Talk:Battle of Liberty Place Monument

What is it?

Does it belong in Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials and any subcategories of that? Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, I guess not. It memorializes an event that took place in 1874, when the CSA was defunct. The people that instigated the even were Confederate-minded those old enough had supported CSA when it did exist, but so? Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Unsure. I was wondering the same thing. Locally here in New Orleans there's been a lot of media coverage of four monuments slated for removal, and people usually refer to them as three Confederate monuments plus this one. However, I guess it all comes down to how strict you want to make a category. There's a direct historical progression from the Confederacy to Reconstruction to this reaction against Reconstruction. Is there a category for Reconstruction-era monuments? --Editor B (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Changing my answer to No. I thought we were talking about Category:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America. Someone's just added this article to that category. I remain unsure on whether that fits or not. But clearly, it does not belong in Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor B (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well but Category:Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America is a child of Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials. If it's not a Confederate memorial it shouldn't be in either. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• No Has nothing to do with the Confederacy this was almost 10 years after the civil war. Wikipedia needs to have accuracy and facts regarding things in history.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not destroyed

So now we see this filed under Category:Destroyed_landmarks_in_Louisiana but the obelisk has not, in fact, been destroyed. It's been removed and put in storage and there's every indication it will be relocated. Am I missing something? --Editor B (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. If it is considered "destroyed", this is at least the third time it was "destroyed", a very curious usage of the word. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm what?

@Infrogmation: "The Battle of Liberty Place Monument is a memorial" -- really? Magic♪piano 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about your concern, or suggest specific wording changes? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking, a better description is welcome. Maybe something like "a stone obelisk on a stone base..." What is the correct architectural term for the part of the monument below the obelisk? -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Plinth? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious what's wrong with the first sentence: is it a memorial, or is it a battle? (Alternate reading: "The Battle of Liberty Place Monument is a conflict over the placement of a memorial at Liberty Place.") Magic♪piano 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the battle over the monument, but rather about the monument commemorating the Battle of Liberty Place. I don't think "memorial" is used incorrectly here, unless I am misunderstanding. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I adjusted the lede influenced by the suggestions above. As always on Wikipedia, further improvements are welcome. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Tone notice

What specific problems need to be addressed prompting the "Tone" notice placed by User:Kintetsubuffalo? -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you three as a starter, but really you shouldn't need any prompting to see the lack of neutrality in this article. Stuff on Hitler is less preachy than this article.

• "by a white-dominated city government"-it was 1891, what else would you have?
• "history that did not deserve commemoration" just drips POV
• "a group noting the divisive nature of a monument favoring a racist past"-name of the group? citation?

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on all three points. 1) By 1891 Louisiana had already had a Black governor; furthermore, though white dominance was indeed the norm, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be explicitly stated for contemporary readers. 2) The assertion that this history did not deserve commemoration was an opinion being voiced at the time and it is stated to balance the opposing argument of "preservation." 3) The group of saboteurs was anonymous and the existing citation (at the end of the next sentence) makes that clear. --Editor B (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sicilian vs. Italian

I'm going to change "Sicilian men" to "Italian men" because they weren't all Sicilian; one of them was from the Rome area. Also, Sicily is part of Italy, and it was the Italian government that reacted to the incident, not the Sicilian government. --MopTop (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"tone" tag

There is nothing wrong with the tone or style of this article. It dispassionately states the facts. "This person said, this, another person said that." Quoting someone in an article is not the same as using an article to express your own opinions, it's merely documenting the fact that there was a controversy. --MopTop (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)