Talk:Soldiers' Monument (Santa Fe, New Mexico)/Archive 1

Archive 1

status

@Netherzone and 104.255.16.253:, can we conclude that the monument is a former entity? It seems to me the obelisk is, but the base stands. I think the chances are good the removal will mean a repurposing of the site, but I've seen no sources speak to the official status of that yet. Arlo James Barnes 15:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Arlo Barnes, Nice to meet you here! I'm fine with a wait-and-see approach. I changed the tense in a few places, and no problem to change them back to present tense. BTW, there is a strange redirect on your User Page that redirects to WikiProject New Mexico, creating namespace & talk page confusion (which is why I'm mentioning it here). Maybe WP:UP can help with that. Netherzone (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, likewise. I was not aware of

User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable. Soft redirects are allowed on userpages.

from wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects; my thinking had been that anything interesting I do in WP is related to WPNM, so editors might as well check out that project. Seeing that it is confusing, however, I will change it. Arlo James Barnes 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Arlo Barnes, It was confusing to me, but that does not mean it's confusing for everyone. Sounds like the redirect is fine. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Box of Relics?

I noticed on a NM gov web page that the monument contains "a box of relics", see HERE. It would be interesting to find out what the relics are in the box contained therein. Just wondering if there is a state historian (or even a librarian) who might be interested in researching this factoid. Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was gonna add that to the Plaza article (I forgot it was part of the center). There's a time capsule that was [re?]buried in Sam Pick's administration. Arlo James Barnes 02:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See Santa Fe Plaza reference 10 for the link to the 1867 newspaper article with the list of items in the cornerstone: "The New Mexican" 5 November 1867. VT440genoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by VT440genoa (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another source, NYTimes re: time capsule box o relics[1] Netherzone (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

collating some of the more recent coverage

While obviously some of the content of the recent edits (now reverted) by 'Local 500years' were not respecting of Wikipedia's neutrality mandate, and generally not respectful of the scholastic process (for example, editing the titles of cited sources based on personal opinion), there was some content in there I had already been meaning to figure out how and whether it related to the main topic of this article, that being the administrative aspects. Specifically, the roles of the mayor, city council, police department, and city prosecution. There have been numerous articles talking about their involvement (or lack thereof) in the 2020 portion of events and prior, but none yet really that have surveyed the facts and synthesized an overview. Wikipedia's ability to infer statements from multiple sources is at once vital to the encyclopedia perspective but also limited by the extent to which this can be done neutrally and sensibly. And I haven't been sure that most of the contemporary discussion around the toppling event has actually been germane to the monument itself, from a wider perspective. I still haven't really concluded anything personally but I thought I would share my lines of thinking. Arlo James Barnes 04:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Arlo Barnes, I agree that the article can be developed, based on reliable sources and not personal opinion. It's important to have several perspectives represented. This talk page may be a good place to start listing them for discussion, or be bold and add them.

As you say, the wording needs to be encyclopedic - neutral, factual, sensible - from a wide perspective. I'm guessing that after the holidays and more journalists, historians/sociologists, politicians, tribal leaders, veterans and community members of all persuasions reflect on the monument itself including the toppling event more high-quality sources will be produced.

@Local 500years: if you are watching this talk page, please understand that it is not cool to change the actual wording of the titles of newspaper articles to reflect your personal opinion (e.g. changing the word 'protestors' to rioters'; nor blame the chiseling and subsequent toppling solely on Tewa "rioters" only without any evidence of this; nor rename it a "National Monument" when it is not on the Federal registry of national monuments - it's a local monument. I'll send you a welcome message with some helpful links on how things work on Wikipedia. You can also ask questions here. Happy new year to all, let's hope 2021 is a better year! Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested edits by VT440genoa

Netherzone, thanks again for your suggestions. I am waiting for another email response, but at the moment I have a split decision: your recommendation to post a draft on the article talk page with another editor suggesting just put it out there. At the moment, I am looking at content and citations/source material, with the ever present concern of remaining neutral on this sensitive topic. I plan to avoid recent events, for now, but can add much on the early history based on online sources, recent books, articles, etc. Proposed history subheads, as I see them now, might be:

1. Legislative intent 1866-1867, memorial to New Mexico's Civil War Union dead
2. Initial construction 1867
3. October 1867 Laying cornerstone, time capsule
4. Controversy 1/Legislative intent II 1867-1868, expands to include Indian Wars dead soldiers
5. Completing construction to June 1868
6. Meaning and symbol during 19th century: Union veterans' touchstone
7. Annual Memorial Day ceremonies to 1930s
8. Controversy 2: Remove word “Rebel” on monument or remove entire monument, an insult to the South, 1880–1930
9. Meaning and symbol early twentieth century: Historic relic
10. Controversy 3, early removal proposals 1930s-1960s: a festive gazebo instead?
11. Historic preservation efforts mid-twentieth century, National Historic Landmark designation, Historic Preservation Fund grant
12. Controversy 4 1970s-2020, indigenous people's symbol of repression

Thanks Netherzone for posting this--I made a couple tweaks, nothing major. Comments welcome. VT440genoa (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Formatted as a numbered list (and thanks for drawing up this draft outline of the history portion of the article!). I'd say that contrary to the phrase 'teach the controversy', we shouldn't frame these issues as such within the article...people don't take a position on an issue because it's controversial, but because the issue is important to them. If we do a good job expressing their respective perspectives, readers will understand where/when there are counterposed stances. Arlo James Barnes 01:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Arlo Barnes, VT440genoa, I agree that it does not make sense to frame historical events as "controversies". If this was a BLP it would make sense having a controversy section, but the monument is an inanimate object.

I think it is very important to share multiple points of view, opinions, not only in "controversial" events, but also in relation to meaning and symbolism, since the monument has meant and symbolized different perspectives to different constituencies. Balance WP:BALANCE, neutral point of view WP:NPV, due & undue weight WP:DUE, and being cognizant of the possibility of inherent bias in the sources WP:BIASEDSOURCES are key. Netherzone (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on suggested additions, above. I will take these into consideration. I have some other suggested changes/additions.

