Talk:Confederate Memorial Day

message: Does anybody which, if any, states consider CMD to be an official U.S. state holiday? Traditional Catholic 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official state holiday?

message: most state offices are Closed in observance --Jober14 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Carolina

message: The history section looks more like fanciful fiction or a regional piece of folk lore.  I don't have historical record of this holiday's origin, but surely there must be a more scholarly source.  I would suggest that the original "history" be relabled as "associated lore" or what-have-you, it's clearly not objective historical fact. 
Consult http://www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/history.asp Traditional Catholic 16:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Disputed

message: Here is a link to an article about the observance of CMD in 2007.
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20070430/localnews/171018.shtml 
s20130
I also live in Atlanta and know of no Confederate Memorial Day in which offices are closed.  However, I have gone to "Decoration" all my life at a family church in Alabama, but there is no Holiday other than the federal "Memorial Day"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.160.4 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the State of Georgia website now calls it simply "State Holiday", and it's been moved to Monday April 24 this year. -NoApostropheInIts (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: CMD

message: First, the source quoted for the history section directly contradictsWikipedia's own Memorial Day entry re: origins; second, it displays a clear bias for the southern states, and Georgia in particular, as does the link you provide.
Until someone can provide a scholarly historical source, I'm changing the "History" heading to "Folk Lore," which more accurately describes that content.
Also:  what in the heck does Leo Frank have to do with Confederate Memorial Day???
Finally:  in my actions above I am disputing the factual accuracy of specifically the history section.  It either needs to be reconciled with the history of Wikipedia's Memorial Day entry, or removed, or edited to include scholarly/reliable sources, not society rags from the turn of the century.
I'm going to reaffirm my changes above (when I was an anonymous user).  If someone wants the society rag to appear as History, I'd like to see some discussion on this page justifying that move.
Again, the article about the history of Confederate Memorial Day's birth is full of florid prose and angels and what-not.  It's not an academic source.  It's speculative fiction posing as society rag journalism.  I'm leaving it in, but marking it as what it is:  folklore. King Mongo 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That is not a sufficient source.

message: Just a note to say that the "table" is somewhat misleading as refers to Texas.  To wit, the "see Arkansas" notation...which in turn states that MLK and the Confederate holiday are combined.  In Texas, Confederate Heroes Day is ALWAYS on January 19 (Robert E. Lee's birthday), whereas MLK Day is officially observed on the 3rd Monday in January...which may or may not fall on the 19th.
Confederate Heroes Day is a state holiday and should not be confused with Confederate Memorial Day which is April 26th.
January 19 - Confederate Heroes Day (partial staffing holiday)
House Bill 126, 42nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 8. Approved and Effective January 30, 1931 as Robert E. Lee's Birthday. 
Senate Bill 60, 63rd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 221. Approved June 1, 1973 and Effective August 27, 1973 as Confederate Heroes Day. This bill deleted June 3rd as a holiday for Jefferson Davis' birthday and combined the two into Confederate Heroes Day.
3rd Monday - Martin Luther King Jr. Day 
Senate Bill 485, 70th Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 159. Approved May 25, 1987 and Effective August 31, 1987 as an optional holiday. 
Senate Bill 134, 72nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 445. Approved and Effective on June 11, 1991 as an official state holiday. 
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/holidays.html
I understand what Senate Bill 60 says, but I would think the intention was to combine Lee's B-day and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's B-day (January 21) into Confederate Heroes Day. That seems to make more sense.204.58.248.32 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas

message: Confederate Memorial Day is included in the Constitution of Alabama
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/1-3-8.htm
Apparently there are some changes afoot in Alabama. CMD has always been a state holiday, but now CMD and Jeff Davis' birthday, another state holiday, will no longer be mandatory days off for state employees. Though the holidays will stay on the books, state employees will now get two personal days off that will compensate for the loss of the official time off on those days. State offices will now officially remain open on those days.  DesScorp 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alabama

message: The "History of Confederate Memorial Day" section is a direct cut-and-paste, and not just sourced from, the Department of Veterans' Affairs website, complete with unformatted section headlines. It would also appear that the same thing happened with the "Folklore" section (from a different source), and that section has severe NPOV issues and is written in a florid sentimental style that could work as a quotation, but not an actual Wikipedia article. Is a reformat, if not a complete rewrite, called for here? --Enwilson 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and Paste Article? 

