Talk:Jefferson Davis Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding a photo, suggestions

I hope to be taking photos of this park soon and wished to add them to the page. What is the process for uploading the photos and then transferring them to this article? Thanks for the help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

From any Wikipedia page, select "upload file" from the toolbar menu. Then select the wizard for uploading to Wikipedia Commons. See WP:IMAGES for instructions on how to add images to articles. I'd suggest you add Template:Infobox park to the article too. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that and thank you for your edits of this page. I'm sure it will take a few tries as all of this is new to me and I grew up before all of this; but even the old can learn. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Blogtown, The Portland Mercury website

As discussed on other pages, The Portland Mercury website 'Blogtown' is a reliable source, despite the name as it is the official website for the newspaper and articles posted there are by paid credentialed staff from the newspaper. [1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This particular author does appear to be mastheaded as a reporter, so, yes, his stuff is as good as something like the Mercury can be. Blogtown appears to also have contracted/part time/independent writers who aren't listed there; it's not clear if they all are compensated. Do you have any source for that? Anmccaff (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Go to the site and click on the upper left icon of The Portland Mercury and it will take you to their main page where you can then look up the reporters, photographers and video reporters they use. [2] Now, The Portland Mercury does have a left leaning bias, but it is a RS per past discussions which I'm sure you are better able to look up than I can. If you still question it, then ask again for it to be reviewed as a RS (with bias noted) for sourcing material, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No, going to their website and clicking does not bring up their reporters, only the reporters currently used in online articles. It happens this guy is on the current masthead, but no other reporter appears to be. Clicking on a former reporter in an old article does not show that the person is no longer associated with the the Mercury. There is nothing showing in the online Blogtown version which pieces are actually in print, and when.

The article used here isn't exactly a testimonial; it's just this side of plagiarism of Samantha Matsumoto's piece in the Oregonian for the unattributed third of the body, with the remainder an antifa press release, and an "extract" from the Columbian which is about half the size of the article. Dunno about the guy's usual output, but this looks like blogshite at its worst; the only part that was not borrowed from others, or introducing stuff lifted, was "Fuck confederate monuments." Suim cuique, I guess. Anmccaff (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That was a quote from Rose City Antifa, not the words of the reporter and if you go to the Portland Mercury main page,[3] you will find a number of stories by a number of reporters. Now click on any of those stories and they show up as 'Blogtown' as that is what they call their online article section. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

We've already established that the Mercury puts all of its print articles and some other online only articles in Blogtown. The questions I raised above were about whether they had any staff listing beyond the masthead; it appears that they do not.

I also had an implied question about the particular cite. Do you think this is good journalism? It appear to be a combination of borderline plagiarism, press release, and direct reproduction of another newspaper's work. The only original bit is "Fuck confederate monuments", and a few weblinks. I don't think you should hold your breath waiting for their Pullitzer to get there. Anmccaff (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The demographics of The Portland Mercury's reader are mostly young (20-30) and very use to such language, especially coming from Rose City Antifa, which is in-your-face direct action, in every way possible, including their colourful language. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say their journalism is raw, but accurate when put up against the Oregonian. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"The language..." or, if you prefer, "the fucking language", did not come from antifa. It came from the reporter. It was, as far as I could see, the only fucking thing the sonofabitch had contributed to the article. It began with a God-damned rip-off of the Oregonian, or, possiblly, something the Oregonian ripped of him, with a couple of fu...Oh, wait. My index fingers give up. To many Effs and Us. Antifa put their press release on Facebook. It said nothing about unnatural urges toward cold granite. The reporter wrote that, and the article delineates it by showing the antifa statement in a section with a grey background, and a light grey stripe, just as it does the part ripped from the Columbian. Most of the article is stolen from...no, let's say "an homage to..." other papers. It is not a good source. If the Oregonian wrote their piece first, mostly, there is nothing the Mercury itself is saying, except...well, i think we covered this.

If the Mercury published first, then the Oregonian piece is a ripoff. It's better written, and the writer doesn't need to avoid graveyards as an occasion of sin, but it covers, completely, the same ground as the Mercury piece.

Pick one. Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, this highlights some of the problems with fluid online sources. They change, and can change without notice. There is absolutely no way to tell who wrote what first here, except the small part that the Oregonian reporter credited to the Mercury. Anmccaff (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I spent this from August through October working on the articles surrounding the 2017 Portland train attack and the rise of province of White-nationalist and right-wing groups in the area; but also the rise of anti-racist, anti-fascist and street actions by left-wing groups, mostly around the Portland area (though I'm about 150miles north). I say all that to come to the point that The Portland Mercury, like the Seattle Stranger, are reliable, if not course; they are well sourced news outlets if not tilted more liberal and to a younger reader. If you keep all that in mind and watch for editorialising in some of the news reports; these urban underground papers often get the story first and get it correct. Rose City Antifia is one of the more active chapters of Antifa (United States) that has come together within this year and sadly they have had no shortage of very visible racists, or pro-Trump protests to show up to over the summer; thankfully the return of cold and rain will keep most off the streets until next summer. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to belabor the fact that you are here, essentially, to push a POV; it is kind of obvious.

There's nothing "underground" about the Stranger's operation. It's a successful business model that gives providers of services that reputable papers won't touch a place to put their ads; the symbiotic relationship between the booze-n-drugs peddlers and the DUI lawyers who can't survive on word-of-mouth is particularly amusing; the ads that show where runaways can wind up a good bit sadder.

It's difficult to write back to someone who writes things like ...and the rise of province, or reliable, if not course. This isn't English.