1. “Introduction,” last line, incorrectly states that on October 12, the “panel was further damaged.” Then, below, under the “Toppling” subhead, it correctly states the obelisk was toppled October 12. The latter is accurate while the smashing of the panel happened earlier. Suggest revision of introduction, changing to state the panel was smashed the night of …… The obelisk was toppled October 12…

2. Under “Environs” heading, may want to add more on the siting, the 1860s design (seen in Historic American Building Survey drawing and described by Chris Wilson in his The Myth of Santa Fe), and the 1967 John Gaw Meem renovation evident today. Also, may want to lead into the quote of the plaque with background on State Cultural Properties Review Committee’s decisions and authorship, 1973.

3. Under the “Structure” heading, more information about the physical monument could be added – about locally produced brick and lime core, cut stone panels, marble obelisk. Possibly add architect McGee & Brother (John and Michael McGee), and master stone cutter Tomas Baca names. More physical measurements could be added. The corner stone on the southeast corner at grade is 7,019.5’ above sea level. Because the 1867-1868 legislature numbered the panel inscriptions 1 to 4, it may be better to list the panels using their system. May want to add info on obelisk, its dimension and parts, manufacturer (Edgar Warne & Co. marble works, St. Louis), and material. May add description of time capsule, especially contents (period coins, newspapers of the day, legislative journals, etc).

4. Under “Installation” instead of briefly mentioning legislature was “instrumental in planning” the monument, maybe use the online legislative journals for details. Possibly revise to: In 1866, after complaints that graves were being robbed in the battlefields, the 1866-1867 legislature passed an act to care for the graves and to erect a monument or monuments. A monuments committee, established by the legislature, selected the site, hired architects and workmen, and contracted with a marble works for a cenotaph of modest design. At the October 24, 1867 cornerstone laying a time capsule was inserted. During the construction, the 1867-1868 legislature passed an act that revised the monument tablets to add a panel to soldiers killed by “savage Indians.” On May 30, 1868, the first nation-wide Memorial Day, a solemn ceremony dedicated the nearly completed Soldiers Monument (it was completed a few days later in June 1868).

5. May add new section on use and early controversies before “Controversy” section. These are listed above in previous note—use as Veteran’s touchstone (last Union veteran marched in Santa Fe’s Memorial Day parade 1933), as historic relic, and, finally, as symbol of oppression of indigenous peoples. Early controversies include that at time of construction over one monument or two (for Indian wars monument never built); over the use of the word “Rebel” in the inscriptions; efforts to replace monument with a gazebo, roughly 1930s-1990s, (until bandstand built on north side of plaza), and the demand for the replacement of the monument with a statue of de Vargas, which peaked in the 1980s (a de Vargas statue was placed in the Cathedral Park).

6. No comments on recent controversy other than inserting the smashing of panel 4 details, correct date. Also, the Tesuque Pueblo letter to the New Mexican editor could be added for an indigenous voice. Notes or citations on all this to be added later. VT440genoa (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, If there are no objections, I'll start adding some of these changes to the article, once each item or change has a citation in a verifiable reliable source. You can go ahead and add the citations here on talk. Do you know how to use the Cite feature on the tool bar?

Is the a date for the panel damage? That is unclear to me.

Pinging ArloBarnes for their input on these changes. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Correcting ping Arlo James Barnes Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The New Mexican reported the smashing of the panel in its issue of Tuesday, June 23, 2020, pages 1 and 5. It appears to have happened sometimes during Sunday-Monday night by parties unknown. Fine to add material, with your edits, and I'll come along and add citations either here or wherever (won't add them yet in the above, but can answer questions about sources as we go if that works). I can use the cite template -- a pet peeve: people who remove every one of my citations without a suggested alternative, or explanation. VT440genoa (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, It really helps to not personalize things, but to focus on content, since WP is a collaborative project. No one is doing something to you, we are all trying to build a better encyclopedia. And every editor may (or may not) have a different opinion. It takes a while to fully understand the culture here and how things work on Wikipedia. We try to make decisions based on policies and guidelines through the process of consensus.

I numbered your paragraphs above for ease, and so that a citation can be added to each. Ideally the citations should go into the article at the same time new content is added, otherwise it may be reverted or the article can be tagged with a maintenance tag.

Here is some info on how citations and reliable sourcing works here: WP:CITE and WP:RS. Attention should be paid to grammar and syntax when adding new content. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. You have the source for item 1, bashing in of the panel. Items 2 and 3 are suggestions without agreement yet on including this material. If agreed to use, then needs to be rewritten from its present tone. I can do that and add citations.

I can add citations to item 4 text -- if agreed to use it -- sources include online 1860s legislative journals with URLs for legislative intent, the why question; Wilson, Myth of Santa Fe; period newspapers (time capsule content, May 30, 1868 completion); Noble, Santa Fe (1989), but these may change as I work on it. The text from 4: "In 1866, after complaints that graves were being robbed in the battlefields, the 1866-1867 legislature passed an act to care for the graves and to erect a monument or monuments. A monuments committee, established by the legislature, selected the site, hired architects and workmen, and contracted with a marble works for a cenotaph of modest design. At the October 24, 1867 cornerstone laying a time capsule was inserted. During the construction, the 1867-1868 legislature passed an act that revised the monument tablets to add a panel to soldiers killed by “savage Indians.” On May 30, 1868, the first nation-wide Memorial Day, a solemn ceremony dedicated the nearly completed Soldiers Monument (it was completed a few days later in June 1868)."

Does that work for you? VT440genoa (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, When you say You have the source for item 1 which of the 14 citations currently in the article are the source for the date and the proposed change of date?

If you mean this sentence in your message above, The New Mexican reported the smashing of the panel in its issue of Tuesday, June 23, 2020, pages 1 and 5. I can't find that in any of the current citations. If it (New Mexican june 23, 2020 article) is not yet in the article, can you please provide the author, title of article, URL for the June 23, 2020 citation?