message: I'm working on rewriting this article.  So far I've summarized the History section.  Without another source, it's little more than a paraphrase of the original, but I think it's a little better, and I removed the unnecessary history of Decoration Day; people can read the Decoration Day article if they want more on that.  Here it is:
:By the time Decoration Day was established by the Grand Army of the Republic in 1868, local springtime tributes to the Civil War dead had already been held in various places.  In Columbus, Mississippi on April 25, 1866, a group of women decorated the graves of Confederate soldiers who fell at the Battle of Shiloh.  Graves of Union soldiers had been neglected because they were the enemy, but the women placed flowers at those graves as well.
:Today, approximately 25 cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day in 1866, including Macon, Georgia; Columbus, Georgia; and Richmond, Florida.  Boalsburg, Pennsylvania claims to have started the holiday in 1864.  Most of the cities claiming connection with the holiday are in the South, where most of the war dead were buried.
But I think we need more specifically about Confederate Memorial Day.
--69.161.146.61 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: the link to the Arkansas secretary of state's website incorrectly names him as Charlie Daniels. The Arkansas sec. of state is Mark Martin. Looks like someone was having fun with links. I couldn't figure out how to change it, but I could figure out how to make a comment here, so here we go.
96.35.159.51 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  secretary of state isn't charlie daniels. 

message: I think the three columns giving the date in three years is useless and it makes the remarks column too narrow.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless columns in the table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Confederate Memorial Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110408082243/http://www.legis.state.la.us:80/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097 to http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been several revisions that I believe have spawned from this page being linked to the front page of the popular social media site Reddit. Many of the corrections have been to include "treason" or "warring against the United States" as their contribution.
First, should this article receive some sort of protection status? What is the protocol when external brigading brings vandalism and revision with questionable sourcing?
Second, is the nature of the war necessary to this article? The United States Civil War page treats the conflict as an internal conflict and I would be hesitant to offer anything further on this page as it's subject matter seems pretty narrow. A discussion of the motives and whether or not the Confederacy was treasonous seems better suited for the for the United States Civil War page.
Moosedontgomoo (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't call those edits vandalism. Perhaps good faith edits with which you disagree. Treason is a crime defined in the US Constitution ("Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...") and it's pretty hard to argue the CSA was not treasonous. Whether it belongs here.....that's going to be an interesting discussion. My gut feeling is that I agree with you but I am always wary of whitewashing history. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions based on link from external source- Motivation and definition of Confederate War efforts 

message: The holiday is observed in late April to recall the surrender of the last major Confederate field army at Bennett Place on April 26, 1865. The holiday is observed officially in Alabama and Mississippi, and widely, but unofficially, in other Southern states.
Any problems? deisenbe (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did go check that Websters Dictionary reference. The cited edition doesn't mention the surrender.  Maybe another edition has it? We do have Georgia's Landmarks, Memorials, and Legends, a quaint volume from 1914, to attest to the connection though, so it's already covered. Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change second paragraph 

message: At one time there use to be a table of all the dates Confederate Memorial Day is observed, because some states have different dates, this appears long gone and assumes only two dates. More interesting that North Carolina and South Carolina observe Confederate Memorial Day on May 10th, yet its not mention here fully; only a piece about South Carolina state government providing a holiday. Is there a reason for missing information here or was there just an editor that didn't like the fact that there was not consistent holiday so forced it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observed dates for Confederate Memorial Day 

message: This article, which purports to be about Confederate Memorial Day spends over half of its space talking about Gen Logan and Memorial Day, which already has its own page. CsikosLo (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much on Logan? 