Finally, even if we concede that the Mercury is capable, occasionally, of good journalism, there is none displayed here. Stripped of the stuff borrowed, it's a press release from antifa, with a little desandoser editorializing. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As the quiet removal of the marker stones from public land gained steam,

Can someone suggest an English translation of this? Anmccaff (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the New York Times news article, or the webpage for the SCV, they will tell you that the stone marker sat in a shed at the city cemetery in Vancouver Washington for almost 4yrs before anyone noticed they were removed. Once the SCV chapter found out, they raised such a stink that the city placed the stone outside their Historical museum until 2007 when the city of Vancouver removed it during construction at the building. The city had no intention of replacing the stone, so the SCV bought the land, created the park and fly the Confederate flags facing the busy I-5. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Try rephrasing it without using a mixed metaphor. The sources have nothing to do with his complaint. It's just poor writing. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworded: "As the quiet removal of the marker stones from public land was discovered, so the outcry from the Sons of Confederate Veterans' awareness and resistance to them being removed from public view increased." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Helpful suggestions to improve the text of the article

I not that there may be issues with the way certain sections are written and request comments on how to improve the readability of the article. Thanks for all the help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits again suggest coatracking

We have two stones, one from Blaine and one from Vancouver that now sit in the park with different histories that need to be explained as they are the reason for the park.) Which is to say, this is a continuation of the fuss regarding the Jefferson davis Highway in Washington state, and probably should be addressed there as an epilog, rather than spam the same material on at least three separate pages. Anmccaff (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note The Jefferson Davis Highway was never official in Washington State and everything about it ended in 2016 when what is left of the Old Hwy 99 was officially renames. The park on the other hand is all about the stones from 1940, and the Confederate legacy of Jefferson Davis. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

But it sure looked official, what with the markers, and, if everything about it ended in 2016, then it overlaps with 90 percent of JDP's history. That's a point in favor of consolidating the articles, not against.

(Undid revision 810517637 by Anmccaff (talk) The stone markers are central to the Park, and telling their history gives context to why the park even exists.) So, if the stone markers from the Jefferson Davis Highway#Washington state are essential to this story, why aren't the stories appropriately combined, rather than split? Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are the sections now in the Jefferson Davis Highway article:

Washington In 1939, the Washington State Legislature proposed naming U.S. Route 99 as the "Jefferson Davis Highway", making it the final component of the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway,[14] but it was never made official.[15] The markers were removed to private land in 2007[16] and the highway was renamed in 2016.[17]

Washington

In 1998, officials of the city of Vancouver removed a marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and placed it in a cemetery shed in an action that several years later became controversial.[26] The marker was subsequently moved twice, and eventually was placed alongside Interstate 5 on private land purchased for the purpose of giving the marker a permanent home.[27][28]

The marker stone in Blaine, Washington, was removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, and after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state.[29] Both markers now rest, in the Sons of Confederate Veterans owned Jefferson Davis Park near Ridgefield right beside I-5.[30] In 2002, the Washington House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that would have removed Davis' name from the road. However, a committee of the state's Senate subsequently killed the proposal.[31][32]

In March 2016, the Washington State Legislature unanimously passed a joint memorial that asked the state transportation commission to designate the road as the "William P. Stewart Memorial Highway" to honor an African-American volunteer during the Civil War who later became a pioneer of the town and city of Snohomish.[33] In May 2016, the transportation commission agreed to the renaming.[34]

Here is from this article:

In the early 1900s, the Daughters of the Confederacy began a project of dedicating a route across the southern United States as "Jefferson Davis Highway" and this was later extended to include Highway 99.[6] Stone markers at both ends of the state designating the Jefferson Davis Highway were erected in the 1930s by the , with State approval.[7] By 1998, officials of the city of Vancouver removed a marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and placed it in a cemetery shed in an action that several years later became controversial.[8] The marker was subsequently moved twice, and eventually was placed alongside Interstate 5 on private land purchased for the purpose of giving the marker a permanent home.[9][10] One of those moves included an installation at the Clark County Historical Museum and a petition for its inclusion on the historical register was approved in 2002, which was re-approved by the commission in 2007 when it moved to its current site.[11]

The marker stone in Blaine, Washington was removed in 2002 through the efforts of State Representative Hans Dunshee and city officials, after it was discovered that the highway was never officially designated to memorialize Davis by the state.[5] Both markers now rest, in the Sons of Confederate Veterans owned "Jefferson Davis Park" near Ridgefield right beside I-5.[12] In 2002, the Washington House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill that would have removed Davis' name from the road. However, a committee of the state's Senate subsequently killed the proposal.[13][14]

In March 2016, the Washington State Legislature unanimously passed a joint memorial that asked the state transportation commission to designate the road as the "William P. Stewart Memorial Highway" to honor an African-American volunteer during the Civil War who later became a pioneer of the town and city of Snohomish.[15] In May 2016, the transportation commission agreed to the renaming.[16]

If these are legitimately separate subjects, why is there such complete overlap? WP:COATracking, I'd suggest. Anmccaff (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The park is all about the stones, not the Jeff Davis Highway, it is all about showing them off and maintaining a Confederate presence by the SCV. The Jeff Davis Highway, in Washington State was never official and has been dead in Washington State for a year; but this park, this park still lives and still stirs controversy because of the stones, the flags, and the legacy of honoring their 'glorious cause' with pride. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Jefferson Davis Highway, never took hold in Washington State and the stones began to be taken down in 1998 with the permanent removal from public lands in 2007. This article is about what happened to those stones after the death of the Jeff Davis Highway, the controversy they still stir up, with the adjacent town and the vandalism their prominent and very visible location brings to these symbols of the Confederacy in Washington State. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The "park" is about Jeff Davis, and the fuss is about the flags visible from I-5. Neither are particularly noteworthy, except to cranks and slackivists. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your interest in this article. If you have a complaint I believe the Administrative boards are open and available. If you have a constructive comment you would like to add, a section has been opened below. Have a great day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is about improving the article, in the only way it can be improved: by deleting it, or by cutting back the repetitious bits in other articles. One subject, one article, and there is really only one subject here. See the repetition above? Anmccaff (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your views on this matter have been taken under advisement and the previous statement still stands as to the best course of action to improve the article. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

So, given an illustration that the article may qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A10 as a Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, you have no policy-based or practical response.

For those not familiar, this policy says:

This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages. (When the new title is a reasonable term for the subject, converting the new article to a redirect may be preferable to deletion.)

{{Db-a10|article=Existing article title}}, {{Db-same|article=Existing article title}}

This deletion rationale should only be used rarely. In the vast majority of duplicate articles, the title used is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the main article, and a redirect should be created instead. This criterion should be used only if its title could be speedy deleted as a redirect.