Do you have verifiable sources for the other edits per WP:V? Again, we will need author, title, URL, publication, date, and ideally page numbers.

Once you provide that info I'll have a look! Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

smashing of the panel-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by VT440genoa (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks! I changed the additional damage to the panel in the lead to June, 2020 (from Oct.). I couldn't find the exact date in the citation, but I read it quickly. I also changed the date of the citation from 23 January 2020 (as in the citation left here on talk) to 23 June 2020 which is the correct date of the article, if I am not mistaken. Netherzone (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--On page 5 is a photo of the panel. It looks like someone hit it with a sledgehammer. The reporter uses the word "smashed." What you wrote covers it.

In the introduction, after the line you just added on the June damage, a line needs to be added about the toppling. Maybe: On October 12, Indigenous Peoples Day, protestors toppled the obelisk. The citation for this can be the same as in reference 10-- Will look at the other material, add citations, but may not be until usual time, Friday VT440genoa (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa,  Done And there's no hurry, as we are all volunteers here and there's no need to keep deadlines. Have a good week. Netherzone (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, ArloBarnes--I've made major revisions, with new material and citations, for the sections on environs, structure, plith, obelisk, and installation based on my earlier suggestions, above. The proposed new text is:

Environs

The Soldiers Monument sits in the center of the rectangular Santa Fe plaza. Its site is at the crux of eight walkways that radiate to the four corners and four sides and connect to a parameter walkway. The present siting is based on the 1860s, neoclassical town square re-design of the early, bare plaza grounds. The plaza has native shade trees, grass, flower beds and replica Victorian iron benches. Stone banco seating border a flower bed at the monument. In accord with the 1967 John Gaw Meem plaza renovation plan, replica Victorian iron fencing surrounds the monument base. On the south side of the monument, a concrete stand with interpretive brass plaque prepared in 1973 by the State Cultural Properties Review Committee explains the context for monument wording:

Monument texts reflect the character of the times in which they are written and the temper of those who wrote them. This monument was dedicated in 1868 near the close of a period of intense strife which pitted northerner against southerner, Indian against white, Indian against Indian. Thus, we see on this monument, as in other records, the use of such terms as ‘savage’ and ‘rebel’. Attitudes change and prejudices hopefully dissolve.

The brass plaque was removed in 2020.

Structure

The monument structure is comprised of a stone foundation, locally produced brick and lime core for the base (plinth), local stone cut for the inscribed panels, imported Italian marble trim with marble columns and marble wreathes (Victorian funerary motifs), and marble obelisk. The cenotaph, with its Egyptian architectural associations, is 33-feet tall. The corner stone on the southeast corner at grade is 7,019.5’ above sea level. A time capsule was added October 24, 1867 at the corner stone laying ceremony. It contained coins of the period, local newspapers, legislative journals, and other commemorative items. Builders were McGee & Brother (John and Michael McGee), architects, master stone cutter Tomas Baca, and local craftsmen. The Italian marble was purchased from the Edgar Warne & Company marble works, St. Louis. The cut stone panels were inscribed by local craftsmen from revised wording dictated by an act of the 1868 legislature. On August 8, 1974, the word "savage" was chiseled off panel 4. In 2020, panel 4 was broken out and the obelisk was toppled.

Plinth

Inscriptions

In an act of January 29, 1868, the territorial legislature dictated the wording for the four panels to be inscribed and placed on the monument. Wording from the act follows:

ON THE FRONT SLAB: ERECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF NEW MEXICO THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATURES OF 1866 - 7 - 8. MAY THE UNION BE PERPETUAL. ON THE SECOND SLAB: TO THE HEROES OF THE FEDERAL ARMY WHO FELL AT THE BATTLE OF VALVERDE, FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS FEBRUARY 21, 1862 ON THE THIRD SLAB: TO THE HEROES OF THE FEDERAL ARMY WHO FELL AT THE BATTLES OF CANON DEL APACHE AND PIGEON'S RANCH (LA GLORIETA) FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS MARCH 28, 1862 AND TO THOSE WHO FELL AT THE BATTLE FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS AT PERALTA APRIL 15, 1862. ON THE FOURTH SLAB: TO THE HEROES WHO HAVE FALLEN IN THE VARIOUS BATTLES WITH THE SAVAGE INDIANS IN THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO

Panel 1 faces east, panel 2 faces south, panel 3 faces west, and panel 4 faces north. The panels were finished by local stone cutters in March 1868 as dictated, but with minor errors in the inscriptions. The word “April” on panel 3 was corrected but the word “February” on panel 2 was left misspelled without the first “r.” Legislation in the 1909 council proposed repairing the misspelled “Febuary” and, because of complaints at the time, the replacing of the word “Rebel” with “Confederate,” but the measure failed to pass. On August 8, 1974, the word “savage” was chiseled out of panel 4. In June 2020, the panel was further damaged. In October 2020, the panel 4 was broken out from the plinth. Note: “The Battles of Cañon del Apache and Pigeon’s Ranch” mentioned in panel 3 refers to phases of the Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, “La Glorieta,” March 26–28, 1862.

Obelisk

The obelisk was of standard design from Edgar Warne & Company marble works, St. Louis, the contractor for the monument material. In the spring of 1868, the five marble components of the obelisk – four tapered shaft segments and a pyramidal capstone – were placed atop the plinth’s tiered stone cap. Construction was completed in June 1868. In 2020, city workers removed the capstone while examining the monument’s structural stability for relocation plans. Over one hundred and fifty-two years after completion, on October 12, 2020, the top three components of the shaft were toppled.

