Battle of Locust Grove

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Lead bloat

@Rsk6400: - As I mentioned in my edit summary, this article's lead was two paragraphs as early as 2017 and the content was generally the same. The lead was greatly expanded in November without consultation.

There are issues with how the two original paragraphs were re-written and split up (e.g. removing the context about why this article focuses on the "modern" display from the opening sentence and shoving it to the last sentence with unnecessary details, calling the modern display a "phenomenon" as if it's hard to explain, and claiming the "modern" display began in the 19th century). However, the biggest change was the addition of two paragraphs centered on the Charleston church shooting and the murder of George Floyd. Not only do these paragraphs make the lead too long, they're not about the modern display of the flag. They're about the removal of the flag. We already have the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials article for this. We should reference the removals, as the body of this article already does, but it should not be a focal point of the lead when that's not what this article is about. Bluerules (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:STATUSQUO: During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum. From WP:NOCON: a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. "Ante bellum" clearly means "before a dispute arose", so we have to revert to the version which has been stable now since November. Regarding the content question: Since modern display of the flag was greatly reduced (most significantly by changing the Mississippi flag), I think this relevant enough for the lead section. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two-paragraph lead had been stable for over four years. The dispute is over a far more recent change. Therefore, we have to revert to the version that was not disputed until November. And yes, mentioning how the public display fell out of favor is worth mentioning. Dedicating two bloated paragraphs to a subject covered in another article is not. It's one thing to mention that the Charleston shooting and Floyd's murder caused removals of the flag; it's another to recap every event in great detail. That's not what the lead is for. Bluerules (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerules: Have you taken a look at WP:STONEWALLING? You can't unilaterally claim a status-quo lock on a page that's been stable for months. The new lead was holding consensus just fine, as @Rsk6400: mentioned, and has become the new status quo. Therefore, per WP:STATUSQUO, you are the one guilty of changing the article without regard for consensus. I have reinstated the current lead and tweaked it quite a bit; I would love to hear your feedback in the normal give-and-take forum of a talk page. Let's use the most recent edit as the baseline going forward. Sweetstache (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot unilaterally claim a status quo lock on a page that was stable for years until you and you alone expanded the lead with unnecessary bloat. A lead holding consensus for four years trumps five months. Furthermore, I am not objecting to the fact that the lead was significantly changed after so long. I stated the blatant problems with your lead at the start of the talk - chiefly how you dedicate two bloated paragraphs to off-topic information. Again, this article is about the display of the flag, not the removal. That's a separate article. We should reference it, but not write a full recap that overwhelms readers before they even get into the body of the article. The sentence I added - "Incidents such as the 2015 Charleston church shooting and the 2020 murder of George Floyd led to public bans against the flag and official display being mostly retired." - has the same key information without recapping the removal process. Bluerules (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerules:Unilateral (adj.): performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others. @Rsk6400's defense of my edits, as well as many other editors' lack of issue with them for 5-6 months, clearly constituted a new consensus regarding the lead. That is the current status quo, and I don't see how you can argue otherwise. You bring objections, and I am very eager to discuss them and hear any others. But the point from which we are currently operating is the most recent lead to achieve consensus, i.e. the longer version. The lead from the prior four years no longer held consensus - plain and simple. I was bold in my edits, as we are all encouraged to be, and believe them to be in line with both WP policies and the best interests of the article. Maybe it's too long or redundant in its current form and needs to be trimmed; I'm very open to that. But please stop wholesale reverting the lead to a truncated, stunted version which forces the reader to dig and dig to find any relevant history or summary of events surrounding this topic. A lead of two paragraphs is definitely on the shorter side in the broader scheme.
The removal of the flag is incredibly relevant to its ongoing display. If it's being removed more and more, that marks its display as a more and more outdated, backwards-looking choice. It seems very important to contextualize this concept in its broader modern cultural landscape, no?
