Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Dixie

Even if removals of the name Dixie are not suitable for this list they really should be listed somewhere, removal without relocation is just removal of useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the word Dixie is that its origins had nothing to do with the Confederacy and for a long time described an area. The word's meaning, like all words, began to change in the last couple of decades to associate of traditions from the antebellum or Confederacy. But because it's a word that has changed and has no real connection to the Confederacy, it really should not belong on this list. The good news is that Dixie does have it's own article and if editors want to include a list of places and names where it has been removed it can be done there. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Dixie article. Its meaning changed long before the last two decades. Its origins don't matter. It is clearly seen as a reference to the Confederacy. The "land of cotton". deisenbe (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
India is the world largest producer of cotton, does that mean they are also Confederate? One could argue many things could be linked to the Confederacy, but that does not mean they actually are. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: The idea that "Dixie" is unrelated to the Confederacy does not seem to be accurate. According to our articles, Dixie (song) both popularized the term, and was the "de facto national anthem of the Confederacy". Dixie says the most common definition is the states that constituted the Confederacy. Some of the instances on this list mention that use of the song Dixie has been discontinued as part of a broader changed that removed all references to the Confederacy such as a rebel mascot and the Confederate flag. Those should continue to be listed here.
No part of India is actually referred to as "Dixie", so it is not relevant.
Dixie (Utah)
is so named because early settlers tried to grow cotton there. As used in Utah, the term "Dixie" still carries an association with the Confederacy, with the same rebel and Confederate flag themes. And some of them have been dropped for that reason.
Given the dual nature of some examples, I have cross-referenced this article with Dixie#Use of term so readers can hopefully find what they are interested in regardless of which article they are listed on. -- Beland (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why bring this up after two years? The word Dixie is not the same as Confederacy, for example a
Dixie cup does not evoke Southern rebellion every time a person sips from one. The song was popular, no doubt, but to claim it as de facto is like claiming Gangnam Style was the de facto national song of the United States in 2013 because it was a popular song at that time. These correlations do not make it fact. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional trimmings

