Talk:List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States

Please rename

This is poorly named--"attacks" makes it sound like protesters tried to destroy the monuments (which happened a few times but that's not what this article is about). "Suggested removal" or "Calls for removal" may be more appropriate?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Calls for removal isn't correct either. Some of the vandalized ones, no call for removal has come to my attention. deisenbe (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Either way, "attacks" seems inappropriate. It has a "homeland security" ring to it. We need to rename this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with (Zig^2)20s. Volunteer Marek  17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope?

Hmm, what is the scope of this article, exactly? There is some duplicate info from Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, and we need to define the different between "attack" and "vandalize". I would think there are too many instances of vandalism to compile, so I'm not sure what is considered an "attack". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering, for example, how this entry

• In April 2016, Princeton University decided to remove its mural of President Woodrow Wilson.
  is considered to be an "attack?" Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-US monuments

While poking around on this I found that there is a similar controversy about removal of statues of colonialist Cecil Rhodes in England. (See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/19/rhodes-fall-oxford-university-inclusivity-black-students.) I'll leave this for the English to deal with. I imagine that worldwide there are a lot of controversial monuments. deisenbe (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

President Woodrow Wilson at Princeton University

I would prefer that the Princeton University decided to remove its mural of President Woodrow Wilson not be included here. It is/was a large a large photograph on the wall of some room and to me this does not qualify as a "monument." @MagicatthemovieS: However with all the opinions flying around about this sort of thing I am not inclined to push it. But please do think about it.

Above unsigned comment is by @carptrash. deisenbe (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So, to rephrase my question, do the other editors here feel that a large photograph (I'll guess roughly 8' by 16'? - but this is not a math question) should be considered to be a monument? Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a monument, but it's definitely a memorial. So it's in. deisenbe (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree . This is a list of monuments and memorials. Fluous (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a tough one. Recently I was looking at Christ Church Cathedral (Nashville, Tennessee) and they have a portrait of Leonidas Polk, whose family attended the church. The Nashville Public Library has a portrait of Randal William McGavock, who was the mayor before the war but also came from a large slaveholding family and served in the CSA. Those may not be monuments like the Confederate Private Monument, but they are not the most confidence-building historical reminders for African Americans.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So @Deisenbe: (and others) if a large photograph is a memorial is a painting also one? Carptrash (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on context. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A painting could possibly be a monument. deisenbe (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I just focused on paintings of Robert E Lee. Here is a cross section of what I found, from miniatures to murals.

Robert E Lee Paintings (please excuse correct lack of formatting here)

• Artist: Read, James B., 1803-1870, painter.

Title:  Robert E. Lee, (painting). Dates: 1866. Medium: Oil. Dimensions: 40 x 30 in. (cm. 101.6 x 76.2) Owner: Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia 24450*

• Artist: Lowry, H. S, painter.

Title: Robert E. Lee, (painting). Dates: 1903. Dimensions: 3 1/2 x 3 in. Owner: Museum of the Confederacy, 1201 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

• Artist: 

Annunciata, Nicola, painter. Ipsen, Ernest Ludwig, 1869-1951, painter. (copy after) Dates: 1936. Dates: 1936. Medium: Oil on canvas. Dimensions: 60 x 40 in. Owner: United States Department of the Army, United States Military Academy, West Point Museum, West Point, New York 10996 Accession Number: A-8990

• Artist: Armstrong, Wade Herbert, painter.

Dates: Before 1900. Medium: Oil. Dimensions: cm. 52.5 x 45.2 Owner: Memphis State University Libraries, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee 38152

• Artist: Bruce, Edward Caledon, 1825-1901, painter.