Installation

Like other similarly-named monuments (see Soldier’s Monument), it was erected in the aftermath of the American Civil War. In 1866, after complaints that Union graves were being robbed in New Mexico’s Civil War battlefields, the 1866-1867, predominately Hispanic territorial legislature passed an act providing funds to care for the Union soldiers’ graves and to erect a monument or monuments as a memorial in honor of lost Union soldiers (a majority of whom had been natives of New Mexico). A monuments committee, established by the legislature, was chaired by Judge John P. Slough, former Union commander at the Battle of Glorieta Pass. The committee selected the site for Santa Fe’s Soldiers Monument, hired architects and workmen, and contracted with a marble works for a cenotaph of modest design. At the October 24, 1867 cornerstone laying, Slough inserted a time capsule into the cornerstone. Discord and partisan politics of the time interfered with the construction; Slough was killed in Santa Fe by a political rival, December 1867. A new committee undertook the revising of the intent of the under-construction monument. The next legislature, 1867-1868, passed an act January 29, 1868 that stated: “Whereas no provision has been made for honoring the brave victims who have perished in the various wars with the savage Indians surrounding us, and this Legislative Assembly desires that a slab perpetuating the memory of those be included.” The fourth panel text was revised. In March workers cut slabs from a local stone quarry and inscribed the text dictated in the 1868 act. The work may have been rushed – causing errors in the inscriptions – to be ready for May 30, 1868, the first nation-wide Memorial Day, when a solemn ceremony dedicated the nearly completed Soldiers Monument (it was completed with the placing of the capstone a few days later in June 1868).

History and Symbol, 1868-1970 -- (still working on this new section)

Comments welcome, Thanks VT440genoa (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, thank you for posting these suggestions for improvements. I will have a deeper look in the next week, and read through the citations.

What I noticed immediately, is that some of the confusion surrounding which panel is which that could be corrected by simply calling them the North panel, South panel, East panel and West panel, rather than numbering the panels. (It sure would be nice to have photos of each, that we could place into a "gallery" with the text as the captions of each photo). I'll have a look on Flickr to see if there are any copyright-free images.

The other thing that stood out to me immediately is that nine of the citations were missing the titles of the articles, dates of articles and authors (the ones from newspapers.com). It's difficult to understand context w/o this info.

Lastly, a question: do you think the article seems like it might be from a dominant cultural viewpoint and doesn't include any historical indigenous voices? What did these communities think, say or write? (At least without knowing the names of authors of the newspapers.com articles, it's hard to say...) It's like their voice is silent until perhaps 1974 when the word "savage" was removed. Just an observation, and I haven't yet read the citations with links to online copies.

Thanks for all this good work! I feel like we are getting closer to an in-depth article! Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response--I just finished with correcting the endnotes--mostly adding titles to those nineteenth century newspaper articles -- as you mentioned -- from newspapers.com

On the panels, the New Mexican posted images of all four in a 1967 article on the feud at the time over a festive gazebo replacing the monument (they are clear enough to read). This is online at newspapers.com (I was planning to put the link as endnote in the next section which I am cleaning up--History and Symbol 1868-1970). I am partial to using the legislature's dictate on numbering and wording, but can see somehow putting directions in there. Also, I only included the citation for the Prince history because he is the only author I've found that gives directions for the panels.

Indigenous voices are difficult to find. In looking through the newspapers, 1860s-1960s, the indigenous peoples voice on the monument is not recorded until an 1961 article. An elder from a Pueblo wrote a letter to the editor and complained about realizing while a child that the words on the monument made him feel like a second class citizen. He added that maybe the wording be changed -- "why should future generations of American Indian children continue to have this insulting reminder that the conquerors considered them little more than blood-lusting beasts, not notable martyrs fighting for their homes?" I was thinking of using this as a transition last sentence in the History & Symbol 1868-1970 section -- that latter date is when AIM gets active.

Thanks as always for your thoughts and look forward to further suggestions. I am now working on the next section, History & Symbol 1868-1970. VT440genoa (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, hello again! I saw that you cleaned up the citations, thank you. Let's see if other editors chime in in the next week with feedback. Since you so kindly posted everything here, I'll do the work of moving things to the article so you don't have to duplicate your work.

Let's see if other editors prefer the numbers or directions for the panels - I'm good with whatever might make it easiest for our readers.

It's great you found the 1961 letter to the editor from a Pueblo elder - I'm of the opinion that it should be included for balance. Our readers are located all over the world and I think it will enrich their understanding of the different cultural standpoints of New Mexico.

Looking forward to our next conversation. Be well. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to move things to the article. I was planning to include citations 3 and 5 into my revision, at the same place. Can you insert those during your placement of the new material?

On photos of the tablets. I looked at the New Mexican October 1, 1967 article, p. 31: "Archivist Opposes Plans to Change Santa Fe Plaza" with the photos of the four tablets. The link is at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/583411835/ These may be transferrable. Note, the photos show the date inscribed on the Glorieta tablet as "1862," which is correct. The present WP monument article with 2018 transcriptions of the Glorieta tablet is incorrectly dated as "1863." Probably a typo. This is changed in my revision.

I have yet to find a photo of the broken out panel 4. The monument was quickly covered with a protective structure. So, all recent photos show a big box. A KRQE News Oct 12, 2020 video clip shows the broken-out panel 4 near the end of the clip, while crews with a front-end loader clean-up. The link is: https://www.krqe.com/news/protests/controversial-obelisk-in-santa-fe-plaza-torn-down/

Am revising the draft History & Symbol material, but won't get to it until next Friday. May also look at recent events section; interesting column in the New Mexican yesterday about the number of offers by people who want to buy the monument remnants and relocate for exhibit. Thanks again for the comments, suggestions, and for lending a hand. VT440genoa (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, Hello, Do you mean citations 3 & 5 in the list below or the 3 & 5 in the article?

I wanted to clarify why I think North South East West is a better way to go regarding the panels. How would our readers know where the "front" of the monument is, and whether the numbering is clockwise or counterclockwise? I've always thought of the monument as not having a front or back. Is the front the side that faces the Palace of the Governors, or is it the side that faces the park? Or the side facing Lincoln or the side facing Old SFe Trail? It's confusing to me, even as someone who has been to the plaza many times, however I guess I feel like the front is the side facing the park because that is the direction I usually approach it from, but that is totally subjective and unencyclopedic.