So, wiki policy suggests that this quite likely should be converted to a redirect to the existing, almost exactly parallel material elsewhere. Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As it has been explained multiple times to you here, at the AfD, and on your talk page, multiple people want this article to be kept, and it will be kept per consensus. Your crusade against this article is borderline disruptive and at WP:IDHT territory. I suggest you quit your obsession with Gilmore while you are ahead. Nihlus 05:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest that "multiple people" explain a reason why it should be kept beyond "I like it, as you appear to be saying here, again. This is a new article which substantially duplicates material already on Wiki; that falls closely under a category for speedy deletion. As you can see from the quotes above, this article parallels a section of an existing article very, very closely. Why shouldn't it be redirected back to that, with a small epilogue covering the minuscule part that doesn't overlap? Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You will find your answers here. Thanks. Nihlus 06:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then I'd suggest that "multiple people" explain a reason why it should be kept beyond "I like it", as you appear to be saying here...again. This is a new article which substantially duplicates material already on Wiki; that falls closely under a category for speedy deletion. As you can see from the quotes above, this article parallels a section of an existing article very, very closely. Why shouldn't it be redirected back to that, with a small epilogue covering the minuscule part that doesn't overlap? Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- instead of rearguing the AfD here, please see WP:DRV. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point, but that's a separate thing. It's perfectly workable to redirect from the article here, if a consensus supports that. (...and, of course, I'd suggest that there is policy-based support for...) Anmccaff (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Further Coatracking.

This sentence "The opening dedication was on April 27, 2008 with a large stone plaque in front of the Vancouver highway marker stone" is supported with a cite which does not even mention the subject at all. While the first page of the work cited does briefly mention some of the facts stated in passing, @C. W. Gilmore: linked to the second page of the article. Given the competence issues, there is no reason not to assume this mis-linking was a good-faith error, but the cite remains, essentially, a coatrack. The cite isn't about the subject, but about the whole retrogrit outlook. Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia and this page specifically, it is most unique. Thanks again C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Vancouver marker

Apparently the stone marker was removed by Vernon Stoner, the city manager in Vancouver, Washington from 1996 to 2000. In this interview, he admits to having them quietly removed[4]. "STONER WAS RELIEVED. BECAUSE WHEN HE SEES WORDS LIKE 'CONFEDERACY' AND 'JEFFERSON DAVIS,' MEMORIES COME FLOODING BACK. OF HIS GRANDFATHER WITH TEARS STREAMING DOWN HIS FACE. TELLING DARK STORIES ABOUT HIS LIFE AS A SLAVE."

This explains the push to have the marker removed from public in Vancouver. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Substantive edits hidden as minor reverted.

@K.e.coffman:, i'd (obviously) disagree that my edit was not an improvement). @C. W. Gilmore: has made a large group of substantive edits, and mis-labled them as minor. Frankly, were it not for the obvious WP:CIR questions, this would be the sort of thing that could be taken up at ANI, it looks like hiding changes from scrutiny, doesn't it? Anmccaff (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like you are here to continue your harassment campaign. I have previously advised you about it: Harassment of another user.

The end result was that the edit improved the caption; that's what I was judging it on. Hence I reverted you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and left unaddressed at least 10 substantive edits mislabeled as minor, hidden, in effect, from many page watchers, yes. Is that the sort or "contribution" you support, @K.e.coffman:? Anmccaff (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went though the photos I took and resubmitted them as major changes, so as not to offend anyone's editorial sensibilities, thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your interest my photos I uploaded today, and this article. I changed out the uploading number as a caption to a more accurate descriptive of the photos taken as #22 does not say much for the image. Thanks again, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Projectspam

I don't know or care who added all these projects to this article, but per WP:CONCENSUS, you're gonna need to make a case for the vast majority and until you gain consensus, they're out. Death? Public art? African-American disporia? Politics? Urban planning? Travel and tourism? You've got to be kidding me. John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I now fail to find it, but I seem to remember that WikiProject-specific tagging and assessment should usually be handled and decided by the members of those projects. But since I can't find it I also don't remember if it's policy or only a suggestion. I'm not sure if article-content consensus applies, and tags are not spam; they are usually tied to maintenance categories and bot-assisted resources (article alerts, 1.0 assessment log, needing-attention list, suggested articles, etc). Of course, if those projects are dead and none of their members care, it may be different... —PaleoNeonate – 19:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Horse hockey. Adding Urban Planning to a park in a rural area is spam. Adding Death to a location where no one has ever died is spam. Since everyone dies, shouldn't Death be added to every biography? (j/k) Adding Former Countries to a park (almost...it's private property open to the public) in a US State is nonsense. There is no public art at this location....simply flagpoles and two highway markers. And I am sorry, but the removal of the highway markers relates in no way to African-American diaspora. I may be wrong about removing the Politics project, because that is ALL this is. I cannot see how any of this relates to military history. It is all politics. There were no battles here. There are no military displays here. Simply two removed highway markers, added without authorization by the Daughters (or Sons) of the Confederacy dedicating a highway to J Davis. My uncle was in the army and there is a park named after him in my hometown. It's not notable, but if it was, would it be the concern of the MILHIST project? And your contention PaleoNeonate that consensus doesn't apply seems somewhat nonsensical and antithetical to the way Wikipedia works. Pretty much the only things on Wikipedia that are NOT subject to consensus on some level are those where the law supersedes consensus. Now whether the consensus would need to be established here, or on the project page is another question, but since there is contention over it, no matter where the consensus is decided, notification would need to be made here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I participate in WP:WikiProject Discrimination. The discrimination project focuses on forms and manifestations of segregation. Civil war monuments are generally out of scope, unless they, for example, have strong ties to particular incident involving racial discrimination. Billhpike (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There has been no documented discrimination at this location, unless somehow arresting someone for vandalism is a form of discrimination, and it still wouldn't apply as those arrested were I believe white. This is instead a misguided effort by those trying to inexplicably erase the Civil War from American history to try to legitimize their cause. Hence the extremely proper title of this section. John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You are both somewhat correct and in error, Dims over linked some of the projects and John was a bit too quick to delete them all. "African-American disporia?" Yes, as a matter of fact, as this park owes it's existence to the the Black mayor of Vancouver, and great, great grandchild of slaves, that mayor fought to have the Marker Stones removed and with his allies, ensured they would never again be displayed on public land, just as one example. On the other side, Dims, 'Public Art' project is a stretch, so can we all go through them one at a time, please, and reach a middle ground. Thanks everyone for caring. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Some one is continually removing links such as *Jefferson Davis Highway from the page without first bringing their reasoning to the talk page. This should not be happening, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

They are removing it because it's already linked above. They spoke to you on your talk page about it. Please stop. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, I know why, so it is linked above and you are both correct. Sorry C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Which WikiProject(s)

It has been considered to add this page to ALL of these WikiProjects:

• WikiProject Urban studies and planning
• WikiProject Travel and Tourism
• WikiProject African diaspora
• WikiProject Death
• WikiProject Discrimination
• WikiProject Former countries
• WikiProject Military history
• WikiProject Politics
• WikiProject Sculpture
• WikiProject Visual arts
• WikiProject Historic sites