Dates: 1864-1865. Medium: Oil on canvas. Dimensions: 19 1/2 x 14 1/2 in. (49.5 x 36.8 cm). Owner: Smithsonian Institution, National Portrait Gallery, 8th & F Streets, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20560 Accession Number: 76.4

• Artist: Auriel Bessemer

Robert E. Lee Accepting Command of the Armies in Virginia Mural, USPO Arlington VA, 1940

• Here is one that already was a controversy (1999) about one that seems perfect if we include paintings.
  

http://www.usa-civil-war.com/Opinions/lee.shtml which also includes a great story about attacking the messenger, not the message.
Carptrash (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't draw a hard-and-fast rule, but I think the most reasonable approach is to see if reliable sources use "monument" or "memorial", which would leave out most, but perhaps not all, paintings.--Pharos (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay Pharos, none of the sources I have looked at, including the one we use as a reference, have mentioned that the photograph of Wilson was either a monument or a memorial. Carptrash (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, besides Pharos, I think I will direct this at @Legacypac:, @Deisenbe: and @Fluous:. I'd like to see even one reputable reference that calls the Wilson photograph a monument or a memorial. Otherwise I shall remove it. Carptrash (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ten commandments

I took it out and it got put right back in.

I don’t think Ten Commandments structures or whatever belongs here. It’s not a memorial (Moses?) and I don’t see how it’s a monument either. You can have a monument to George Washington, but who is honored in erecting the Ten Commandments?

Here’s what WP says about monuments:

”A monument is a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become important to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, or as an example of historic architecture.”

Do others agree with me that the Ten Commandments don’t belong here?

If you’re going to be really loosy-goosy about it, then why not Groton, Connecticut’s officially addressing the question of whether the stone marker that says “All are welcome” should be changed to just “Welcome” or “Welcome to Groton”? [1]

deisenbe (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree It seems very clearly a monument to Christian Law. And a quick Google search shows that these monuments are being described as exactly that: Ten Commandments Monuments https://www.google.com/search?q=ten+commandments+monument Fluous (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit encouraging to find myself agreeing with User:Fluous, but I also feel pretty strongly that controversies regarding 10 Commandment monuments need to be addressed and included here. If nothing else they are memorials to a biblical event. And as pointed out they are a lot more than that. Carptrash (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the ark in Kentucky? A monument? deisenbe (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not commonly described as a "monument" in WP:RS, it's usually called a theme park, and it's not from the government. In the case of the Ten Commandment monuments, they are almost universally described as such in WP:RS and even in Supreme Court opinions. Monuments aren't just "memorials" to an individual person, they can also commemorate historical and cultural events.--Pharos (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pharos: I would also be interested in your thoughts on the discussion right above, are photographs (even very large ones) or paintings (large or small) considered to be monuments or memorials. Carptrash (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pharos and @Carptrash, what historical or cultural “event” is commemorated by 10 Commandments memorials? Mount Sinai?

I also have a real problem with calling the Ten Commandments Christian law. They’re Jewish law, if they are law at all. deisenbe (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely Jewish law (~1.6% of it!), whether it's considered considered Christian law probably depends on the denomination - neither is an appropriate subject to talk about in this article. Monuments of this type are commemorating the historical influence of Biblical law on American society, which does indeed draw on the Mount Sinai story, but I believe your conception is too narrow in terms of "event". There are monuments to all sorts of things that are broad historical trends, that were not brief events that began and ended on one day.--Pharos (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about monument and memorial controversies. Here is a 2017 example.

"In an effort to beautify the city, officials in Bloomfield, New Mexico decided to create a public forum to give private citizens the opportunity to pay for and erect historical monuments on the City Hall Lawn. Eventually a variety of privately-funded monuments were displayed, including monuments containing the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, Bill of Rights, and the Ten Commandments. Each monument included the name of the donors and explains the displayed document’s significance in America's history." Defined by the source (a right leaning web site) as a "monument" and clearly a controversy, because Some folks objected and eventually the Supreme Court ducked the case. Carptrash (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't need to rely on right-leaning news sites, "monument" is the term used throughout the Supreme Court decision.--Pharos (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Some days, like the day of that ruling, the distinction is somewhat lost on me. Carptrash (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Disagree A monument can symbolize a belief or value beyond the literal form of the structure. The Statue of Liberty is a monument to American freedom and independence, not the Roman goddess Libertas. A Ten Commandments monument represents a set of beliefs held by the people who erected it and, more broadly, their faith. Splitting hairs over exactly what something "is a monument to" does not change the fact that it is a monument. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO it might be better to rename the article instead of taking things (Taney and Wilson) out. Something like Removal of m and ms that are pro-slavery. deisenbe (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not inclined to re-name the article. Also I don't think Taney is being removed from this article, if he is in it. The argument about him is, I believe, whether he belongs in the Confederate Monuments article. Carptrash (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