There have been additional sections under "Academic commentary", from people criticising the removal of the monuments. While not egregious historical revisionism like the above mentioned Kristina Dunn Johnson example, I have found that two of these statements are personal attacks on the character of those who argue in favor of the removal, one is an excessively wordy tangent, embedded in the commentary from Dell Upton, which was debunking it, and one isn't from a partisan, conservative outlet. I have removed these entries as they are less about contributing to the article in a constructive manner, and more about pushing fringe positions for the sake of False Balance. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this list was specially only "Academic" then we would remove most of it because most sources are from news and other publications too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed your edits, please let other editors chime in on the subject or it could become an edit war. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These "news publications" are reporting on academic commentary, I.E. they are SECONDARY SOURCES, as per site policy. The commentary I removed, I have removed for one of 3 reasons. Either because they were unacademic smear pieces calling the other side "savages" and "idiots", pushed pseudoscientific Lost Cause revisionism, or because they were not from a reliable secondary source. Other editors can confirm that my deletions were justified and in line with site policy. Feel free to ask them yourself. But if there is no further input on this topic from other editors in a few days, I will simply undo the reverts. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the, "no response so I'm free to remove" since I'm still here reverting your actions. Let others way in on the subject first. @Deisenbe:, @GoingBatty:, @SnowFire: You all recently made edits changes to the page, please share your thoughts on current discussion. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please specify just which edits are being discussed. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: It is these edits and likely some more. They are basically the counter arguments/opinions in regards of removing monuments and memorials; I don't believe they should be removed without review, if IP's rational is correct. My worry is that we are simply nip-picking the counter arguments/opinions (finding reason to disqualify) in order the list becomes one narrative or to one "correct" conclusion... if it was that simple, none of it would be controversial to start. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: Please note that my recent edits were simply to fix the formatting of a few references. I'm not going to read and analyze the statements and references in question, but it seems that the IP's discussion above is reasonable. I hope other knowledgeable editors will contribute to the conversation. GoingBatty (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those passages are not references in the sense of documenting the content of the article. They are expressions of opinion. While a sentence or two could be used in discussion of opposition to monument removal, I strongly agree that they should be deleted. deisenbe (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could make the same argument for the entire Academic commentary section, could easily be summed up in a lot fewer lines. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you cannot. Although a case can be made for abbreviating the different sections, the other opinions are actual academic comentary, approaching the topic from various different viewpoints, and covered by reliable sources. The parts I removed either whitewashing the confederacy or flinging personal attacks agains the academics arguing for the removal of the monuments. They were not "academic commentary", they did not meet the standards of inclusion, and are only there to balance out the academic consensus with fringe far-right talkingpoints. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. deisenbe (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I consider this dispute settled. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Four people were discussing here, and the only agreement seems to be between two of them. That's hardly a consensus. And I disagree with the removal; it seems to be whitewashing. Viewpoints must be presented proportionally, minority viewpoints don't get deleted outright, and if something is demonstrably fringe, it hasn't been discussed here. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False. First off, three people are in agreement, against one dissenting voice. Second, wikipedia doesn't go by majority but by quality of arguments. And the arguments made by
WP:FALSEBALANCE
. To quote, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity".
