![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
D.Creish, Icewhiz, Dubyavee, Carptrash, deisenbe, Grayfell, Topcat777, Fluous, S. Rich, Volunteer Marek , Legacypac, Waters.Justin, PeterTheFourth, AIRcorn, Magnolia677, do, Bubba73, Snooganssnoogans, My very best wishes, —Мандичка, Markbassett, Great scott, SMcCandlish ☺, Arkon, MShabazz, Aquillion, De Guerre, Mojoworker, Heyyouoverthere, Pincrete, talk, EvergreenFir, talk, Kevin "Hawk" Fisher, Lockley, K.e.coffman,
It seems pretty clear that consensus is not going to reached on the thorny issue regarding the nefarious graph, particularly the labeling of the monument building spike as “Jim Crow era.” I am planning on alerting everyone who either supported or opposed the motion to remove the graph. I likely will miss someone, it is not intentional as it is my desire to actually reach consensus here. I propose that the label “Jim Crow era” be replaced with one that reads “The Lost Cause”. There are lots of reasons why this is appropriate, but for starters, in this article at, or near, the very beginning, we state, “Cynthia Mills and Pamela Simpson argued in their critical volume Monuments to the Lost Cause ….”. We have already asserted that these are monuments to the lost cause.
Another well documented factor in the raising of monuments was the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was founded in 1894, just at the point where the spike in monument construction takes off and pushing the saga of the Lost Cause was one of their primary missions. This can be documented in such works as Burying the Dead but Not the Past by Caroline E. Janney, “Challenging the notion that southern white women were peripheral to the Lost Cause movement until the 1890s,” Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (New Perspectives on the History of the South) Karen Cox, "A vital and, until now, missing piece to the puzzle of the Lost Cause ideology and its impact on the daily lives of post-Civil War southerners.”
And it goes on and on. One great resource for this “ Lost Cause” approach are the monuments themselves, which frequently mention “the Cause”, the cause” “the sacred cause” and even the “Lost Cause.” We are talking about the meaning of the monuments and what better source to jump off from than the monuments themselves? We may not wish to end there, but that should be be square one. Soderberg in Lest We Forget: A Guide to Civil War Monuments in Maryland in the section “Interpretation of the Monuments: The Meaning:" writes “A person viewing a monument in a later age may receive a different message than that which was sent by its builders.” They, the builders, say the monument is for the Lost Cause. That is good enough for me.
As a wikipedia editor I can make this change myself, but I’d rather hear that it’s okay with you, my fellow editors. I can hardly imagine how much work went into making the graph and it does present a nice visual of something, but, of what? I think there is ample reason to determine that it was the Lost Cause. Carptrash ( talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing itForgive me, but what sources specifically are you referring to here? From what I can tell none of the sources Carptrash referred to even uses the term "lost cause era," much less says that monument building peaked during the "lost cause era." If I missed something (pretty sure I didn't) please point it out. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
These are monuments to the Lost Cause
Carptrash has done good work in the list-article and here on the Talk page. Consensus about the graphic will in fact be established by closure of the RFC in a section above. Please don't anyone argue with my forecast here (it is my forecast of what will happen and there is no point to debating it): I predict that the RFC will be closed with "delete the graph" decision, because of the nature and quality of arguments made, specifically that the graph is biased, original research which is embarrassing for Wikipedia to be presenting. As Carptrash and others have pointed out, there are serious problems with quality of data/research by the organization which made a report, then there are further serious problems with the construction of the graphic by editors here, and there are further serious problems with the quality of many statements made in RFC and otherwise on this page. That said, I hope/trust that administrator(s) who close this will do a good job and that will establish what a consensus is. It remains possible, as has happened with other high-profile RFCs, that the "wrong" decision is taken and that further RFCs and dispute will run on. It is not the end of the world if that happens, it will just continue. It may continue to be embarrasing what is displayed on this article. Anyhow, I want to thank User:Carptrash for their very constructive and patient participation here, and to say that i hope they can continue to be involved but not to be too stressed out about the sorry situation that has gone on and that is somewhat likely to continue. Thank you for trying with a proposal here, but I think we have to wait for the RFC to be closed. -- do ncr am 17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: the "subset" argument, this looks like a non-issue to me. SPLC "excludes battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" because it doesn't define those as monuments. That editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader (borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE) definition of what a monument is (specifically including plaques, flags, and holidays, for example) does not invalidate or reflect poorly on the SPLC source. It merely suggests that splc has put some thought into what should and should not be included. The suggestion that the SPLC's count is invalid because they don't include every little plaque or flag that anonymous Wikipedia editors have chosen to add to this list at some point is absurd. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markersjust highlights how patently ridiculous the ideas that anyone could (or should) catalog all such monuments is. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where to jump in...but this article in The Washington Post suggests the construction of Confederate monuments was partly the result of a marketing campaign by Monumental Bronze Co. of Bridgeport, Connecticut--a manufacturer of bronze statues. About 2,500 of the company's soldier statues were erected in the North, and about 500 in the South. "Many of the South's Silent Sentinels turn out to be identical to the statues of Union soldiers that decorate hundreds of public spaces across the North. Identical, but for one detail: On the soldier's belt buckle, the 'U.S.' is replaced by a 'C.S.' for 'Confederate States.'" Kinda funny. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This paper will ...concentrate specifically on the courthouse monuments because of their characterization of the Southern landscape.