On a different topic, “Monuments of this type are commemorating the historical influence of Biblical law on American society.” That’s like saying that erecting statues to Lee in the Civil Rights period (1950s-60s) was because people wanted to remember Lee. Ten Commandments monuments are primarily intended to influence American society, to make it more religious. If Biblical law were great today the monunents never would have been built. So I question whetger they should be treated as monuments commemorating something. deisenbe (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

They are monuments, the US Supreme Court says so. They are controversial, that is pretty clear from the examples given in the article. It doesn't matter what they are monuments to or from. It doesn't matter if our country (the USA) is run on Biblical law or if it is complete BS. They fit the criteria of the article. Carptrash (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this belong in? Controversy over a painting

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/arts/design/painting-of-emmett-till-at-whitney-biennial-draws-protests.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/opinion/guggenheim-artwork-animals-racism.html?src=twr

deisenbe (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I’ll put it in. Then the discussions will start. deisenbe (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't get here sooner. I think this section should not be here. Or, as someone @Pharos: in the discussion above said, "I think the most reasonable approach is to see if reliable sources use "monument" or "memorial", Do you have a source that refers to this as a M or a M? Carptrash (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly an artwork controversy, not a monument controversy. Artwork controversies are an interesting topic too, and perhaps deserve their own article, but don't belong here.--Pharos (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington controversy

I think this entry for the marker stones belongs in some form:

• Jefferson Davis Park: The stone markers that were originally installed for the Jefferson Davis Highway at either end of Old Highway 99 in Washington State were defaced on August 17, 2017. One marker was covered in black tar or paint and the other was covered in red. The local chapter president of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has spoken of bringing in private security, as they claim to have received death threats over the monuments.

This is the full history of its controversy:

In 2002, this controversy had made national news as State Representative Dunshee proposing the renaming, while Representative Thomas M. Mielke opposing it. This disagreement over the marker stones would not be settled until 2016. 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.

Calls for the removal of the flags began in 2015, after the Charleston church shooting, by Rev. Marva Edwards, the president of Vancouver's NAACP organization. Even though the markers and flags are located on on private property, the prominent location and events in other parts of the nation still make these symbols the local focus of strong emotions, especially in the aftermath of the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in August 2017. On August 17, 2017 the stones were vandalized, with one marker covered in black paint, the other in red. Local Portland antifa activists took credit for the vandalism. The local Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, spoke of bringing in private security, as they claim to have received death threats over the monuments.

The nearby town of Ridgefield had no historical connections with the Confederacy or Jefferson Davis, in fact it was originally named 'Union Ridge' for the large number of the Union soldiers who settled the area; but as Mayor Ron Onslow explained, "We get calls about it every time the Confederacy comes up". The site known as Jefferson Davis Park has a Ridgefield address, "It's not in our city, so we have no say over it. We're not against history, but there is no history of this in Ridgefield", Onslow said in requesting the site be removed from the Clark County historical register. The City of Ridgefield officially asked Clark County Historic Preservation Commission to remover the highway markers from its local heritage list on October 2, 2017, with all six commissioners in attendance voting to remove the granite highway marker.

-Every time something happens around white Nationalist, or the KKK, or the Confederacy; the area braces for the Park, the sign and the stones to be vandalised again. This is why it was added. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Reorganize?

Should this list be re-organized somehow? Perhaps geographically or by subject? At the very least, it needs updating. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Chamberlin Rock University of Wisconsin

Should we add the removal of a 42 ton boulder on the University of Wisconsin Campus? Apparently, it was a 2 billion year old gigantic racist rock that was removed at the request of the Wisconsin Black Student Union.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/us/chamberlin-rock-removed-university-of-wisconsin-trnd/index.html 67.60.231.114 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pavle13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pavle13 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)