And what do you think of this poor fellow, found today (or "yesterday" if you are viewing this tomorrow, etc) at the foot of the CSA monument in Phoenix? Random act of violence by Mother Nature or some sort of political statement? Think I could use it at the Animal sacrifice article? Carptrash (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And I also emailed the Dixie Chicks and informed them that according to wikipedia, if they were a monument (and they damn near are) they would be considered to be a monument to the CSA. They probably won't reply. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Good, but they are not supported with public funds so ... free private speech and all. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

They are also notorious liberals. For Texans anyway. Carptrash (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe some, if not many, of the monuments listed are in cemeteries, many of which are in private hands, and some sit on private land. I don't think most of these listed have been vetted as to being on public or private grounds. Dubyavee (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Paintings

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

---

Resolved

The University of Georgia took down a portrait of Robert E. Lee. We list statues here but should we add paintings too? There must be so many paintings of all the Confederate generals and soldiers plus battles, the list would be endless...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be added to the "removal" article instead?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes better. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Does this list exclude markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature, as claimed in the lede?

The following was added (with this diff) to the lede a couple of days ago: This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature. sourced to SPLC findings. Is this the case? Yes or no, it's currently inconsistent – for example, Gettysburg National Military Park, and Antietam National Battlefield are on the list, but Vicksburg National Military Park, and Shiloh National Military Park are not. Should they be? If so, being on Federal government property, do they belong in the National section? If places that are largely historical should be eliminated from the list, should this list be moved to List of public monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America in places that are largely non-historical in nature or similar? This list is really a mess in its current state and will need a lot of work. I hope the johnny-come-lately editors (and that includes me) stick around. Mojoworker (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical vs not historical is a huge debate! That idea came from the SPLC report. Better to remove the claim. I don't think it is a huge mess at all. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree the claim should be removed. And since Vicksburg NMP alone has "1,325 historic monuments and markers", according to our article, we should have hundreds we can include from there alone. For better or worse, I think the battlefield markers will soon overwhelm the list. Do you think we can get this list to hit the maximum page size of 2048 kilobytes? Mojoworker (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Support (and have supported) a name change to either:

• List of public monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America (or List of public symbols of the Confederacy: the on-point name of the SPLC report) and forking out a separate List of private monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. This forking makes sense: there are potentially over 1,500 publicly-supported listings and potentially over 2,600 private listings. We could not possibly include all 4,100 listings in one article. Fluous (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This article is long but it's fine. The only change I would approve of would be an article for each state (but then the Wyoming article would be very stubby...).Zigzig20s (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Stonge Oppose as well. The State by State links at the top make this very functional, even to edit. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Sorry, I'm confused. What exactly do you oppose? Mojoworker actually never said anything about changing "state-by-state links." All he's saying is that there are a few private monuments in this list of otherwise public monuments. And that the lede itself actually says this is a list of public monuments that excludes private monuments. And that we should probably fork out the article on public vs. private lines (in other words, memorials in public spaces vs. memorials in private spaces like cemeteries, etc). We could keep both, but that article would become fairily enormous. More than double the size it's currently at. Fluous (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose a fork private vs public. There is going to be too much debate over which is which. The current state by state listings make the long page easy enough to navigate. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Strongly disagree. There would be little debate over what constitutes a public space. These are, excuse my french, "big-ass monuments." They're large-and-in-charge in public spaces across the Southern U.S. They're on road signs and schools and parks, and whatnot. They're not exactly subtle or shy in placement. So, I'm not sure what exactly you're struggling with. Can you provide a difficult example? The vast majority of entries are simple to categorize. The SPLC report certainly found no difficulty in doing so. And, both public and private articles would have state-by-state listings, so that's a non-issue. Fluous (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be made clear that the article includes monuments and memorials on both public and private property. The SPLC did not do diligent search for just public monuments. Many cemeteries are private property and many of these listed are in cemeteries. One of the monuments listed in my state is a statue on private farm land and erected by the UDC with permission in 1913. The article does not have to specify which is public or private, but it should be made clear that the article includes both. Dubyavee (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: Please clarify what you mean by "The SPLC did not do diligent sarch for just public monuments." The SPLC report contains only public memorials. There may be a few that slipped through the cracks, but you're (mis)characterizing the whole report based on a single possible error. Now, please tell me what monument you're referring to so I can research it and possibly correct this error. Fluous (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that the use of the word "public" implies to many people that these monuments are on public land and supported by taxpayer money, so it should be made clear that "public" does not mean government supported. A hardware store is a "public" space, but it is private property at the same time. Many cemeteries that have Confederate monuments are considered "public" because they will sell plots for burials and have open visiting hours. But they are privately owned and not supported by government. Monuments in parks, on courthouse lawns, or battlefields are of course maintained by local and Federal governments. That was the argument in Charlottesville, Baltimore and other cities. The monument in Mingo, WV, is on private farmland, it is not public in the sense most people think. The distinction is important. Dubyavee (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the lede to streamline it and clear up the scope to match what we actually built. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And I've undone it. Your edit was clumsy, typo-ridden, poorly organized, and clunkily-worded. Not to mention you put the nav bar in the middle of the lede. You have to stop editing on your phone. It's just not a proper way to make those kinds of revisions. Fluous (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Important information for the lede:

