This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silent Sam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Silent Sam was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is unfortunately barely more than a Start class and does not fulfill the GA criteria at this time. The reason why I am failing the nomination so quickly and not putting it on hold is because I believe it needs a substantial amount of work in order to fix numerous issues that are holding it back.
It fails criterion 1 (well written), 2 (verifiable) and 3 (comprehensive) and borders on failing criterion 4, which is neutrality. I highly suggest greatly expanding the article, finding additional reliable sources -- four is a good start, but it's not enough -- and perhaps looking into how other, similar articles dedicated to statues are presented. For example, Iron Mike is a Good Article and is dedicated to numerous different statues with a common theme. I also strongly suggest re-writing what is already included in the article in order to avoid possible POV issues; a statue is an "it", not a "he" although it depicts a man, and some of the prose ("So far, it has never fired" and "rifle in hand, to protect the university from any future northern aggression") is not encyclopedic and/or unrealistic in regards to the subject matter. This is a statue, after all. Most of all, however, the article needs more information. Notability-wise, history-wise, even material-wise: what is it made of? Why is it called "Sam"? What does the plaque say? There's so much more to explore! I have seen the statue in person and I know how special it is to the university, so I'm sure that with some dedicated work, contributors here can greatly improve the article for a future nomination. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Good luck! María ( habla con migo) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article it is mentioned that the United Daughters of the Confederacy collected and paid the amount of $7,500 for the statue. I think it is worthy to note that in today's dollars, accounting for inflation, the equivalent cost would be nearly $200,000. (More precisely, $185,443.94) 70.161.169.134 ( talk) 04:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to the statue in the present tense. The statue is gone now. So... "Silent Sam WAS" not "Silent Sam IS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C001:F19A:DC89:82E4:BB9D:580B ( talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This is vandalism, as barbaric as it gets. The statue was a historic work of art, erected in 1903 ... Especially by US standards that is old enough to command some respect from decently educated people, who are able to judge it on its merits at the time of erection instead of our current beliefs. -- Alexey Topol ( talk) 16:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
They were vandals not protestors. Hatteras84 ( talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
“is a clear reference to the terrorization of blacks and white Republicans by the Ku Klux Klan, which worked to restore the dominance of the “ This is incorrect. During this time this statement should read Democrats. The Republicans were working to end racism and promote the African American. Reklisammy ( talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article mention only one? - Topcat777 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyway. Sure there were more speeches, but some speeches are more important than others. Indeed, of all the speeches at Gettysburg, 1843, we remember only one. It seems that reliable sources have decided that this is the one to talk about, so that means that this is the one we talk about. I don't know where Topcat got this knowledge about other speeches from, maybe the program is linked in the article somewhere, but if that's all we have, there's little to say. I'm not against mentioning who else may have spoken, but it seems pretty obvious that the Carr speech is the one to discuss since, again, reliable sources connect him to the monument. Drmies ( talk) 14:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
"at least a half dozen" That was from memory. There were five speakers- Governor Craig, President Venable, Julian Carr and two officials from the UDC. Someone above stated that Carr was the most notable character of the lot. Well, he is today...in 2018. In 1913 not so much. The newspapers quoted the speeches of Craig, Venable and the UDC members, but not Carr. - Topcat777 01:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Were most of them under 18? - Topcat777 00:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this extensive quotation [2] necessary? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a problem with the opening picture showing Silent Sam in 2007. That is an out-of-date picture. I thought at least a 2018 picture of the empty pedestal would provide balance. I put one in ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Silent_Sam&oldid=856546920) and @Hameltion took it right out. What do others think? deisenbe ( talk) 17:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The Silent Sam article is about the statue, but this one current event is now taken half the size of the article and should be dealt with. I believe two options are available, either curtail the amount of information (which appears to be mostly the reactions section) or break-out this section into its own article.