Which ones in particular should not be on this list? For me, I see no reason for: 'Urban studies and planning', 'Military history', 'Sculpture', 'Visual arts', or 'Historic sites.' I just can't find much logical leap that would connect these projects to this page. What do others think? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please note: tagging

• Most of our park articles are covered specifically by WikiProject Urban studies and planning (which covers parks within and in proximity to urban areas) and WikiProject Travel and Tourism (which covers sightseeing destinations). We also have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas, but it mostly covers nature parks and areas of considerable biodiversity.
• This is a memorial park in memory of a specific Confederate politician. Most of the Confederate memorials are under the memorial task force in WikiProject Military history. Memorials to the dead are also covered by WikiProject Death (which covers cultural aspects of death, not only biological), Sculpture (for elements such as stelae and statues), Visual arts (which covers architectural features and several elements of design), and Historical sites (which covers Heritage sites and monuments).
• WikiProject Former countries (despite its name) also covers articles related to former countries which do not have dedicated WikiProjects. It has dedicated task forces for articles related to the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Historic Italian States, and also covers and evaluates a number of articles connected to the Confederate States of America.
• Much of the modern legacy of the Confederate States and the display of Confederate symbols are covered by WikiProject Africa diaspora (which covers various topics connected to African-American culture and history), Discrimination (given the connection of the symbols to white supremacy), and Politics (since they connect to American politics on several levels).
• For some reason we do not have a Project specifically covering the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and other legacy aspects of the American Civil War. Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but are you sure about 'Sculpture' and 'Visual Art'? I mean, have you seen the picture of the part? Those highway markers look like grave stones and I find the trees planted along the party line to be the most pleasant visual art. It just hard for me to make the connection. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I restored the projects that were here on 16 December: 16 Dec version. Three is sufficient, while a dozen is overkill. Could be selectively expanded, but I think three is good for now. Otherwise, the pages begins to have what someone put as "projectspam". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2017

C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC) The current first sentence of the 'Vancouver, Washington marker stone section' reads: "In 1998, a city of Vancouver official quietly removed the marker of the Jefferson Davis Highway and had it placed it in a cemetery shed, in an action that four years later became controversial."

There is an extra it in it. I did not realize that "had it" was also added by someone. Could someone please fix this, thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Give the park was been the focus of anti-racist vandalism many times starting in 2008; that many say it displays racist sysmbols; the engagement of local, county, and state officials regarding the part; the calls for it's removal from the NAACP regional leaders; and the way it has shown up in the national discussion over honoring the Confederacy: It seems more than reasonable in this current climate of examining Confederate memorials add "WikiProject Politics |class=C |importance=Low" back to the list. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at some of the articles on J Davis memorials, and they do not list "Politics" as a project. I think that the current listing is okay for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my research on Confederate monuments is coming up with "Sculpture' and 'Visual arts′ as the main WikiProject and that is a stretch for me. The 'park' looks more like a grave yard and the markers like tombstones. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Vancouver marker

According to all reports, "It was quietly removed by city officials(the City Manager of Vancouver according to some) four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed". No opinion pushing or editorializing is need, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Another granite marker proclaiming the road's designation as the Jefferson Davis Highway was erected at the time in Vancouver, Wash., at the highway's southern terminus. It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed there, but publicity over the bill has brought its mothballing to light and stirred a contentious debate there about whether it should be restored."[5]

The source is clear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

...as is the other source, the KUOW piece, in which a single unelected official claims he had it removed on his own hook, because it made him.... uncomfortable. This was a source you added yourself, and referred to in its own talk page section,also, God help us all, called "Vancouver Marker", above. See eye are. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That source is not the source for that sentence and nor is it the general view of events. The majority of the sources state it was done at the request of the Mayor or City Manager, and done 'quietly'. You can't continue to take just one source out of the large number and say it the the only source that can be quoted. Go through all the sources and add in only what is common to them, not the odd one out. We had this problem with a source mistaking the Confederate 'Stars and Bars' for the 'Betsy Ross' flag and that got added in to this article for a while. Take what is representative of the majority of the sources, which is that it was 'a city official' (the sources do not agree past that) and 'quietly' (as even the SCV site states). You are throwing in the odd ball and saying it is representative, which it is NOT. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In the late 1990’s the Highway marker originally placed in Vancouver in 1939 was quietly removed by the City Manager due to the insistence of an “offended” City Councilman. In 2001, members of the Seattle Chapter of the UDC and the Portland SCV Camp learned what had happened, and together with our good friends of the Olympia Chapter of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, we spent more than a year fighting the City of Vancouver to reinstall the marker." -From the Sons of Confederate Veteran's website, (their view of events)[6] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The marker ended up in Ridgefield about a decade ago after Vancouver officials wanted it removed. The highway marker was dedicated near Covington House in Vancouver in 1939, and remained there until former City Manager Vernon Stoner, at the urging of then-Councilman Jim Moeller, had it removed and placed in storage in May 1998."[7] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• "In the late 1990’s the Highway marker originally placed in Vancouver in 1939 was quietly removed by the City Manager due to the insistence of an "offended" City Councilman. In 2001, members of the Seattle Chapter of the UDC and the Portland SCV Camp learned what had happened, and together with our good friends of the Olympia Chapter of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, we spent more than a year fighting the City of Vancouver to reinstall the marker. " [8]
• I could go on, but I hope you can see that the current sentence matches the majority of the sources. If it was the city manager acting alone, then it would be unelected, but action at the urging of an elected city council person is quite different. Also the sources say quietly as this KUOW news interview from 2007 states, "STONER SAYS HE'S HAD PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME WOMEN OF THE U-D-C. AND THAT THEY’VE SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION. STILL, WOMEN OF THE U-D-C WRITE REGULAR LETTERS TO ASK THAT THE HIGHWAY MARKER BE PUT BACK ON DISPLAY." [9] Nothing 'surreptitiously' about it, just quietly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Gabriel syme (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC) The first image at the top of the page states in its caption "note the addition of the Blaine marker stone to the right". How can we unambiguously tell it's the Blaine marker stone? How do we know the image hasn't been mirrored? Looks very much like OR to me, should be removed, thanks.