These include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works.
Should we add the Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Willow Mount Cemetery, Shelbyville, Tennessee? Cunningham was the founding editor of the Confederate Veteran. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? These are memorials for the Civil War, not for Confederacy. I can understand that they are related, but this is a list for confederate memorials and symbols. Maybe have in the National section some short blurb about battlefield parks with link to Civil War Battlefield Park page. What next, are we going to list all Union things too cause they are related as well. I might understand if it is actually named such (ie: Richmond Confederate Battlefield Park) but this is not the case because they are memorials for Civil War. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This sum does not include approximately 2,570 Civil War battlefields, markers, plaques, cemeteries and similar symbols that, for the most part, merely reflect historical events
This list was compiled from many sources. In many cases, judgments were made as to whether a symbol was largely historic in nature (e.g., a historic marker or battlefield park, in which case it was not included) or whether it served to honor the Confederacy.
This is a List, not an article about history of. However after looking at them all, I do see where some should stay, as some are listing the CSA memorials inside of it rather than simply listing some significant CSA event / others are named for. Arlington House, Lee Memorial (except it is duplicate as already listed on VA > Buildings); Augusta Canal listing memorial inside; Fort Davis (named for Jeff Davis); Fort Donelson (named for); Great Basin listing memorial in; Yellowstone listing memorial in. Idk might be one or two others I missed, but most rest really should not be here in a list of article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
...and the "racism" angle makes its first appearance in May 2017. - Topcat777 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the promotion of the SPLC as an unimpeachable source has not been questioned enough. I knew very little about them but became curious by the zealotry exhibited here on their behalf and found this article from Politico, which is a well regarded news agency. These are a few things they mention about the SPLC-
J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague stated “The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” He went on to say-
"Berger says that defining a hate or extremist group is notoriously problematic when using extensive, technical criteria, and that the problem becomes greater in the case of the SPLC, which reserves discretion in how and when it applies those labels. 'There’s no consensus academic definition of extremism, and the SPLC’s methodology for making that call isn’t clear,' he says. 'So it’s very subjective even within academia, and even more so for a motivated organization.'"
"Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors. 'The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote,' he says."
Harper's, which is hardly a right-leaning publication, has published several articles critical of the SPLC in recent years. They say the founder, Morris Dees, became a multi-millionaire through the organization, and locals refer to their new headquarters in Atlanta as the "poverty palace".
Letter from Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor, regarding Morris Dees
I think this should raise questions about leaning too heavily on them as a total source for information in the article. Dubyavee ( talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
While Dixie was discussed earlier (archive), there was no conclusion. As "Dixie" pre-dates the CSA, and applies to the region (not the political entity), it is WP:SYN to assume that the Dixie Highway is a monument or memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America →
List of Confederate monuments and memorials – This title is shorter and also more logical: the momunents do not belong to the Confederate States of America, but were established to commemmorate the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy. Also compare with
Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is full of discussions of the chart and the SPLC, but nobody has explained the purpose of the article tags. I'm starting this section to specifically address these tags:
What specific concerns are the tags referring to? This is not about the chart. Please discuss the chart above. – dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge.Can you link the discussion you're referring to please? Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
dlthewave - ??? Think you'll have to explain a bit more on what you're asking or why, and the tags have been edit-warred deleted again so perhaps it's OBE but in case any of these help:
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
dlthewave - again,
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a general description of how tags are used. I'm looking for a specific explanation of why each of the article tags were added. Most of the edit summaries say something like "do not remove without discussing" or "see talk page", but I'm having trouble finding an ongoing discussion of why each of these tags was added to the top of the article. We all have the common goal of building an article that does not have issues that require tagging, so I'm trying to start a discussion to identify those issues and work towards resolving them. Several editors are posting on this Talk page and advocating for keeping the tags in place, so they are well aware of this request. – dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
D.Creish, Icewhiz, Dubyavee, Carptrash, deisenbe, Grayfell, Topcat777, Fluous, S. Rich, Volunteer Marek , Legacypac, Waters.Justin, PeterTheFourth, AIRcorn, Magnolia677, do, Bubba73, Snooganssnoogans, My very best wishes, —Мандичка, Markbassett, Great scott, SMcCandlish ☺, Arkon, MShabazz, Aquillion, De Guerre, Mojoworker, Heyyouoverthere, Pincrete, talk, EvergreenFir, talk, Kevin "Hawk" Fisher, Lockley, K.e.coffman,
It seems pretty clear that consensus is not going to reached on the thorny issue regarding the nefarious graph, particularly the labeling of the monument building spike as “Jim Crow era.” I am planning on alerting everyone who either supported or opposed the motion to remove the graph. I likely will miss someone, it is not intentional as it is my desire to actually reach consensus here. I propose that the label “Jim Crow era” be replaced with one that reads “The Lost Cause”. There are lots of reasons why this is appropriate, but for starters, in this article at, or near, the very beginning, we state, “Cynthia Mills and Pamela Simpson argued in their critical volume Monuments to the Lost Cause ….”. We have already asserted that these are monuments to the lost cause.
