Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Virginia

Reversion and request for page protection

An IP user mass-removed content from the article based on some strange viewpoints. Examples, this diff [1] and this one [2]. I have asked for semi-protection for the page because of it. Normal Op (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I will attempt to clean up the article. Not all of the edits were destructive, but the majority of the earlier ones were. The editor's viewpoint seemed to be that the term "monuments and memorials" in the title meant "glorifying". Therefore, content about Confederate-era items that were no longer being glorified should be removed from the page. At least that's the gist I picked up. I will go through each edit one by one. Normal Op (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protection was approved and put in place for 7 days. Normal Op (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Update on edits/re-edits: After initially reverting all the edits the IP user had made, I have now gone through each one of those edits and re-established them in an appropriate way. Museums and buildings that still exist in real life have been left in the article. Schools that have been renamed and monuments that have been torn down have been moved to a new section for "Former monuments and memorial" with an abbreviated description. Most of the monuments that are being torn down (see this list) are getting their own articles, so as we move the monuments from the body of this article down into the "Former" section, we can easily abbreviate the description because of the link to the new articles for each monument. Normal Op (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Schools: Virginia seems to have been on a spree to rename schools away from Confederate names. I have encountered dozens of articles mentioning school renames. I predict many (if not all) of the schools will get moved from the main article area down to the "Former" section. Normal Op (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am the IP user referred to above. My name is Dave and I am Civil War buff from Virginia that studied American history, as well as Virginia History, as an undergraduate at Jame Madison University, and as a graduate student at the College of William and Mary.

I am also a delegate to the Virginia Democratic Convention taking place this weekend. As was alluded to above, Virginia is in the process of re-evaluating its Confederate monuments, and I had hoped that this page could help us do that fairly. There is a consensus developing in the Virginia Democratic Party that many of these monuments are racist propaganda. This is an important point because the Democrats control Virginia's House, Senate and governor's office. So they are in drivers seat on these issues. Starting July 1st these monuments will no longer be protected from removal or renaming by state law, as they have been for over 100 years. There is a 30 day waiting period once a decision has been made to remove a monument to see if a new home can be found for it off the public square so to speak. The confluence of this change in the law and the Black Lives Matter movement is going to result in a lot these monuments coming down. This page could play a crucial role in this process if it editors and moderators can get their act together.

So lets get to the substance and reasons for the changes I have made to this page.

First, let me say that my viewpoint has been misrepresented. I do not believe or maintain that the term "monuments and memorials" in the title meant "glorifying". Nor do I believe or maintain that content about Confederate-era items that were no longer being glorified should be removed from the page.

My viewpoint is that this page should be concise, factual and neutral in its presentation. Items in this list should be consistent with the page title. Items in this list should also be properly sourced and cited or removed until they can be properly sourced and cited. I am challenging the verifiability of many these items because they do not include an inline citation that directly supports the material. If we can agree that removing unverified material from this page is reasonable and in line with Wikipedia's core content policies (Please see below), I would be happy to discuss the changes made to verifiable material with you. Inclusion in this list should be based on at least one reliable source (such as the news media, government or historical organizations) that states that the item in question is a Confederate monument or memorial. Otherwise it may just be the editor’s opinion that the item is a Confederate monument or memorial.

For example, why is Chimborazo park listed as a Confederate monument or memorial? Did the editor just assume that the park was named after the Confederate Hospital and is therefore a Confederate monument or memorial? According to the Wikipedia Chimborazo park page, Chimborazo Hill preceded the hospital. So, the hospital was probably named for its location on Chimborazo Hill. Isn’t it equally plausible that both the park and hospital were named for Chimborazo Hill which the park is located on? There is nothing on the Chimborazo park page that states that the park itself is a Confederate monument or memorial. This item provides a good example of why an inline citation is needed stating that this park is a Confederate monument or memorial.