Regarding photos, the Wikimedia Foundation has very strict rules on the use of images in articles due to copyright laws. We can only use photos that have been made prior to 1926 and are out of copyright, or those that have been released from copyright via acceptable Creative Commons licenses, or are un-copyrighted government photos (such as some NASA or USGS images) or are copyright free. In some cases, for example in a biography, an image of the person can be used if it is a low resolution, small-size (within very specific parameters) and uploaded with the correct fair-use criteria if a copyright "free" image is not available. So if the newspapers you mention are willing to upload their copyrighted images and the photographer is willing to release their copyrights, and upload the files to Wikipedia Commons, then they could be used. From my own experiences here, this becomes very complicated an time consuming and 9 times out of 10 is unsuccessful anyways. There are a few images I saw on Flickr that may have the correct Creative Commons license, but I have to check them out before trying to upload them. I've been warned numerous times for not following the guidelines and policies correctly simply because they are so complicated and hard for me to understand. There is a direct Flickr to Wikipedia Commons tool that automatically checks the licensing and copyright status, so I was going to use that once I identify some possible pix on Flickr. But if you want to, and have the time to reach out to the newspapers or KRQE or the photographers to see if they will release their copyrights to the images, you are free to do that, and upload them directly to Commons.

Again, thanks for all your work and research, it's really a great contribution to the encyclopedia. I'm going to wait a few more days to see if other editors post their thoughts here. Pinging User:Arlo James Barnes and User:KidAd. Then I will begin to move the content over to the article. Anything that seems like it will not require discussion I may do sooner, and it can always be reverted if need be. Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: -- the account that includes my middle name is a doppel, and sadly those don't forward pings. My signature includes my middle name, but my main account does not (but does include a space/underscore). As for the additions in the past week it will take me a bit to review them but I will soon. Arlo James Barnes 20:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

--On the citations, they are No 3 and No 5 in the present article, not the list below. No 3 is right before the quote and No. 5 is after the first sentence on "Installation" section. --The panels were given a specific order by the legislature, with panel 1, of course, thanking the legislatures of 1866-1867-1868 (themselves). Using the order given by the legislature shows legislative intent, important to some readers. Putting the 4 panels in a list based on N, S, E, W is a convenience. Panel 1 -- using the legislature's numbering -- faces east; panel 2 -- the Valverde panel -- faces south; panel 3 -- the Glorieta and Peralta panel -- faces west; and panel 4 -- the "Savage Indians" panel -- faces north. So, using the legislature's listing --starting with 1 -- and adding their directions together in the list should not be complicated. --On the photos, thanks for the comments and suggestions, as always. More to explore. VT440genoa (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, Notes and feedback on your proposed changes:

1. This does not belong in the Environs Section, but belongs in the Structure section as a subsection titled: 1973 bronze interpretive plaque:

On the south side of the monument, a concrete stand with interpretive brass plaque prepared in 1973 by the State Cultural Properties Review Committee explains the context for monument wording: "Monument texts reflect the character of the times in which they are written and the temper of those who wrote them. This monument was dedicated in 1868 near the close of a period of intense strife which pitted northerner against southerner, Indian against white, Indian against Indian. Thus, we see on this monument, as in other records, the use of such terms as ‘savage’ and ‘rebel’. Attitudes change and prejudices hopefully dissolve." Note: this should be a block quote and/or photo + caption.

2. This should be moved to the controversies or protest section, because the Structure section is about the structure itself: The brass plaque was removed in 2020.

3. I don't think the elevation of the cornerstone is relevant when the clickable geographic coordinates are already in the article. It is unnecessary detail.

4. This too is too detailed and unnecessary: The Italian marble was purchased from the Edgar Warne & Company marble works, St. Louis.

5. This should not be in the Structure section but should be in the controversies or protest section: This does not need to be said here (and is out of place) and also in the Inscriptions section below, which is redundant: On August 8, 1974, the word "savage" was chiseled off panel 4. In 2020, panel 4 was broken out and the obelisk was toppled.

6. I've modified the way this info is presented for clarity:

East-facing Panel #1: ERECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF NEW MEXICO THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATURES OF 1866 - 7 - 8. MAY THE UNION BE PERPETUAL.

South-facing Panel #2: TO THE HEROES OF THE FEDERAL ARMY WHO FELL AT THE BATTLE OF VALVERDE, FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS FEBRUARY 21, 1862

West-facing Panel #3: TO THE HEROES OF THE FEDERAL ARMY WHO FELL AT THE BATTLES OF CANON DEL APACHEAND PIGEON'S RANCH (LA GLORIETA) FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS MARCH 28, 1862 AND TO THOSE WHO FELL AT THE BATTLE FOUGHT WITH THE REBELS AT PERALTA APRIL 15, 1862.

North-facing Panel #3: TO THE HEROES WHO HAVE FALLEN IN THE VARIOUS BATTLES WITH THE SAVAGE INDIANS IN THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO

7. NOTE: I think it is really important that something should be added that lets the readers know that this is the panel that faces towards the Palace of the Governors where Native people sit under the portico to sell their arts and crafts, and have been doing so for X-number of years.

8. This sentence can be removed with above changes: Panel 1 faces east, panel 2 faces south, panel 3 faces west, and panel 4 faces north.

9. This should be in the controversies and protest section (and it doesn't need to be said more than once): Over one hundred and fifty-two years after completion, on October 12, 2020, the top three components of the shaft were toppled.