My opinion is that we curtail, specifically limiting the reactions section to the best three or five for each side and that's it. I would like to read what other editor's opinions on the matter first before an editor makes a unilateral decision that could trigger an edit war. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If the toppling is the event of the year in North Carolina, and arguably the most significant event ever to take place on the UNC campus, assertions of mine that no one has challenged, there needs to be an article on the toppling (which I plan to create). It is presently semi-concealed at the end of the article, and that’s not sufficient, since most visitors will be interested in the protests and toppling and subsequent debate about what to do with the statue. Not many will be interested in what was said at the dedication, how it was built, etc. deisenbe ( talk) 02:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any better idea of what the photo captioned "Silent Sam in John A. Wilson's Waban Studio, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts" is? I don't think it can be the actual statue, as the statue, plinth and figures on the front seem to be in the same material, rather than separate stone and bronze parts as in the actual thing. Probably a maquette? TSP ( talk) 12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I added patch.com as a source for "UNC trustee" in this edit [4]. It looks like they have a model similar to Forbes where they publish both user-submitted and staff articles. The particular article I added [5] was written by a staff member with "20 years professional reporting experience" which seemed reasonable. Comments? Objections? D.Creish ( talk) 17:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Views on Silent Sam, in 2017 and 2018, have split neatly along party lines - Republicans for keeping it, Democrats for removing it. I put this in and someone took it out. I’m going to note here this article on how North Carolina is the most, or almost the most, politically divided (rancorous) state in the country: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/hurricane-florence-north-carolina-politics.html deisenbe ( talk) 11:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I wanted to raise the question of the general direction this article is headed in.
Before the statue was toppled ( last edit 17 August), the article stood at 906 words.
10 days or so after the topping (31 August), it stood at 4,365 words - that's reasonable, I think, as the statue had received a lot more attention during that time, and the article had been expanded fairly evenly with some great work on older history. That version of the article seems to me pretty balanced, except perhaps for rather too much emphasis on reactions to the toppling (1,538 words), which were already tagged for being in list form rather than prose.
Since then, the article has continued to expand at a considerable rate, and now stands at 9,243 words (excluding references - over 13,000 words with them), including a seven-paragraph lead, 2,283 words (including 67 quotes) explaining events relating to the statue during the 2017-18 school year, and an expanded 2,497 words on reactions to the toppling (which remain in list form); and there is a new section, also in list form, detailing comments on the statue's future.
To look at it another way, the statue is over a century old, but over 70% of the article describes a single year, and about half of it describes a single month.
I do appreciate the amount of work that's going in - and certainly the last month has been unusually significant - but I'm not convinced that relentless expansion, especially to some extremely long sections, is making a better article, and am afraid that the article from "later reactions" onwards is becoming very inaccessible, and perhaps violating WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
I'd suggest that these parts of the article should be cut down significantly, with a lot more judgement on which information is encyclopedically significant in the long term; where it is possible to summarise rather than including every comment (e.g. "State Representatives X, Y and Z spoke against the toppling", "Editorials in newspapers A and B expressed concerns about rule of law"); and where it is possible to summarise situations in our own words rather than with very large numbers of quotes.
I'm happy to put in effort summarising, and have done some already, but that won't be of benefit if others feel that the article needs to keep expanding at this rate. TSP ( talk) 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
User @Wikid77 has today made a series of revisions which I see as pretty tendentious and not neutral. Basically he’s saying that Silent Sam shouldn’t be seen as a Confederate memorial. I alteady reverted one of his changes and he did it back. Before any more warring I’d like to see what others feel anout it. Here are the revisions in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Silent_Sam&type=revision&diff=865420875&oldid=865344274
deisenbe ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a Confedare monument. Editing otherwise is sanctionable. Legacypac ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It is well established that the erection of these Confederate statues was a (mostly) reconstruction era attempt to push a racist, anti-black agenda. Carr's comments are just one point in a long string of evidence from mouths and pens of the people and groups who put up these statues. People around the world wonder at the zeal of some Americans in arguing against these historic facts. Legacypac ( talk) 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, this is getting well out of the scope of relevance to the editing of this article.
WP:TPNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it" (bearing in mind that what goes into the article needs to be what our sources say, not our own personal assessment). Any further comments which are not specifically on the immediate topic of the content of this article should be removed. White slaves from Ireland, for one, are not on that topic.
TSP (
talk)
11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This probably has no need of revisiting, as I think there is a clear consensus; but I was looking through our references and realised we had a copy of the original program for the unveiling of the monument, which is headed "Programme at the Unveiling of the Confederate Monument". I've added some text to the article mentioning this. Hopefully that will put this question to rest, if it was not already. TSP ( talk) 15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do people think she is notable enough for an article? There’s quite a bubliography on her by now, the latest I came upon is https://itsgoingdown.org/accounts-from-the-fall-of-silent-sam/ deisenbe ( talk) 20:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone, maybe me, I don't remember, put it in Category:2018 disestablishments in North Carolina. It's also in Category:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials.