Why is the River of Blood monument listed as a Confederate monument or memorial? The citation for this item is a New York Times article. However, while I would agree that the New York Times is a reliable source, the article does not state that River of Blood monument is a Confederate monument or memorial. The plaque on this monument does not even contain the word Confederate or any variation of that word. Setting aside the fact that this plaque is marketing nonsense and not a reliable source of information as the Times documents in its article, the monument taken at face value is just to American soldiers, not to Confederate soldiers. The text on plaque does contain the word South, as well as the word North, but the South and the Confederacy are two different things. General George Thomas was an American soldier from the South (Franklin, VA, just a few miles from the NC border) but he was not a Confederate soldier, he was one of Union’s most important Generals.

By listing so many items that are either questionable, out of date or not properly verified, this page may be seen not only as inaccurate, outdated and verbose, but also as glorifying the Confederacy by making this list as long and verbose as possible, rather than being concise, factual and neutral, as one would expect from an encyclopedia. In General, the editors and moderators of this page seem to have prioritized quantity over quality and accuracy, which I think is damaging to people's trust in Wikipedia.

Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

All material in Wikipedia main space, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.158.184 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 

@71.126.158.184: In the Chimborazo Park article it says that there is a plaque at the park on which is written "On this hill stood Chimborazo Hospital 1862-1865. Established by Surgeon General S.P. Moore, C.S.A., Directed by Dr. James B. McCaw. At that time, it was the largest military hospital in the world. It consisted of 150 buildings and 100 tents and cared for 76,000 patients with a mortality of less than 10 per cent. This tablet is placed by the Confederate Memorial Literary Society 1934." An image of the plaque is included. That, plus the two images on the page Chimborazo Hospital showing an entire hillside of buildings, I could easily presume that "the hospital" covered the entire hill; filled 'the park'. It seems pretty simple to me to verify that Chimborazo Park is a Confederate monument at this time. That the hill got its name before there was a park, before there was a Civil War, and before a hospital was built there, is not a valid argument. That's like saying "Jefferson Davis is not a Confederate because his momma gave him the name before there was even a Confederacy." Normal Op (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(In response to 71.126.158.184's newly inserted comments): I commend the Commonwealth of Virginia for the efforts they are making, and I could tell from my research yesterday (reading lots of articles) that Virginia has been working on this for a few years now. I have been following monuments coming down across the country by monitoring the article List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests‎‎. I created in List of Confederate monuments and memorials in Virginia‎‎ a section near the bottom for "Former" things, so that as monuments are removed the content about them can be moved somewhere (including commentary and citations on why they were moved, removed, renamed, etc.). Buildings and parks and schools are not going to disappear, so even if they get renamed or repurposed they will still exist. I don't think that removing that content is appropriate. Even the renaming of the schools (of which there are dozens more; I just got jaded and quit researching them) should remain in the article, at the bottom, under "Former". Seeing those "former" entries is a testament to what Virginia is doing. As to politics, I don't get involved. As to "using" this Wikipedia webpage for political purposes, I strongly advise against it... at minimum because this page (and all of Wikipedia) is not a tool for political purposes, but also because there is no guarantee that any Wiki page is up to date (to wit, this one wasn't and isn't). If you wish to keep editing the page, just sign up for an account. It's free. I think you might need to make 10 edits or so before you can edit one of these semi-protected pages, or wait out the 7 days to when the protection will expire. If you wish to contact me directly, once you have signed into an account go to my user page and click to send me an email. I would be happy to assist you in editing this page. It sounds like you have valuable knowledge and motivation to help update this page, but are perhaps lacking the experience in Wikipedia editing to accomplish what you want to really accomplish. I would be happy to assist you. If you would prefer, you can always come to this Talk page and click "New section" and make a comment about a change you would like to see in the page. I will try to address it. For an example of how that might work, go to this page to see how others are doing it for a page that has dozens of editors working on the project at the same time. Some people are making comments on the Talk page, and others are making the changes in the article. Normal Op (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, I do not have the patience to work with you. I don't feel like you have been responsive to many of the valid points I have been making. I do appreciate that you have created a section on former monuments, I think that is a good idea although I would suggest you make it in to its own page since the title of this page says nothing about former monuments and this page is already too long and unwieldy to work on easily.