10. On a closer reading of a few of the citations, it seems that there are other things that could be pulled out of them to include more of the indigenous peoples' voices, which still seems glaringly absent (even if that one letter to the editor quote is included), and thus the article seems biased IMO, and not NPOV. At WP we are striving to avoid systemic bias. Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reping to User:Arlo Barnes - I forgot that your middle name is a doppleganger! Netherzone (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read this and make suggestions. Greatly appreciated. I agree with all your proposed changes--one minor typo in item 6, the second 3 should be 4. And good point on item 7; can add that in in next section (the creation of the Museum of New Mexico and the use of the portal by Native artists dates from around 1910, when the Palace became a museum--all facing panel 4). Same on item 10; that letter by Ricardo Caté now linked into the article (at the bottom) may be better used for qoutes in the text, for example. VT440genoa (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, yes too feel like we are getting some very constructive work done here in Talk. I just added a temporary maintenance tag to the article letting other editors know that the article is currently "Under Construction" and that there is an active discussion going on here. Thank you for your most recent feedback. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Starting to make proposed edits while retaining existing text

I wanted to update any article watchers that I've started to make some of the the proposed edit changes/additions and associated references. I'm doing it a bit at a time to try to integrate new content with the existing content so that we don't lose any information or citations, but rather build upon what we already have. I am removing redundancies as I go. I am up to the inscriptions as of today. I hope to work some more on the article tonight or tomorrow. If I make a mistake, let me know or feel free to revert my edit(s). Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like progress--some suggestions: delete citation 9 (elevations), not needed; correct typo in inscription on Glorieta panel, "1863" should be "1862"; use the order of panels in the 1868 act, panel 1, facing East, thanking legislatures; panel 2, facing South, on Valverde; panel 3, facing West on Glorieta and Peralta; panel 4, facing North, on "Savage Indians." VT440genoa (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@VT440genoa: hi there, thanks for these suggestions. Will do the next time I find an exended amount of time to devote to the article (which should be in the next week), or go ahead and make these corrections. Later this week, I will try to pick up where I left off. Have a good evening. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, KidAd, Arlo Barnes Arlo James Barnes and other interested editors, I've continued to add suggested text from this Talk page, while retaining as much of the orginal content as possible (and avoiding redundancy. I've also added some more photographs + citations. Please let me know if I've made any errors. It's shaping up nicely! Netherzone (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Great progress--made an edit on 1863 (changed to 1862) date and put in better URL for 1868 act; now goes to page of act instead of front of book. VT440genoa (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@VT440genoa: thanks for those corrections. I indented your message for you, not sure if you know about indenting messages on Talk pages. If you add a colon : in front of your message (below the message you are responding to) it creates an indent...you can keep adding colons for each stage of the conversation. It helps to keep talk pages discussions threaded in an easy-to-read way. If you look at the code, you will see that my message has two colons in front of it. It's not a big deal but more info is here, if you feel like reading about it: WP:INDENT Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, as always. I'll try to have that draft paragraph on History and Symbol for review next Friday. VT440genoa (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edits March 12, 2021

Arlo Barnes, Netherzone Below is the draft for a new "History and Symbol, 1868-1973" section. Comments welcome, especially on the last paragraph--finding pre-1973 Native voices on the obelisk was difficult (plenty in recent news, media); suggestions welcome. Thanks VT440genoa (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

new drft material History and Symbol, 1868-1973

During the late nineteenth century, the Soldiers Monument was used for annual Memorial Day events, a place for Union veterans to, at first, gather, decorate the cenotaph, and hear brief presentations to honor and mourn the Union dead. The monument might be decorated for other holidays or at news of the death of nationally known Union veterans. With the establishment of the Santa Fe National Cemetery, and the 1870s movement of soldiers’ remains from their battlefield graves to the national cemetery, Memorial Day ceremonies changed. They included decorating the Soldiers Monument, processions from the plaza to the national cemetery, and, joined by the community, the placing of decorations and flowers at graves. Reading of the Gettysburg Address and speeches might follow. By the early 1900s, only a handful of Union soldiers survived to march past the Soldiers Monument; the last followed the procession on Memorial Day, 1933.

From the 1880s, use of the word “Rebel” in the inscriptions of the Soldiers Monument was considered an insult to the South. In 1908-1909, the New Mexico governor offered to fund the change in panel wording while the legislative Council passed a resolution supporting inscribing “Confederate” in place of “Rebel.” In opposition, a former governor and veterans gained support for leaving the monument “sacred and unmutilated.” They saw the monument not only as a memorial but a symbol of an historic era, a relic to be preserved in memory of the territory’s loyalty to the Union. The monument was left unchanged and, as the city began an era of tourism promotion, the monument served as a historic relic with the Rebel word noted (see post card image). In the 1930s, another effort by Texans to have the monument removed because of the word Rebel failed to gain support, the editor of the local paper stating: “you can’t change history even if you don’t like it, and that the soldiers’ monument is a grand old quaint relic which should stay right where it is until it disintegrates at the hands of the elements.”

During the 1910s-1960s, as the city encouraged tri-culture heritage tourism, efforts grew to remove the monument and replace it with either a gazebo or with a statue of a Spanish colonizer, Don Diego De Vargas. Local Hispanic groups offered to remove the obelisk and on the base place the statue, considered a more fitting representation of the plaza’s history. Pulitzer Prize winning author Oliver Le Farge defended the Soldiers Monument with an often-reprinted essay praising the monument’s value as preserved historic relic over any new statue. He wrote: “the monument is authentic, it is unpretentious, it is a true record of a passage in New Mexico History…For heaven’s sake, [if] you who want to keep a little of the real Santa Fe, resist every move to remove those stones as you would resist having the bones of your ancestors ground into fertilizer for the capitol gardens.” During the 1950s, La Farge and other preservationists supported a city architectural preservation ordinance for the downtown’s historic core and the nomination of the plaza (including the Soldiers Monument) as a National Historic Landmark, one of the first. The De Vargas statue proposal was tabled as another movement, to replace the Soldiers Monument with a festive gazebo, evolved from early suggestions to be a major component of the John Gaw Meem 1967 renovation plan of the plaza. Preservationists again opposed the removal attempt and Meem revised his design; he wrote, the monument is “like an ugly child, you love it like it is.” (A gazebo would eventually be added to the north side of the plaza; and a De Vargas statue was placed in Cathedral Park).