Looking at it again, I think "as seen from the interstate" should go as well. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, this is verifiable (although not yet verified); the stones have slightly different inscriptions, which are easily readable in the photo. Should be marked as dubious until confirmed, but there's no point in removing it. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

PS [[10]] Anmccaff (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Gabriel per WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. John from Idegon (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see that, too (although I dunno if he should be editing before tomorrow...). It might be too deep in the weeds for the article, and, as I've stated before, the article itself is probably unneeded. But if we want to keep it and source these facts, it's straightforward to do so without the convolutions below. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• 'Comment - I took the picture from the access-road in front of the South bound lanes of Interstate-5. The Blaine marker stone has traces of the red paint still visible (now pink) from the vandalism. The central Vancouver stone has traces of the black paint. All the reference materials state that the park was built around the Vancouver marker stone [11] with the Blaine stone added later, thus that central stone the part focuses on is the Vancouver stone and that one (according to the sources) to the right (that pink one) is the Blaine stone. Image of the Blaine marker stone from when it stood in Blaine, WA [12] and the park before the Blaine stone was added to the right (North side) as seen from Interstate 5. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Columbian images [13] - note the central (ie Vancouver) stone vandalized in black and the stone off to the side (ie Blaine) vandalized in red. Third image shows both together, the black stained Vancouver stone and the red covered Blaine stone.
• Oregonian images [14] - Note the first image shows the park with Interstate 5 in the background and the access road where I took the first image shown in this article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Crosscut image [15] - note the old image of the Vancouver marker and how it differs from the Blaine marker.
• Straight.com image [16] - note the old image of the Blaine marker and how it differs from the Vancouver marker.
• CSV park construction images [17] - note that only the Vancouver stone is present.

Information extracted from images in articles is OR. I've tried explaining that to you at least twice before. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The information is from the sources I listed and not from 'my images' or 'my view of my image'. I can't use their images, but I use their descriptions from sources images, such as "as seen from I-5" for the images I took. Now look through the sources, you can see images of the Blaine stone with it's different script from when it was at The Peace Arch at the border, that is the same stone now stained pink from the vandalism at the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You can tell which stone is which because as the sources state, the park was built for the sole purpose of holding the Vancouver stone and showing it off as publicly as possible. The construction images show that stone going into the centre of the park with the flags on either side. The images also show the later addition of the Blaine stone to the North (right as seen from I-5) and this is confirmed by comparing the origin images of the stone from Blaine with the images of the stone in the park currently. This is NOT OR, it is researched and supported by the sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism of the park, summer 2008

I've found pieces of this original story from

The Columbian, Wednesday, June 11, 2008 By SCOTT HEWITT, Columbian Staff Writer (The 4-by-8-foot Jefferson Davis Park sign that was stolen recently from a private park near Ridgefield turned up Wednesday afternoon when Larry Clement walked out his back door and looked down on Salmon Creek. Clement, who lives on dead-end Northeast 121st Street — just yards east of the Northeast Highway 99 bridge that’s being replaced — spotted the stoic visage of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, peeking over the Salmon Creek water line, trapped by a log jam. “It’s sitting there, waiting for someone to come get it,” Clement said. “It looks like it floated down the creek. Somebody must have dumped it in the creek upstream and it got this far and got stuck.” The Columbian contacted Brent Jacobs, mastermind of the Jefferson Davis Park and Oregon division commander for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.) [18]

And

"The flag and park have been occasionally controversial here. In 2013, a teacher at Ridgefield High School wrote to The Columbian that driving past it to school every day was upsetting — and inexplicable to students — and in 2008, a large Jefferson Davis sign was stolen from the park and discovered in Salmon Creek." [19]

-So it should be enough to add to the article as the first incident of vandalism, only months after the opening of the park that spring. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Request comment -Suggest adding one sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the 'Controversy and calls for removal' section: "Within months of the park's dedication in the Spring of 2008, the park was vandalized when the billboard was torn down and thrown into a local creek." Sighting [20] for the source. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Change caption on billboard image to reflect vandalism

Suggest the caption on the billboard image read something to the effect that the image was taken within months of the August vandalism and still shows the signs of that act. As the billboard was the focus of the first act of vandalism during the summer of 2008 and vandalized again in the most recent attack from August. This would be the most notable feature of the billboard with which to caption the image from the research I've done. Suggestions on the wording? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove image of memorial markers and link to commons

It has been suggested to remove the image of the memorial markers but link to it on the Commons. This seems reasonable as more detailed images can be added there. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC) I may need to re-post the images with captions already installed instead of numbers, but it is a good idea. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2017 (3)

Gabriel syme (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC) It seems like there are a few too many images for an article of this size and notability. I think we can safely remove the closeup of the billboard, it's shown above in the overall picture of the park. The third image, of the metal plaques, doesn't seem to be mentioned in the sources or the article itself and can probably be safely done away with. Thanks. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think that the image of the metal plaques could go, as it's not discussed in the article itself that I could see. I would keep the closeup of the billboard though, as one could read the text to get a better understanding of the place. I found it useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE

  

  Jefferson Davis Park, Washington 04

These are concrete paving stones set in front of the Vancouver marker, at the end of the path and not metal. In this[21] Fox12 News segment you can see them at 1:55 C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE

  

  Jefferson Davis Park, Washington 23

This is actually the second billboard as the first one was destroyed when it was thrown into Salmon Creek.[22] This sign was targeted in the last attack on the park[23] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the paving stones are not specifically discussed in the article, they could be kind of distracting. You could set up a link to Commons, for example using this template:

{{Subject bar | commons=y }}

That way, people who want to see more images could go to Commons. The images need to be tagged with the matching category, compare: Werner_Mölders#External_links and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Werner_M%C3%B6lders. The category should match the title of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Paving Stone Memorials - I was only pointing out their context in the park and I find the messages on them to be very telling about the people that put them there. Everything from disturbing to conciliatory is shown in those messages. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the billboard, the messages on the paving stones are difficult to read, that's why I was suggesting that the image could be kept at Commons, with a link via a Commons template at the bottom of the page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If the image quality is that bad your suggestion would allow me time to take new photographs and add them to your link. Anything that will help improve the quality of the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman, would it be to much to ask for your technical help with the image category in Commons? All the images I took are listed as 'Jefferson Davis Park, Washington' with a number denoting the specific image. This way I can see how it is done and I will request that the memorial marker image be redirected by link as you suggested - if no one objects? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: -please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2017

Request that protection be extended as no concensus for changes have been reached, or discussions engaged for that matter. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive talking page.