What exactly in the current lead do you find off-topic? Incorrect? Sensationalist? You're making a lot of claims that I am struggling to find evidence for but I am sincerely very eager to hear precisely which language falls under those descriptions and why. Would you be so kind? Sweetstache (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No other editors had issue with what you call "a truncated, stunted version" for four years. No other editors tried reverting back to the bloated, overwhelming version a week after this discussion took place, including Rsk6400 (who was the among the editors working on this page during the four years with the shorter lead). Rsk6400 even agrees that your lead is too long. There is no consensus; only you feel strongly about your lead and I feel strongly about the shorter lead. Your assertion that the lead from "the prior four years no longer held consensus" is unfounded - plain and simple. Again, the fact that editors were maintaining the shorter version for a week until you reverted back to the longer version demonstrates that your version is not backed by a consensus. That "truncated, stunted version" does what the lead is supposed to do - summarize the subject without overwhelming the reader before they get to the body of the article. It should no be expanded simply because it's two paragraphs. This is why the articles have body sections and why we have separate article for separate subjects.
The removal of the flag is relevant to the display, but it is not the main subject of this article. It should be referenced, not focused on. Again, let me remind you there is an article entitled Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. An article about the removal of Confederate symbols should be the place to focus on the flag being taken down, no? It should be mentioned that the flag is being removed in public / official settings - which is why I added a new sentence - it should not be recapped in great detail. Recapping how the Charleston church shooting and George Floyd's murder led to the flag's removal doesn't have any more substance than simply acknowledging these are among the events that have ended displays of the flag.
It is off-topic to dedicate two length paragraphs to the flag being removed (this is for the removal article). It is incorrect to call this just "the battle flag of the Confederate Northern Virginia". The description of the flag's image on this page calls it "the rectangular battle flag of the Army of Tennessee". Put simply, it's the Confederacy's battle flag. It is sensationalist to call the modern display a "phenomenon" as if it's hard to explain why certain people continue displaying the flag. The Confederacy having a "duration of just four years" and "lack of diplomatic recognition as a state" aren't relevant either to the flag's modern display. The key factor is the Confederacy no longer exists, yet people still display the flag, hence why the article focuses on the "modern" display. And the flag being carried into the Capitol building during the Jan. 6 attack is a neat piece of trivia, but not major enough for the lead. It doesn't change anything about the flag's display, which is why there are only two sentences dedicated to it in the body. Bluerules (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Your assertion that the lead from "the prior four years no longer held consensus" is unfounded - plain and simple"
If a significant change is made, discussed in depth, incorporated into the general edit flow of an article, taken as acceptable by numerous other editors making minor tweaks here and there, and all this lasts for six whole months, then I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention and didn't get the chance to grant it divine authority, but a new consensus was formed. Of course, that doesn't mean we have one anymore. Clearly. :) I look forward to working with you and others to ascertain a new one re: the lead.
"The removal of the flag is relevant to the display, but it is not the main subject of this article. It should be referenced, not focused on. Again, let me remind you there is an article entitled Removal..."
Point taken. Condensing those paragraphs into what you wrote is good.
"It is incorrect to call this just "the battle flag of the Confederate Northern Virginia". The description of the flag's image on this page calls it "the rectangular battle flag of the Army of Tennessee". Put simply, it's the Confederacy's battle flag"
Not true. I welcome you to read Flags of the Confederate States of America#Battle flag and take a look the lead image caption in Confederate States Army. Though not widely known, the "southern cross" design has its origins with Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It was later adopted by the Army of Tennessee as well. It has come to be associated with the CSA in general and all of the fierce, brutal white backlash against Black progress during the 20th century. If this is truly an article about the flag's modern display, it's important to provide an overview of how it originated, and how it came to be what it is today. It started as one thing swimming in the vast sea of American white supremacy at the time, and ended up taking on a much more pointed meaning. In an article that is literally about how that came to be, it is neglectful to not include even a sentence or sentence fragment about its conception as the battle flag of a particular Confederate Army.
"It is sensationalist to call the modern display a "phenomenon" as if it's hard to explain why certain people continue displaying the flag."
I apologize if that's how it came across as the meaning isn't in question or hard to explain for me personally. I didn't mean to imply any mystery or shoulder-shrugging about this very potent symbol, I just needed a word to talk about the [occurrence? phenomenon? happening?] that this article describes. Your twig of a lead has "modern display" back to back in the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next, which sounds very clunky and awkward. Ideas?