That lost cause apologia is demonstrably fringe is a settled matter, and there has already been a consensus here that some of the sections I removed were indeed lost cause apologia. Namely, Kristina (not Katrina as the article says) Dunn Johnson's book is just that: Lost Cause propaganda, and therefore a fringe view. The other bit of Lost Cause propaganda is Frank McKenney's book, which isn't even listed as an example. It's just snuck in the middle of Dell Upton's opinion as an overly lengthy tangent. Dell Upton is specifically arguing against the point KcKenney made that the statues were works of art. McKenney's lengthy story about the daughters of the confederacy, where he argues for this point is irrelevant fluff.
Others were merely personal opinions that aren't backed by any academic arguments. The idea that Robert K Krick calling people in favor of the removal "savages who believed, ... that anyone with opinions different than their own was not just wrong, but craven and evil" (said "different opinion" being white supremacy), or that James Robertson calling the removal an "age of idiocy" is on the same level as the other historians who presented legitimate historical arguments, backed by facts, to prove that the confederate monuments are indeed meant to promote white supremacy, is simply ludicrous. You want to balance out actual academic consensus with petty insults and lost cause propaganda, that is the fact of the matter here. Even if there were more people agreeing with you, it wouldn't change the fact that this goes against wikipedia policy.
You want wikipedia to cover both sides of the argument? How about instead of reverting my deletions, you find an opposing viewpoint that isn't from a partisan hack. Oh wait. There already is one. Julian Hayter is opposed to the removal of the monuments, without denying that they represent white supremacy, and without pushing lost cause nonsense. So there goes the argument that I wanted to whitewash the article to make it one-sided. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only counted two as well, with one leaning, and please don't "disqualify" me simply because I question their removal. These discussions are not about the quality of the arguments, it is a group decision with all those that want to take part. You are obviously not accustom to when people disagree with your edits as this has obviously annoyed you. Again, I strongly encourage further participation from the community to weigh-in. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So let's start with the fact that I have provided solid arguments for the removal of these entries, which I repeated multiple times. You on the other hand have not only failed to address any of my points, but didn't even present a solid argument for keeping them around. I have yet to hear anyone tell me why my edits are wrong. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I show opposition to your edits means I defend what was said. I am pursuing the process on items that are controversial and have a solid consensus so we can point the decision made to future editors. So yes, I have been reaching out to various editors to grab their input on the matter, why have you not been doing the same? --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't have any arguments, and you don't have any rebuttals to my arguments, which are in line with site policy. Two other users that you yourself reached out to have already confirmed that my reasons for deleting these entries are perfectly valid. Everything I have said here are backed up by site rules, while your only argument is that we need "consensus". The archived sections of this discussion page show zero evidence of any conensus to include them in the first place, quite the contrary, a 25 January 2020 post by User:Immigrant_laborer points out that three of the people opposed to the removal of the monuments, namely Robert K. Krick, Frank McKenney and Katrina Dunn Johnson are not in fact academics, so that's one more reason to remove them. That's a third user agreeing with me, and using actual arguments to support their point, whereas your only argument here is repeating this "need for consensus", which strikes me as increasingly disingenuous. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may appear disingenuous, but the goal is to revert future edits that will likely add them or similar back and we use this discussion as a reason for their removal. While I would prefer, and had hoped, more people would chime in on this discussion; we have been going over this for a week now and it would appear we have consensus by those that have participated. My goal is to keep this article neutral and if their is perceived bias by anyone we can point them back to this discussion as to why some opinions are not included. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@46.97.170.19: I reverted your edit because you removed this:

Civil War historian James I. Robertson Jr. said that the monuments were not a "Jim Crow signal of defiance". He called the current climate to dismantle or destroy Confederate monuments as an "age of idiocy", motivated by "elements hell-bent on tearing apart unity that generations of Americans have painfully constructed".[1]

The historian is notable, the source is reliable, and the viewpoint of a notable historian about this specific topic is highly relevant to the topic. That is why I reverted your edit. The reasoning you provided so far do not justify removal of that. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Debate Over Confederate Monuments | C-SPAN.org". c-span.org.
@Anachronist: Fair enough, but you restored ALL of my deletions while only countering my arguments for one of them. I personally argue that the James I. Robertson part isn't really academic commentary but an opinion on the character of the people in favor of removal of the monuments. However, if the consensus is that it should remain, I'm not going to insist on removing it. That being said, you also restored the Kristina Dunn Johnson paragraph, which I opened a separate section on. Others have already pointed out in archived discussion that Kristina Dunn Johnson is not an academic. Her book is a primary source, and doesn't appear to be in any way notable, seeing as all I get when searching for her name are reviews of that one particular book, left on websites that sell it, not to mention even the person who included her doesn't seem to know what her correct name is. Furthermore, her commentary reads like Lost Cause apologia, which is a fringe theory and has no place on wikipedia. If nothing else, that one at least needs to be removed. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for seeming heavy handed. I could easily judge that one, but not the others, so I figured, probably in error, that if you were willing to remove something so obvious and relevant, then the others may merit a closer look. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@46.97.170.19: I agree with Anachronist – Robertson is certainly notable. You are becoming disruptive. Your assertion in the edit summary of your latest restoration to your preferred version that "The revert was a result of a misunderstanding that has since been settled" seems not to be the case. The McKenney information you removed is also manifestly true and uncontroversial. Stop edit warring and discuss until there's a consensus. This issue has some subtlety, so don't paint it with a broad brush. Mojoworker (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojoworker: First of all I would Like to clear this up. It is not my intention to be disruptive. That particular revert by user:Skingo12 was indeed a misunderstanding due to me forgetting to leave an edit summary, and had nothing to do with this discussion. I have already discussed it with them on their talk page. I undid it, after they admitted that I was indeed acting in good faith. Your revert IS connected to this discussion, so I left it alone. I have been TRYING to discuss this issue for over a week now, and the only people who even adressed the merits of my arguments were in agreement with me, while the only real objection I'm getting is that we need a consensus. How can anyone expect a consensus, if nobody is willing to discuss the topic? Also, It's odd that you would claim that the McKenney information is "true and uncontroversial", when it's referenced in the Upton commentary, which argues against it. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should've been more specific. The McKenney information I refer to as true and uncontroversial is that of the United Daughters of the Confederacy: 'Ex-soldiers and politicians had a difficult time raising funds to erect monuments so the task mostly fell to the women, the "mothers widows, and orphans, the bereaved fiancees and sisters" of the soldiers who had lost their lives. Many ladies' memorial associations were formed in the decades following the end of the Civil War, most of them joining the United Daughters of the Confederacy following its inception in 1894.' While apocryphal, in my observation, the UDC were responsible by far, for most of the confederate monuments I've seen. I also think that mentioning the UDC as Lost Cause proponents would be appropriate. What I mean by subtlety is that not all monuments are created equal. I think it's important to differentiate between truly historical monuments and those erected for more dubious reasons. Some people are advocating removal of all confederate monuments, including those at NPS sites, to leave the strange incongruity of, say, the current plethora of Union monuments at Gettysburg, facing across a completely empty battlefield with no confederate monuments marking anything. Mojoworker (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the word you're looking for is "nuance", not "subtlety", and while I don't think that is your intention, Injecting what they call "nuance" into the academic consensus on the Civil War is a known tactic of Lost Cause apologists. If not all monuments are equal, and some are indeed just meant to honor the fallen (who were nevertheless traitors, ang gave their lives to keep slavery around, so your milage may vary on whether or not it's correct to honor them in any way), then feel free to find a proper academic with sufficient notability who argues for it.
Second, the paragraph refers to the Upton commentary. Upton references McKenney, specifically to argue agains the claim you just made. McKenney is not an academic, let alone a notable one, and everything that's quoted from his book is only relevant to the topic because Upton brings it up. It is given way too much undue weight and has nothing to do with the removal of the confederate monuments. In the context of this article, it feels like needless fluff to balance out the academic consensus with fringe Lost Cause nonsense. It does not belong here. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John C. Pemberton statue
Yes, nuance is a more appropriate word. And as I stated below, I think the UDC information belongs in the Background section and the McKenney material should be removed.
I think you're missing my point about monuments not being equal – some are truly historical in nature, marking the site of some actual event. There's a difference between some mail-order confederate statue in the town square of some random town erected by Lost Causers vs. say, the John C. Pemberton Statue by Edmond Thomas Quinn at Vicksburg National Military Park marking the spot where Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg to Grant on July 4, 1863. Mojoworker (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, just to clarify: the IP user left a message on my talk page claiming that they had reached consensus on the talk page. I then did a brief check of the talk page and saw that there was a discussion. I assumed that the IP user was correct in saying that consensus had been reached. However later on, other users left messages on my talk page saying that they were not convinced consensus had been reached. I'm not really experienced in this are also I just left it be. However it is now clear consensus has not been reached. Just though I should clarify. Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of removals