• Could someone help with setting up an archive function on this page as it is becoming a bit cumbersome in length. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope I got that correct, but a little time will tell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No it wouldn't as you had it set to archive to another article entirely. This talk is not really long enough or active enough to require archiving. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is brand new, and the entire talk page covers discussions only from November-December, 2017. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is not "explicit talk page discussion against" archiving sections that haven't been touched in 20 days. Personally, I wouldn't mind 30, but I think 120 might be a bit high. Also, I'd suggest leaving 10 sections on the page, instead of just 4. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Even 90days would be sufficient, as this 'should not be' a high volume article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sub-rosa removal

Not in cited source and most sources say, "It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed there," as did NYTime)

The fact that the cite you used was cherry-picked was explicitly addressed in the edit summary. The removal was obviously done sub-rosa, and the person who claimed credit/blame explicitly claimed it was done for (possibly dubious) personal reasons rather than public policy. Anmccaff (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to ascribe motivations not in evidence. Removed again, per very reliable sourcing supplied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As I just mentioned above, the motivation was explicitly in evidence; Stoner claimed to be channeling his enslaved grandfather, itself a rather dubious claim for someone now only about 70. Anmccaff (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the sources agree:

• "In the late 1990’s the Highway marker originally placed in Vancouver in 1939 was quietly removed by the City Manager due to the insistence of an “offended” City Councilman. In 2001, members of the Seattle Chapter of the UDC and the Portland SCV Camp learned what had happened, and together with our good friends of the Olympia Chapter of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, we spent more than a year fighting the City of Vancouver to reinstall the marker." -From the Sons of Confederate Veteran's website, (their view of events)[24] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The marker ended up in Ridgefield about a decade ago after Vancouver officials wanted it removed. The highway marker was dedicated near Covington House in Vancouver in 1939, and remained there until former City Manager Vernon Stoner, at the urging of then-Councilman Jim Moeller, had it removed and placed in storage in May 1998."[25] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• "In the late 1990’s the Highway marker originally placed in Vancouver in 1939 was quietly removed by the City Manager due to the insistence of an "offended" City Councilman. In 2001, members of the Seattle Chapter of the UDC and the Portland SCV Camp learned what had happened, and together with our good friends of the Olympia Chapter of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, we spent more than a year fighting the City of Vancouver to reinstall the marker. " [26]
• I could go on, but I hope you can see that the current sentence matches the majority of the sources. If it was the city manager acting alone, then it would be unelected, but action at the urging of an elected city council person is quite different. Also the sources say quietly as this KUOW news interview from 2007 states, "STONER SAYS HE'S HAD PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME WOMEN OF THE U-D-C. AND THAT THEY’VE SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION. STILL, WOMEN OF THE U-D-C WRITE REGULAR LETTERS TO ASK THAT THE HIGHWAY MARKER BE PUT BACK ON DISPLAY." [27] Nothing 'surreptitiously' about it, just quietly.

You are taking one source over the majority of sources. The NYTimes article was chosen as it incorporated this majority view of a low key removal. "It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and..."[28] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No. "Quietly" is a WP:WEASELword; it cam mean anything fom a normal, legal, but low-key action to showing up late at night with a few friends, some burnt cork, a pickup, and some crowbars. The only sources that discuss any detail are quite clear this was done ultra vires and under the table. Anmccaff (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

-Quietly removed by city officials is the most common wording from the majority of the sources and as this is not place for 'OR', we must go with what the majority of the sources say. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

-You must stop looking at only one source on this and take the time to go through the few hundred websites and news articles; then include only what is the majority view, as even the most reliable sources make mistakes. You have again been given multiple examples of 'the quiet removal by city officials' and even an example of going to the UDC to talk over the plans. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

-Even the SCV website states "quietly removed", so why do you insist on taking the wording from just one source over the majority of sources? It gives undue weight to that one source over the majority of references. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

As already stated, and left unaddressed still, quietly is an imprecise term with a seemingly greater degree of precision than it actually has; what Wiki calls a Weasel word. I'd submit that any action so far under the table that no can say, precisely, what year it was done in is to the "secret, surreptitious, clandestine" end of the broad spectrum of meanings of quiet. Do you, or anyone else here, disagree.? Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That deafening silence you hear is the sound of disbelief that you actually think that argument will work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

...or, as explicitly mentioned elsewhere, it reflects writers driven away from articles edited by your protege. Anmccaff (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Next, there are bad reason as well as good why sources might use the same terminology, as discussed (further) above, IMS. Sometimes it means that it all comes back to a single source, ultimately, and that isn't always a good thing. Anmccaff (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You do realise that the first source I cite comes from the people that built the park and if anyone had reason to call out the actions for anything nefarious, it would be the SCV; yet they do not. No one even realised it was gone until the 2002 bill to officially rename the old high, stirred things up. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

...because the removal was...furtive...sneaky...on the down-low...hidden...secret...ocult, even. &cet, yep. That's what "quiet" means in this particular case, yep. Anmccaff (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: reiterating what I just said at WP:ANEW, User:C. W. Gilmore and User:Anmccaff will be blocked for 2 weeks if either one reverts this sentence again in the next month. If consensus to change develops here, then another editor can do it. Both are welcome to continue discussing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam -How about we protect the page again as I asked? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because other editors shouldn't be punished for you two not being able to resist reverting each other. Edit protected requests are a pain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought: How about just leaving it at it was removed, and leave all the other stuff out? John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you propose exact wording, so we know what the scope of "all the other stuff" is? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply remove the contentious word "quietly" entirely. Leave the sources as they are, just remove the word. That is the crux of the contention here, ya? We are factually correct at my proposed wording, and since the sources differ, and the topic is only a subtopic of the article, what do we lose? John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Point being: You know no more or less about this park by knowing the background of a political issue in an entire other city. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And the Gordian Knot of the year award goes to... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

well, that was a good solution for Alexander, but a problem for the rope in question. The thing is, the politics, wounded feelings, &cet are the only notable parts of the story, and the sources all reflect this. Anmccaff (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexander intended to conquer and destroy not explain and build an encyclopedia. I have witnessed other editors gut articles before placing them up for AfD, I would oppose that happening to this article.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The majority of the sources say, 'quietly removed by city officials' and that's what the article should say if it is to be true to the reference materials. Find 7 or 8 new sources that say something different, then there might be a need to change the article to balance between those sources and all the current ones. IMO, we need to stay as close to the record in the source materials as possible, not make up stuff or omit stuff we don't like. You are all giving arguments without citations, that is just POV pushing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

