Talk:Silent Sam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSilent 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 26, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Quick failed GAN[edit]

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 conmigo) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of the Statue[edit]

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)[reply]

Past Tense?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • It's still a statue even in its current state. I think it is too soon to change the tense. The paragraph goes on to say that "It was located..." I think we need to wait and see what comes of it. It may be returned there or some other placement. Since this is a fluid, current event, I think it is best to wait but I see your point. P37307 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism sugar-coated as "pull-down" in the wiki article[edit]

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)[reply]

"as barbaric as it gets" - ummm... no, I think "horse whipping" a woman, bragging about it, celebrating murder and such qualify as more "barbaric". A little less "barbaric", but still up there is defending such actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several acts of vandalism towards the statue in the past and the article addresses those. The words "pull down" is the action used by the protestors when they took the statue down its pedestal; this is consistent to other Wiki articles. The editors of this article are not trying to sugar-coat it, but to make it as politically neutral as possible. We want to list just the facts without spin or commentary and let the reader decide for themselves. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were vandals not protestors. Hatteras84 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions one person arrested and if others are later charged then the article will be updated to reflect that as well. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if most Wikipedians would support posting the names of those arrested when they are announced? Point being, when they see them announced on the news they are going to say, wow, I wonder what I'd find online and if they see the Wikipedia icon in the top right (like I often do when I search for anything) they trust it and click it to learn 'more'. Aren't those EXACTLY the kind of people you want to cater to? Expand your base, build your community. We are talking about public information at that point, not divulging secrets.Mcgyver2k (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't actually mention the name of the person who was arrested, merely that they were arrested. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

“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)[reply]

and not by. At the time, this was true for the reasons you state. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
W. Fitzhugh Brundage is a boss, but his article plays fast and loose a bit. Sure, "Blacks and white Republicans" were targeted by the KKK, an organization that frequently had support from local Democratic leaders (but, more importantly and more broadly, from white power structures, irrespective of politics). But also, it is, first of all, a kind of false equivalency. White Republicans were still white and as such they were simply not targeted with the frequency and the violence that blacks suffered. Second, it suggests that "blacks" weren't Republican, or that they weren't politically active, or whatever--it's such a strange constructions: "all the blacks, and the white Republicans too". Unlike the myth of the black Confederate soldier, there were in fact many black Republican politicians and aspiring politicians all over the South, and a very specific target of the KKK and their mobs were black voters and black Republicans, as in the Eutaw riot. I really think we should write this a little bit better (though in only a half a sentence), with maybe a different source if necessary. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can agree with that re: our coverage. I do think it’s important to note that the terror of the Klan was not limited to people of colour: in the context of the post-Reconstruction South it shows that the social pressure on whites to not support civil rights existed and helps get a sense of the general atmosphere in NC at the time, but everything you say is true. I think there is probably a way to tighten it that conveys this reality while also avoiding the appearance of false equivalency. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were at least a half-dozen speeches at the dedication of this monument...[edit]

Why does the article mention only one? -Topcat777 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Carr one? Prolly cuz it was so fucked up and prolly because that's what reliable sources cover.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Please keep the discussion civilized; if you do not have any constructive feedback, then do not respond, this is not reddit. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My feedback was constructive. It specifically answered the question posed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I get his meaning - You can't do any race-baiting with the other speeches.-Topcat777 14:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By asserting that this is race-baiting... are you claiming Carr's speech was not racist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe anyone is disputing Carr's preference of white supremacism, but more of not showing the whole picture. We had other important people that gave speeches as well, but we only highlight the one that is the most provocative from the group. That being said, we cannot ignore Carr's speech in the article because it is part of the controversy of the statue. We can, however, add the other important people that attended the event and possibly add an exert or two from their speeches, though we could also sum it up as your typical dedication ceremony speech. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources discussing the other speeches? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was merely an idea to address @Topcat777:'s question. If the editor or anyone else decides not to action on the idea, then so be it and we can consider this thread closed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but your "idea" seems to ignore the fact that this article, like any other Wikipedia article, needs to represent reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure a reliable source(s) exist, but I did not volunteer myself to do the leg work on it. Again, if nobody wants to action on the idea then consider the matter closed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While there were 6 speeches at the dedication, the vast majority of reliable sources cover Carr's speech, with a some mentions of Venable's. Carr was also the most notable person there, and his speech was the longest. If you want to see what else was said you can see most of the speeches at this site. However, including any of them in the article would probably be considered original research. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that speech was pretty fucked up. I mean, Washuotaku, maybe it's normal to brag about whipping negro wenches where you live, but even down here we don't do that any more. So yes, of course it's about what is covered in the sources. Fun fact: Lincoln wasn't the only speaker at Gettysburg in 1863. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: That was very uncalled for. Please read WP:NPA#WHATIS regarding personal attacks. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: You might want to read it yourself... that's not a personal attack, unless you're worried that Carr is offended at being called a racist for being a racist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volunteer Marek, I know I shouldn't be surprised at some of the comments here, yet I am. "Race-baiting"--I'm waiting for someone to argue that race relations were fine until Obama came along.