"The Confederacy having a "duration of just four years" and "lack of diplomatic recognition as a state" aren't relevant either to the flag's modern display. The key factor is the Confederacy no longer exists, yet people still display the flag, hence why the article focuses on the "modern" display."
It's super relevant! It hammers home the point even harder that the CSA is not a polity worthy of celebration, memorialization, lionization, or anything remotely close to praise, yet nevertheless still receives those things from the people who engage in the behavior outlined by the article. Just four years? Are we serious? Gay Americans have been able to get married longer. The Game of Thrones ran for longer. Lack of diplomatic recognition as a state? This thing isn't even worthy of being called a country! I'm trying to emphasize the CSA's should-be insignificance and introduce a bit of "wait, what?" in those who might not know much about this issue. "If this extinct wannabe-country was so bad at existing, why do people celebrate it so much?"
"And the flag being carried into the Capitol building during the Jan. 6 attack is a neat piece of trivia, but not major enough for the lead. It doesn't change anything about the flag's display..."
One very, very relevant example of the flag being displayed in a context that lies at the heart of much of America's national troubles at the moment. Mere trivia? That's naive.
I think we're on the same side here, just different approaches. Thoughts? Sweetstache (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the measure for "a new consensus"? A notable amount of time? If that's the case, this shorter lead was retained for a week. Yeah, that's a fraction of six months, but six months is a fraction of four years and the shorter lead lasted for four years. Regardless, this is a status quo issue, not a consensus issue. There hasn't been any consensus formed because other editors have been generally neutral on this issue. If we're going off what was used for a notable period or what was used longer, the status quo favors the shorter lead.
I have read the Flags of the Confederate State of America article and the "southern cross" does not have its origins with Lee's Army of Northern Virgina. Its origins are with a proposed and rejected design from William Porcher Miles. It became a general battle flag, not just the battle flag for the Northern Virgina army or any other particular Confederate Army, and it's simpler to refer to it as such (hence why this article is modern display of the Confederate battle flag, not modern display of the Confederate Northern Virginia battle flag). At the end of the day, it was the battle flag for a military that supported the enslavement of black Americans and that's established without the Northern Virginia reference. Just as we have a separate article for Confederate symbols being removed, we have a separate article (that you've noted) about the history of Confederate flags. That's where we focus on the focus on the origins. We should reference the origins for context - as we do early on in the body - but not make them a major focus as that's not the focus of this article.
We don't need to make the lead super fancy - it just needs to be formal, informative, and accurate. I like to have word variety, but in this case, we're just talking about the flag's display.
We are not supposed to hammer home any points. That violates WP:NPOV. We state the relevant facts. Duration and designation don't necessarily determine significance - there any many beloved series that lasted only one season and many great athletes weren't deemed worthy of the MLB because of racism. No matter how long the Confederacy existed or what it was considered, there would not be an emphasis on the battle flag's "modern" display if it still existed. The Confederacy's dissolution is why we focus on the "modern" display - people still display the flag of something that no longer exists.
There may be points that can be gleamed from stating the relevant facts, but that's inadvertent. When the article mentions the modern display began with the segregationist Dixiecrats and opposition to the American Civil Rights movement, that's not intended to make a point about the modern display. That's stating the facts about how this article was created. Others can interpret these facts however they want, but they're included because they're relevant facts. Bluerules (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There hasn't been any consensus formed because other editors have been generally neutral on this issue."
Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE, "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly...Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible."
It seems that our "status quo" is a moot point so long as my frame of reference is six months and yours is either 4 years (absolutely presumed consensus at the time, peacefully overridden) or a week (r we being srs?). It's clear we're building a new consensus once again right now, and I look forward to however it might turn out.
"I have read the Flags of the Confederate State of America article and the "southern cross" does not have its origins with Lee's Army of Northern Virginia."