Since the pedestal has just been removed, I added Category:2019 disestablishments in North Carolina. This was reversed by @Washuotaku with the comment "Statue still exist, can be placed back, so not disestablished". I am putting it back in 2019 disestablishments and am putting here why.
The statue was toppled and removed from campus in August 2018, and its pedestal and plaques in January 2019, both with wide support from students and faculty of the university, as well as the community. They are both in a warehouse. There is no plan for putting them back or doing anything else with them.
If this doesn't constitute "disestablishment", it's hard for me to come up with some other scenario that would. If the statue were sent to a museum? That would be the disposition of the disestablished statue, not disestablishment itself.
If you're following the story, it's pretty clear that the statue and base are not going back on McCorkle Place.
A further confirmation of the disestablishment has been what happened to Folt. First she removed or ordered removed the base, _then resigned_ (in the same letter), effective the end of the semester. The Board of Governors could not fire her since she had resigned, but terminated her almost immediately.
The following are all in Removed Confederate monuments, and all are also in Disestablishment:
as well as (not Confederate, but removed with the others in New Orleans):
All of these are sitting in warehouses and could theoretically be reinstalled, and the city plans to reerect the Jefferson Davis Monument somewhere, but they're still "disestablished".
If I’m wrong, and it's reerected, then remove it from Disestablished. But I think it's going to stay in that unidentified warehouse for quite some time, and if it's not marked as Disestablished now, years from now people will wonder why we didn't.
deisenbe ( talk) 12:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a reference and link to this digital exhibit on silentsam: https://silentsam.online/ UNChistory ( talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
New information available at this source. I don't have time to add it at the moment—it would be great if someone else can. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edits changing "protestors" to "rioters", I've checked several of the sources in the article, and they all describe the people who pulled down the statue as protesters. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
According to historian Adam H. Domby, in The False Cause, the soldier depicted had no cartridge belt because the sculptor, John A. Wilson, was not familiar with the requirements of mid-19th century weaponry, and did not know that a soldier in the Civil War would need one. (P.13) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silent Sam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Silent Sam was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is unfortunately barely more than a Start class and does not fulfill the GA criteria at this time. The reason why I am failing the nomination so quickly and not putting it on hold is because I believe it needs a substantial amount of work in order to fix numerous issues that are holding it back.
It fails criterion 1 (well written), 2 (verifiable) and 3 (comprehensive) and borders on failing criterion 4, which is neutrality. I highly suggest greatly expanding the article, finding additional reliable sources -- four is a good start, but it's not enough -- and perhaps looking into how other, similar articles dedicated to statues are presented. For example, Iron Mike is a Good Article and is dedicated to numerous different statues with a common theme. I also strongly suggest re-writing what is already included in the article in order to avoid possible POV issues; a statue is an "it", not a "he" although it depicts a man, and some of the prose ("So far, it has never fired" and "rifle in hand, to protect the university from any future northern aggression") is not encyclopedic and/or unrealistic in regards to the subject matter. This is a statue, after all. Most of all, however, the article needs more information. Notability-wise, history-wise, even material-wise: what is it made of? Why is it called "Sam"? What does the plaque say? There's so much more to explore! I have seen the statue in person and I know how special it is to the university, so I'm sure that with some dedicated work, contributors here can greatly improve the article for a future nomination. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Good luck! María ( habla con migo) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article it is mentioned that the United Daughters of the Confederacy collected and paid the amount of $7,500 for the statue. I think it is worthy to note that in today's dollars, accounting for inflation, the equivalent cost would be nearly $200,000. (More precisely, $185,443.94) 70.161.169.134 ( talk) 04:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to the statue in the present tense. The statue is gone now. So... "Silent Sam WAS" not "Silent Sam IS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C001:F19A:DC89:82E4:BB9D:580B ( talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This is vandalism, as barbaric as it gets. The statue was a historic work of art, erected in 1903 ... Especially by US standards that is old enough to command some respect from decently educated people, who are able to judge it on its merits at the time of erection instead of our current beliefs. -- Alexey Topol ( talk) 16:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
They were vandals not protestors. Hatteras84 ( talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