    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)[reply]

    • Topcat probably found it from here or here. Both Francis P. Venable and Locke Craig have Wikipedia pages. I remember seeing a reliable source mentioning Venable's speech, but that's the only one that seems to be notable enough to mention, and I need to track that source down first. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kraken, thank you so much. Oh, my six-year old asked me what a kraken was. I said "mythological sea creature, like a giant squid, who ate sailors and ships". (He thought they should eat buildings too, so I had to explain it was all arms, no legs, etc.) Was that more or less a fair answer? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds about right to me. Thanks for the laugh, and using those sources. LoquaciousKraken (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The race-baiting comment is definitely more than a little alarming. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrboro, North Carolina exists about 2 miles down Franklin Street from where Silent Sam stood. Given the influence of Carr in the area at the time (note the town I just linked to...) of course reliable sourcing is going to cover him more: that a major philanthropist in Orange County that has a town named after him and (I believe for at least 13 more years...) a building named after him on the UNC campus spoke saying exceptionally racist things is very relevant, and it is entirely correct to weight his speech more. In the specific context of the history of the University of North Carolina and of Orange County that Carr gave this speech is very relevant, as anyone who is familiar with the university and its history could tell you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this thing has certainly grown since this morning, with some fine writing. I got one little thing--"The key quote" is the kind of thing we academics write, but here it sounds like argumentative writing (or, original research). I understand it is probably easily pulled from the Farzan article in the Washington Post, but I'd like to see a citation at the actual phrase, not at the end of the longer paragraph. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcat777: You cannot make statements in the talk page and anticipate other editors to take the lead on it, they have no incentive to do so. Provide the sources or visit one of the UNC system libraries to find the microfiche and digitize it (resources are available at the library), we can save the articles on Wikimedia. --WashuOtaku (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was the typical age of UNC students in the 1860s?[edit]

Were most of them under 18? -Topcat777 00:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from a primary source[edit]

Is this extensive quotation [2] necessary? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. The box and large quotation is a bit over-the-top; it should be integrated and shorten to some degree equal to other quotes, not overshadow them. As for the source, while I wouldn't call it a primary source because it says its clipped from a Newspaper of that time, we have no key markers to verifying it. The location, a message board, does not meet Wikipedia standards. The clipping(s), assuming valid, do not include publisher, date, etc. that can authentic just by looking at it; if it was located on a reputable site (i.e. library) then I would have no qualms against it. But as it stands, its not meeting the guidelines and should therefor be removed. Keep in mind, I am all for other quotes from the dedication since that is part of the statue's history, but we need more than this if we are to include it. Since it supposedly in the Charlotte Observer in 1903, it shouldn't be hard for an editor to visit the local library or contact the Charlotte Observer, pull the valid information and scan it correctly. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its undue. Fwiw, sourcing is not an issue, since texts of the speeches given that days can be reliably sourced from UNC's website:
See here for all these links and 100s of other related documents; and here for related photographs. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

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/w/index.php?title=Silent_Sam&oldid=856546920) and @Hameltion took it right out. What do others think? deisenbe (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a statue, so obviously if a person wants to look-up what is Silent Sam, they should see a statue in the infobox. Here is an article regarding the Robert E. Lee Monument (New Orleans, Louisiana), which was dismantled in 2017, it still shows what the statue was while at the bottom show what happened to it. We now have a rather large section just dedicated to the toppling event (now half the article, we should consider cutting back some), any current pictures or videos regarding Silent Sam should reside there. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's impartial (and avoids being slanted toward WP:recentism) to show the actual statue. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toppling, 2018 section[edit]

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)[reply]