Fair enough re:the specific geometry, but the overall inflection point is well-documented. It's relevant to the flag's beginnings at a level that deserves inclusion in the lead. From that article, citing Coski's book The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem:
"On November 28, 1861, Confederate soldiers in General Robert E. Lee's newly reorganized Army of Northern Virginia received the new battle flags in ceremonies at Centreville and Manassas, Virginia, and carried them throughout the Civil War. Beauregard gave a speech encouraging the soldiers to treat the new flag with honor and that it must never be surrendered. Many soldiers wrote home about the ceremony and the impression the flag had upon them, the "fighting colors" boosting morale after the confusion at the Battle of First Manassas. From then on, the battle flag grew in its identification with the Confederacy and the South in general. [citation 39]"
"We should reference the origins for context - as we do early on in the body - but not make them a major focus as that's not the focus of this article."
Yes, we absolutely should reference the origins for context, and we should do so in the lead given a) how relevant anything's origins are to that thing's ongoing existence, and b) how easily/briefly we can do it in the space you freed up with your truncation.
"We are not supposed to hammer home any points. That violates WP:NPOV. We state the relevant facts. Duration and designation don't necessarily determine significance - there any many beloved series that lasted only one season and many great athletes weren't deemed worthy of the MLB because of racism. No matter how long the Confederacy existed or what it was considered, there would not be an emphasis on the battle flag's "modern" display if it still existed. The Confederacy's dissolution is why we focus on the "modern" display - people still display the flag of something that no longer exists."
Duration and designation are not the same for TV shows as polities. That was my point, the CSA couldn't even go as long as many TV shows have run, not one single other nation recognized it as a peer, and yet in certain places modern people still celebrate it as if it were this glorious empire. All I'm doing there is highlighting a contrast that is inherently important to this topic. I'm not slanting the POV, I'm making unquestionably relevant strands of history clear.
You're not providing adequate reasoning to exclude much of what I added to the lead. This is an issue which has been hazy at best for the vast majority of the American public across the relevant time period. For certain subsets, it's been much clearer. But overall, the majority has not been clear on this issue since its origins. The better we can provide accurate representations and context to the summary of the topic, the better informed we'll all be going forward. Especially in these days of short attention spans.
"When the article mentions the modern display began with the segregationist Dixiecrats and opposition to the American Civil Rights movement, that's not intended to make a point about the modern display. That's stating the facts about how this article was created."
It didn't start with the Dixiecrats, though. It started soon after the war. The "modern display" isn't fully summarized when you exclude 85 prior years of historical context that can be included in several sentences at most. I agree that my "status quo" is bloated, but briefly touching on 1865-1940s (a time when the CSA no longer existed--the only relevant matter, per you) isn't bloat. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the lead so devoid of crucial details which would help contextualize and enrich the reader's first impression. Also, beyond relevant consensuses/arbitration decisions, why is the past of the article pertinent to its current status? Just because the article was created a certain way doesn't mean it must currently resemble that mode of creation. That POV seems inherently limiting to the potential of any article. Sweetstache (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two-paragraph lead was created some time around 2017 and mostly remained two paragraphs since. I think it's safe to say the only editors who feel strongly about the lead are ourselves because no one else has made a strong push to change the lead. I'm open to a new consensus so long as any added information is indeed relevant to the lead.
Like I said, this article is entitled "Modern display of the Confederate battle flag, not "Modern display of the Confederate Northern Virginia battle flag". While the flag was popularized by Lee's army, it did not originate with Lee's army and was not used only by Lee's army. That's why it's simpler and more accurate to refer to it as the "battle flag" in the lead. Furthermore, this article is about the flag's modern display, not the history - we have the aforementioned article about the Confederate flags themselves to focus on the history. The history is not the focal point of the article and adding too much historical context buries the main subject.
Saying the battle flag was used by the Army of Northern Virgina isn't relevant to the modern display. Saying the battle flag was used by the Confederacy in general - which is what supporters tend to have the flag represent, not a single military unit - is what's relevant. Going any further into the flag's history doesn't add anything relevant to the main subject. The flag was used by a "nation" that no longer exists and supported racist ideology. That's established without specifying the flag was used by one of the Confederacy's military units.
You said it yourself - you want to add background about the Confederacy's duration and designation because that "hammers home the point even harder that the CSA is not a polity worthy of celebration, memorialization, lionization, or anything remotely close to praise". Your intent is to have readers view the Confederacy as an "extinct wannabe-country" that "was so bad at existing" and question why the Confederacy is celebrated. This attempt to add a "wait, what?" - influencing the reader's views - is, by definition, slanting the POV. We are not supposed to question why people celebrate the Confederacy and try having readers also question it. We state the relevant facts and any conclusions made by the reader are incidental.