“is a clear reference to the terrorization of blacks and white Republicans by the Ku Klux Klan, which worked to restore the dominance of the “ This is incorrect. During this time this statement should read Democrats. The Republicans were working to end racism and promote the African American. Reklisammy ( talk) 17:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article mention only one? - Topcat777 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyway. Sure there were more speeches, but some speeches are more important than others. Indeed, of all the speeches at Gettysburg, 1843, we remember only one. It seems that reliable sources have decided that this is the one to talk about, so that means that this is the one we talk about. I don't know where Topcat got this knowledge about other speeches from, maybe the program is linked in the article somewhere, but if that's all we have, there's little to say. I'm not against mentioning who else may have spoken, but it seems pretty obvious that the Carr speech is the one to discuss since, again, reliable sources connect him to the monument. Drmies ( talk) 14:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
"at least a half dozen" That was from memory. There were five speakers- Governor Craig, President Venable, Julian Carr and two officials from the UDC. Someone above stated that Carr was the most notable character of the lot. Well, he is today...in 2018. In 1913 not so much. The newspapers quoted the speeches of Craig, Venable and the UDC members, but not Carr. - Topcat777 01:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Were most of them under 18? - Topcat777 00:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this extensive quotation [2] necessary? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a problem with the opening picture showing Silent Sam in 2007. That is an out-of-date picture. I thought at least a 2018 picture of the empty pedestal would provide balance. I put one in ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Silent_Sam&oldid=856546920) and @Hameltion took it right out. What do others think? deisenbe ( talk) 17:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The Silent Sam article is about the statue, but this one current event is now taken half the size of the article and should be dealt with. I believe two options are available, either curtail the amount of information (which appears to be mostly the reactions section) or break-out this section into its own article.
My opinion is that we curtail, specifically limiting the reactions section to the best three or five for each side and that's it. I would like to read what other editor's opinions on the matter first before an editor makes a unilateral decision that could trigger an edit war. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If the toppling is the event of the year in North Carolina, and arguably the most significant event ever to take place on the UNC campus, assertions of mine that no one has challenged, there needs to be an article on the toppling (which I plan to create). It is presently semi-concealed at the end of the article, and that’s not sufficient, since most visitors will be interested in the protests and toppling and subsequent debate about what to do with the statue. Not many will be interested in what was said at the dedication, how it was built, etc. deisenbe ( talk) 02:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any better idea of what the photo captioned "Silent Sam in John A. Wilson's Waban Studio, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts" is? I don't think it can be the actual statue, as the statue, plinth and figures on the front seem to be in the same material, rather than separate stone and bronze parts as in the actual thing. Probably a maquette? TSP ( talk) 12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I added patch.com as a source for "UNC trustee" in this edit [4]. It looks like they have a model similar to Forbes where they publish both user-submitted and staff articles. The particular article I added [5] was written by a staff member with "20 years professional reporting experience" which seemed reasonable. Comments? Objections? D.Creish ( talk) 17:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Views on Silent Sam, in 2017 and 2018, have split neatly along party lines - Republicans for keeping it, Democrats for removing it. I put this in and someone took it out. I’m going to note here this article on how North Carolina is the most, or almost the most, politically divided (rancorous) state in the country: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/hurricane-florence-north-carolina-politics.html deisenbe ( talk) 11:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I wanted to raise the question of the general direction this article is headed in.
Before the statue was toppled ( last edit 17 August), the article stood at 906 words.
10 days or so after the topping (31 August), it stood at 4,365 words - that's reasonable, I think, as the statue had received a lot more attention during that time, and the article had been expanded fairly evenly with some great work on older history. That version of the article seems to me pretty balanced, except perhaps for rather too much emphasis on reactions to the toppling (1,538 words), which were already tagged for being in list form rather than prose.
Since then, the article has continued to expand at a considerable rate, and now stands at 9,243 words (excluding references - over 13,000 words with them), including a seven-paragraph lead, 2,283 words (including 67 quotes) explaining events relating to the statue during the 2017-18 school year, and an expanded 2,497 words on reactions to the toppling (which remain in list form); and there is a new section, also in list form, detailing comments on the statue's future.
To look at it another way, the statue is over a century old, but over 70% of the article describes a single year, and about half of it describes a single month.