How about this: since every word in this section concerns something that happened somewhere else, prior to the creation of the park, which I remind you IS the subject of this article, let's remove the entire section. John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This Park was born in controversy and continues to be controversial, without having the context of its controversial beginnings with the removal of the highway stones; you do not offer the reader a good explanation as to why the park exist, and how it still continues to interact in the community. Explaining the "why" is the most important part of an encyclopedia, and without the explanation of how the park began it undermines the Integrity of the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, John from Idegon, serially reproducing similar content in multiple articles is WP:UNDUE POV-pushing. Remove it or cut it back to a sentence with a link. Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing the context in which the park was built is to remove the foundational information as to why it is controversial, vandalized, and why it has faced repeated calls to be removed in all or part. If it were not for the local conservative talk radio in 2002, kicking up dust about the renaming of HWY99; then the Vancouver stone would have stayed forgotten in the back of a shed. Context to why the park started, has everything to do with the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's good that you are finally acknowledging the obvious, that the removal was done under the table, but this has nothing to do with why the same same subject should be covered in multiple Wiki articles, aside from as slacktivist propaganda. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledge it was done in consultation with members of the UDC and quietly, you can stop putting words into my mouth. This is the only article that pulls all the pieces together in one place, even if it is mentioned on other articles, they only give small bits of the story of the park as it pertains to that article. Gutting this article of how and why it was founded, would be a disservice to the greater knowledge and very anti-encyclopedic. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledge it was done in consultation with members of the UDC do you have a cite for that, or does this involve anachonism? Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

citation #23 above: KUOW news interview from 2007 states, "STONER SAYS HE'S HAD PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME WOMEN OF THE U-D-C. AND THAT THEY’VE SEEMED TO UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION. STILL, WOMEN OF THE U-D-C WRITE REGULAR LETTERS TO ASK THAT THE HIGHWAY MARKER BE PUT BACK ON DISPLAY." [29] Please stop with the WP:ICANTHEARYOU and look through the list above of citations that were given back in December. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So, as I said, anachonism. You are claiming that a conversation as late as 2007 -that's all the KUOW source says, which makes no mention of whether the conversation was before or after the removal, somehow proves that Stoner acted "in consultation?" aeveral years before? Anmccaff (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The article and interview with Mr. Stoner was in 2007, the discussions happened before the move and the letters to have it put back happened after the move. Please look up the cited source and the others given above. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Old South In The Northwest says notheing at all about consultation at the time of removal. So, this is a claim that the source does not support. Do have any sources that do? Anmccaff (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The exact timing of the discussions with UDC, like the timing of the removal is never stated in any citation I have found, the key factor is that Mr. Stoner had the discussions and it's removal was known. Now drop this as you got your way and "quietly" was removed. You win, now be a good sport about it and drop this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

While the exact timong is unclear, as under-the-table actions so often are, the general timeline is not, and you need to stop pretending that it is. There is no evidence that anyone consulted with the Vancouver rock's owners/donors/patrons/? before hiding it, and handwaving toward a cite that does not even imply that suggests issues. Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

It appears that the word “quietly” has already been removed from the article, as it only appears in the reference section, in the quote from the source in question. I think that the current version of the article is fine and no section needs to be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying to give balance to the lede section, added quotes.

The Seattle News article states: "It's a polarizing sight. Reading online reviews of the park, it's described as everything from a "roadside abomination" to "a touching experience." [30]

Thought this would balance against the view of the SCV claims of "a pleasant and honorable tribute", plus given the knowledge that the first vandalism happened within months of the park opening. It shows the strong emotions this park brings out. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reworked the lead a bit, by moving the quotes about the park into the second para. At the same time, I removed the long self-description by SVC; it seemed a touch undue in the lead. However, I think it may be worthwhile to include it in the history section. Here's the diff. Since it's difficult to see from the diff, here's the content that has been removed:

• ...with the group stating on Facebook,"We are a Confederate Veterans heritage organization, who's [sic] main purpose is to honor and defend the Confederate Soldiers good name and make sure that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."

The rest of the content has been merely moved around. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and it reads better this way. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Park or markers?

Please look at the last sentence. Is it the park, the markers, or both that are being removed from the Register? deisenbe (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The markers are the only things 'historic' about the 'park', being installed on public land in Vancouver and Blaine around 1939/1940. The 'park' was built in 2007 to hold the Vancouver and later the Blaine markers and is the focus of this article as it is continually been vandalized. The 'park' was opened in the Spring of 2008 and by that summer the first billboard was in the nearby creek. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DECISION OF THE CLARK COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Should the official record of the Clark Co. commission be listed in the article and if so where? [31] It is the official record of the decision to de-list the Vancouver marker stone and remove the Jeff Davis park from all of the county's historical materials. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

New photos

I visited the park today and took a few pictures, they can be found in the category, but I'm not sure if they'd be of any use since the sunlight made taking a good quality photograph next to impossible. MB298 (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I planned to wait for a windy spring day to take images of the flags in full spread. I find that to be one thing missing. The Confederate flags in the area became a news item starting in 2012 and came up again in 2015 after the Mother Emmanuel shooting, then again summer of 2017 with 'The Unite the Right Rally'. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. This image would be great to get permission to use [32], it says so much. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Should stay with what the sources say, not your opinion.

Precisely. The source says nothing about "many in the area", so claiming that based on it is personal opinion. Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of times the park has been vandalized, it seems more than just an opinion. What facts or sources do you have which would support a change? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Patch is somewhere toward the bottom of the barrel as far as sources go, and is only ever so slightly more reliable than a blog (because it's essentially a distributed blog for freelance often amateur and often part time "journalists".)
2. The source doesn't support either wording, either on the basis of "in the area" (it's quoting online user comments) or many (it gives no indication of quantity or representation).
3. As said above, it's quoting online reviews, which for all we know, could be somewhere in the archives of this very talk page, and again, isn't very reliable as a source, and so probably shouldn't be included in any form. GMG^talk 1≠8:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

deisenbe made the edit, and is one of the most knowledgeable on the subject, so unless someone has a better source that supports better wording, it would seem best to leave it as it was originally. Only Anmccaff wants it changed and has continued to edit war over it for the past two months without any supporting evidence for a change. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in Lede is based on all the referenced material in the controversy section, not just one source. For the controversies date back to 2012 in the local media and vandalism dating to 2008; all of these things are summarized in that sentence. The listed source is for the quote only. Three different editors agreed on it and replaced it when changed by Anmccaff repeatedly based on merely thier opinion and not referncable material. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs), OR. The number of times the thing has been politically vandalized could be "one", and by the Strasserites in Portland, not locals. The swing sets at many "local" playgrounds see more persistent vandalism that this retrogrit memorial has. Anmccaff (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The first vandalism was only months after it opened in 2008, the last vandalism was in the autumn of 2017; but you would know that if your read the article before you attacked it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be equally accurate, and a good deal more honest, to say "the second" rather than he last, wouldn't it? So, a single example of politicized vandalism, at most two, over a nine year period, and the only definite one done by an outside group? Hardly describes a hotbed of local controversy. Anmccaff (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

again, there is nothing in the sources providing showing that "many in the area" object to it, except by making inaccurate judgements about what's "in the area". Portland isn't, thanks partly because of differences between OR and WA tax law, despite its physical proximity.