Another well documented factor in the raising of monuments was the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was founded in 1894, just at the point where the spike in monument construction takes off and pushing the saga of the Lost Cause was one of their primary missions. This can be documented in such works as Burying the Dead but Not the Past by Caroline E. Janney, “Challenging the notion that southern white women were peripheral to the Lost Cause movement until the 1890s,” Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture (New Perspectives on the History of the South) Karen Cox, "A vital and, until now, missing piece to the puzzle of the Lost Cause ideology and its impact on the daily lives of post-Civil War southerners.”
And it goes on and on. One great resource for this “ Lost Cause” approach are the monuments themselves, which frequently mention “the Cause”, the cause” “the sacred cause” and even the “Lost Cause.” We are talking about the meaning of the monuments and what better source to jump off from than the monuments themselves? We may not wish to end there, but that should be be square one. Soderberg in Lest We Forget: A Guide to Civil War Monuments in Maryland in the section “Interpretation of the Monuments: The Meaning:" writes “A person viewing a monument in a later age may receive a different message than that which was sent by its builders.” They, the builders, say the monument is for the Lost Cause. That is good enough for me.
As a wikipedia editor I can make this change myself, but I’d rather hear that it’s okay with you, my fellow editors. I can hardly imagine how much work went into making the graph and it does present a nice visual of something, but, of what? I think there is ample reason to determine that it was the Lost Cause. Carptrash ( talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Multiple sources making the connection instead of Wikipedians doing itForgive me, but what sources specifically are you referring to here? From what I can tell none of the sources Carptrash referred to even uses the term "lost cause era," much less says that monument building peaked during the "lost cause era." If I missed something (pretty sure I didn't) please point it out. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
These are monuments to the Lost Cause
Carptrash has done good work in the list-article and here on the Talk page. Consensus about the graphic will in fact be established by closure of the RFC in a section above. Please don't anyone argue with my forecast here (it is my forecast of what will happen and there is no point to debating it): I predict that the RFC will be closed with "delete the graph" decision, because of the nature and quality of arguments made, specifically that the graph is biased, original research which is embarrassing for Wikipedia to be presenting. As Carptrash and others have pointed out, there are serious problems with quality of data/research by the organization which made a report, then there are further serious problems with the construction of the graphic by editors here, and there are further serious problems with the quality of many statements made in RFC and otherwise on this page. That said, I hope/trust that administrator(s) who close this will do a good job and that will establish what a consensus is. It remains possible, as has happened with other high-profile RFCs, that the "wrong" decision is taken and that further RFCs and dispute will run on. It is not the end of the world if that happens, it will just continue. It may continue to be embarrasing what is displayed on this article. Anyhow, I want to thank User:Carptrash for their very constructive and patient participation here, and to say that i hope they can continue to be involved but not to be too stressed out about the sorry situation that has gone on and that is somewhat likely to continue. Thank you for trying with a proposal here, but I think we have to wait for the RFC to be closed. -- do ncr am 17:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: the "subset" argument, this looks like a non-issue to me. SPLC "excludes battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other places that are largely historical in nature" because it doesn't define those as monuments. That editors here have chosen to bloat this article with a much broader (borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE) definition of what a monument is (specifically including plaques, flags, and holidays, for example) does not invalidate or reflect poorly on the SPLC source. It merely suggests that splc has put some thought into what should and should not be included. The suggestion that the SPLC's count is invalid because they don't include every little plaque or flag that anonymous Wikipedia editors have chosen to add to this list at some point is absurd. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Vicksburg alone has more than 1,400 monuments, tablets, and markersjust highlights how patently ridiculous the ideas that anyone could (or should) catalog all such monuments is. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where to jump in...but this article in The Washington Post suggests the construction of Confederate monuments was partly the result of a marketing campaign by Monumental Bronze Co. of Bridgeport, Connecticut--a manufacturer of bronze statues. About 2,500 of the company's soldier statues were erected in the North, and about 500 in the South. "Many of the South's Silent Sentinels turn out to be identical to the statues of Union soldiers that decorate hundreds of public spaces across the North. Identical, but for one detail: On the soldier's belt buckle, the 'U.S.' is replaced by a 'C.S.' for 'Confederate States.'" Kinda funny. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This paper will ...concentrate specifically on the courthouse monuments because of their characterization of the Southern landscape.