During the 1960s, too, the panel 4, with the words “Savage Indians,” became the focus of criticism. In his 1960 column, La Farge had noted the wording, while a Santa Fe Indian School teacher wrote that the inscription of “Savage Indians” was bad enough added to what the children had to see on TV and movie Westerns. An elder of the Teseque pueblo added his first realization he was a second-class citizen was when he read the words “Savage Indian” on the panel as a child. He added, the word should be changed: “why should future generations of American Indian children continue to have this insulting reminder that the conquerors considered them little more than blood-lusting beasts, not notable martyrs fighting for their homes?” By the end of the decade Native voices were increasingly complaining about such symbols of conquest as the monument and, in 1973, the American Indian Movement leadership wrote the governor of New Mexico to change the wording of panel 4 or remove the Soldiers Monument. The governor asked the city, which first passed a motion to remove it, then faced local opposition by old families and preservationists. Because of an earlier Federal grant the state had also agreed to preserve the monument for a set period. The city reversed its decision. The governor helped with state commissions proposing a plaque be added explaining the words “Rebel” and “Savage Indians” and their context. Native organizations were advised, with agreement at the official state level but concern by those who thought the plaque was not enough. The GI Forum in Taos sent a message to the governor that stated the panel 4 wording was disturbing and should be obliterated: “no explanation in favor of the phrase can be sufficiently convincing.” After meeting with Pueblo elders, the state revised the text again. By the end of 1973, the growing controversy superficially appeared resolved.

Controversy--needs some tweaking to bring information up to date. SFNM June 17, 2020 By 2020, an indigenous activist from Red Nation said to a reporter that the "racist monument against indigenous peoples has got to go." VT440genoa (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@VT440genoa: Please place all edits made after March 12 here. The discussion above is not correctly threaded nor indented, and has become too difficult to keep track of. (Which is why I created this new section.) Please indent each comment by adding a colon : before your message. See more information about indenting here: WP:INDENT, and talk pages here: WP:TP where there is a section on indentation on talk pages and a video to how indentation works on Wikipedia, the indentation part of the video starts at: 1:25. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: I am tweaking a couple of the citations and clean-up of typos. Added two new citations this a.m. To help folks understand the thoughts behind the above four paragraphs let me add a couple remarks. The early efforts to remove the monument need explained (it was under attack from the beginning), because of the word Rebel and the desire to build a gazebo or a statue to some historic figure, both of which failed. Hopefully, this has been fleshed out enough to help the reader understand the feud over the historic obelisk. Recent media has amnesia about this history. The last paragraph is a transition one to the Controversy section, which covers some of the same ground, but here I provide more detail on the legitimate grievances that in hindsight seem to be ignored. More quotes from Native voices from 1973 can be added, but this probably covers major views. VT440genoa (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, I think much of this is way too detailed and unnecessarily wordy for inclusion in an encyclopedia, per WP:TLDR It would be fine in another type of publication, tho! I'll see what can be gleaned from it, and add it to the article. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, Moving forward, a couple comments:

1. Installation section. Note the edits and comments about need for a page number here, or other citation or confirmation of material there. Reading between the lines, I assume you're not looking for this material -- which I can locate and correct -- but are streamlining the text for tightness. If you need the page number for Bancroft, for example, let me know and I'll get it.

2. Controversy section -- would the chiseling subsection be better placed after the first paragraph (the one ending with late 1973)? Then follow the 1974 chiseling with a new subhead?

3. History and Symbol revised new subsection -- have cut much detail, quotes, and eliminated wordiness per WP:TLDR. Also broke into subsections to help reader--see below.

Revised new draft material

References

History and Symbol, 1868-1970

Over a century, an inanimate object may be imbued with different meanings by different peoples. During the late nineteenth century, the Soldiers Monument was used for annual Memorial Day events, a place for Union veterans to gather, decorate the cenotaph, and hear brief presentations. The monument might be decorated for other holidays or at news of the death of nationally known Union veterans. With the establishment of the Santa Fe National Cemetery, and the 1870s movement of Union soldiers’ remains from their battlefield graves to the national cemetery, Memorial Day ceremonies included decorating the cenotaph, a parade from the plaza to the cemetery, and the placing of decorations and flowers at graves.

The Word “Rebel” on Inscriptions

From the 1880s, use of the word “Rebel” in the inscriptions of the Soldiers Monument was considered an insult to the South. In 1908-1909, the New Mexico governor offered to fund changes in panel wording while the legislative Council passed a resolution supporting inscribing “Confederate” in place of “Rebel.” In opposition, a former governor and veterans succeeded in gaining support for leaving the monument “sacred and unmutilated.” In the 1930s, another effort by Texans to have the monument removed because of the word Rebel failed to gain support, the editor of the local paper stating: “the soldiers’ monument is a grand old quaint relic which should stay right where it is.” (see post card image)

Gazebo and Statue Proposals

During the 1910s-1960s, as the city encouraged tri-culture heritage tourism, efforts grew to remove the monument and replace it with either a gazebo or with a statue of a Spanish colonizer, Don Diego de Vargas. Local Hispanic groups offered to remove the obelisk and on the base place the statue, considered a more fitting representation of the plaza’s history. During the 1950s, Oliver La Farge and other preservationists opposed the removal, supported a city architectural preservation ordinance for the downtown’s historic core and the nomination of the plaza (including the Soldiers Monument) as a National Historic Landmark, one of the first. . Plans to replace the monument with a festive gazebo, evolved from early suggestions to be a major component of the John Gaw Meem 1967 renovation plan of the plaza. Preservationists again opposed the removal attempt and Meem revised his design. (A gazebo would eventually be added to the north side of the plaza; and a De Vargas statue was placed in Cathedral Park).

