Template:Did you know nominations/Spirit of the Confederacy
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Spirit of the Confederacy edit
Illustration of the monument
- ... that the purpose of the statue Spirit of the Confederacy in Houston, Texas, unveiled on Robert E. Lee's birthday in 1908, has been questioned since the 2015 Charleston church massacre and the 2017 Unite the Right Rally? Source: [1], [2]
Created by Another Believer (talk) and Drmies (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 03:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC).
@Another Believer and Drmies: New, long enough, sourced, no copyvios seen, QPQ done, neutral (even though topic is controversial). However, I think you need to say in the article why the purpose was questioned, not simply that it was questioned. Just needs half a line (e.g., "The monument's function was questioned in 2015 after the race-motivated Charleston church massacre, with some individuals saying . . ."). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Usernameunique, thanks for the note--good point. I made a tweak and I hope you like it better. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: You need to be explicit about why the purpose was questioned, and why people proposed removing the statue. The reason is that people suggested the statue represented racist, pro-slavery views, so say that. The article sort of implies that, in contextualizing the placement of the statue in a segregated city, but it does not state it outright. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Usernameunique, I don't think I need to be explicit about that, but I made another tweak. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I don't mean to be a pain, but as the article it written, it requires outside knowledge to make the link between "Confederacy" and "racism." The implication of the article is that the statue represents a period of time when racism was commonplace. However, people aren't suggesting that the statue be removed because it was installed when Houston had a poll tax; they're suggesting it be removed because it specifically endorses racism and slavery. It really shouldn't take more than half a line to make that causal connection—all it would take is quoting the line in the third source that says "Now, some believe the statue celebrates racism and slavery." Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- But then I'd have to explain in the article that the Confederacy was a group of Southern states that seceded from the Union in order to keep slavery legal in their states and fought the Civil War over it--and that slavery in the US involved bondage of the descendants of African slaves who had been put to work on the fields and in the factories of a mostly white group of owners (that is, of European ancestry), and that thus slavery in the US was essentially a racist institution (not all slavery has to be race-based...). I mean, do you really want me to parse "To all heroes of the South who fought for the Principles of States Rights"? I'd have to bring an outside source into this, and that would suggest I'm guilty of WP:SYNTH. I can find a quote for 2017, and I put that in there, but I can find no such quote for 2015, in part because, well, it's really obvious. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I don't mean to be a pain, but as the article it written, it requires outside knowledge to make the link between "Confederacy" and "racism." The implication of the article is that the statue represents a period of time when racism was commonplace. However, people aren't suggesting that the statue be removed because it was installed when Houston had a poll tax; they're suggesting it be removed because it specifically endorses racism and slavery. It really shouldn't take more than half a line to make that causal connection—all it would take is quoting the line in the third source that says "Now, some believe the statue celebrates racism and slavery." Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Approving. Image is on Commons. University of Houston says it is in the public domain. [3] Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding this line Drmies, that's exactly what I was looking for: "Protesters said the statue celebrated slavery and racism, while others argued that removing the monument meant removing history". @Hawkeye7: Next time you decide to step in as arbitrator of a difference of opinion, please give the reason for your decision. Was surprised to see you promote the article while Drmies and I were still discussing it, much as I am now happy with the article. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)