• YWhat the list is: This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials.
• YWho or what generally is being honored: The monuments and memorials honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general during the American Civil War.
• YHow many memorials are there? (Very important): A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States.
• YWhat physical forms do these memorials take? These memorials include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works
• NWhere are they located? (Short, general phrase or sentence. Currently missing from lede)
• YMeta/ How to navigate this list

...and then the nav bar.

We do have to resolve the public/ private angle, but solutions have not yet been agreed upon with any kind of consensus here.Fluous (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults without addressing the reasons I made the changes (see below). Yes there were a couple tiny typos - one stray period and one other little thing I fixed right away. I did it on my computer because it took some real cut and paste reorg. I'm not hung up on the location of the nav box - did it as a seperate edit even - but a little higher beside the part where we tell the reader how we organize the page seems better. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the quote from SPLC about their data says nothing about public vs. private – it says "the researchers excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries and other places or symbols that are largely historical in nature." Since we do have data in the list that is from "historical in nature" places (and has been in the article since 2010), I merely proposed removing that statement in the lede from SPLC, since our data clearly includes sites that are "historical in nature", although inconsistently. I think Legacypac understood what I was asking in his first response, but then things devolved into confusion with the oppose/strong oppose statements, since I had presented an either/or proposition – either remove the sentence that implies all the data here is from places not historical in nature, or rename the article and remove the data that is for places that are historical in nature. I support the former, since the latter would be a diminution of article scope from the way it's been for the past 7 years. The more I think about it, if the latter, it would be better to make a new article. I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the SPLC statement. Mojoworker (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don;t mind the historical statement as long as it is tied to a discussion of the SPLC report from whence it came. That was one of the reasons I'm trying to reorder the lede. The crux of pro-Confederate statue side is they are all Historical. The anti's disagree. So how are we to sort out what is historical vs not here? Better to just list everything. We should however be excluding individual and groups of simple graves. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker:

• The entire SPLC report is literally called "List of Publicly Supported Spaces Dedicated to the Confederacy." It does not include Robert E. Lee lawn ornaments, the "Good Slave" fountain in the courtyard at the local UDC chapter or however else Southerners privately memorialize the confederacy on their own property. Their data says everything about public vs. private. And it also excludes, like you said, otherwise public monuments that are historical in nature (like battlefields, etc).
• We can include notable private monuments here, like that giant flag near the interstate in Florida. That's fine. We just have to figure out how organize that information.
• You say that a public/private split would reduce the scope of the article. That's true. But an article with 4,100 listings would be far too long. A split is inevitable. We can include otherwise public monuments that are historical in nature (like battlefields, etc) in the public list, if that's what people want. Fluous (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To address your points:

• Yes, that is indeed what the SPLC report is about. However, this Wikipedia list article has been here since the beginning of 2010 and has made no such distinction between public and private.
• Sure. That sounds fine.
• No, I said excluding items that are largely historical in nature would diminish the long standing scope of the article, which I'd oppose. A public/private split would too, but I'd need to consider that further. I would guess that public monuments predominate in any case, so there still may be a length issue, but that decision can likely be delayed until it becomes a problem. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's finish transcribing the SPLC report