Also, to be perfectly clear, the changes I made to this page were not motivated by politics, strange viewpoints, or a desire to destroy anything.

As to who uses the page and for what purpose, I don't think that is up to either you or me to decide. I will note that these monuments are inherently political because many of them were put up during the Jim Crow era for political reasons (opposition to integration etc). It is because of this political controversy, that care should be taken to verify them by using Wikipedia's core content policies.

In regards to Chimborazo park I really feel like you are missing the points I am making entirely. Perhaps you are right and I just don’t understand the editor’s job on a Wikipedia page. However, after reading Wikipedia's core content policies it seems to me that you are ignoring these policies in favor of defending the status quo on the page that you are moderating. I think that this defensiveness is an obstacle to improving this page.

While I do appreciate that you took the time to respond to me about this park, there wasn't any new information in your response. I think the time you took to defend your idea that the park is a Confederate monument would have been much better spent on simply providing an inline citation to a reliable published source that states that this park is a Confederate monument or memorial. I couldn't find any reference to this park as a Confederate monument or memorial anywhere on the Internet, nor could I find anything stating that the park was named for the hospital (that is why I removed this item from the list). In any case, the mere fact that a listed item has an association with the Confederacy, does not, by itself, make it a monument or memorial. If you are unable, or unwilling, to find a reliable published source for this item when challenged, then your assertion that the park is a Confederate monument is your opinion and nothing more. You state that it seems pretty simple to you and that you could easily presume. These statements are used when one is stating one’s opinion. This page is part of an encyclopedia and not your personal blog where you post your opinions. As for Jeff Davis’ mom, I fail to see how that is relevant to our discussion. Chimborazo is also the name of the Richmond neighborhood that the park is in. So the name is clearly not unique to the hospital, nor did it originate with the hospital, which only existed for a few years.

As for the stone monument with the hospital plaque on it, I agree that the stone and plaque is a Confederate monument, however this monument does not make the park itself a Confederate monument, anymore than all the Confederate monuments in Gettysburg National Military Park make that park a Confederate monument. Why would Chimborazo park be any different than the Gettysburg park? If you can’t verify that Chimborazo park is a Confederate monument then you really should put this stone monument under the heading “Other public monuments” and not under the heading of Parks.

Sorry we can’t work together and I apologize for being so direct and blunt, but I felt you deserved to know why I will not work with you since you took the time to talk to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.158.184 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
and re-edited on 2020-06-21T16:20:28‎

@71.126.158.184: I have replaced the signature line which you deleted with your last edit. On a Talk page, the culture is to ADD comments to the bottom. Also, you need to SIGN your edits. You do this by adding four tildes to the end of your post. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Signatures for more information. Normal Op (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In response to your last edit, please also check out these Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, Wikipedia:Advocacy, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Normal Op (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@71.126.158.184, you were right

@71.126.158.184: You were right about the flavor of the article. The list inclusion criteria were not specified for this page, and were unclear even in the "parent" page (List of Confederate monuments and memorials). After working on the whole set of pages for a week (main list plus a separate article for each of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), and reading through the four sources from Southern Poverty Law Center (2016 webpage, 2016 PDF report, 2019 webpage, and the current online database), the purpose and original inclusion criteria of this set of list-articles has become clear. I have reworked all the lede paragraphs (of the set of pages) to be more clear about the inclusion criteria so that others will not try to include "any old Civil War related items" that are not "memorializing" the Confederacy (which was the original purpose of this set of pages). I have gone through all the edits you had made and made sure the topics were in either this list-article or its derivative-successor, Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials#Virginia. The entire set of pages have all been cluttered up with "anything Civil War" that have crept into each list because of a lack of clear inclusion criteria at the top of each page. Just filling you in on the developments. (The crow was tough and tasteless, but I made it go down.) Normal Op (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)