I’ll turn the toppling into a separate article, if there is consensus. deisenbe (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any need to create a separate article for the toppling. The size of the readable prose in the page is only 13 kB (2242 words), which is extremely reasonable. "Below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues." (WP:SPLIT) The toppling is not such a major event that it justifies its own separate article, in my opinion. I also don't think there's any inherent problem with the subject of the toppling taking up so much of the page, since the statue itself has largely been notable in recent years because of the protests and eventual toppling. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: the toppling is the most important event in North Carolina so far in 2018. It has gotten national publicity. Whether it will be restored in the same location - I think we’re going to hear more about that. The toppling is more important than the statue, IMHO. It is arguably the most important event to have taken place ever on the UNC campus. North Carolina is the only state in which Confederate memorials have been destroyed by protestors (vandals if you prefer, but for me that’s the wrong word). Two of them so far. More to come? deisenbe (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the "Reactions" section is much too long and written in a haphazard way. A bulleted list is improper, and the current pro/con divide is too absolute. There must be sources solely about reactions to the toppling that can be used (the student-run Daily Tar Heel has one) that in some way put reactions in context. For instance – and I may be wrong on the particulars, which is why we need sources that discuss this – it seems trends in reactions may be that many state legislators felt the methods used were wrong, while the public (i.e., journalists, UNC faculty and students) found it was the culmination of "what had to come", say. This also would also allow the lead to present a summary of reactions. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The controversy, particularly the toppling, is the most notable thing about the statue and rightfully makes up the majority of the article. There's no need to split or shorten for the sake of length, however I agree that the Reactions section should be reduced and rewritten as prose instead of a laundry list. –dlthewave ☎ 22:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I wouldn't call the toppling the "event of the year" in North Carolina, just as much as the toppling in Durham wasn't the event of last year either; the assertion has not been challenged because this is the first mention of it. As for the break-out, I do not believe we need to do that at this time after hearing from others expressing the same. Also, things are still fluid and we should see where things end-up first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Studio photo[edit]

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)[reply]

@Hantsheroes: Can you give some more information on what the Nova Scotia Archives says about the Wilson studio photo? There isn't very much detail on the image page, and no link for further information.
If our source specifically says that's the actual statue, I guess we need to go with that. I struggle to see how it could be, though. Most obviously, the statue, plinth and bronzes in the photo appear to be in one piece made of one material (with the front carving recessed into the plinth); whereas the actual monument is a bronze statue and bronze plaques attached to a separate stone base (with the front bronze proud from the plinth).
There are also quite a few details which do not match the actual statue - e.g. the statue's foot goes over the edge of the plinth in the photo but not on the actual statue; the photo has a wreath and laurels around the base of the plinth and the actual monument does not; and all sorts of details of the carving are different (compare [3]), especially the front plaque, but also e.g. the trousers of the main statue. TSP (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great observations. I'm wondering if there were various molds made of the statue. I will look up the photo and get more details re: reference from the Archives.--Hantsheroes (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patch.com[edit]

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)[reply]

NCpedia would likely be a better source: [6]. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democrats and Republicans[edit]

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)[reply]

Length and direction of this article[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree — If you scroll up, you will see I made the similar concerns, but several editors did not see it as an issue that the article is dominated by one event from its over century of existence. At the time, the toppling got too much and I still believe it is too much, with some of the information not too relevant and I have removed some that were not related at all. I am all for summarizing, while the the reference are still there for people to click too. Also agree we do not need up-to-date happenings at the University. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the tumbling, with everything that went before and after, is more important than the statue itself. I proposed once splitting it to a separate article, but that did not get any support.
A good comparison article is Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (HB2).deisenbe (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a very important aspect and should receive considerable coverage.
I sometimes think it's useful to imagine this all happened 20 years ago, and we were writing an encyclopedia article about it now. Would we think that every single protest and instance of vandalism in 2017-18 needed to be listed, and every statement made by a scholar or legislator for or against the retention of the statue needed to be quoted? I'm not sure we would. I'd suggest that what won't be encyclopedic then isn't encyclopedic now either.
I don't think the HB2 article is very good either. I'd be inclined to compare to one of the Politics and Government Featured Articles like Checkers speech; which also contains a huge amount of information and reactions, but breaks it down into clear narrative; and quotes sparingly (in particular, rarely taking multiple quotes from one source). See the "Media reaction" section in the Checkers speech article, for example; which, like our Reaction section explains support and opposition from different papers, but does so in a clear prose form, with sparing use of quotes, and without needing to mention every participant on either side. TSP (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your position that we should be thinking about how the article will seem in 20 years. We are writing, and should be writing, for the writers we know exist, and if you will, the readers most like us. This article got 23,000 readers in the last 30 days. How many do you think will be reading it twenty years from now? And we have no way of knowing what future readers will want.
I’d also like to break a lance (speak) in favor of including more detail rather than less. One great advantage of online publication is that length is not a factor in a cost sense, which it always is on paper. What is most helpful to the reader? For what reader are we writing? I think the list format is much clearer and more helpful than summaries in paragraph format. Among other virtues, it makes it easy to skip to find what you’re looking for, or skip over what isn’t interesting. Lists organize information, but paragraphs don’t. I also believe we DO need up-to-date happenings at the university. That’s another great advantage of WP: it’s very current. Readers in October of 2018 want detail, not summaries. Err in favor of more information.
The right time to cut it down, to summarize, is when the episode is all over. deisenbe (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not Wikipedia policy as I understand it. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. [...] While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."
Even besides that, I don't think I agree that the current article is as helpful as it could be to current readers looking for up-to-date information. I think there is currently far too much here for the vast majority of readers; it's not especially easy to navigate, and it's swamping the important information. It feels like maybe there is an academic paper to be written on all of this; or perhaps WikiNews or WikiQuote might be appropriate for storing an exhaustive library of comments for those who want that? But for the average user, I'm not sure the huge amount of information is amenable to getting an impression of the significant events and statements. While, as you say, Wikipedia is not paper, that policy nevertheless says that does not constitute a free pass for inclusion. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." TSP (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User turning Silent Sam into not a Confederate monument[edit]