I do appreciate the amount of work that's going in - and certainly the last month has been unusually significant - but I'm not convinced that relentless expansion, especially to some extremely long sections, is making a better article, and am afraid that the article from "later reactions" onwards is becoming very inaccessible, and perhaps violating WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
I'd suggest that these parts of the article should be cut down significantly, with a lot more judgement on which information is encyclopedically significant in the long term; where it is possible to summarise rather than including every comment (e.g. "State Representatives X, Y and Z spoke against the toppling", "Editorials in newspapers A and B expressed concerns about rule of law"); and where it is possible to summarise situations in our own words rather than with very large numbers of quotes.
I'm happy to put in effort summarising, and have done some already, but that won't be of benefit if others feel that the article needs to keep expanding at this rate. TSP ( talk) 14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
User @Wikid77 has today made a series of revisions which I see as pretty tendentious and not neutral. Basically he’s saying that Silent Sam shouldn’t be seen as a Confederate memorial. I alteady reverted one of his changes and he did it back. Before any more warring I’d like to see what others feel anout it. Here are the revisions in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Silent_Sam&type=revision&diff=865420875&oldid=865344274
deisenbe ( talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a Confedare monument. Editing otherwise is sanctionable. Legacypac ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It is well established that the erection of these Confederate statues was a (mostly) reconstruction era attempt to push a racist, anti-black agenda. Carr's comments are just one point in a long string of evidence from mouths and pens of the people and groups who put up these statues. People around the world wonder at the zeal of some Americans in arguing against these historic facts. Legacypac ( talk) 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, this is getting well out of the scope of relevance to the editing of this article.
WP:TPNO: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it" (bearing in mind that what goes into the article needs to be what our sources say, not our own personal assessment). Any further comments which are not specifically on the immediate topic of the content of this article should be removed. White slaves from Ireland, for one, are not on that topic.
TSP (
talk)
11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This probably has no need of revisiting, as I think there is a clear consensus; but I was looking through our references and realised we had a copy of the original program for the unveiling of the monument, which is headed "Programme at the Unveiling of the Confederate Monument". I've added some text to the article mentioning this. Hopefully that will put this question to rest, if it was not already. TSP ( talk) 15:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do people think she is notable enough for an article? There’s quite a bubliography on her by now, the latest I came upon is https://itsgoingdown.org/accounts-from-the-fall-of-silent-sam/ deisenbe ( talk) 20:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Someone, maybe me, I don't remember, put it in Category:2018 disestablishments in North Carolina. It's also in Category:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials.
Since the pedestal has just been removed, I added Category:2019 disestablishments in North Carolina. This was reversed by @Washuotaku with the comment "Statue still exist, can be placed back, so not disestablished". I am putting it back in 2019 disestablishments and am putting here why.
The statue was toppled and removed from campus in August 2018, and its pedestal and plaques in January 2019, both with wide support from students and faculty of the university, as well as the community. They are both in a warehouse. There is no plan for putting them back or doing anything else with them.
If this doesn't constitute "disestablishment", it's hard for me to come up with some other scenario that would. If the statue were sent to a museum? That would be the disposition of the disestablished statue, not disestablishment itself.
If you're following the story, it's pretty clear that the statue and base are not going back on McCorkle Place.
A further confirmation of the disestablishment has been what happened to Folt. First she removed or ordered removed the base, _then resigned_ (in the same letter), effective the end of the semester. The Board of Governors could not fire her since she had resigned, but terminated her almost immediately.
The following are all in Removed Confederate monuments, and all are also in Disestablishment:
as well as (not Confederate, but removed with the others in New Orleans):
All of these are sitting in warehouses and could theoretically be reinstalled, and the city plans to reerect the Jefferson Davis Monument somewhere, but they're still "disestablished".
If I’m wrong, and it's reerected, then remove it from Disestablished. But I think it's going to stay in that unidentified warehouse for quite some time, and if it's not marked as Disestablished now, years from now people will wonder why we didn't.
deisenbe ( talk) 12:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a reference and link to this digital exhibit on silentsam: https://silentsam.online/ UNChistory ( talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
New information available at this source. I don't have time to add it at the moment—it would be great if someone else can. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edits changing "protestors" to "rioters", I've checked several of the sources in the article, and they all describe the people who pulled down the statue as protesters. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
According to historian Adam H. Domby, in The False Cause, the soldier depicted had no cartridge belt because the sculptor, John A. Wilson, was not familiar with the requirements of mid-19th century weaponry, and did not know that a soldier in the Civil War would need one. (P.13) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)