OK, I've looked more closely at the viewpoints removed, and this is my take:

  • Remove Robert Krick. While he has written some works on history, and he worked a job with the name "historian" in the title, his scholarship is questionable according to other historians.[1]
  • Remove Frank McKenney. The part quoted doesn't seem to have much relevance to the article topic.
  • Remove Katrina Dunn Johnson. Museum curator, not a scholar, not notable, and quoting her view from her own book doesn't improve the article.
  • Weak keep Cheryl Benard. Notable scholar, although she might be more notorious for her husband than for her scholarship. Still, she's widely published, with books translated into multiple languages, and her opinion published in The National Interest, a conservative publication of some influence, is germane to the article topic.
  • Keep James I. Robertson Jr. As discussed above. Notable historian with expertise in the relevant historical period.

So, I'm OK with most of 46.97.170.19's removals although I'd like to see a couple of them kept. Basically, keep the sections pertaining to individuals on whom we already have Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: It doesn't have to be McKenney (and maybe it shouldn't be), but I think in discussing the removal of monuments, framing the United Daughters of the Confederacy's role in their construction is relevant (including their support of the Lost Cause mythology). Mojoworker (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can figure out a way to frame it, that's fine. But the removed text comes across as
WP:NPOV when an article is written in a point-counterpoint way. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Anachronist: I think the additions I mentioned would be more appropriate for the Background section. I'll see if I can work something up when I get a chance. Mojoworker (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, it is not. If you find a notable academic, cited by a reliable source, who brings up the UDC in some form, while commenting specifically on the removal of the confederate monuments, which is what this article is about, then feel free to include it. But I'm having serious doubts you will find anything like that. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take it there is no objection to removing Krick and Johnson then. I can't imagine anyone being able to argue in good fate that they should be kept. McKenney, Benard and Robertson seem to be the ones that are in dispute here. So I'll ask again before I do anything, to avoid any more reverts. Have we reached a consensus that the sections on Robert Krick and Christina Dunn Johnson should be removed? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The perspective that they offer needs to be in here somewhere. It is not about how notable the authors are but that these sentiments are very widespread in the USA. Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with how notable the authors are. We don't promote flat earth nonsense on the article on Earth, and we don't promote creationism on the article on evolution. Those perspectives are not needed. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The intent of the rules is to have some balance of opinion (and this article certainly needs it). Topcat777 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was my more diplomatic post. My actual opinion is (redacted). -Topcat777 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even remotely what the rules say. And no, this article does not need any
WP:FALSEBALANCE. Especially not to balance out academic consensus with self-published lost cause apologia, from partisan hacks with zero academic credentials. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
"Falsebalance" LOL. If the few snippets you want removed are taken out, there will be no balance at all. -Topcat777 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to strive for balance between academic consensus and fringe nonsense is exactly what false balance means. As I stated above, we don't put flat earth or creationist bullshit on articles about the Earth. The section under academic commentary is for commentary by academics with proper credentials in the relevant history. Not for hyperpartisan snake oil salesmen pretending that lost cause revisionism is a legitimate interpretation of history. And in my opinion, is also shouldn't showcase academics who have nothing to offer to the conversation besides denigrating people they disagree with because they don't have any real arguments for opposing the removal of some white supremacist monuments. Also, if you're incapable of having a civil conversation here I will be forced to report you.46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to reply to this. The sack of sentiments and ideas expressed serves as its own condemnation.Topcat777 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And your talk page tells me everything I need to know about who you are and what your agenda here is. Wikipedia isn't here to validate your pro-confederate bias with nonsense propaganda. That's what Conservapedia is for. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differing Viewpoints on Meaning of Memorials

Anyone who seriously suggests that The Barnes Review should be used as a source on Wikipedia has disqualified their proposal from consideration. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Groups and individuals have expressed viewpoints in defense of Confederate memorials including statues, markers and similar honorary items in various locations across the Southern states. In the case of some such monuments, their location at the site of mass burials of Confederate soldiers has given them vital importance as actual grave markers. In other cases, defenders have stated that common soldier monuments were meant not to promote a "Lost Cause" or traitorous action but rather a forced, soldier's duty by draft like all soldiers in any given war to put their lives on the line through sacrifice. With 2/3 of a million men in the U.S. who died in the Civil War, including some African Americans, being represented by memorials across the South, North and other regions, these defenders cite the commonly used soldiers memorials for other wars to the sacrifices of soldiers as example for reasons to retain theseLisaRudisill (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC) monuments. [1][2].[reply]

References

  1. ^ Court cases, Gaston County, NC Confederate Soldiers Monument, US District Court Western NC 3:20CV444, court case United Daughters of the Confederacy Winston-Salem, NC Soldiers Monument, et. al.
  2. ^ Friend, John. "The Great History Heist," The Barnes Review, Sept/Oct 2017 (XXIII:5), 5-11.
You seriously cited The Barnes Review, a journal of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. I rest my case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Consensus on removals