I don't see how duration isn't the same for a TV series; a show that lasted one season isn't automatically inferior to one that lasted for 10. As for designation, I'm referring to the minority baseball players who weren't allowed in MLB because of racism - by all accounts, they had the talent to play in MLB, even if they weren't officially MLB players. Duration and designation don't factor in to why this article exists - we're discussing the modern display of the Confederate battle flag because the Confederacy does not exist in modern times. There's no stronger reasoning than going against Wikipedia policy. Stating the facts is acceptable, but doing so with the intent of influencing reader's perceptions is not.
The article you cite also says the post-Civil War display was mostly limited to the military until the Dixiecrats. The flag may have been displayed before the Dixiecrats, but the display we're familiar with - private and official, not just military events - started with them and their segregationist message. This could be tweaked, but at the very least, that article credits the Dixiecrats with popularizing the display beyond the military. The Confederacy no longer existing is the only relevant matter to why we identify this article as the "modern" display of the flag instead of just the flag's display. And the bloat primarily refers to the two paragraphs that recap the flag's enhanced controversy in the wake of the Charleston shooting and Floyd's murder. I don't understand why certain details are considered "crucial". Our objective is to inform the readers and inform them without overwhelming detail because we an article body for the fine details. This article was created with a neutral POV because that is the guideline and we have to follow that guideline. It's not limiting; it's allowing the readers to form their own beliefs about the flag's display because it's unencyclopedic for us to influence them.
Also, since I missed the part about the flag being present in the Capitol riot - this is mere trivia because it hasn't impacted the overarching debate over whether the flag should be displayed. It was a private display that the government can't prevent - for all we know, there could have been people with Confederate shirts or other insignias enter the Capitol before. The Capitol riot wasn't about the issues surrounding the Confederate flag's modern display, it was about people believing the false information of the outgoing president and trying to subvert an election result they didn't like. Bluerules (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory that a version that had been stable since Stone Age takes precedence over a version that has been stable for months is not founded in any of our rules. Especially the Capitol riots have been discussed and changed by many editors, and unless you obtain consensus here for your changes you should not revert to your favourite version again. If you want to obtain consensus, it's a good idea to be more concise. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory that a version used for a few months takes precedence over the version used for years is not founded in any of our rules. And even if it was, the shorter version was remaining stable for a week until the editor who made the change chimed in. You, yourself, had been editing this page during the years that the shorter lead was used and you never attempted to expand it. The Capitol riots was originally given its own section, despite being a mere two sentences in the body. As demonstrated by the aftermath of the Charleston shooting and Floyd's murder, the primary contention has been over public / official display of the flag, not private display.
I made my main point in one paragraph from the start - the new lead dedicates too much space to recapping the process of how the Charleston shooting and Floyd's murder led to flag removals. Again, that is not the main subject of the article, we have a separate article about Confederate symbol removals. It's worth mentioning, but does not need to take up two bloated paragraphs that overwhelm the reader. Any longer posts from me have been to address the points raised in other longer posts. Bluerules (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking the tie here I have to go with reducing the lead bloat more as Bluerules is proposing. Regardless of how long a lead has been stable or which has been here the longest. If times change we have to change the lead and get on with it. I think that the Charleston shooting and Floyd's murder were terrible events and should be covered in this article but not put in the lead. This is an encyclopedia and more current events (sorry in advance) like the shooting and Floyd's murder should be kept to a minimum. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One flag is enough

One site of that sick flag is enough in the introduction. I think I get the idea of what one looks like. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with the other flags being removed. The rectangular version of the battle flag is what's primarily displayed in modern times. Bluerules (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remington, Virginia?

This article has sections with information about specific states' use of the flag, which is highly relevant to the subject at hand. It also has a short section on the flags use in Remington, Va., a town of 600 in Fauquier County. I question this being notable enough to be included in the article. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_display_of_the_Confederate_battle_flag