Comment. The subsection on the word "Rebel" helps explain the post card with the word Rebel in the caption, posted at the right in the article, as well as the wording of the 1973 plaque explaining the use of Rebel. There is a long back story on this, dealing with as much about the Jim Crow South and influences trying to change the narrative of the Civil War to that of the "Lost Cause." The New Mexico governor supporting the inscriptions' change was a son of a leader of the KKK in Louisiana and the opponent, ex-governor Prince, was from New York and a Unionist. The bill in the legislative council passed unanimously except for one vote, that of then councilman Prince. During the Jim Crow era, African Americans could ride with white passengers on trains in New Mexico, but at the Texas line had to leave their seats to move to the car marked "colored only." In southeast New Mexico -- called New Mexico's "Deep South" at the time -- communities restricted African American's movement, schooling, and residence. Roswell NM was headquarters for a KKK office. Clovis, NM had a race riot in 1914, chasing out African Americans. And on. The point is, the removing of Rebel on the inscriptions and placing it with Confederate at the time, 1900s-1930s, was a big deal. To New Mexico's credit it did not happen. No need to include any of this in this article, just providing background. VT440genoa (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, Thank you for your work! I have just begun to read through the material in this section, and what jumps out to me in the first paragraph is that the tone is not entirely encyclopedic. Wikipedia guidelines state that editorializing WP:EDITORIAL, synthesis of published material WP:SYNTH and original research WP:OR are cause for concern. Another useful guideline is WP:WTW. Wording like "may" or "might be" is not encouraged. We need to stick to what the sources say, and not interpret them. We also should not combine information from several sources to synthesize them to imply a conclusion.

I also think we are treading slippery territory when we assume we can know what the historical meaning and symbolism of the monument is/was in a balanced way unless ALL voices can be included (which is difficult since Native voices seem to be absent in most [or all] of the sources prior to the 1970s), so I am shying away from having a separate section for History & Symbol.

Having said that, I think that some of this material can be integrated concisely and briefly into the article with a few sentences along with associated citations. We need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a book or a feature article for a magazine, or a chapter in a textbook. It took me a while to get the hang of it; this essay has been really helpful: WP:Writing better articles.

How does that sound? I'll try to work on moving some of this material to the article in the next day or two. And again, thanks so much for doing all this research. The article is much better than it was, a vast improvement! Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved part of the "History" content to the lead section; some of the "Rebel" content to the Inscriptions section; and some of the de Vargas and gazebo content to the Installation section. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, Thanks for the note. Glad to help. Would have preferred to see the history section stick together, but your choice. Let me know if you need clarifications, especially on citations. I think I've completed what I asked you and Arlo Barnes awhile back what I could help with in the history part. So, I'm moving on to another topic, but contact me if you have questions. Good luck VT440genoa (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, thank you, I've enjoyed working together. Have fun working on your other topics. See you around! Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, Before I get this off my screen, I need to clear up a couple minor edits, the "citation needed" for the battle of Glorieta Pass: (I'll provide the National Park unit link a new citations; and where the wiki master asks "who" in a paragraph in the Plinth section I'll edit in L Bradford Prince. Hate to leave these loose ends. Thanks again. VT VT440genoa (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

VT440genoa, thanks again, please do make those edits. Netherzone (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone,  Done P.S. thanks for all the wiki tips over the last month or two VT440genoa (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article is much improved over the last couple months, almost overhauled really. Before it was an impression of an article, now it is one. As such, would anyone object to the contents of this talk page being gathered into an archive to clear the way for new discussion? This is a usual practice for expansive talk pages. Arlo James Barnes 04:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: Archiving would be excellent! Also, I changed the former "Controversy" section which I renamed. I'd like to know if you think it's ok as "Public response and action", or if you prefer "Conterposed stances" which you had suggested in December. Netherzone (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll set it up and whenever ClueBot3 gets around to it, it will be done. Agreed on 'public response and action', that seems like a good description of the section contents to me. I'll remove the 'response' [to toppling] section so it doesn't sound repetitive; it's short now anyway since some content was moved elsewhere in the article, so it doesn't justify a sub-sub-section. Arlo James Barnes 22:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Talk page archives

As a reminder, per Help:Archiving a talk page, only old, inactive sections should be archived. Therefore, it is not appropriate to archive entire pages while discussions are still only a few days old. I have adjusted the archives accordingly. Also, Template:Sources-talk and Template:Reflist-talk should be added to each section which contains an archive. Otherwise, redundant citations spill-over into unrelated sections and make both talk pages and their archives even more confusing and cluttered. Further, the common {{SUBST:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d name scheme makes it much, much easier for editors and templates to locate and link to archives. For this page that starts with Talk:Soldiers' Monument (Santa Fe, New Mexico)/Archive 1) and counts up. (Another option is to archive by date, but this only really works well for talk pages which are continuously active over a long period of time.) Keeping a consistent scheme makes it much easier for editors to find these archives, which helps prevent redundant discussions. It also saves someone the hassle of having to merge two separate talk page archives if a page ever gets renamed.

Wikipedia is almost twenty years old, which is ancient for a website, and it really shows with how talk pages are organized. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've used OneClickArchiver to archive every section from before March. This way, folks like me who do not have the time to review these discussions every day still have a chance to comment or respond if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Grayfell, thanks for doing this. Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for misusing the bot template, I am new to learning the details of archiving. The one-click tool looks quite useful for the long-concluded discussion use case you mention, thanks for linking it. Arlo James Barnes 22:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Like I said, talk pages are especially arcane. I was hoping WP:FLOW would make things better, but alas... The page itself looks much, much better, and that's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

October 12

The one-year anniversary is coming up in a couple days; any significant sources arise since the last substantial edits we should review? Arlo James Barnes 02:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I added a source talking about charges being dropped for most of those previously charged. I see a photo has been added depicting The Cube up close, also. Arlo James Barnes 07:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Arlo Barnes thanks for that update of important current information. I added the photo of the cube when I was in town a few months ago, but sadly, the information on the temporary(?) plaque is not legible. I should have written it down at the time I made the photo. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's just excerpting the first few clauses of https://santafenm.gov/media/files/2021-6CultureandReconciliation.pdf, which we could mention (maybe there's a relevant inline template?) but probably not worth quoting directly since the resolution seems to just be an agreement that CHART should happen. Arlo James Barnes 21:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it! If you think it's not worth quoting, lets not worry about it. Netherzone (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)