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

---

Resolved

Can we get more eyeballs and typing-fingers on the job of transcribing listings in the report, "Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy" by the Southern Poverty Law Center? This is the gold standard of reports; it forms the basis of most of this article. There's still plenty of listings left to add. Fluous (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can post states that are finished vs unfinished? Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "finished" and "unfinished"? This is not a checklist. Also, does anyone here have a close connection to the SPLC? It seems a little excessive to call their report "the gold standard."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about any connections and I yeah, "gold standard" is a bit excessive, but it sure is a good source. There's a lot of other very useful info in the report, like for example the geographic distribution of the memorials which if I had more time I'd also make into a Wikipedia-usable chart.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't their report copyrighted?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: No. Fluous (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the copyright status, but just in case this is why I created my own version of their chart rather than just take screen shot of it and put in here. Regardless, even if the SPLC report is copyright, the information in it is not - can't copyright mentioning the fact that such and such a monument is in such and such a place. But if we were to use any of the charts - if they are indeed copyright - we just have to make our own version of them based on the underlying data (which can be a bit tedious without access to their original data files, though someone could just ask them) Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

By finished I mean "has everything listed in SPLC report under say Alabama been added here?" By unfinished I mean "about half of the listings for X state still need to be added." Ultimately this page should include every item on the SPLC report PLUS every item located via RS not listed in the SPLC report MINUS any errors amd duplicates. Watch for articles about Confederate memorials in the media for specific areas. Also watch for circular reporting, as I've seen media working from this page, which may contain errors. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm in total agreement with @Legacypac:

Fair enough. Perhaps you could create McNeel Marble Co.? See this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be CSA plaques in the garden area of the James K. Polk Ancestral Home. (They have plaques for their donors.) However, I doubt they would want to remove them!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

• Alabama  Done
• Alaska
• Arizona  Done
• Arkansas  Done
• California:  Done
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware:  Done
• Florida  Done
• Georgia  Done
• Hawaii
• Idaho  Done
• Illinois  Done
• Indiana  Done
• Iowa  Done
• Kansas  Done
• Kentucky  Done
• Louisiana  Done
• Maine  Done
• Maryland  Done
• Massachusetts:  Done
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi  Done
• Missouri  Done
• Montana  Done
• Nebraska
• Nevada  Done
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York:  Done
• North Carolina  Done
• North Dakota
• Ohio  Done
• Oklahoma  Done
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania:  Done
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina  Done
• South Dakota
• Tennessee  Done
• Texas  Done
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia  Done
• Washington  Done
• West Virginia  Done
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming  Done

Transcription issues

From the doc, Georgia A-L are listed (although not all with dates) with two exceptions:

• Hazlehurst's Jefferson Davis Memorial appears to be Hazlehurst's Jefferson Davis Bust.
• Irwinville's Jefferson Davis Memorial appears to be Fitzgerald's Jefferson Davis Monument at Jefferson Davis Memorial Historic Site. Searching on either town leads to the historic site which the state lists as having an address in Fitzgerald.

Maybe it's me, anyone want to give it a go? Mcowley (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

One more. The only mention I can find is in an old planning document.

• Stone Mountain, Valor Monument at Memorial Plaza, 1977.

Other than the three above, all of the doc's entries for Georgia are listed. (That's not to say Georgia doesn't need attention.) Mcowley (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Lede Changes

The lede before I fixed it (and was reverted):

---

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general during the American Civil War.[1] A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States. These memorials include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, roads, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, military bases, and other public works.[1][2] Monuments and memorials are listed below alphabetically by state, and by city within each state. Those that were moved or removed are noted beside their listing. This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature.[2] States not listed have no known qualifying items for the list."

---

Issues:

• 4 cites to the same report, without naming the report. Some of the cites follow information about how we organized this page

So what? You don't need to name the report. That's what a citation is for. You click the button and it takes you to the citation at the bottom of the page. At any rate, if there are duplicate citations to the same source, you could have simply consolidated any duplicate references. But I know from weeks of cleaning up your citations and references that they aren't your strong point. So I don't know why you're mentioning it here.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

4 identical citations is overkill in one paragraph. One well placed one is sufficient. What is wrong with naming the source of the information and wikilinking it. Seems like a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)*confusion with "This excludes the nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature.[2]" being detached from the "[1] A 2017 study reported that at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy can be found in public spaces across the United States." when both these sentences deal with the SPLC report specifically.