These include monuments and statues; flags; holidays and other observances; and the names of schools, highways, parks, bridges, counties, cities, lakes, dams, roads, military bases, and other public works.
Should we add the Sumner A. Cunningham Memorial in Willow Mount Cemetery, Shelbyville, Tennessee? Cunningham was the founding editor of the Confederate Veteran. Zigzig20s ( talk) 20:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? These are memorials for the Civil War, not for Confederacy. I can understand that they are related, but this is a list for confederate memorials and symbols. Maybe have in the National section some short blurb about battlefield parks with link to Civil War Battlefield Park page. What next, are we going to list all Union things too cause they are related as well. I might understand if it is actually named such (ie: Richmond Confederate Battlefield Park) but this is not the case because they are memorials for Civil War. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This sum does not include approximately 2,570 Civil War battlefields, markers, plaques, cemeteries and similar symbols that, for the most part, merely reflect historical events
This list was compiled from many sources. In many cases, judgments were made as to whether a symbol was largely historic in nature (e.g., a historic marker or battlefield park, in which case it was not included) or whether it served to honor the Confederacy.
This is a List, not an article about history of. However after looking at them all, I do see where some should stay, as some are listing the CSA memorials inside of it rather than simply listing some significant CSA event / others are named for. Arlington House, Lee Memorial (except it is duplicate as already listed on VA > Buildings); Augusta Canal listing memorial inside; Fort Davis (named for Jeff Davis); Fort Donelson (named for); Great Basin listing memorial in; Yellowstone listing memorial in. Idk might be one or two others I missed, but most rest really should not be here in a list of article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
...and the "racism" angle makes its first appearance in May 2017. - Topcat777 02:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the promotion of the SPLC as an unimpeachable source has not been questioned enough. I knew very little about them but became curious by the zealotry exhibited here on their behalf and found this article from Politico, which is a well regarded news agency. These are a few things they mention about the SPLC-
J.M. Berger, an official at the Hague stated “The problem partly stems from the fact that the organization wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information,” He went on to say-
"Berger says that defining a hate or extremist group is notoriously problematic when using extensive, technical criteria, and that the problem becomes greater in the case of the SPLC, which reserves discretion in how and when it applies those labels. 'There’s no consensus academic definition of extremism, and the SPLC’s methodology for making that call isn’t clear,' he says. 'So it’s very subjective even within academia, and even more so for a motivated organization.'"
"Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and another critic of the group who authored a scathing investigation of its marketing and financial practices for Harper’s in 2000, attributes the growing scope of the SPLC’s censures to a financial imperative to wade into hot-button issues that will rile donors. 'The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote,' he says."
Harper's, which is hardly a right-leaning publication, has published several articles critical of the SPLC in recent years. They say the founder, Morris Dees, became a multi-millionaire through the organization, and locals refer to their new headquarters in Atlanta as the "poverty palace".
Letter from Stephen B. Bright, a Yale law professor, regarding Morris Dees
I think this should raise questions about leaning too heavily on them as a total source for information in the article. Dubyavee ( talk) 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
While Dixie was discussed earlier (archive), there was no conclusion. As "Dixie" pre-dates the CSA, and applies to the region (not the political entity), it is WP:SYN to assume that the Dixie Highway is a monument or memorial to the CSA. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America →
List of Confederate monuments and memorials – This title is shorter and also more logical: the momunents do not belong to the Confederate States of America, but were established to commemmorate the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy. Also compare with
Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is full of discussions of the chart and the SPLC, but nobody has explained the purpose of the article tags. I'm starting this section to specifically address these tags:
What specific concerns are the tags referring to? This is not about the chart. Please discuss the chart above. – dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
we already challenged it, so you might want to review the most recent challenge.Can you link the discussion you're referring to please? Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
dlthewave - ??? Think you'll have to explain a bit more on what you're asking or why, and the tags have been edit-warred deleted again so perhaps it's OBE but in case any of these help:
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
dlthewave - again,
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a general description of how tags are used. I'm looking for a specific explanation of why each of the article tags were added. Most of the edit summaries say something like "do not remove without discussing" or "see talk page", but I'm having trouble finding an ongoing discussion of why each of these tags was added to the top of the article. We all have the common goal of building an article that does not have issues that require tagging, so I'm trying to start a discussion to identify those issues and work towards resolving them. Several editors are posting on this Talk page and advocating for keeping the tags in place, so they are well aware of this request. – dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|