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/w/index.php?title=Silent_Sam&type=revision&diff=865420875&oldid=865344274

deisenbe (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to single out one editor, nobody owns an article after all. Just remember some of your edits were also removed for various reasons as were mine, the end result should be a good article that doesn't pick sides and informative. My recommendation would be to reach out to the other editor in hope to work together (on their talk page); after all there is no official viewpoint, a differing opinion can very well be integrated in some way so the reader can decide for themselves. If communication fails and it becomes a edit war, then reach out to other editors so you are not blocked for taking part. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the statement from the lead again; I agree that it's a misrepresentation. The statue was put up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, with the stated aim of being "a monument to the students and faculty, who went out from its walls in 1861 to fight and die for the South"; the plaque says it is "To the sons of the university who entered the War of 1861–65 in answer to the call of their country and whose lives taught the lesson of their great commander that duty is the sublimest word in the English language" - 'Duty is the sublimest word in the English language' is a quote attributed to Robert E Lee, so as far as I can see that description applies only to Confederates. TSP (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems logical, but did anyone else say, "Duty is the sublimest word in the English language" because Nov 2014 BAAS source says it was not Robert E. Lee; see source: [7]. Perhaps it was a common Yankee saying about duty. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Confedare monument. Editing otherwise is sanctionable. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "Confederate monument" from 1865, but rather a U.S. war memorial installed in 1913 by the UNC staff, along with UDC, and mentions the "sons of the university" and "their country" as a nonspecific nation, while it does not mention "Confederate States of America". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I am going to list one by one all the changes by @Wikid77 which I am undoing. Anyone who feels a reversion was mistaken please explain why.
    • “Silent Sam ... faced opposition on the grounds of its racial message” was changed to “Silent Sam ... faced opposition on the grounds of racial claims”. “Racial claims” implies that there is nothing racist about the monument, or at least that it’s debatable. deisenbe (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am very slightly on the fence about this one, which is why I didn't instantly change it back as I did for many of Wikid77's changes. I agree "Claim" is bad (see also WP:CLAIM). But I can see an argument that it's an overstatement to say that the statue itself has a "racial message" - it commemorates an army that fought for an essentially racist cause, and many racist statements were made by those who erected it; but it could perhaps be argued the statue itself does not have an explicitly racial message - there is nothing written on it saying "support slavery". Is there a third phrasing that could make the issues clearer? TSP (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anything sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, as the plaque states, has a white supremacy, racial message. Carr’s speech at the Dedication also makes it clear. deisenbe (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anything? So if the UDC has a bake sale it's a "racist" bake sale? If they award a scholarship to a black student it's a "racist" scholarship? Got it. Topcat777 14:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a generalization opinion, as not everything the UDC does or sponsor (including scholarships) would be considered racist. Yes, Carr's speech is very well noted, but we also had speeches from other people that were not racist. The only proven is that the statue is guilty by association. In my opinion, I do not see the statue as a "racial message," but I do recognize that others would see the statue much differently than I would. There is not one true answer here and the article should reflect that; after all, if it was simple we would not be discussing this. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, here’s a quote from the article on UDC: "The organization's treatment of the Confederacy, along with its promotion of the Lost Cause movement, is viewed by historians as advocacy of white supremacy.[1][2][3][4][5]”. I think a lot of scholars would say is that commemorating anything about the Confederacy is racist. See Cornerstone Speech, if you don’t know it already. deisenbe (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Saying that anything Confederacy equals Racist is a bigotry statement; however, this is not the forum to discuss this and you need to accept the fact that your opinion is not the absolute truth. Nobody is denying the fact that Confederacy was an attempt to keep the status quo of a slave economy in the South, nobody disputes the fact that students and alumni joined the confederacy and the statue was built dedicated to them. What is disputed is does the statue "support slavery" and there is not direct link to that claim, though indirectly yes because it dedicated to those who fought in a war to keep slavery (regardless of their own reasons on the matter). My answer is that it is just a statue and it represents different things to different people, the page should reflect that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And did the UNC university staff re-word the plaque as "their country" to avoid specific designation as "C.S.A." or "U.S." but memorialize all alumni in the 1861-65 War? -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Silent Sam statue was not a "reconstruction era attempt", but rather in 1913, as about 50 years after the Civil War as a 50-year UNC student memorial (but installation was delayed years). UDC did not buy the acreage; it was a UNC memorial, with the UDC support. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is well established"....No, it isn't. Some folks cherry-picked a few sentences out of one speech (Carr's) to promote the "racist statue" angle. I've read the speeches and the primary theme (about 99.9%) is the sacrifice of students during a war. Topcat777 14:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking time to read all those speeches. I've read all the secession ordinances, and found North Carolina seceded to reject Lincoln's "usurpation of power"[8][9] to declare war on South Carolina or force Virginia soldiers (or declare martial law in Maryland, Missouri, or Kentucky to stop secessions there). It was called "Mr. Lincoln's War" for a reason, and after he was assassinated on April 15, 1865, the Civil War ended, for a reason. Lincoln had supported the Corwin Amendment, passed by Congress, to make domestic institutions permanent, and Lincoln's generals advised him to stop returning the slaves they liberated back into Confederate slavery, because the slaves continued to defend the rural Confederate towns where they lived, in many cases living with their owner families (by law) in the same houses (see: Slave Narratives). All this "racist" or "slavery" talk is misguided because most slave states were in the Union, with Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and legacy slaves in New Jersey or Illinois, West Virginia, plus the 1857 Dred Scott decision noting all territories as slave, including the Nebraska Territory, Kansas Territory, Utah Territory, Colorado Territory, New Mexico Territory, Arizona Territory (etc.) plus Washington, D.C. when the Civil War started but then compensated emancipation in later years. People have forgotten it was the elitist South versus the segregated North, and there were also white slaves, many forced to cross the ocean from Ireland. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide documentation on white slaves from Ireland? deisenbe (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here [10] his some background on the subject and on those who promote the "theory" (i.e. "Such is the case with the myth of "Irish slaves," an ahistorical reimagining of real events weaponized by racists and conspiracy theorists before the Web and now reaching vast new audiences online.")
What's even crazier is this claim from the same edit "...and after he [Lincoln] was assassinated on April 15, 1865, the Civil War ended, for a reason." So I guess the significance of the surrender at Appomattox on April 9 is just more fake liberal history. The South would have just fought on but for the heroism of JWB. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • Of course it’s a confederate monument, and that is what sourcing calls it (most importantly, the regional press calls it that which shows it is understood as such in the location where it exists, see [11]). Since reliable sources refer to it as such, so do we. Anything else is a weighting/NPOV/OR violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maya Little[edit]