There is no confusion.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The 1,503 and 2,600 numbers look like they may refer to a count in this article, when this article has some quite different count and inclusion criteria.

No, it doesn't look that way at all. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• information about how this page is organized is split into three parts by the SPLC report discussion sentences and is less clear

I don't even know what this sentence means.Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely clearer if these two sentences are together. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The lede evolved into a poor piece of writing

The lede was a fantastic, crisp, clear piece of writing. Yours was not. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "The monuments and memorials honor... in general during the American Civil War." No, these items were all created or named AFTER the war, often long after.

We're talking about a single word here. Just change it to "after." Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am just listing my changes. Glad you agree to one. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• places and infrastructure items are commingled

I have no idea what you're possibly objecting to. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "monuments and memorials. The monuments and memorials" in the first line is repetitive

And "Confederate monuments and memorials" that honor "Confederate" leaders isn't? Your rewording makes for a passive-voice, ugly sentence.

Delete the words "that were" after the bolded words. No longer passive. We could drop one Confederate with "created to honor the Confederate States of America, its leaders and soldiers." 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is a run on paragraph. I suggest three short paragraphs - 1. What the page is about 2. how it is organized and 3. Highlights from the major source here, the SPLC report, which is not the only source. Ie this page uses the SPLC report, it is not about the SPLC report specifically.

There is no such thing as a "run-on paragraph." I don't even know what that means. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

[5] paragraphs should deal with one topic, not three. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The lede, as written, has caused some confusion on talk.

There is no confusion about the lede. The lede is crystal clear. There's confusion about some of the entries listed depsite what the lede says. Fluous (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My improved version fixes these issues:

---

"This is a list of Confederate monuments and memorials that were created to honor Confederate leaders, soldiers, or the Confederate States of America in general after the American Civil War. This page includes physical monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; state symbols and license plates. It also includes names of places including counties, cities, military bases, mountains, water features and public infrastructure such as schools, parks, dams, highways, bridges and roads.

Memorials or locations are grouped by state, classified by type, and listed alphabetically by city within each type. Any known removals are noted beside the appropriate listing. States not listed have no known qualifying items for this list.

A 2017 study by the Southern Poverty Law Center identified and cataloged at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces across the United States. The SPLC also identified but did not list in its detailed report nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature. The items from the SPLC report have been incorporated into this page along with listings from other sources."

---

If there is something actually wrong with my revisions, please detail the rational and suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should say "public and private spaces". Cemeteries are both public and privately owned. One of the statues listed from my state by the SPLC is on farmland. I am sure there are many more like that listed by the SPLC and just saying "public" gives the impression that these are government or city owned spaces. Dubyavee (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dubyavee: We have yet to resolve how to deal with public vs. private monuments. But whatever we do, it's something we all need to talk about first. I strongly favor an article split. Fluous (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe some of the memorials were created during the civil war, so I've edited the lede to try and clarify. Mojoworker (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mojoworker they barely had time and resources to put up grave stones. Why would they memorialize something that was ongoing? And this is thought to be the First Confederate Monument [6] and it was put up after the war. Did you have some different info? Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Confederate Monument in Cynthiana also claims it was the first in 1869. And others make the same claim. But those are monuments to the Confederacy. I'm talking about memorials to individual soldiers, though I can't remember the individual I'm recalling, and it would take me some digging to find it. But, just look at the article: Blakely, Georgia, Confederate Flagpole, Early County Courthouse, 1861 is one example. And at least 8 places named in tribute during the war are already in the article. There's even one from 1845, predating the war by 15 years. Also see CSS General Earl Van Dorn. And for a Union example, the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association started in early 1864 (and battlefield protection had started before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which was just 4 months after the battle in 1863. Mojoworker (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If we have to split - I'd rather leave public and private in the same page (identified where possible) and instead split the page geographically. We could spin out the states with the largest sections and instead show under Arkansas heading Main article: Confederate monuments and memorials in Arkansas followed by a short summary like "in Arkansas there are over 100 known monuments, 50 roads and highways, 10 schools, 3 counties (all fake numbers) and various other public places named for the Confederacy or it's leadership." That is normally how we do spinouts from big topics. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)