@Deisenbe:, @Anachronist:, @Washuotaku:, @Mojoworker: I will ask this one more time: Have we reached a consensus that at the very least Robert Krick's and Christina Dunn Johnson's comentaries should be removed? Are there any objections to the removal of these two paragraphs from the article? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please repeat here what the paragraphs in question are. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: You can see the removals in this diff.
@46.97.170.19: I'm fine with removing those two. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support their removal. deisenbe (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with all the previous removals from the Academic commentary section except for the Robertson material. After further thought, any UDC information is more appropriate in the Background section. Mojoworker (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the Krick and Johnson paragraphs. I prefer to keep statements from academics notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (Benard and Robertson). I don't think McKenney is needed, although I admit I'm now neutral about keeping or deleting it, and if it fits better somewhere else, that's fine with me. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: The reason why I wanted to remove Robertson is because I don't see how his commentary contributes to this topic. Yes, Robertson is a notable historian, with expertise in the relevant historical period. The problem is that his commentary has nothing to do with his expertise as a historian or the relevant historical period. The article now reads, that "he called the current climate to dismantle or destroy Confederate monuments as an 'age of idiocy', motivated by 'elements hell-bent on tearing apart unity that generations of Americans have painfully constructed'." This comment is referring entirely to current events, and sounds more like the opinion of a right wing pundit than a legitimate academic commentary by a certified historian. In my opinion, if Robertson has any commentary on the topic that can be included to improve the article, it's not the one we currently have. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojoworker: I do not think the UDC information fits anywhere. The reason why it is where it is, is because it makes exactly one relevant point, namely that "these monuments were communal efforts, public art, and social history". That point is also made by Upton, however, except he also adds that "the history the monuments celebrated told only one side of the story, however—one that was openly pro-Confederate", in other words, including McKenney's book here is redundant, and the only reason it's really here is to add false balance to the part about the UDC. I'm okay with including information on the UDC as long as it comes from a reliable secondary source, and McKenney is neither. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Bernard

I have mentioned above that I have doubts about including Robertson's section. I really can't say more on that until other people weigh in. I do however have an issue with Cheryl Bernard's commentary. Much like Robertson, her commentary doesn't seem to add much to the discussion beyond an opinion, devoid of any arguments from her expertise on the subject, but to take it a step further, the source on her commentary is the National Interest. I'm personally not familiar with how reliable the National Interest is considered on wikipedia, but the article on it suggests it's a partisan outlet of the worst kind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make it unreliable? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Bias doesn't equate to unreliability. For example,
Wikipedia:Perennial sources lists Mother Jones as a reliable source, although it is also a biased source. In any case, reliability of the publication isn't relevant here, because the cited source is Bernard's own opinion piece, and the point of including it is to cite her opinion. And as with Robertson, it is encyclopedically relevant to include the opinions of notable academics. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
It's encyclopedically relevant to include the opinions of notable academics, because they have expertise on the subject. Bernard and Robertson may have the proper academic credentials, but their comments are hardly any different from Krick's. Advocates for the removals, who focus on the historical significance of these monuments and the context in which they were raised and well as the ideologies behind their construction. Bernard's and Robertson's status as academics and historians would be meaningful if their arguments were also historical arguments. The problem is that one cannot make such arguments withoug going against the academic consensus and engaging in Lost Cause revisionism. Which is why their dissenting comentary focuses entirely on the modern politics which is not where their credentials are. Their commentary could just as well come out of the mouths of right wing pundits, and would be worth just as much. I'm not questioning that they're notable academics. I'm questioning whether their opinions on this particular topic really help improve this article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Confederate" is not a valid reason to not include it

The subject of the article is "Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials", not "Removal of pro-slavery monuments and memorials". I would agree if it is not direclty related to a celebration of the Confederacy it has no place here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is narrow in scope, but it is always good to have a reminder. For a memorialized person to be on this list, they had to have served in the Confederacy in some capacity, from 1861-1865. Any monument or memorial that falls short of that criteria should not be on this list. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a monument is removed from public land...

...and then placed on another piece of public land, should it be included in this article? --Topcat777 13:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

KInd of yes, but kind of no. I would opt for yes on balance. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External link formatting

@Deisenbe: Greetings! Regarding this revert, what sort of formatting did you want? This looks more or less the same as the previous link to me? -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've added that in this edit. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section

The list of articles in the "See also" section appears to be the longest I've ever seen. It's unwieldy to the point of uselessness. Some of the links, I can clearly see why you'd include them, like the List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States, since that last explicitly excludes the incidents in this article. Some of the others appear to be pure POV, like the ones mentioning Communism and Communist regimes. Should be trimmed further. Wes sideman (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials&oldid=1212660729"