message: Is Texas's date of January 19 intentionally set on or near Martin Luther King Jr. Day, or is that just a coincidence? — Red XIV (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can obviously be greatly expanded to explain the rational for each date used per state, but at this time we do not have a reason for Texas and we should not speculate. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does specifically mention that Tennessee chose its date to coincide with Jefferson Davis's birthday, so it stands to reason that the reasoning (if any is documented in reliable sources, of course) for other states' dates seems worthy of inclusion. — Red XIV (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas and Martin Luther King Jr. Day 

message: Many of these holidays are meant to honor Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, which is why the holiday is celebrated on their birthdays. Neither of those men died in the civil war. Robert E. Lee died in 1870 from a stroke and Jefferson Davis died in 1889 from bronchitis.--Craigboy (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy. If the holiday is for other people, then it should be removed from here; for example, Robert E. Lee Day is not Confederate Memorial Day. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy." If that's the criteria then several of the holidays mentioned in this article do not belong here. "Confederate Heroes Day" (Texas) for example does not meet your criteria. It is held on Lee's birthday and the description reads "in honor of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate heroes". No mention of those that died and the only people mentioned by name did not die in the Civil War.--Craigboy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You mention several, but only bring up Texas. If that is the only offending holiday, then it should be removed (or at least I am all for it); if there are others then we need to go through the list to confirm first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Craigboy (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing holidays which are for heroes in addition to or instead of the dead under "Related holidays" makes sense; they shouldn't be removed from the article completely, as it's helpful to explain the distinctions for readers. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very misleading lead ("to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died in military service") 

message: Just pinging    and  to call attention to this removal of sourced info from the lead. I've reverted it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an attempt to discuss this with Washuotaku, but he simply deleted it without replying. Wes sideman (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This quote from the SPLC was not sourced in the intro, but only the body. It is rather strong, so it's not surprising someone would ask for it to be cited, even though it's already cited in the body. As WP:LEADCITE says,  "controversial subjects may require many citations". Rather than re-adding it with no source, I would have re-added it with a cross-reference to the source in the body, and there would have been no need to discuss. Using phrases like "unless, of course, you were masking your actual reasons for the removal" is not assuming good faith, and may have contributed to your message being received as hostile. I see that Washuotaku deleted the user talk page message after adding that cross-reference, which is a perfectly fine thing to do after a dispute seems to be resolved.  It should have been clear from the start that there was sourcing in the body, as Wes' original edit summary said "added summation of paragraph in the body to the lead", and it appears you read that because you knew whose edits you were reverting. After Wes pointed out in another edit summary and that user talk page message that sourcing was present in the body, removing the text a second time with the edit summary "Then cite it correctly." comes across as a bit passive-aggressive and no doubt contributed to Wes' accusation that you were edit warring. I'm glad that in the end, the article is better off - having the cite in the lead probably contributes to stability - for having both of you contributing, but I'm sad that we didn't get there more quickly and cooperatively. What's done is done, but I just hope thinking about what happened here can help make future interactions more pleasant and productive. -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks  I agree with your summation of the situation. I would add that it's difficult for me to assume good faith with this particular editor, given his past edits on this article. They all just happen to be edits that remove sourced info that points out the holiday's connection to racism. While it's plausible that that's coincidence, I don't believe that to be the case. So in this instance, I hope you understand why I made the assumptions that I did. It was based on a pattern of editing, and not arbitrary judgement. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Everyone has their own perspective, and it's easier to see certain problems from certain perspectives. That's why having a diversity of editors is an important part of writing balanced articles. WP:AGF is asking us to assume other editors aren't driven solely by their point of view, even when it's starting to look that way, or at least to keep that opinion to ourselves. For example, a legitimate concern plus annoyance with another editor can incorrectly appear to be POV pushing to a person with a different perspective. Acting as if other editors have good intentions can actually also encourage them to do so; if people are accusing you of bad behavior even when you are trying to do good, why bother doing good? -- Beland (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text: If graves are being decorated with white supremacists symbols, that certainly seems like one plausible interpretation. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on such issues; it merely documents notable points of view. The SPLC is certainly a notable commentator, and other points of view are also extensively documented in the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing whether or not we personally agree or disagree with various opinions, so if you want to express your opinion about the SPLC, I would recommend either speaking to them directly or finding a more suitable forum. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: SPLC mention in intro