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)[reply]

No. She is currently a footnote to Silent Sam, not the other way around. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WashuOtaku - see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. I don't think Little has established enough coverage in reliable sources other than those related to this event. TSP (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Sam has been disestablished[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree. It has been disestablished as a public statue - it was there, now it isn't, it hasn't been put back and there is no known plan to do so. If that changes, the category can be amended. TSP (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019[edit]

Add a reference and link to this digital exhibit on silentsam: https://silentsam.online/ UNChistory (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As what appears to be a personal webpage, this should not be added as an external link per WP:ELNO #11, unless the author is a recognized authority with an existing Wikipedia article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an overly strict interpretation. The website's "about" page says it was created by a professor who has published about modern Southern history.[12] That means he is a recognize expert. WP:Self says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". James L. Leloudis, Professor of History, meets that standard.[13] So I think the site can be used as a reference, if not an external link Mobi Ditch (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I further see that the authors are members of the "Chancellor’s Task Force on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill History ", which is "responsible for developing a comprehensive approach to curating and teaching the history of the University".[14] It may be that that it is a university publication, not a self-published website at all. Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 update[edit]

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)[reply]

Protestors or rioters?[edit]

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)[reply]

In a strict definition, a protest is typically peaceful while a riot is when vandalism occurs; with that in mind the argument can be made that it was a riot. That said, should the article go with a majority of sources of the time or use the word that correctly describes the event? --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should of course go with the sources rather than our own analysis, per WP:V. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Silent"[edit]

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)[reply]

I've updated the article with this information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silent_Sam&oldid=1195556850"