Jump to content

Talk:Albert Pike Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

[edit]
Extended content
  • Testament to Union: Civil War Monuments in Washington, D.C., by Kathryn Allamong Jacob, JHU Press, Baltimore, 1998, pgs. 59-62, ISBN 9780801858611
  • The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C., by James M. Goode, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1974, pg. 228, 413, ISBN 0-87474-149-1
  • Ceremonies at the Unveiling of the Albert Pike Statue at Washington, D.C., October 23, 1901, OCLC 78252619

APK whisper in my ear 06:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that the Smithsonian Institution surveyed the sculpture in May 1993 and deemed it "well maintained" as part of their "Save Outdoor Sculpture!" program (per the Smithsonian reference). I added the corresponding category. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the info. APK whisper in my ear 23:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Brigadier General Albert Pike → Statue of Albert Pike – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." --Another Believer (Talk) 11:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

[edit]

The identity of the protesters that tore down the statue is know. BLM was there and organized the event. Police did not intervene except for a dozen offers that extinguished the fire and left.

sourceL https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/demonstrators-topple-burn-statue-of-confederate-general-near-dc-police-headquarters/2338978/ 97.116.64.60 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

[edit]

On the night of June 19, 2020 around 11 p.m. EST an estimated 80 to 100 rioters and vandals targeted the statue. In a violent riot the group tore down the statue using rope and set fire to it. Propaganda by the vandals cited protests continued in response to the killing of George Floyd, despite the officers being charged. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/protesters-topple-burn-albert-pike-statue-in-dc/

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+protest&oq=definition+of+protest&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.3748j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

An editor cited an insufficient and political source.The summary did not accurately capture the nature of the events. Due to their incumbent position on the platform they pushed a bias that was clearly rebuked by other editors. The currently explanation is not satisfactory. 98.116.101.183 (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been updated. APK whisper in my ear 06:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

[edit]

I notice people were quick to change everything to past tense. But although the statue has been removed, the memorial itself (base along with the bronze sculpture representing the Goddess of Masonry) is still there. What are page watchers thoughts on this? APK whisper in my ear 06:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I'd like your opinion if you get a chance. APK whisper in my ear 06:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AgnosticPreachersKid, I've raised this concern on a couple talk pages recently as well. I agree, we should note the removal, but in most cases, these recently removed statues/monuments exist somewhere even if they are not on public display. I think we should only switch to total past tense if the monument has been destroyed. I'm sure there will be some grey area, though -- I have a feeling some statues will be relocated, others placed into storage for decades, some only partially removed, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer - I kept the past tense for the statue itself but changed the rest of the memorial to present tense. Hopefully it makes sense to readers. APK whisper in my ear 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, the lead says "...is a public artwork in Washington, D.C.". The statue of Pike is no longer a public artwork, so the past tense is appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's more than just a statue like I mentioned above. The base and attached sculpture are still there. The entire thing wasn't brought down my protesters. Why are people renaming it and removing things from the infobox like height specifics, etc.? Those things are included in similar articles. The name of the artwork is Brigadier General Albert Pike according to the Smithsonian and the NRHP nomination form. APK whisper in my ear 02:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, making past tense changes such as "The memorial was one of 18 Civil War monuments in Washington, D.C., which were collectively listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978" is factually inaccurate. Just because the statue was taken elsewhere doesn't mean the NPS has removed it from the collective listing. If they do so, then we can change it to past tense. Also the memorial hasn't disappeared into thin air. The statue was the centerpiece of the memorial, but the base and second sculpture are still there as seen in these photos. Yes the statue is no longer on the pedestal and that's been noted in the lede and body, but that doesn't mean the rest of it vanished. APK whisper in my ear 22:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References for toppling

[edit]

here are some more references, since pashpost is paywalled -

Heatmor (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling

[edit]
@User:AgnosticPreachersKid You replaced with a different format a format that I used when adding several related in-line references to a paragraph. The format that I used for my references is a type of "bundling", which Help:Citation merging#Usage describes. Therefore, the format that I used is acceptable, although it is uncommon. Help:Citation merging#Usage states that "bundling" has several advantages:
It helps readers and other editors see at a glance which source supports which point, maintaining text–source integrity;
It avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph;
It avoids the confusion of having multiple sources listed separately after sentences, with no indication of which source to check for each part of the text, such as this.[1][2][3][4]
It makes it less likely that inline citations will be moved inadvertently when text is re-arranged, because the footnote states clearly which source supports which point.
Help:Citation merging#Usage also states that "bundling" has several disadvanges. However, when there are more than two related footnotes (as is the case with the footnotes that I placed in the Pike article, the advantages appear to outweigh disadvantages.
I agree that, in general, all citations within an artcle should have the same format. However, since "bundling" is uncommon, that would preclude its use in nearly all WP articles, as many editors are not aware that "bundling" is acceptable.
Further, some editors would bundle only two citations, while others would bundle only when there are many more citations. Therefore, "bundling" is one of those instances in which consistency among formats within the same article would be nearly impossible to achieve. Corker1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is posted here since we just discussed it on your talk page, but as I stated there "Ok but if you could stick with the same format when there's already dozens of other citations, especially on something that's a GA ,I'd appreciate it. Thanks." APK whisper in my ear 22:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:AgnosticPreachersKid: As you stated, Albert Pike Memorial is presently listed as GA (Good Article). However, the article is not presently listed as FA (Featured Article).
I therefore have no reason to consider that the references in this article need to have a consistent formatting regarding bundling. In this instance, however, I bundled only three references in a single location. While unbundling those three references has decreased the readablity of Albert Pike Memorial, this number is small enough for me to accept the change. Corker1 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like I've asked some huge favor, just common courtesy which seems to be what others have asked on your talk page regarding this same issue. Since the disadvantages of the confusing bundling format weren't mentioned above, I've listed them below for anyone else that comes across this discussion.
  • It requires that several sources are collected together at one point in the text, breaking the link between which piece of text is supported by which source. This damages text–source integrity;
  • If a piece of article text is re-arranged into another paragraph, sources have to be extracted from the bundling to move them to the new location. This also means that every source in the bundle has to be re-examined to ensure that the new text is still accurately supported.
  • If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references or List-defined references. This increases the citation clutter within the wiki-text.
Have a great night. APK whisper in my ear 02:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Pike_Memorial&oldid=1204664489"