message: There seems to be some dispute about HTML comments in the article telling articles not to change the intro or the "See also" section without getting consensus on the talk page. While getting consensus for controversial changes can be helpful, unless there's a consensus on the talk page that the entire intro should remain unchanged after a hard-fought consensus, it's not appropriate to put a note saying it shouldn't be changed. Certainly there are many changes to the intro and "See also" list that would not be controversial and would be helpful to make without asking permission. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text. -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing the relevant guideline on this topic, to which I was not aware. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden text

message: Should the wording of the sentence in question be:
A: a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died rebelling against the Union
or
B:  a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the American Civil War.
Please discuss below. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is a poor choice of words, as they were not in revolt against the union, but the united states. I will also say that from a non-Amerian viewpoint that sentence still reads a bit uninformative, as (well I do, but then I have a union and confederate army) I doubt many even know what "the Union" stands for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe that's yet another reason to withdraw, namely, because for non-Americans it isn't clear here that "union" is synonymous with "United States". So, as far as the word "Union" goes, I agree with you; but that's part of another question in this confusingly worded Rfc.  Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on wording in lead and infobox 

message: A: That wording is factual and more specific than "B". We should always pick the option that is more specific. "B" seems to be preferred by editors that wish to gloss over the fact that the American Civil War was, at its core, a rebellion against the United States. Not helpful to use a euphemism here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is a poor choice of words, as they were not in revolt against the union, but the united states. I will also say that from a non-Amerian viewpoint that sentence still reads a bit uninformative, as (well I do, but then I have a union and confederate army) I doubt many even know what "the Union" stands for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe that's yet another reason to withdraw, namely, because for non-Americans it isn't clear here that "union" is synonymous with "United States". So, as far as the word "Union" goes, I agree with you; but that's part of another question in this confusingly worded Rfc.  Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor preferences

message: I rearranged some text because the second and third paragraphs essentially started with the same train of thought. WashuOtaku objects, apparently because they feel "what the day is supposed to be about" should be introduced before "that its condemned". Two problems with this: the lead already introduces "what the day is supposed to be about", and also, the vast majority of coverage of this subject deals with criticism of it. If anything, the criticism of it should be summarized in the first paragraph, but I wasn't making an editorial edit, just one for better flow and sense. Wes sideman (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of paragraphs 

message: In my edit of CMD, I added the actual name of the woman who was originally listed only as 'his wife.' The woman in question, Mary Logan (nee' Simmerson Cunningham) has her very own Wiki page and was an accomplished author (please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Simmerson_Cunningham_Logan.) I felt uncomfortable making an edit without bothering to at least try and respect the lady with a pronoun. Apparently ClueBot didn't agree with me. The bot actually removed Ms. Logan's name from my edit and reverted back to the original and dismissive 'his wife' wording. Why? That's simply flabbergasting. I can't see any other changes to my edit.
Now look, I'm not going to get into an edit war with a bot, so I'm going to just leave it. However, I am also going to contact New York University and University of Washington. These schools are doing excellent work on racism and sexism in algorithms. Their focus of course has been on Google and Meta. I'm going to do my very best to make sure that they put Mr. ClueBot NG on their radar as well by reporting the following:
1. The sexist ClueBot edit.
2. Wiki's ClueBot NG team has no women on it.
3. Wiki indicates no awareness of the crusade against systemic racism and sexism in algorithms.
4. Wiki does not seek support from its community to ensure ClueBot NG avoids racist and sexist edits.
Finally, I am new to the Wiki community, and admit that I may be completely off-track here. Sadly, I don't think so. Mrisaac57 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears Cluebot took issue with this edit, in which you removed a significant amount of sourced material. Cluebot cannot discern whether you did this accidentally or on purpose. I'm not a programmer but I assume it acts to remedy a situation, when a lot of sourced material is removed, by reverting the edit - which it did. Wes sideman (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't revert the edit. It took paragraphs from "Origins" and "Controversy" sections and put them in intro. Without the redundancy, origins and controversy are shorter now. Some original paragraphs were removed as well.  Not a bad page though. Mrisaac57 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ClueBot NG's sexist edit