Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Heya @Washuotaku, I'm just a copyright geek who came here to investigate the claim of copyright infringement and this discussion caught my eye. One thing you might not understand is that the popularity of Gangnam Style was incomparably shorter and shallower than the popularity of Dixie (song). During the Civil War, people in both the North and South were singing, playing, loving and hating it. Someone asked President Lincoln what he thought of it and he said he thought it was a great one. Even now, reading this discussion nearly 170 years after it was written, the lyrics (with music) popped into my mind:

• "In Dixieland I'll make my stand,
• to live and die in Dixie!
• Away, away, away down south in Dixie!"

And nothing about me comes from anywhere near the South. That's how prevalent the song has been. The flaw here may not be in other people, or even in you, but in your education. That's not your fault. But you can do something about it. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Do we think it's worth creating a separate article/list for monuments and memorials to colonial and antebellum enslavers, and white supremacists of the Jim Crow era, that have since been removed or renamed? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be a much more difficult list to generate. Other than the fact it would duplicate everything on this list (and possibly others), new definitions would need to be defined on what goes on the list and why; a set criteria and scope. Because even statues of Abraham Lincoln were toppled/removed in Boston and Portland in 2020 because of racial inequality he represented, would that meet the new list requirements? If you can find other like-minded editors and keep it unbiased, then maybe. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

"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)

The opening paragraph

The wording of the opening paragraph sounds like gibberish and must be very confusing to readers, should be rewritten. 88.220.170.250 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Reads fine to me, care to elaborate? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Why I removed the Copying within Wikipedia tag

Other than common phrases like "the Confederate flag," ect., the only things identical in the two reported pages were quotations of outside sources. Each article cited the sources of the quotes. In itself, that's not plagiarism.

Additionally the editor who placed the tag has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for violating copyrights. They can't show me what they were seeing. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Stained glass windows

@Washuotaku: can you clarify why the stained glass windows at the Washington National Cathedral and the Cathedral of the Rockies are not memorials/within the "scope of this article", as you claimed? Schools named in memory of people I can understand, but I do not see how depictions of Confederate leaders memorialized in stained glass are not considered memorials? Is this standard established in the article, or was made clear during a previous discussion? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The article itself provides the answer as to why it is not to be included here. The stained glass windows are commemorated, not memorialize. The difference is nuance; to commemorate is to honor a person or event, while a memorial is to preserve the memory. Hope that helps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The stained glass windows are commemorated, not memorialize. The difference is nuance; to commemorate is to honor a person or event, while a memorial is to preserve the memory. When specific historical figures are depicted, the difference between a commemoration and a memorial is often impossibly opaque, particularly if the creators or sponsors died years ago, which is the case with almost all the installations in question here. The nuance is often subject to personal interpretation. In most such cases, I would argue in favor of inclusion. Carguychris (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the windows should be included. The Washington National Cathedral windows were added due to lobbying by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The Cathedral of the Rockies window, commissioned in 1958 by Rev. Herbert E. Richards, because, in Richards' own words, "We have a strong southern influence here in Boise." ([1]). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When I wrote my previous comment, I had not specifically researched the windows in question. Sponsorship by the UDC pretty much removes all doubt; they're memorials. The UDC was one of the leading proponents of Lost Cause mythology. Carguychris (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the United States Department of Veteran Affairs refers to these stained glass windows of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant as Memorials. The College of the Holy Cross refers to stained glass windows as both memorials and commemorations. I agree with Carguychris that this seems to be a matter of personal interpretation and not scope. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me really semantics. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree since the words have different definitions, but the majority so far consider both as the same. So the question now is that the correct answer and should we incorporate the word "commemorate" into the article where it naturally fits (removing future discussion). --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

...the majority so far consider both as the same. I can't speak for everyone, but no, that's not what I said. I'm saying that the distinction is often impossible to draw with regards to a public monument. Furthermore, there is abundant historical evidence that groups like the UDC deliberately exploited the blurry distinction to erect "commemorative" monuments that not-to-subtly valorize the Confederacy with heroic imagery and language, and this is why we should err in favor of inclusion. Carguychris (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Not the us, but https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/dlsg-commemorative-structures/heag110-commemorative-structures-lsg/ "Commemorative monuments are structures built to remember a person or event, ranging from statues and memorials to historical buildings and archaeological sites. ", so it is even a concept. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC) I think the windows should be included too. Also, "commemorate" and "memorialize" seem to be used interchangeably in practice, besides having the same root.--MattMauler (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

So are we for reinstating the windows to the article? Should we bring it to a vote? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)