Anmccaff (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

'Throughout the meeting, speakers called the monuments “disgusting,” “toxic” and “an abomination.” ' [33] There is an entire section on the controversy surrounding this Park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Anmccaff, what evidence do you have that only some in the area have issue with this Confederate Park in their backyard? I ask again - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The cite you show above claims that about 50 people showed up regarding a hot-button issue, and the majority of those quoted were not from the area, but from Portland or Vancouver. That's a better cite against your position than for it. Anmccaff (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is one citation more than you and 50 more people than you have shown for support of your personal point of view. Now you should put forward citations for your point of view or stop the vandalism of this article. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That isn't even English, but I suspect it could be translated to "it is RfC time..." Anmccaff (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You may do your pleasure, but you may only act in consensus on this article. You have not provided one citation nor reference to support your proposed changed, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

From the same article cited: 'On Tuesday night, the group almost needed a larger room for the first time anyone could remember. The packed crowd was there because the commission was going to discuss the old Jefferson Davis Highway markers, now located at Jefferson Davis Park along Interstate 5 outside of Ridgefield. “Sometimes we get two or three people (at our meetings),” said Robert Hinds, chairman of the commission. “Usually, it’s just us.”' - http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/sep/06/jefferson-davis-memorial-draws-a-crowd-for-hearing/

...Which says nothing about "standing room only..." Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To bring out more than 'two or three people' on 'Tuesday night', shows that it is a controversial issue to 'many' and given that the referenced sources in the 'Controversy and calls for removal' section state that the meeting have to be moved into Vancouver City Council chambers [34] to accommodate the large Tuesday night crowd for a Clark County Historical Commission meeting. The Lede section is a summation of the article and generally leaves the citations for the body of the article, that is the case here. There is an entire section that shows just how controversial this park remains and it is filled with sources showing that interest in it rises well above the normal level. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which, stripped of POV shading, is to say that about 50 people, many associated with particular advocacy groups, showed up...out of a relevant population of over 400,000. Nope, that makes no case for "many"; given how many of them were from Vancouver, or even Portland, it doesn't say much for "in the area", either. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Standing room only on a Tuesday night meeting of the county historical society that normally is lucky if two or three people show; they had to move the meeting to the city of Vancouver's council chambers and still not enough room for everyone to sit; the nearby town council voted unanimously to ask for the de-registration of the stone, which is unheard of for a town council to get involved in historical society issues outside of a town: Yet of all this, you and you alone say it shows nothing. Furthermore, you continue to push your point of view without providing any references or sources, so it does appear you are the one, POV pushing, add this to your long list of changes without citing sources and it appears vandalistic in nature. Please provide sources for your change, or leave the Lede section alone, or RfC if you like; but there is currently no support for your change at this time. Cheers C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any source after being asked many times, you are the only editor holding this point of view and your changes have been undone by multiple editors on this point. Please stop pushing unverifiable claims without sources, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the cite about "standing room only", it says about 50 people were in a room that holds...50. The move to council chambers allowed an additional 30 to show up...so, 80 people, some of them not county residents, out of a county population of 400,000. That does not support "many", without a great many qualifiers. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your lack of sources to support your POV pushing is noted. Also, note: "...packed house and had to move its meeting to Vancouver City Council chambers."[35] A 'packed house on a Tuesday night when they normally get two or three people, that difference is why 3 editors left it in the Lede. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• [36] Note the caption under the photo: "Standing room only at a public meeting to consider removing a historic designation of two Confederate monuments in Clark County." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

...and? The Columbian quotes a figure of 80, and provides a picture that suggests that people were standing by choice, probably for better visibility, here. Either way though, it's about 80 people. Is that "many" out of a population of 400,000? Anmccaff (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

... And: -'The conference room at the O.O. Howard House has a capacity of 50 people, but the Clark County Historical Preservation Commission never uses that many chairs. On Tuesday night, the group almost needed a larger room for the first time anyone could remember. The packed crowd was there because the commission was going to discuss the old Jefferson Davis Highway markers, now located at Jefferson Davis Park along Interstate 5 outside of Ridgefield. “Sometimes we get two or three people (at our meetings),” said Robert Hinds, chairman of the commission. “Usually, it’s just us.”' [37] This is not the sign of some small thing, it is the sign of it being an issue to many in the area; just like the city of Ridgefield requesting the park be de-listed, something that never happens. It is a big deal according to the evidence provided in the sources. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

* 'One Commissioner, Scott Denniston, was initially not in favor of the delisting, citing there was significant intrigue into the monument. “I’d actually say that the presence of all these people here attests to its significance,” Denniston said.' [38] These sources do not show it to be minor in any way. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just name one other time when the Clark County Historical Commission meeting, was packed with 80 people or when a town council asked the commission to de-list an item that was never in there town; then you might have a case and you might be able to sway a consensus, but not without evidence and sources as you currently are trying. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 - mid-January vandalism, flags cut down.

'This most recent defacing of the monument to the Confederacy took place in mid-January, when someone broke open security locks on flagpoles at the site and then cut down the flags, according to Garth McKinney, first lieutenant commander of the Pacific Northwest Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which maintains the site. The site was flying at least three Confederate flags, McKinney said: the First National Flag of the Confederacy, the Third National Flag of the Confederacy and the “Bonnie Blue” Confederate flag. McKinney’s organization hasn’t replaced the flags yet.' - [39] [40]

It appears an update is in order. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

New Vandalism found on April 3, 2018

The billboard (sign) for the park was defaced earlier this month: [41] [42] - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)